Murphy’s Law. The basic premise behind this simple virtue is whatever can go wrong, will go wrong. Nowhere is this more true than the lame-footed rise and meteoric fall of the giant automotive conglomerate known as British Leyland. British Leyland was a disastrous attempt to merge all of Britain’s major automakers under one corporate umbrella. At the end, it sounded the death knell for not only some of England’s most beloved marques, but of the entire British automobile industry itself. BL’s demise isn’t solely to blame for the implosion of the British car industry, but it was most likely the final slip off the ledge that sent the whole lot plummeting into the black abyss.
Somewhere in the midst of all this, British Leyland released a training film titled The Quality Connection. The Quality Connection showcases all the things that can go wrong with a car when just one of the numerous people involved slips up – from the development stage, to design and manufacturing, to assembly and final inspection, to customer delivery. Whether it’s a genuinely honest mistake or the result of outright negligence, the end result is the same- a defective product, a tarnished reputation, angry customers, and lost profits. All in all, The Quality Connection serves as either a cautionary tale or a confession of sorts- perhaps both.
The great idea of merging numerous competing companies and then nationalising the whole mess. Awful quality control, lazy and complacent workforce. Many of my friends parents had BL products and largely they were terrible. Even Jag suffered. Years later I inadvertently became the owner of a Triumph TR7, purchased via a leading online auction late one Winter’s eve, after a protracted visit to a local drinking establishment. It was just awful. The tartan seats were the most inspiring part of it. Allegro, Marina, Ital, “Landcrabs”, Maxi – just shocking.
I understand that one problem was that the company was just too sprawling for top management to get a handle on. BL included a bunch of supplier companies, not just the automotive marques.
Thanks for extracting and posting this, Chris. I dare to speculate that a similar messianic message was passed around GM’s suites in The Renaissance Center prior to the ’09 BK and assuming it was, the same forces that consumed BL had already prevailed.
This is powerful stuff. I’ve seen links to this before eleswhere but never actually watched it until this afternoon, partly because I understood it was external promotional piece, which it clearly isn’t. That make sit a cautionary tale rather a confession, but it should still have a thought provoking effect on those watching it
The basic premise that quality is defined as meeting specification, that there is more to quality than repeated or frequent inspection, that everyone has a role in it and so much is down to people factors is as true now as it was then.
Many of us who work in manufacturing will have been in meetings or discussions where the QA man says “it’s not adequate” and production or commercial guy asks “please look at it again”. When the QA man shouts ” Looking at it again isn’t going to make that product correct” in front of the CEO, was a time to sell tickets, but he was right. Good quality goes right the way back, with everyone, from initial design and order to despatch inspection.
Such a shame that BL never really learnt that!
Powerful stuff indeed. It’s astonishing that they had this educational piece yet were unable to affect quality outcomes enough to keep the industry alive. I suppose it had much to do with “caste” thinking where communication lines break along hierarchical tiers in the company. Ford used to have a similar problem that was characterized as chimney system. Do your task as you were briefed, then throw your result over the wall to the next desk. You may not even know the person who sits there. Communication needs to be based on respect for each others job and competency. A team approach was needed to come up with an highly regarded product, the Ford Taurus. British Leyland never got there.
In Germany we called British Leyland “Britisch Elend” which means British Misery. Not nice but quite possibly true.
I’ve seen this video many times, and I’m always shocked at the negligence and mistakes allowed to happen. When building something as important as a car, something people will be driving, under *no* circumstances whatsoever should corners be cut. Under *no* circumstances should quality take a back seat to making money. What good is making money if someone gets hurt or killed while using your product?
I wonder if Takata ever entertained this thought, or GM in regards to an ignition switch, or Ford with an ignition switch that cause fires? Continue at your leisure.
+1
Great film, and more proof that the Brits can screw up a wet dream… Can you say de havilland Comet?
After watching I thought the film was produced because quality had reached such a low point in the vehicles Leyland was producing. They had to do something to inspire people to ensure components were made better and vehicles were assembled better.
Although harsh in its tone, the production value of this film is very high. Quite a few British pounds spent to stage an elaborate crash scene alone. Alas, it was all for naught. Many years had to pass before the Brits built better cars.
I have watched that film two or three times since I found it on youtube.
