(first posted 9/9/2013. Links to Part 1 & 2 at the bottom) My father’s retirement came in 1963, immediately after Vauxhall introduced the Viva, which was smaller than all of its postwar Vauxhall predecessors. By this time, the company had Philip Copelin as a CEO. Copelin was an American who was well suited to mediate between Luton and Detroit, as he had spent a lot of his life in Europe, and had worked for General Motors Overseas Operations.
My father’s autobiography recalls a series of meetings led by Copelin in which Vauxhall’s executives discussed the best way in which to introduce a completely new model as quickly as possible. The time seemed right for a very small vehicle. The Austin Mini had captured everyone’s imagination since its introduction in 1959.
Opel, the German subsidiary of GM, had already been working on its own small Kadett since 1957, to compete against the massively popular Volkswagen. But Vauxhall’s program of aggressive expansion was not far enough along for the company to design something quickly enough.
I have a feeling that Copelin was the one who encouraged his British colleagues to think the unthinkable: Collaboration with Opel. The companies were competitors; as my father put it in his book, “My own relationship with Karl Stief, their chief engineer, was one of friendly rivalry, but we thought of ourselves as rivals, nonetheless.” Any new, small vehicle would need a complete new unibody structure, engine, transmission, suspension and other all-new components; could Vauxhall swallow its pride and use German engineering?
This was more or less what happened, although Vauxhall only imported the designs, not the actual hardware. It changed all the metric measurements to inches, even including screw threads, and it did put a genuine British clutch on the car.
Kadett top; Viva bottom (the-blueprints.com)
The upper body was designed by Vauxhall, but it was essentially the Kadett’s unibody inner structure with updated styling, and the floor pan was all Kadett. This created an overall family resemblance, but initially the collaboration remained a secret, as World War II had ended less than 20 years ago, and many British buyers were not quite ready to embrace German products. For instance, German Krups washing machines were sold in the UK under a different logo that sounded reassuringly British.
I think my father viewed the Viva collaboration with Opel as a one-time thing, forced upon Vauxhall by circumstances. The second model of the Viva, which he initiated but was completed after his retirement, was all-British. Still, an ominous precedent had been established.
image courtesy powercars-br.blogspot.com
As for the Viva’s styling, it was still influenced by Detroit, even though it was just a cheap little car–actually, not just little but tiny, by US standards. It had relatively flat body panels and a straight waist line, like a Corvair.
The power train layout was utterly conventional. My father was friendly with Alex Issigonis, the designer of the Austin Mini, which had been the first to use a transverse engine with front-wheel drive; but the collaboration with Opel ruled out any radical ideas of that type. In any case, my father liked to tell people that despite its impact, its sales life, and its popularity, the Mini never actually made a profit for British Leyland, its manufacturer.
The Viva was very successful, but as The Corporation was forced to become more financially prudent in the 1970s, it revisited the idea of “commonality” between its two European subsidiaries. Why should GM bankroll them to create different designs for cars that were of equivalent size and were appealing to similar markets? In 1980–the year when my father’s autobiography was published–Vauxhall ceased to originate cars. Henceforth, its badge would be applied to vehicles that were styled and engineered in Russelsheim, Germany.
So it was that the company which had built the Churchill tank to defeat Hitler became a mere conduit for German engineering. To my father’s chagrin, he even found himself driving an Opel, because this was the only way he could take advantage of the substantial discount that he was still allowed as a former Vauxhall executive.
image courtesy speedhunters.com
As for me, the Vauxhall Cresta was my last British car. In 1970 I relocated to the United States, where I decided to see the country by driving a Chevelle from coast to coast for a car delivery service. This was a revelatory experience, because the Chevelle didn’t develop any mechanical trouble along the way, and didn’t use any oil. Thus did I learn the value of American engineering over long distances. Of course, in 1970 American cars still didn’t handle properly, but so long as you kept them pointed in a straight line and didn’t have to stop too quickly, they got the job done.
My father understood this. He was always an admirer of American engineering, and felt that British cars suffered greatly from the national tendency to do everything as cheaply as possible. The root of the problem was that Britain had taken so long to recover from World War II. Although the war ended in 1945, many foods were still being rationed as late as 1950, and “luxury items,” which included all candy, were rationed until 1953.
This was the bottom line. British people didn’t have much money, and therefore British cars had to be cheap. It was as simple as that.
Vauxhall Cresta (courtesy wikipedia)
Vauxhall had adopted American styling fads, but aside from the short-lived experiment with panoramic windshields (which were expensive for structural reasons, quite apart from the British insistence on using toughened glass), American styling didn’t increase the cost of the car. Beneath the shell, Vauxhalls were still British, and penny-pinching remained a priority.
I think this is the main reason why British automobiles have almost ceased to exist. The manufacturers never properly reoriented themselves to a more affluent market in which buyers expected a higher quality product. After the UK joined the European Community, imports became affordable, and British drivers realized that they didn’t have to settle for a maximum lifespan of 40,000 miles anymore.
My father was fortunate. He designed cars during the glory days of The Corporation, when Vauxhall Motors enjoyed its patronage. He ended his career before the British automobile industry spiraled into oblivion.
Part 1: A Visit To GM Headquarters
Part 2: From Churchill Tanks To Body Rot
Charles Platt writes for Make magazine and is a former Senior Writer at Wired magazine. He is the author of “Make Electronics” (an introductory guide) and is gradually writing “The Encyclopedia of Electronic Components” (the first of three volumes are currently in print). He likes to explore the dirt roads of northern Arizona in a 4×4 Mitsubishi Montero Sport, and has been known to test the limits of his Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart turbo on I-40 across the Mojave desert–but still harbors a nostalgic yearning for an Olds 442.
