Anyone drive a MK2 Cortina?

[doug748]

Those Lichfield type 3/4 man tents were a bloody good design, light, quick to erect, weatherproof, difficult to blow away.

Well, just sayin like. They were.

 

[halcyon]

Same with the Herald. The reason it had a chassis was because they had no equipment to produce a unitary body. Marketing men (wide boy salesmen actually) sold it as a benefit as no other comparable cars had chassis!

More trivia. The MGB wings were made in two parts, top and bottom because of limitation of presses - hence the chrome stripe to hide the join.

My first visit to Canley (Standard Triumph) in 1968 was like going into one of those grainy black and white propaganda films just after the war promoting the postwar industrial revival. Hammers used extensively to make sure all the panels fitted and doors stayed shut long enough to leave the factory. They were gearing up to build the Stag, billed as a competitor to Mercedes.

Where do you find this garbage ?

Triumph used Fisher & Ludlow for bodies, BMC took the over, so all detail of the Herald and production plans would have been passed on to BMC. Using a chassis allowed smaller body builders to be used.

A press to make MGB wings was a small press in those days. At Rubery Owen our big press was 5000 ton with a bed 45 foot long by 10 foot wide'

Triumph factory if you are really interested




Brian

 

[JumbleDuck]

Same with the Herald. The reason it had a chassis was because they had no equipment to produce a unitary body. Marketing men (wide boy salesmen actually) sold it as a benefit as no other comparable cars had chassis!

A bit more: as you say, Triumph did not have large enough presses for monocoque bodies, so they wanted the body for their new small car to be made, like the Standard 10 it replaced, by Fisher & Ludlow (later to join with Pressed Steel to form Pressed Steel Fisher). However, they were owned by BMC and wouldn't play, ostensibly because they were too busy but probably to spike their rivals. Hence, as you say, the enforced decision to make the Herald out of bit small enough for Triumph to produce in-house.

More trivia. The MGB wings were made in two parts, top and bottom because of limitation of presses - hence the chrome stripe to hide the join.

Even more front wing trivia: quality control at Jaguar was so bad that they couldn;t predict the length of an E-type to within +/- an inch or so. As a result bonnets were, and still are, supplied with unfinished rear edges and had to be wire-rolled at the back end to fit them to individual cars. The quantity of lead loading used was astonishing too.

My first visit to Canley (Standard Triumph) in 1968 was like going into one of those grainy black and white propaganda films just after the war promoting the postwar industrial revival. Hammers used extensively to make sure all the panels fitted and doors stayed shut long enough to leave the factory.

Did you know that the line at Canley was so cramped that they had to built the Herald sideways on it, instead of lengthways like every other production line? Like the chassis, they spun that as a Good Thing too.

They were gearing up to build the Stag, billed as a competitor to Mercedes.

It's a shame that their facilities and quality control were so poor, because they actually had a remarkable range of cars from the time: small (Herald/Vitesse), sports (Spitfire/GT6), medium (1300/Toledo), bigger still (Dolomite), large (2000/2500) and grand tourer (Stag) as well as more-or-less inventing the hot hatch (without a hatch) in the Dolomite Sprint. I don't think any other British car company has such breadth, though of course BMC probably had it across the various marques.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Triumph used Fisher & Ludlow for bodies, BMC took the over, so all detail of the Herald and production plans would have been passed on to BMC. Using a chassis allowed smaller body builders to be used.

He's quite right. Triumph asked Fisher and Ludlow, who said no. Both the Standard 8 and Standard 10 monocoques were produced there under BMC ownership.

 

[halcyon]

He's quite right. Triumph asked Fisher and Ludlow, who said no. Both the Standard 8 and Standard 10 monocoques were produced there under BMC ownership.

Standard 8 was launched in 1953, BMC took over Fisher Ludlow in 1953, so little option. Also the BMC chairman Leonard Lord advised the Standard boss that when existing contracts had expired, Fisher & Ludlow would no longer supply Standard-Triumph with car bodies. Rival, Pressed Steel, was then approached, but its order books were full.

Brian

 

[halcyon]

Did you know that the line at Canley was so cramped that they had to built the Herald sideways on it, instead of lengthways like every other production line? Like the chassis, they spun that as a Good Thing too.

Did not see that when we visited the factory, did you watch the video ?