The company admits it’s machine tools are worn out. The company admits it’s factories are cramped and obsolete. Watching the film, I notice line workers are putting cars together with hand braces and screwdrivers. This is years after US manufacturers were using power drivers which are not only faster than hand braces, but also ensure the fasteners would be tightened to the correct torque.
In the test of the Austin America, Motor Trend’s Eric Dahlquist said:
“Virtually every accessible nut and bolt in the car was a quarter to a half turn loose, and the intake manifold nuts were finger tight. Fortunately, a standard 1/2-9/16 inch combination end wrench fits almost everything on the car; slight compensation as you work from front to rear, remembering how you never had to do this on a Volks.”
An investment by management in modern power drivers for the line workers would have eliminated that build quality issue, and improved productivity.
Materials and design come in for criticism. Dahlquist again: “…(plastic mounted) rear view mirrors that vibrate the world into a warm blur at anything over 50”, “…(carpets) deep pile and look very rich, but are poorly anchored and the nap was already worn off around the accelerator in only 2000 miles” Consumer Reports: ” Because of a poor latch design, the pivoting rear windows blew closed with a bang at speeds over 30mph” “The plastic lens of the interior courtesy light is evidently not heat resistant: our original and replacement lenses simply melted”
It wasn’t the line workers who designed inadequate parts nor specified the shoddy materials.
Nevertheless, BL management puts it on the line workers to turn out a high quality product.
Austin’s products were light years ahead of what we were getting from VW and the Japanese in the late 60s/early 70s, technically. Everyone raved about the America’s space efficiency and it’s hydrolastic suspension. No-one could get past the shoddy execution, for which management deserves it’s share of blame, for poor detail design, poor materials and poor facilities and equipment, which impacted build quality.
“Nevertheless, BL management puts it on the line workers to turn out a high quality product.”
…And blames the unions when they don’t.
It is my understanding that the British unions were organized according to their trades: electricians, painters, upholsterers etc. That meant if one union struck it stopped the whole production. You can’t produce paint less cars nor cars without electrical components. Management had to deal with multiple unions. They negotiated some rather anti-productive benefits, like a 5 minute tea break every hour, etc.
In Germany a factory was covered by one union. That meant management had to negotiate with only one union. The unions achieved seats on the board that provided participation in certain decisions. This aligned the union with management in many cases. The union-management relations were never as bad as in GB or the US. There was a basic understanding that the companies must be profitable to provide secure and well paying jobs.
Actually no, tradesmen are not required or paid to do unskilled labour such as assembling cars or painting them try another theory that one has no basis in reality.
You made me google. Is this helpful in correcting my lack of knowledge re British unions? http://socialistresistance.org/1864/militant-years-in-the-car-industry
…And blames the unions when they don’t.
SOP at the big three as well. Having lived in Michigan all these years, I have become alternately amused, disgusted and astounded at big three hubris. For decades, the big three line has always been that all of their problems are the fault of the government, the union, or the Japanese.
As for the attitude and ability of the American worker: compare the quality and reliability of Jeeps produced in Toledo, Ohio, with Chevys produced at Lordstown Ohio, and Hondas produced in Marysville, Ohio. Same state, so pretty much the same people. Same government regulations. Different management mindset. Different outcome.
Exactly, and my experience is that workers want to produce a good product but often can’t because of the inane decisions of those who know nothing about making said product. BL factories were antique in many cases, and closing any of them would cause the unions to wail, so open they stayed.
There is loads of blame about the British car industry to go around, but the management is ultimately responsible for the product.
BMC then subsequent Leyland management bled the company over three decades then wound up in government ownership, BMC made the mistake of following the US big three into the Australian market cramped as that market was they spent huge sums trying to build an Australian car after trying without success to Australianise their British offerings, Each effort failed though the Nomad was returned to the British parent and rehashed into the very average Maxi nothing else succeeded either on the Aussie/Kiwi market or made it in England by the time the Kimberly/Tasman twins and the oddly styled P76 hit the market there was no more money to support them.
I saw this slightly differently, to be fair, BL wanted the production line to produce a good car (“to meet specification”) and was trying to recognize the input of everyone else in achieving that, Wendy, the guy in the machine shop, the brake supplier, the final inspection team.