I have thoroughly enjoyed this series. There are so many opinions floating around out there about the sad end of the British motor industry, but it is wonderful to hear informed opinions from someone who has lived around their design and construction as well as living with the cars themselves.
It is also interesting to consider that the British arm of the great General Motors did no better than the rest of the companies building cars in England.
Well done, Mr. Platt.
Thank you for another great read Charles.There’s a lot of cars from my past here,our lodger and my history/geography and RE teacher both had HA Viva’s in the same shade of battleship grey.Mum bought the lodger’s Viva from her when she moved out and she wanted a smaller and newer car than her Mk1 Ford Consul.I never worked up much enthusiasm for the Viva,probably because it seemed a bit plain compared to a Victor or Cresta.
I wanted a PA Cresta but the only ones in my price range were rusty beyond belief,our local tearaway had a red and white PA(not sure if it was original paint or a respray).He bought and sold cars(usually rustbuckets which his mate re sprayed) and had a PA til he got a Thunderbird from the nearby USAF base.
Maggie Thatcher & a Maestro,I’ll lay money on it she wasn’t dumb enough to buy one!My neighbour had the MG version which spoke to you,it let water in the windscreen,was severely affected by electrical gremlins and had many trips back to the dealers under warranty.When it was fixed he traded it for a new BMW 316,a sad sorry abomination compared to the Austin Bryce wrote about yesterday and one of the many nails in BL’s coffin
This has been a fabulous series thus far. A unique perspective from “afar”, as it were, on GM and domestic cars as a whole.
I paused a l-o-n-g time just fantasizing myself in that white 1968 Chevelle sports coupe, cruising in Jennings and the back roads of Missouri before I graduated from school and left for the service, instead of driving the rusted-out and worn-out beaters I owned up to that time!
Using a bit of hyperbole to make my point quickly, too often we laugh at European and British cars as being powered by 2-cycle lawn-mower and motorcycle engines, being encased in tin-foil bodies and such, but the reality was that some of Europe was destroyed by the war, and England’s along with Europe’s economy and industry was worn out, not to mention so many lives lost. America, while losing too many young men and even some women during the war, had not suffered due to having adequate resources – though rationing was used – and was not touched physically by the war and recovered almost immediately by comparison.
Can’t wait ’til part 4! Excellent work!
Yes, Europe was destroyed. Yet there is still something called “national character”. Germany was completely devastated and split in half, burned to the ground. You know what they came up with just 7 years after the war ? A Mercedes 300 SL hardcore racing car, there’s your Wirtschafstwunder pinpoint for all things that followed since.
UK automakers relied on their own country and former colonies too long, another fatal mistake.
You are correct – Germany (and Japan) were the exceptions. Their national character, as you call it, was a well-disciplined populace (perhaps TOO disciplined in certain ways?) – and were able to get their act together very quickly. A lesson others can learn from.
My above comment DID NOT apply to Germany. I knew I forgot to qualify something!
Funny, I read somewhere – looked but couldn’t locate it – but Herbert von Karajan was asked why he didn’t conduct the Vienna orchestra instead of the Berlin Philharmonic, and he purportedly said: “You tell a German to move… and he moves. You tell an Austrian to move… He moves as well, but then he turns to you and asks ‘why?’… ”
Maybe Paul can address this!
Zack: very good quote! I can’t go into this in depth here today, but the issue is not so much Germany/Austria as geographic: north/south. Austrians are (ethnic) Germans, but if you look at all the Germans (including Austrians), one will find that the further north one goes, the “Prussian” influence is greatest, and that’s the one that is stereotypically considered “German”. Southern Germans and Austrians are just not quite so wound up in that way; what can I say?
JD: Well, you’re being just a wee bit one dimensional there. Jaguar’s superb XK-120 arrived in 1948, and absolutely redefined the modern sports car. It performance was utterly dominant, and unlike the 300 SL, was much more affordable, at half its price.
It’s also important to remember that the UK had to finance its war efforts on the market with debt that was not erased after the war. Its staggering debts were a huge damper on its economy, all through the fifties (think austerity).
Germany’s post-war miracle was the result of a number of factors, including a lot of aid to rebuild from the Marshall Plan. And the 300 SL was a natural evolution of MBZ’ prewar racing efforts; all those gifted engineers and technology was just begging to be put to use again, as soon as possible.
But there’s no question that the German drive for quality in their manufactured goods was (and is) a huge factor.
I’m not 100% sure Paul, but I thought that Germany’s war payments to other countries were higher than the Marshall Plan funds they received.
Apart from engineering and building, it’s always interesting to read about the Rhineland Model vs the Anglo-Saxon Model. You can easily translate this to the car industry. Volkswagen’s company policy: DON’T call or email after or before working hours. Grant people their rest and a decent family life, then they’re fitter and more motivated the next day.
Another complex subject. According to the Yalta Conference, Germany was supposed to pay some $20 billion ( a huge amount in toady’s $) in reparations. But that was totally unrealistic; Germany’s economy was broke. Germany did make some payments to some smaller countries (Israel), but the Allies mainly dismantled some 300 factories and moved the machinery to their countries. The Russians extracted resources from east Germany.
But to my knowledge, Germany did not make very large cash reparations. Don’t forget, it was the burden of heavy war reparations from WW1 that sparked Hitler’s rise. Burdening Germany with heavy ww2 reparations was quickly (and wisely) soon seen to asking for more trouble than it was worth, base on history. And of course that policy was right, in the end.