Brian

 

[penberth3]

...because they actually had a remarkable range of cars from the time... medium (1300/Toledo), bigger still (Dolomite)...

I thought 1300, Toledo and Dolomite were all the same body? Dolomite had a bigger engine, but basically the same car.

 

[halcyon]

I thought 1300, Toledo and Dolomite were all the same body? Dolomite had a bigger engine, but basically the same car.

The 1300 was front wheel drive and very good spec.

Brian

 

[Lightwave395]

The 1300 was front wheel drive and very good spec.

Brian

I had a 16v Dolomite Sprint in banana yellow back in 1976, a quick (for it's day) 'wolf in sheeps clothing', great fun and to be fair not bad build quality for a 70's car, I think I was lucky with that. In '79 I changed to Renault 2.0 TS hatchback (UK was a bit behind on hatchbacks) which did over 70K miles in a shade over 2 years without fault then a few years later in '82 after a bit of career climbing I had a Rover 3500 'Vanden Plas' which literally fell apart around me in the first few months of ownership. Some of the body panels were in primer on their hidden inside surface and a couple not painted at all.

By contrast in 1981 I bought a fleet of 12 Mk 5 GL Cortina estates for the sales team which were pretty much all totally reliable and well finished despite high mileages.
I changed jobs in '83 and got a new at the time Audi 100 Avant, fabulous car, totally reliable despite high mileages, restored my faith in Car builders...

 

[Skylark]

The 1300 was front wheel drive and very good spec.

Brian

It was FWD with a north-south engine, iirc. It’s redeeming feature was that the clutch could be changed from the comfort of being inside the car!

I was a poor student in 1975 and some plonker T-boned my Mk1 Escort in fog. My parents stepped in and bought me a 1300 while the Escort was being repaired. A very different era.

 

[Dan Tribe]

Reading this thread got my nostalgia buds working. For much of my working life I had company cars and at each change there was usually a new innovation which we thought would improve our lives, e.g.
A heater that actually worked. [Mk 1 Escort, previous car was a Midget.]
Heated rear screen, no more ice scraping.
A built in radio, such luxury.
Radial tyres. Now that was an improvement.
Fabric seats, remember cold vinyl on frosty mornings.
Synchromesh on all 4 gears
Door mirrors you could twiddle from inside.
Sun roofs.
5 gears, that's just showing off!

 

[Tranona]

Where do you find this garbage ?

Triumph used Fisher & Ludlow for bodies, BMC took the over, so all detail of the Herald and production plans would have been passed on to BMC. Using a chassis allowed smaller body builders to be used.

A press to make MGB wings was a small press in those days. At Rubery Owen our big press was 5000 ton with a bed 45 foot long by 10 foot wide'

Triumph factory if you are really interested




Brian

Not garbage at all as JD explains. Triumph used a chassis because they did not have the capability to make a unitary body - for whatever political reason.

Press required for a one piece wing was indeed not a big one, but that does not change the fact that MG did not have one of its own and could not access one elsewhere - so wings were made in two parts

Suggest you take off your rose tinted specs. 1950-1970's was a nightmare in the British owned bit of the motor industry owing to a combination of poor investment, bad management, recalcitrant workforce, flawed design (although often based on good ideas) and complete ignorance of buyers' expectations. Everything was a struggle which was undertaken because demand generally exceeded supply.

All changed when markets were opened to competition and other manufacturers started to offer cars that were well built, well priced and met customers' expectations.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Standard 8 was launched in 1953, BMC took over Fisher Ludlow in 1953, so little option. Also the BMC chairman Leonard Lord advised the Standard boss that when existing contracts had expired, Fisher & Ludlow would no longer supply Standard-Triumph with car bodies. Rival, Pressed Steel, was then approached, but its order books were full.

Thanks. I'm 100 miles away from the book, but I had a feeling Pressed Steel was in there too.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Did not see that when we visited the factory, did you watch the video ?

Try this one, from about 1:50 onwards.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I thought 1300, Toledo and Dolomite were all the same body? Dolomite had a bigger engine, but basically the same car.

They kept renaming things, but I think the 1300/Toledo was placed a bit lower down the luxury scale than Dolomites. I confess it's not a side of Triumph which I know much about, though, so correction happily accepted.