BL’s final demise (albeit Mini, Jaguar, Land-Rover and the trucks survived in varying forms) was attributable to many factors, product quality and industrial relations included.
You can add in poor product planning, lack of sufficient investment for many years, confused branding and marketing, the complex nature of the business based on its origins and relativity quick and forced amalgamation, the rise in the UK of the European and Japanese competition, the economic mess that was Britain in the early 1970s, control by a risk and investment averse government from 1975, the lack of engineering resource in the business, the lack of overseas sales in true growing markets…the list goes on.
Before the end, labour relations had moved into another plane compared with the bad old days of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, but the other factors caught up, principally the lack of investment, overseas sales and poor product planning.
The CC effect. I stumbled onto this earlier this week.
It is funny, how some country’s “get it” if you will, and others don’t. I had a 1970 Toyota Corona Mark II hardtop. Had a whopping 2 problems with it, and by ’83 when I had it, it was 13 years old. Brake light switch died, and so did the ignition switch, which was a tiny plastic POS like you found in Jap motorcycles of the time. And knowing Toyota, it might have been out of a Yamaha parts bin. Most impressive part? Beaverton Toyota had the parts IN STOCK. Try that today. It is no wonder why the Japanese killed both the British auto industry and their motorcycle industry. Go back to the pub and have another pint, Brits….wanna be engineers…
Go back to the pub and have another pint, Brits….wanna be engineers…
Or vote for Brexit, to put all those German and French cars at a price disadvantage compared to a UK built Vauxhall.
Perhaps you were joking, but just to be clear, most Vauxhall-badged cars are not built in the UK, and most cars GM builds in the UK are exported with Opel badges on them. So Brexit might not necessarily be helpful to “Vauxhall”. (or the UK factories producing cars or parts for Ford, BMW, Toyota, Honda, Nissan etc)
Perhaps you were joking, but just to be clear, most Vauxhall-badged cars are not built in the UK,
(some numbers are approximate from my memory)
Half joking as I suspect a good share of Brexit voters are thinking that way. Last time I looked UK manufacturing employment had dropped by half over the last 20 years or so.
As of a year or two ago, some 77% of the autos produced in the UK were exported and some 57% of those exports go to the EU, so that is 44% of UK production (1.5M cars in 2014 x 44% = 660,000) that goes to the EU
The largest share of the UK auto market is held by VAG (20%), with Ford second (13%). Ford closed Dagenham stamping and assembly some years ago. All that remains is an engine plant. so it’s reasonable to assume that all the Fords sold in the UK are imported from the EU. BMW/Mini holds 8%, I would hazard a guess most of that is BMWs, rather than UK built Minis. PSA holds 7.5%, Hyundai/Kia holds 6.4%, Daimer 5.2%, FCA 3.3%. Bottom line is, while 44% of UK production goes to the EU, something like 60% of UK sales (over 2.4m in 2014, 2.4m x 60% = 1.44M) go to imported cars.
Bottom line is the UK imports two cars from the EU for every car it exports to the EU.
Honda, Toyota and Nissan all have plants in the UK. GM apparently has plants in Luton and Ellesmere Port, with Ellesmere producing the Astra.
Given a mentality like I saw among my “buy American” coworkers, I would not be surprised that the people voting “leave” were thinking that imposing a tariff on imported VWs and Fords would make more jobs for the UK plants as demand shifted to models make in the UK. You should have seen my coworkers bristle at the sight of my Canada built, 70% North American content, Honda. All they saw was Japanese.
Steve
I suspect most people in the UK realise Vauxhall isn’t all that British – and I also think people care less about buying British. In my lifetime there has never been talk of “domestic” and “foreign” cars as in the US, just “cars”.
I did look at how people voted in different council areas in the referendum and noted very strong support for Brexit in Sunderland, which has a huge Nissan factory (but relatively high unemployment due to disappearance of historic industries) and wondered if they weren’t cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
I suspect most people in the UK realise Vauxhall isn’t all that British – and I also think people care less about buying British. In my lifetime there has never been talk of “domestic” and “foreign” cars as in the US, just “cars”.