But Britain had a very difficult time paying off its hard debts. That’s why they pushed exports so hard, to the US. Austin was the number one import car in the US in the early fifties.
It has been quite some time since I did much reading on the subject, but as I recall it, the postwar British economy was of a fairly conventional “austerity” mindset with high marginal tax rates intended to raise revenue for covering war debt, and in particular, high taxation of capital income as advocated by J. M. Keynes (much higher than the way such capital income was taxed in the U.S., as well). Postwar Germany went the other direction with an income taxation system that emphasized relatively low marginal tax rates, certainly by 1950. All other factors aside (and there were many), the German tax system encouraged growth, savings and investment, while the British system penalized those things. Ludwig Erhard understood that high tax rates do not necessarily result in high tax revenue.
I do not believe that this factor can be overlooked in the decline in capital-intensive industries in the U.K. after WWII.
No one has mentioned that Britain elected a genuinely socialist government at the end of WW2. Major industries such as coal mining, railroads, electricity, and the telephone system were all owned by the government, and all were a nightmare of inefficiency and labor problems. Nationwide strikes became such a feature of the country, union leaders were treated like media celebrities. This all persisted until Margaret Thatcher got into office.
Of course socialism, strikes, and inefficiency could have been coincidental. But the British economy certainly suffered.
Another great point Charles. Don’t assume we know this stuff, I didn’t. I mean I knew Margaret Thatcher was a great leader and everything but not that railroads etc. were controlled by the state before her.
I doubt it was coincidental. Like Reagan Thatcher was the cowboy (cowgirl?) that the country needed at the time.
Zackman,
Unfortunately, that’s only part of the story. The English motor vehicle industry was heavily done in from within, not just from recovering from the war.
I’ll have to limit my detailed comment to BSA, the motorcycle manufacturer, as that’s what I know the best and in the most detail; but from everything I’ve read the automobile manufacturers were running down the same path – just a few steps behind.
First mistake was made during the ’50’s. When BSA’s and Triumph’s were selling well, and exports were going great guns, profits were paid out to stockholders as dividends, rather than being invested into plant upgrades. One of the reasons the vaunted British vertical twin lasted until the bitter end (Triumph Meridan ceased production after making a few 1984 pre-production models) was because they were still making their engines on the same equipment that had been installed back in the 1930’s. BSA knew that the Japanese engines with the horizontally split crankcases were superior especially regarding oil retention, but they didn’t have the machinery to make them.
So what? Business was good, and we keep the stockholders happy. And especially, Lady Docker. (That’s a story unto itself.)
By the sixties, the style became that you were proud to have CEO’s that didn’t use the product, didn’t care about the product, they were expert in ‘management’, and of course of good manager can manage anything. Try visualizing SteveJobs running John Deere. Of course he can, he’s a brilliant manager. Having never set foot on a farm in his life is a mere detail.
Enough has been written on labor problems. I used to write that one off as 50/50 labor/management. Then I finally got to see the movie “I’m All Right Jack” a 50’s film that is noteworthy for giving Peter Sellers his start – taking a fairly decent assumption that the script was real life upped a little bit for comedy, I’ll change my ratio of blame to 75/25 union/management. Those guys really believed that they were owed, and that pleasing the customer didn’t matter.
BSA/Triumph, Norton/Villiers, Associated Motor Cycles, British Leyland, Rootes Motors – they were all working under the same conditions, and were making the same amazingly bad (in retrospect) decisions. If anything, the GM and Ford divisions were making fewer mistakes because Detroit was keeping a fairly heavy thumb on them.
And then you had government interference. Insisting that any new plants had to be built in areas of high unemployment, not where you had a work forced experience on motor vehicle manufacture. (See Hillman Imp and the Scottish factory.)
Plus the different driving conditions – would you really need that ’64 Impala if all your driving was going to be limited to Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island? And the roads were 3/4’s scale to American.
Well said Syke. Have you ever read “Whatever happened to the British Motorcyle Industry” by Bert Hopwood? I’ve read some parts but haven’t gotten my hands on a copy yet.
Although I love classic Brit bikes I can’t imagine ever owning one, I’m more about what a bike can do for me, and from my experiences with British cars the answer is “probably not enough”..
On the average, I read my copy about one a year. Never get tired of the re-reading.
The BSA Bantam was still being made in 1971,a much copied pre war DKW design.Even Harley Davidson had stopped making their version long before 71.I always liked the US style BSAs,they looked so lean compared with the podgy British versions,would BSA sell you one if you wanted one over here?Not a chance and they wondered why they went bust!
The Soviets also had a hand in trying to destabilise Rootes. The domino principle I think it was called. Will try and find a link. I think the miners might have accepted money from Russia. At least I *think* that is correct.
this is the best I can find – I remember reading this in more detail a long time ago:
http://www.team.net/www/rootes/history.html
http://www.hillmanownersclub.co.uk/da/89936
“All Right Jack”- vintage Peter Sellers. The Labour government under Clement -no co-pays- Attlee used the Marshall Plan money ($3 billion) to create a cradle-to-grave welfare state. In Germany the money was used to rebuild the economy. Adenauer edged out the peg-leg Schumacher in the 1949 election, setting Germany’s course for the next 14 years- the German Miracle. The socialist Schumacher wanted workers councils to run the factories so a bullet was dodged there. But the British labor unions destroyed the British economy- helped along by Attlee, an upper class twit.
Thank you very much for what is probably the first ‘different’ view I’ve gotten regarding the fall of the British auto industry in a long time.