 

[halcyon]

Try this one, from about 1:50 onwards.

That is the body storage area, the control system moved them around storage on a grid to feed the required color/trim option to the track. Triumph built the bodies, then added engine/suspension/transmission to body, after checking they went to a rectification area to the front left of test area to have faults corrected.

Brian

 

[halcyon]

Press required for a one piece wing was indeed not a big one, but that does not change the fact that MG did not have one of its own and could not access one elsewhere - so wings were made in two parts

The wing was a welded assembly from many parts, manufacturing requirement, not lack of press, see video



Brian

 

[halcyon]

Not garbage at all as JD explains. Triumph used a chassis because they did not have the capability to make a unitary body - for whatever political reason.


.

Triumph like many car firms did not make their own bodies, allowing them to use a firm that did not have unitary body building ability. To get round it long term they built a new body plant, thanks to the Government at at Speke, then the most advanced in Europe. see history, sort of reminds me of each side in Bexit story.



Brian

 

[anoccasionalyachtsman]

What an excellent thread - getting lots of trivia which might come in handy at the weekly car quiz night...

The 2.8i Capri was undoubtedly quick, but handling was sadly lacking.

I can't really agree with that. I had one on loan for a few months, and it was the most driftable car I'd ever had a shot in. Driving to a dreary job on a damp day was something to look forward to.

That quite right, but just about everything as has been discussed, but quite unrationally, the stigma remained with Alfa Romeo.

Unfortunately, it's deserved again. On the 159/Brera the undertray saving me tenths of a mile per gallon ingeniously holds water against the 'powder coated' front subframe and blocks its drainholes. That wouldn't be so terrible if the coating made it inside the frame. It doesn't - it's raw steel. I have a new one on its way from Italy as we speak. £1,100.

Not a speck anywhere on the body though.

 

[halcyon]

Not garbage at all as JD explains. Triumph used a chassis because they did not have the capability to make a unitary body - for whatever political reason.

Press required for a one piece wing was indeed not a big one, but that does not change the fact that MG did not have one of its own and could not access one elsewhere - so wings were made in two parts

Suggest you take off your rose tinted specs. 1950-1970's was a nightmare in the British owned bit of the motor industry owing to a combination of poor investment, bad management, recalcitrant workforce, flawed design (although often based on good ideas) and complete ignorance of buyers' expectations. Everything was a struggle which was undertaken because demand generally exceeded supply.

All changed when markets were opened to competition and other manufacturers started to offer cars that were well built, well priced and met customers' expectations.

Couple of points,
Investment BMC CAB2 Longridge and Bathgate today's money £2/3 billion, Speke plant Triumph, Hillman Imp plant Linwood, Ford plant Halewood, BL Metro plant, yes we invested.

Bad management, agree more in later period.

Recalcitrant workforce, definitely .... NO

Flawed design (although often based on good ideas) yes but maybe not the same reason.

Complete ignorance of buyers' expectations, only people from generation can answer, I would say most were happy with cars.

Everything was a struggle which was undertaken because demand generally exceeded supply. ... you must include Government intervention and forced export, 70% purchase tax on new cars to encourage export, machine tool was a forced export item so slowed home market expansion.

All changed when markets were opened to competition and other manufacturers started to offer cars that were well built, well priced and met customers' expectations ..... what was on sale in 1970, Alfa Remeo ( cost ) Auto Union Audi 100, re-badged DKW , BMW 1600, Citroen Ami 8, Dyane 6. DAF. Datsun 1000, Fiat 500, 600. Honda N360, N600. Lancia. Mazda. Merc. Moskvich. NSU Prinz. Peugeot 204, 304. Renault 4, 6, 8. Saab 96, 99. Simca 1000. Skoda 100. Toyota Corolla. VW Beetle. Volvo. Wartburg. is that a greater choice ?.

You miss of the Union's fro your list of problems, or do you not see the as a negative impact ?

Read that when we first applied to join EEC we were a serious manufacturing threat to Germany and France, car manufacture, capacity for 3 million units a year.

BMC opened production plants in Europe to get round EEC import duty and regs till we joined.

BL were the first company to talk to the Chinese ref the Chinese market.

UK training and education are critical area's we ignore and the changes in the 60's and 70's on.

Marketing / propaganda we have terrible trouble seeing or applying.

Brian