That may be a function of there being no British owned volume auto manufacturers left, Rover having gone toes up in 05. My “buy American” coworkers had an odd view of what was an American car. They figured it was “where all the money goes”, not where a car is made. So a Mexican built Ford was OK, because “all the money” went to Dearborn. The CFO of the company even insisted to me his Swedish built Saab was an American car because “all the money” went to GM in Detroit. But an Ohio built Honda was foreign because “all the money” went to Japan.
I saw an article last night that said if the UK does separate and does not negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU, Toyota and Honda may close their British factories.
While all the auto plants in the UK are now foreign owned. Jaguar, Rover, MG and Vauxhall do have British roots. Someone probably owns the rights to Austin should they choose to try and revive the brand.
As you observed in Sunderland, a large part of the Brexit vote seems to correlate with areas that have lost large numbers of manufacturing jobs, pointing to the motivation being to prevent foreigners immigrating and “taking our jobs”, and preventing foreign goods being imported and “taking our jobs” Very much the same debate going on at in the US.
I have family in the US, and I’m aware of the type of views you describe, but I’ve simply never heard anyone espouse those views here. I don’t think being UK-built helps to sell cars here, and nor does a British badge like Vauxhall or Mini. Rover badges sure as hell didn’t help.
It’s impossible to explain in a post like this but I just don’t think you’re comparing apples with apples. Remember that England is still coming to terms with not running the world, and remember that one of the top google searches in the UK the day after the brexit vote was “What is the EU?”.
Laying blame with engineers at BL is like laying all the blame with production line workers (who are the usual favourite target). It’s overly simplistic, a bit like saying that some country’s (sic) don’t get it.
Yeah what about Mitsubishis first attempts at sensor controlled carbs to pass emissions they are a total nightmare, quick cure is source a NZ new car and harvest the carb no more problems caused by unreliable Japanese components.
For years and years I had a T-shirt with the words “The English drink warm beer because they buy Lucas refrigerators” printed on the front.
Funny But True.
Hang around the vintage British motorcycle scene. Within six months you’ll hear every Lucas joke ever made. And there’s a lot of them.
to be accurate, Lucas never made fridges. But I get the p(o)int!
Ah, the Prince of Darkness.
Actually, you can put the blame equally on both ends. Engineering underdesigned, accounting cheapened it even more to save a couple of quid per unit, and then the assembly line workers came to work with the attitude that they were owed their jobs, and it didn’t matter how good a job they did.
Sometime, watch the movie “I’m All Right, Jack”. A 1959 British production, known mainly in the US as Peter Sellers’ first big role, it shows that what we regard as a 70’s British management/labor situation actually existed a good twenty years earlier.
The Comet really wasn’t that bad. There was one major design defect: a square corner on the opening for a hatch, which concentrated stresses, resulting in a crack in the skin which lead to explosive decompression. The hatch opening was revised and the problem solved.
Fatal design defects were not that uncommon in the days before CAD, or even in the early days of CAD systems. The Lockheed Electra turboprop airliner had a bad habit of breaking it’s wings off, resulting in three fatal crashes. The FAA did not ground Electras, but instead decreed a lower cruising speed while the crashes were analyzed. Following analysis, revisions were made to the engine mounts and supporting structures and thicker material was used on the wing skin. The Electra was the basis for the Navy P3 maritime reconnaissance aircraft which has served well for decades.
Early Boeing 747 freighters developed a bad habit of the engines falling off, resulting in several fatal crashes. Analysis showed that the early CAD software used when the 747 was designed in the late 60s did not reveal how high localized stresses were in the engine mounts. Add fatigue from long and hard use and corrosion and the mounts failed. Boeing redesigned the mounts and the problem was solved.
hmm…that’s interesting. The post I was responding to about the Comet seems to have disappeared.
No, it’s up there, Steve. I just read it.
I think the Comet was featured on “Engineering Disasters” as well.
I have heard that the oversize cabin windows that were square instead of rounded at the corners were causing cracks in the skins as well. The engine location was also dangerous being close to the cabin and fuel tanks, an engine failure that scattered debris or caught on fire was much more dangerous than a pod mounted engine hanging under the wing as is standard today. But it does appear to be more aerodynamic and is better looking.
This is the first time I have seen this BL quality control film, really well done. Didn’t really sugar coat the problems or go all rah-rah for the company. Although you would think the police would have been able to figure out the brakes had failed, the point still came across very well. Maybe BL should have hired only unattractive women!