For those that don’t follow the subject as obsessively as I (like Charlie Brown, I’m fascinated by failure), the usual story is that the first cracks started showing when BMC unknowingly underpriced the Mini guaranteeing it would never make a real profit (some sources say a profit, at all) by not knowing how much the car cost to build in the first place. Add in the demise of the Standard marque due to completely uninspired product. From there you go to the disaster that was British Leyland, a clusterf*ck that to this day makes GM in the ’90’s and ’00’s look like a relative success. And, of course British Leyland sucked down everyone else.
Charles’ narrative here shows that this classic story isn’t exactly true. The British car industry was failing on all fronts back in the 50’s – it was just a matter of time before the rot showed to the point where it couldn’t be ignored anymore. His comments regarding a 1970 Chevelle, which he describes in terms just slightly short of how we’d describe a ’90’s Camry really drives things home. Those supposedly badly built crapboxes were a revelation in quality for someone who drove nothing but British cars before it.
Boy, I’d love to have another Charles, only being in the English Ford family to chime in. We already knew that British Leyland was producing nothing but crap and Rootes had underdesigned cars and an even more strike-prone work staff. Now we find out that GM England was having to be bailed out by GM Germany. As all the historical narratives seem to give English Ford credit for being the most on-the-ball motor company, I’m really curious to find out just how good they really were. Were they as efficient as historical credit seems to give them, or were they only looking good compared to the domestic competition.
Charles, once again, that you very much for the most interesting series this site has run to date.
After the Mini debuted, Ford of Great Britain bought one, and closely examined it to determine how much it cost to build. Ford determined that BMC was selling it for less than it cost to build. (I can’t remember the exact amount, but it was fairly substantial sum for the early 1960s.) Ford relayed this information to BMC, and was politely told to mind its own business.
The Ford Cortina debuted with conventional, but reliable, engineering in the early 1960s, and was regularly updated because Ford made a profit on it from day one. BMC, meanwhile didn’t do much to update the Mini or it 1100 because it didn’t make money on them.
If I recall correctly, Henry Ford II ordered the integration of Ford’s British and German operations around 1966. He put one man in charge of the task. I believe that the Capri was the first car to be developed by “Ford of Europe” instead of “Ford of Great Britain” or “Ford of Germany.”
BMC vociferously claimed it wasn’t losing money on the Mini, but there’s no question it wasn’t making much/enough either. The Issigonis cars were of course all more complex than the conventional cars from other manufacturers, who mostly played it safe.
The irony was that until the late sixties, BMC’s smaller and cheaper models were its most complex. The big cars were generally pretty conventional until the Austin 3-Litre (a scaled-up 1800 with the 2.9-liter C-series six), which was a dreadful flop.
It was quite a good car though to ride in anyway they were a later Austin Westminster/Wolseley6/110 type cars and some survive I think or maybe one nearby.
The Giant land Crab,a rare beastie indeed.I’ve seen more Edsels than Austin 3 litres! Another dud with more to follow from BL
Complexity was not the only issue for the Issigonis cars. For the first year or two, as I recall, the Mini had a tendency to stall because the distributor was immediately inside the radiator grille, where it tended to get wet. A deflector plate was eventually installed. I also recall my father’s amazement when he looked at the engine design and realized that the gearbox shared its oil with the engine, which he felt was guaranteed to accelerate gear wear.
The car was of course horribly uncomfortable, because it was so unnecessarily low. The whole idea was supposedly to maximize passenger space, but not in a vertical direction! When my father complained about the seats to Issigonis, the great man said he thought uncomfortable seats could help to keep the driver awake and alert. So it wasn’t a bug, it was a feature!
Really there was a systemic problem in all British industries in the 1950s and the 1960s: They weren’t very good at being capitalists. They didn’t cater properly to the consumer.
My father had a friend who was in management in a company that made laundry detergent. The friend said that typically, they would learn about some new American product or ingredient, and they would tell their chemists to create something similar. Months later, the chemists would come back and say, “Well, we have something here. It isn’t quite as good as the sample you gave us–but it’s British!”
Keep ’em coming this is great! You could be making this up for all I know but I would still love it. Just kidding these gems are exactly the kind of thing a smart, thoughtful father would share with his son. I’m glad you are sharing it here on CC, we are blessed.
In service the Mini was crap absolute crap the distributor faced the weather unprotected, the floor seam was lapped the wrong way at let water in, CVjoints broke regularly the powertrain failed in the east west layout sharing its oil with the transmission was a durability disaster if anyone was responsible for BLs demise it was Alec Issigonis and his horrible FWD layout BL took brands with long histories and turned them into FWD cars nobody wanted, Govt departments in NZ did the math and avoided BMC FWD products like the bubonic plague they were too expensive to keep running RWD BL vehicles remained on the govt fleet and the ultra reliable Landrover, was kept on the govt payroll as there was no viable replacement and that included the Toyota Landcruiser, it did not have the off road capability or towing capacity.
The other solution to the distributor getting wet was put a rubber glove over it – 5 fingers for the spark plug & coil leads
The figure Ford came up with was about £30, which was $84 then and something like $675 adjusted for inflation. As Paul notes, BMC and BLMC insisted that wasn’t true, but if they did make a profit it was on the order of £5 per car and a lot of that was on parts and service rather than the actual sale.
The issue wasn’t simply that the Mini was under-priced, although that was also true, but that it was expensive to build. The miniMetro was basically the same concept and a lot of the same pieces in a more modern-looking, easier-to-build package (with the hatchback the Mini really should have had by the late ’60s) and by most accounts WAS finally a profitable car.
Technically, the first Anglo-German Ford was the Transit van around 1964, which was prior to the unification, followed by the Escort (which was mostly a British design that FoG was handed) and then the Capri (which was a more collaborative effort) and Mk 3 Cortina/Taunus TC.
I remember seeing a news clip of the final minis being assembled in 2000. Each door frame had to be manually adjusted using a jack type apparatus (ie BENT) to fit the door opening properly. These were not mass produced cars in the Ford sense – each one was hand made
Except it wasn’t the Cortina they released to counter the Mini, it was the Anglia with 997 Kent engine.
The Cortina was a bigger car that competed with the BMC A60 and the Vauxhall Victor.
The first collaboration was the Corsair a failure of a car British body but with the shaker V4 engine from the Transit van a RWD Taunus, junk right out of the factory.
Those supposedly badly built crapboxes According to whom? I’d say a 1970 Chevelle was probably about as reliable of an American car as it got in its day. In fact, I’d say 1970 or so was something of a relative high-water mark for for American cars, as there tended to be some degradation as the seventies went on, at least in certain aspects of material and assembly quality.
But the basic American car technology then was very highly developed, especially in terms of the value and reliability for the buck.
I couldn’t agree more. None of dad’s Chevys ever left us or him stranded alongside the road, his Chrysler products after his 1950 Plymouth were a different story, however, but they were well-used and abused junk when he bought them because he couldn’t afford anything else at the time, so who knows?
Dad never owned a Ford after they got me, so I really didn’t get much of a chance to experience those, except from cruising around in a buddy’s mom’s 1964 Comet. That was pretty a cool car!
1960s and at least early 1970s cars (I’m talking GM & Ford) were pretty well-made, in my experience.
Some of the stuff written about American cars in foreign publications reads almost as if it was written as negative propaganda, go to the Cohort and check out the pages someone posted from a European book on cars their thoughts on the 1977 Chevrolet. Utter negative, biased lies and garbage.
You’re stereotyping. First off, that book is an utter joke/piece of garbage. I wrote about it here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/the-worst-worlds-worst-cars-book-ever-it-even-sullies-the-1977-1990-b-body/
He gets it wrong about both American and European cars. Irrelevant.
It would take me some time to answer your comment in depth, but generally, that’s just not the case. At least not in serious publications. Auto Motor und Sport had gobs of positive to say about American cars over the decades. The key issue was that American cars are built for different markets and expectations.
If you take a 1970 Chevelle, and run it on an the autobahn wide-open, its limitations will raise its heads very soon. Between the brakes, handling, or the engine frying, American cars were never designed to be run wide open for anything but fairly brief bursts. That’s why American truck engines all had heavier duty parts in them. Or the hi-po engine versions, which were not common.
A VW Beetle or Mercedes was always designed to be run wide-open. The Mercedes might well have had its other issues in long-term use, or in US style low-maintenance ownership, but its engines, components, cooling, etc were fully high-speed capable.
Different strokes for different folks. American and European cars evolved to meet different expectations, usage patterns, fuel costs, speed limits, etc… But now those have increasingly converged.
And there were always Europeans who were attracted to American cars, and vice versa. Like wise there were the haters, and vice versa. What else is new?
Well, you have to run a Beetle WOT, its the only way to get anywhere.
To fair though,there are people that don’t know that book is crap, I mean read some of the opinions of certain people from foreign countries even on this site, I’m not going to name names, but Kiwi Bryce for example, you would think that American cars wheels fell off the moment you drove the car of the lot.
I forgot you even covered this crap book, but its not like something like this didn’t get by any editors with any degree of common sense, I’m not here to cry about it, I just want to point out that there are some REALLY misinformed people out there, which easily explains why someone would think a 1970 Chevelle is a “badly built crapbox”
Well, that was the case with most import cars in the fifties and early sixties. And guess how well the Dauphines, Simcas, Austins, and other cars held up to that? They didn’t. That is THE reason that VW sales suddenly exploded in 1955-1956. The word got out: a VW engine would run up to 100k miles in American conditions (wide open); the others wouldn’t. Game up!
Last time I checked the wheels of my 69 Mopar were still on the car.
For what it’s worth: there are thousands of US car enthusiasts here,
both of the old and recent models. Proud owners, importers, dealers, specialists, parts suppliers, repair and maintenance shops, restorers, you name it. Serious business in Northwestern Europe.
I don’t know about British consumers, but British automotive journalists always tended to be supportive of the home-grown brands, and were relatively hostile to Ford and Vauxhall. They loved to mock the American styling influence in Vauxhalls.
On the rare occasions when a British publication reviewed an American import, the ridicule became extreme.
The success of Ford UK relative to Vauxhall naturally irritated my father. I’m not sure if there was much of an engineering difference, but Ford had a much better grasp of what the British public wanted. I think their styling must have been less rigidly controlled by their US owners than Vauxhall was.
During the 1960s they also gamed the system by introducing cars that were just very slightly larger than their equivalents in established categories. The Cortina was an example. They did it with the Transit van, too. It wasn’t impractically large, but it was just a little bigger than the competition, and not so underpowered. And Ford never made the mistake of Americanizing their cars to the point of having panoramic windshields and fins.
Well, in the Mercedes or especially in the Beetle you had to have the pedal to the metal to cruise on 90 mph, the Beetle didn’t even go past 70 mph. My 1967 Riviera cruises all day long in 100 mph.
European cars from 50s, 60s and partly 70s are noisy, small, underpowered, uncomfortable and partly unreliable compared to the american cars fram the same era.
Well, you could find a Jaguar, a Bentley or a Mercedes Benz who maybe could match a Cadillac or a Lincoln. But those cars was so expensive so a regular European no way could afford it.