I worked for a VW dealership in 1981 that had BL as well. Those cars kept the tow truck drivers, mechanics and parts people very busy.
Yes – that is precisely what I had read about the Comet as well. The window corners and fuel tank issues.
Steve, CAD produces the geometry of the part. FEA is what is used to calculate the stresses.
In any case, computers are just an aid. They should never ever replace good engineering principles, lessons learned and judgement.
Funny, I watched this a couple of months ago during a BL You Tube binge.
I thought it was odd as I had expected the video to feature all the ways BL was improving quality and why it was important.
It didn’t reflect any sort of optimism and seemed odd even as an in house production. More like a consumer warning feature on the news.
It’s all Wendy’s fault 🙂 .
Poor Wendy.
Don’t feel sorry for Wendy. She (actually the actress) got a gig as a Bond Girl soon after this production was made.
And here I thought I knew Bond movies! She sure doesn’t look like Miss Caruso in this film 🙂 !!!
The Swedes
buildbuilt cars particularly surefooted in winter, because winters are long and severe in Sweden. The Finns make good winter tires for the same reason.The Swiss build extremely good watches and mechanisms, because of a cultural fixation with precision and accuracy.
The Japanese build cars that go for a long time without unexpected problems, because of a culturally-ingrained appreciation for coördinated, wholistic engineering and specification of all subcomponents of a machine.
The French build cars that get the job done differently, because the French have had a lot of practice telling the Germans to go forth and multiply themselves.
The English build cars that won’t start (and bicycle brakes that won’t stop) in the rain, because of England’s arid, hot climate. Ahem.
I say, old bean, have you tried cleaning and tightening all those, ah, quality connections?
Funny!
Do you have any insights regarding Italian cars and American cars?
Those would speak for themselves, except the Italian cars are too drunk to speak coherently and the American cars just don’t give a shìt.
Fiat – built by robots…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNPTlT8HXjk
Comedy, something the British do well 🙂
Some Japanese cars are built to last until the first shaken test, when they fail they go to auction and get exported , Its a time honoured method of selling the punter a new car and its kept the Japanese car industry alive since the 1960s. Yearly restyles got Americans into new cars regularly Japan legislates and taxes old cars out of existence.
“The French build cars that get the job done differently…”
I always get the sense that the Citroen DS was designed by taking a Chevy apart, studying every component, and doing everything as differently as possible.
Daniel
You are so right about the climate and strange quality problems. For example, here is a list of all British roadsters and convertibles that DON’T have roofs that leak:
– umm, none!
Given that there is never a week without rain in the UK, the you would think they could have made a convertible top that did not leak. The Swedes, Germans, Japanese, USA have all managed to do this for years, but it seems to be mission impossible for the Brits. How that is even possible is beyond me. I really don’t understand.
I’m convinced there really are deep and intricate national cultural and psychological forces at work that will exert their influence on the overall character of the finished machine—no matter what new approach is tried, no matter how much money is showered on the project, or whatever.
I’m convinced there really are deep and intricate national cultural and psychological forces at work that will exert their influence on the overall character of the finished machine
I was watching a TV documentary about Airbus maybe 20 years ago. A project manager interviewed said he has found that all the personnel he encountered fit their national stereotype. In one meeting he laid out what he considered simple and clear directions and objectives. The British engineers in the meeting felt he was being very very demanding, while the Germans in the meeting felt they had been given no directions at all.
20+ years ago I was in a meeting with representatives from the multi-national Eurofighter (now named Typhoon) consortium to discuss software development processes and tools. We were all experienced technical experts and/or project managers. Nearly all participants (including me) fit the national stereotypes. It was hilarious. The exception was the woman who represented Spain, a relatively small player in the project. She was strikingly beautiful, but she was also the most articulate, knowledgeable person in the room. When she talked, we took notes. Never judge a person by appearance alone.
For example, here is a list of all British roadsters and convertibles that DON’T have roofs that leak:
Not to mention the issue of getting a British roadster’s top up or down. I watched two guys set up the top on a Mk II Spitfire. Took the two of them about 10 minutes.
Tom McCahill had a theory: all the guys in England who could design a decent top mechanism were killed in a single horrific bus accident, destroying the entire knowledge base needed to design a competent top.