Make it 1969, say Chevrolet Caprice, compared with the Opel Rekord, Volvo Amazon or with the Peugeot 504. The Caprice is a better car in any way you’ll se it. The fullsize Chevy was affordable for the regular american worker. The Opel or the Peugeot may not even be affordable for the average Norwegian worker in those days. Here we drov VW Beetle, Opel Kadett or some East-European pieces of shit. Some maybe could afford a Volvo Amazon.
I never understood the negative propaganda either.An American compact was a good alternative to the big British Fords and Vauxhalls.Drivers who would happily top up 12/15 MPG Jags threw their hands up in horror at a Ford or Chevy getting the same mileage.Strange
Thus my comment of “supposedly built”. In retrospect, 1970 was probably the last good year for the American car industry, but I hear lots of complaining on the blogs about how the cars were built even back then. Chevrolet for ’71 had the Vega (’nuff said), the big cars (major mistake and cheap as hell), the intermediates were still good for another two years, and the compacts were very good. Plus the Camaro and Corvette – quite good cars for their day.
Three years later, Chevrolet was down to the Camaro, Corvette (fading), and the Nova.
My point was the relative difference in quality between American and British cars.
There’s an important distinction to be made between reliability and durability, of course. The British 40,000-mile lifespan sounds ridiculous, but even for American cars of the time, there was an expectation that by 50-60,000 miles you were probably looking at some fairly extensive overhaul. Also, the basic durability of the oily bits didn’t mean that the body and trim wouldn’t be rattling and falling apart well before the engine needed a valve job.
Based on personal experience? Our ’65 Dodge Coronet wagon went ten years and almost 100k miles without any major issues, except a rear wheel bearing letting go on the highway. Probably got a new water pump or something like that. But no rust either. My parents’ neighbors bought it from them, and drove it another five years or so.
It was well maintained, but it still looked and ran fine. The interior and trim were all still in very good shape.
I cant work that one out 100,000 miles was the actual useful life of a Vauxhall engine in service, around that mileage it would begin burning oil and you either did the motor up or disposed of the car even the shitbox HA Viva could do that sort of mileage if it didnt rust away prior. The later HB was a much better car it rode and handled properly there was more metal in it and more spotwelds at least ours were GM NZ liked playing the parts game when local assembly was going, you built the VX4/90 in the 66/71 Victors very clever, GM NZ dropped the cresta powertrain into the Victors they overordered certain things and built a barebones Ventora, nice cars, very fast, Very few survive in original condition a SBC nearly bolts in.
Perhaps it might have been right for the early 1950’s, unless you were obsessive with maintenance to prevent premature wear from inadequate lubrication or burnt valves etc. Also rust prevention was rudimentary to say the least, and thick sheetmetal can only go so far.
Personal experience for what it’s worth: ’55 Chevy, stovebolt six and 3-speed manual, traded at 120,000 miles with no major repairs but major rust to rear quarter panels. ’62 Chevy, small block V8, Powerglide, traded at 130,000 miles with no major repairs and very little rust. ’68 Pontiac, V8 and Turbo-hydramatic, no major repairs and traded at 105,000 miles with no major repairs (did have to replace the oil pan when I tore it out on Uncle Mello’s driveway, but that was my bad), no discernible rust. 73 Chevelle did not fare as well, needed air conditioning work, rear differential, never did heat properly, etc. All vehicles driven exclusively or primarily by my parents, oil changed regularly at 2000 miles and body regularly washed (Mom liked em clean). Driven on straight midwestern roads, with some-not a lot-of Winter road salt. I also think the GM cars in the ’60’s had very durable interior materials-nylon seat fabrics, vinyl trim, other metal trim with good paint, good quality chrome and plastics. I really agree that late ’60’s American iron was a high-water mark, would have been a revelation to your British author.
I don’t know about GM, but my parents’ sixties Fords, ’61 Sunliner, ’65 Mustang, ’68 XL, were solid. The ’61’s limited-slip rear end gave out after five years, but they drove that XL for fifteen years, in the rustbelt no less.
On the other hand, Dad’s ’70 Maverick was delivered without any oil in the 3-speed tranny, my ’72 Pinto was a badly built crapbox put together with sheet metal screws, and it was all I could do to keep a friend’s Maverick running on a Boston/DC bicentennial trip in ’76.
Basic technology is fine , drive an Australian car its as basic as it gets.
Did you know that if you boil a battery it will charge enough to start a car?
Mid 60s Paul American cars got heavier and lower and too softly sprung to be of any real use by 1970 and their road holding is appalling, GM claimed understeer was a safety feature not a design fault not really a problem on a freeway but a deathtrap elsewhere.
Amen. In the late ’60s there were no more strong and durable cars in the world, especially for the buck, than a mid or full-size front engine V8 US car. Still the best cars ever made for their simplicity and sheer ruggedness, imo. Of course we’re ignoring fit & finish, but so what, they were incredible value for money, and GM, Ford, etc knew this very well at the time. Unfortunately from ’70 on it was downhill from there.
Absolutely fascinating. Did Vauxhall switch from British design to re-badged Opels all at once? GM had decades of experience dressing up one platform as different-looking makes, look what they did in ’59. Weren’t there any Opel-based Vauxhalls with different fenders and such, like Pontiacs were dressed-up Chevys?
PS: I was very surprised to spot a clean late-model Vauxhall with Oregon plates in Portland traffic a couple of weeks ago. Great big “VAUXHALL” spelled out on the trunk lid. Canadian immigrant?
It came gradually,the Cavalier Sport Hatch in 75 was the first having an Opel Manta twin,then it was mixed grilles with each new “Vauxhall” being a near clone of an Opel.There was a nice big Opel with a 327,shame that never turned up as a Vauxhall
Those Opels cleverly disguised became Holdens though the Chev boat anchor was ditched for a local V8
The big Opels, known as the KAD-Opels: the Kapitän-Admiral-Diplomat models, A and B series.
The successor of these series and the last “high-end” Opel was the Senator, again A and B series. And I just discovered there was actually a Vauxhall Royale (= Senator A) and Vauxhall Senator (= Senator B)
This is the last of the breed, the Opel~Vauxhall Senator from 1987 to 1993:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VauxhallOpel_Senator_Cambridge_1988.JPG
Also known as Holden Commodore and Statesman.
The Senator was stretched/widened to make it a Commodore, then dropped onto the preceding model’s platform – GM-H was bailed out by head office in 1986-ish otherwise they would have gone under, hence little development money. This could be seen in the narrow front wheel track which was increased for the 1993 VR model with a new front suspension and body stampings to match. The Commodore also had a live axle only initially (also carried over).
Kadette / Chevette at about the same time though I think the Chevette had viva engines…..just think of the power.
I drove a Viva HC once – it was pretty nice, gearbox like a knife through butter, but boy was it slow.
Always dreamed of a Firenza or Viva E Coupe in my youth.
From 1958 to 1960, Vauxhalls were sold in the U.S. by Pontiac dealers.
I suspect that even if Vauxhall and Opel hadn’t started collaborating at that point, Ford’s European unification a few years later would have forced the issue. Ford’s American management was really frustrated by the overlap and competition between Ford of England and Ford of Germany, both for cost reasons and I think because it made top-down control more difficult; it’s hard for a corporate “parent” to keep his or her eyes on the road ahead if s/he keeps having to turn around to stop the children from fighting.
(Also, if nothing else, the unification also provided an excuse to dump the FWD Taunus P4/P6, with which nobody in Ford’s upper echelons seems to have been very happy.)
Mostly GM passed Opel around the divisions GMH pounced on them in the mid 60s and widened the bodies to Vauxhall Velox /Cresta Proportions and fitted a smaller capacity photocopied Chev 6, They claimed it as their own design and just made Vauxhalls hard to get other than the Viva, The HB was given a makeover claimed as their own and loved by many and fitted with the 6cylinder powertrain went like a bullet too.
New Zealand got both brands in the 60s but only the small Vivas and Chevettes in the 70s, Aussie was nearer for bigger mainstream cars and Chevs were available if you wanted a bigger car, they were more expensive though not better equipped than the big Vauxhalls.
That was a fascinating series. As somebody mentioned, it would be great to get the same insight into how Ford integrated their European operations; that relationship seems to have been more balanced though, although I recently read that German Ford execs weren’t always happy with the British product they were handed, either.
A side effect of Opels being sold as Vauxhalls in the UK is that some folks in Germany like to buy Vauxhall trim pieces to make their bread-and-butter family sedans look somewhat exotic. And the Vauxhall grilles with their big “V” do look kind of cool. For some reason, you don’t see people putting Catera grilles and such on their Opel Omegas though.
I remember reading that, in the 1960s, the British Ford engines were better, but the German Fords had far superior coachwork.
On the flip side, Vauxhalls are looked down on in the UK… Opels are considered more exotic 🙂
I’ve seen more than one Pontiac GTO running around Southern Cal with a Holden grille and badges.
Having grown up in Oz the idea that anyone thinks of Holden as “exotic” brings a chuckle.
There’s a silver Vauxhall Monaro/VXR8 round the corner from work,the British Holden/GTO.They have quite a following despite the cost of gas another car on my must have list
Especially given the number of Holdens over here wearing Chevy badges
We had export Chevrolets from Australia starting with the HQ Chevrolet Statesman, Holden body Chev running gear 350/THM 12 bolt rear sold thru Vauxhall/Chevrolet dealers in NZ and completely unavailable in Aussie they were SouthAfrica bound and GM NZ diverted several thousand for us, similar with the CTS Caddy we got em cheaper than Holdens Aussie cant get then new at all, NZ has always had new Chevs available.
The HQ Statesman was sold in Australia with the 350 too.
The CTS is an interesting case, they were going to reintroduce Cadillac into Australia but with the bankruptcy pulled the pin at the 11th hour and the cars went to NZ. My prediction – might have worked slightly better than Opel (pulled out after 11 months on the market and very low sales).
I think GM used the Opel Rekord design for the 1st generation Holden Commodore (VB?) in the mid 1970s, but found that the basic German model couldn’t stand up to the rigors of Australian motoring (particularly out in rural area), so GMH had to extensively modify the design, mostly in body/frame strengthening.
Australians at least in the 70s expected their cars to survive on hideously bad Outback roads — even many of the major transport links weren’t paved until the 80s (and many are still not). The Commodore/Opel prototype basically broke in half and required structural reinforcement.
You are right, one of the early Opel prototypes suffered a structural failure in road testing. Being a prototype it was fully instrumented, and the Opel engineers could not believe the numbers generated, it was outside their experience & what they allowed for when designing the cars.
I’ve heard that it cost nearly as much to re-engineer the Opel body for the VB Commodore as it would have to start from scratch. It meant that there was no money left for a replacement for the aging Red Motor six. So we ended up with the Nissan six in the VK series!
The Nissan motor was in the VL serious problems with it were discovered early and the decision to use the Buick V6 was taken,
The nissan engine is too tall for the Holden engine bay and the head is higher than the radiator top tank leading to cylinderhead problems if the coolant gets low,
not a real problem in NZ as we have thousands of dead Skylines to strip heads off in Aussie they barely exist.