I’ve seen this video before. What’s shocking is that BL made this obviously knowing the problems that would lead to disaster, yet these very problems were present everyday in management, engineering/design and on the production line and nothing was done to correct them. That’s what is most shocking. They knew, but were stuck in their archaic 19th century mindset. Jeremy Clarkson did a show called “Who Killed The British Motorcar Industry?” around 2000 or so. And everybody involved, the workers, engineering, management, union leadershp and gov’t, all got a failing grade.
Comet was a bit different, I would argue. It wasn’t so much bad design or bad manufacture, but metal fatigue, something nobody had known about before. It was the Brits who took a Comet fuselage, submerged in in a huge water tank and subjected it to repeated pressure tests that lasted IIRC about a month, until the cracks developed around the large windows and the fuselage literally exploded apart. So we owe the Brits a huge thanks for discovering this. Unfortunately, it was Americans who took this new knowledge and ran with it to develop the Boeing 707 and other jets, leaving the Brits in their dust.
Thank you for correcting the earlier misinformation about the Comet.Were it not for this flaw, many of us might now be flying in DeHavilland passenger aircraft.
Makes me very thankful I wasn’t working for BL at the time. There’s few things more depressing than being in a dysfunctional organization.
That’s modern retail, these days, Paul. I won’t name names but happy to be retired from it.
New Leyland Princesses were on sale where I used to fuel up my rusting Humber 80 the oil soaked cardboard sheeting under cars in the showroom put me off them, ok so my then car leaked oil and was full of rust, fair enough it was 16 years old and had lived by the coast and been driven on gravel roads since new, but it still went reliably and got me where I had to be.
Indeed. Spent 2 and 1/4 years working for Eoff electrical supply. Out of the Portland branch. The worst 2 and 1/4 years of my adult working career….
Having had the displeasure of being both a Mopar and GM service writer, I can sure attest to the quality chain. A car is more often than not a dream for a buyer, a major purchase that often involves brand loyalty as strong as faith. This is especially true with pick up trucks. Then their beloved, unpaid for, object of lust starts to fall apart and another customer gone.
I always got the feeling that Chrysler actually wanted to produce a decent car, but their low volume kind of made that hard. For GM, the exact opposite was true: they didn’t remotely care about their product quality until it was too late.
BL was a disaster waiting to happen. There was huge overcapacity in the British motor industry before the war, with too many brands for any of them to make much money. Many of the factories were simply worn out after the war, and the video makes mention of that, and there was no money for investment. That was all fine until the car drought in the USA after the war subsided, but by 1960, the writing was clearly on the wall.
The union model in the UK went back to the guild system, and like Wolfgang mentioned, there were multiple unions in each shop. This labour system caused all kinds of problems for British industry, during the Great War, for example. Finally, the amount of transshipping meant they were never going to make money.
I still believe that the Thatcher government could have saved BL and made it into something that built a decent car that people wanted to buy. There was a lot of flag waving in England in 1980 and there still is, and I am sure most English folk would love to buy a genuinely English car. However, the political will was not there and BL was let to die.
Now that the UK has signaled a departure from the EU, there is no doubt that cars coming in from Europe are going to cost more. This could act as an incentive for new products in the England and Wales. More likely, it means they will simply pay more for cars. Note how I do not include Scotland here: when England invokes Article 50, the United Kingdom will no longer be untied to Scotland.
I doubt it will make anyone want to invest billions of pounds in an English-Welsh car.
A number of years ago, an acquaintance of mine who spent his career selling very large dynamometers to American automakers summed up the industry something like this: “Ford do a good job of building a lousy design. Chrysler do a lousy job of building a good design. GM do a mediocre job of building a mediocre design.” While there are some exceptions in every direction, overall I think he was right.
The cause of the accident was never established. Come on it is a basic investigation to determine no brakes. Besides I saw Poirot in there drawing up a design. Get him on the job.
Quite the film. Did you spot the very young David Suchet (Poirot) and Micheal Robbins (On the Buses).
Also Trevor Bannister (Mr Lucas, Are You Being Served) At the Leyland dealer.
Fun fact: The urinal drain-hole covers from Britian’s Armitage Shanks bear an uncanny resemblace to the British Leyland logo.
Cheers, Rob’t
1960 ad for Morris Minor