I think the real reason was the exchange rate of the Yen changed a lot, driving the cost of the Nissan engine up by possibly 50%+.
There are plenty of RB30-engined Skylines over here too (an old relative owned what would have been a real cream-puff when he sold it at nearly 20 years old, it looked in showroom condition), but yes they have disappeared as any normal 25 year old car does – but which the almost cult-status VL Commodore has not done.
My conclusion here: Societies must choose between paying for good roads (U.S., Germany) & developing cars able to withstand bad ones (France, Australia).
I fear the US may actually need more deeply-sprung & rugged vehicles if we can no longer afford to maintain our highways.
Roads in western Europe tend to be of high quality.
The problem with American roads is that they’re often built on a budget. The paving isn’t is thick as it should be to withstand the constant use by trucks.
In effect, Americans subsidize the trucking industry which does most of the damage. If we built more durable roads, then they would cost more, which would require higher taxes and/or larger deficits.
Australia’s roads are fine where there are dense populations. Remote areas such as the outback have only two-lane roads (which aren’t very wide) and unpaved tracks, some of which are meant to be used only by “road trains” (semis pulling three trailers.) But most of their population won’t have any need to drive on those kinds of roads.
Australia has a relative handful of divided highways, it is only in the last 12 months that Melbourne and Sydney have become the first capital cities to be fully linked by divided highway (to our shame as this has been identified as a critical safety measure for over 30 years). Most highways are 2-lane but at least of decent width, unpaved roads are common in all rural areas.
You did it again Charles. The difference between Vauxhall and Opel was always vague in my mind. I knew the Opel Mantas, 1900s and GTs because they were sold here. I would read about Vauxhalls and could see they were basically Opels but never knew if that was always the case.
You taught me it wasn’t and also explained when and why that changed. Thanks again.
As someone who used to work for GM Overseas Operations, I have researched GM International in great detail and hope to publish a series of volumes totaling over 1,500 pages. So Charles your story is most fascinating.
I do wish to correct the discussion on the similarities between the first generation of the Kadett and Viva. The front transverse leaf and rear torque tube suspension were very similar, as were the engines, even tough they had slightly different capacities. Both had a high mounted camshaft and inlet manifolds on top of the heads.
But that is where the similarities ended. The Kadett was unusual in that the drive-train was solid all the way from the fan back to just below the back seat. Effectively the universal-joint (at the front of the short torque tube) located below the back seat was the rear engine mount. Changing a clutch involved pulling the back axle/torque tube off or disconnecting the front suspension, raising the front body and wheeling the engine and suspension forward after unbolting the bell housing. Your father used a more conventional prop-shaft with two universal joints.
The Kadett’s solid drive-train had interesting safety implications as the resistance to any rearward impact was partially borne below the back seat rather than ahead of the passenger cockpit.
There were many suspension innovations in both cars. The transverse front leaf had anti-roll properties based on the location points. The rear springs were not attached at the back axle, instead onto a bracket ahead of the axle center-point, exerting greater load on the torque tube and springs.
I look forward to further chapters.
Thank you for the great article. I’ve read all parts with great interest.
Commonality between Opel and Vauxhall from the Viva onward could be compared to the commonality between US divisions starting in that time frame.
Full-size Chevys, Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles, Buicks and Cadillacs were very different in chassis, engines, transmissions and even factories until 1971, but the smaller cars like the A-body intermediates had similar frames and bodies to go with their divisional drivetrains and styling.
The Viva and Kadett were related in some ways but very different in others like drivetrains and suspensions, The Vauxhall Chevette and Kadett C were built off the GM T-body, but still held on to their unique drivetrains. By the time the Kadett D/Astra A came out, the difference amounted to little more than the location of the steering wheel.
1971 was also the year GM centralized its production operations under the GM Assembly Division. It controlled the factories instead of the divisions, and the move happened just in time for the Vega to come out. Quality across the board began to decline, bottoming out in the early 1980’s.
This is why it’s often said that GM USA peaked in 1970. Last year of independent divisions and full control of the factories. The divisions lost more and more control until they became nothing more than nameplates.
The Viva and Kadett were related in some ways but very different in others like drivetrains and suspensions,
The Viva was very much based on the Kadett, and used its engine. Its exterior styling was somewhat different, and it used a different rear suspension. Essnetially, Vauxhall was given the Kadett and they made a few changes/improvements, but they’re basically the same car under the skin.
have just discovered this wonderful series today, 12/12/17!
The Vauxhall Viva was not a great success in Australia. It was re-worked into the Holden Torana with 4 & 6 cylinder engines. The 4s used Vauxhall engines which were not a great success, the 6s used the Holden 6 & were to become legends. Leo Pruneau an American was instrumental in the 2nd Viva design for Vauxhall & later came to Australia where he still lives as a designer, ending up as Holden Design chief.
I met my American raised wife when she was driving an HA Viva. She pulled up next to me and said. ‘What do you think of my car?’ (How to latch a petrolhead) I liked the bus size steering wheel and was impressed by the leather seats in such a small car, but the styling was very Germanic. (I kept most of these opinions to myself, being wise in the ways of women). I did miles in that car, it was very reliable.
It’s interesting that the US owners of European subsidiaries wanted them to cooperate and just badge engineer each others cars, for obvious economic reasons, however GM in particular seemed to encourage its US companies to fight each other and allowed them to duplicate engineering, styling and marketing departments. Pontiac and Cheverolet for example seemed more concerned about beating each other to the detriment of the company overall, and none took any notice of the imports. Talk about squabbling children.