AH Challenge: British Leyland Still Going Strong

Here is the challenge make British Leyland Motor Corporation a succesful and profitable car company, that actually made good cars and not horrible unreliable wrecks. Without going to ASB, POD whenever you want.

Bonus points if you keep most of the factories in the UK or BL stays British owned on paper.

Extra Bonus points for BL having a F1 team.

Well, one thing is simple, to start with - don't have Sir Donald Stokes leading BL. It was partly him that contributed to BL's problems in the first place - mainly by not hiring consultants (thus ending Austin-Healeys and Mini-Coopers in their tracks, among other things).

Dan1988 said:

Well, one thing is simple, to start with - don't have Sir Donald Stokes leading BL. It was partly him that contributed to BL's problems in the first place - mainly by not hiring consultants (thus ending Austin-Healeys and Mini-Coopers in their tracks, among other things).

Click to expand...

But surely consultants are the cause of all the world's problems?

I don't think the structure of BL was sustainable in the long run. All that centralisation yet with each branch fumbling about on its own and not knowing what the others were doing...it was like an automotive Soviet Union.

alt_historian said:

But surely consultants are the cause of all the world's problems?

Click to expand...

Not in the case of BL.

@Thande: Well with that, not only could you blame Sir Donald Stokes, but also Sir George Harriman. Both of them allowed BL's structure to be that way, especially when the BMC side became neglected (I mean, come on - the Morris Marina? That had to be one of the most asinine-designed cars out there, especially when it was morphed into the Ital).

I wish people weren't so hard on BL. After all, many of their products were brilliant, stylish, and lots of fun to drive when operational. I had an old Jaguar XJ6 -- the most comfortable car seats ever, beautiful styling, lots of power, always liked to stall out in rainy cold intersections. Memories ... Then again I don't think anyone can defend the Allegro, though from what I understand there's now a club for them in Britain.

I agree with everything that's been said in this thread. I think that the best way to save BL would be drastic product rationalization and a buy-out by Ford or some other big one. I doubt that the British government would have liked a total buyout. But I can't see any way that production in Britain could continue without radical reorganization. Car production can be profitable in Britain -- Nissan has a plant there, for example -- but must be backed up by an efficient organization.

I'm not sure why the Honda-Rover deal failed. I know that here in the US Rover's attempt to sell rebaged Rover 800 series cars failed miserably. Honda aggressively priced its Legend below the Rover, and there were some quality control problems. I'm not sure how selling rebranded Hondas as Rovers worked in Britain.

I wonder if part of BL's problem was poor product planning -- that's currently bringing Detroit down, now that it's caught with endless lots of unsold SUV's. In any event I agree that BL was doomed, which is a shame because of its pretty products that looked great but ...

Hear what Sir Lucas saith, "A gentleman does not motor about after dark."

How about if it isn't nationalised? Then, without political interference, perhaps it will make some of the painful modernisation/rationalisation decisions earlier and be in a much stronger position for a partnership with Honda in the late 70's.

If they want a F1 team then they could buy Lotus easily enough although that would give them another brand.

They could then have simplified their branding and models like this:
Mini: cheap saloons (2 models: sub-compact and compact)
MG: cheap sports cars (1 model: compact roadster)
Jaguar: Luxury saloons (2 models: large and x-large executive)
Lotus: Luxury sports cars (2 models: roadster and super car)
Leyland: Trucks (2 or 3 models + variants)
Land Rover: 4x4s (2 models: Land Rover and Range Rover)

Also, I'd scrap any attempt to have an overarching BL brand, there is no benefit in it: Jaguars are not Minis and should be kept separate in the consumers minds.

With that drastic reduction, they could afford to focus their energy, money and marketing effort.

You had to have had a better labour relations policy. Not necessarily, with the Unions (they were too politically motivated), but with the employees themselves. If the company made a profit, it was seen as an opportunity to get more money out of the company, rather than any pride in its success.
The Japanese car industry was largely successful because of its use of 'teams' which broke down the demarction lines between the employers and the unions.
The management in 'charge' at BL had a culture handed down from Austin-Morris, in that they would criticise the Rover people, for their pride in quality, rather than go for numbers.
And at the end of the day, it is largely irrelevant what the car looks like, it is quality that counts i.e. 'quality is not a cost'.
Think how small BMW was - but it expanded by going up-market through 'quality'.
Even when BL colapsed and a new brand had to emerge - I think Triumph would have been better rather than Rover. As a name, I think it has better associations e.g. Rover is something you call your dog!
They, needed to sort out the mess that was Longbridge, and to get their cost accounting right - I don't think they ever new how much the Mini cost to make!!
Takeovers - with BL in a much better financial, image, and sales shape, it should have been in position to buy Seat.

On other threads I have posted some of the "what ifs" that Rover and Triumph could have made. If they had been manufactured and not the CRAP Austin-Morris turned out then with good build quality there could have been a chance.

Shimbo said:

If they want a F1 team then they could buy Lotus easily enough although that would give them another brand.

Click to expand...

A British Leyland Lotus Alise, its so mad it just might work.

proximefactum said:

I wish people weren't so hard on BL. After all, many of their products were brilliant, stylish, and lots of fun to drive when operational.

Click to expand...

True, but part of the reason I'm hard is that I like BMC vehicles, and what boils my blood was the neglect that BL gave to the old BMC side. Yes, there were a lot of brands, but if we can get rid of the "oh, Austin has a vehicle - let's also give one to Morris, MG, etc." (which the Big Three are guilty of as well) mentality BMC could have worked about MUCH better.

CultBoy said:

Here is the challenge make British Leyland Motor Corporation a succesful and profitable car company, that actually made good cars and not horrible unreliable wrecks. Without going to ASB, POD whenever you want.

Bonus points if you keep most of the factories in the UK or BL stays British owned on paper.

Extra Bonus points for BL having a F1 team.

Click to expand...

Keep it nationalised.

Should you keep it nationalised, and keep Otls' Thatcher Union legislation then BL becomes more productive than the seventies and stays immune to the Thatcher type survive or die scenario. This would also keep it British owned.

For the F1 team, add a supercar/sportscar specialised department. This could develop over time.

Was British dominance of Formula One racing in the 70s, 80s and 90s a symptom of the decline of the British volume car industry or part of the cause? In the 80s and 90s the manufacture of Formula One cars was by and large a British cottage industry.

I think it might be seen as a symptom because F1 would attract the best engineering talent - if that talent saw no future in the volume side of the industry then getting into F1 would be even more attractive than would generally be the case. This would of course cause a decline in the engineering talent pool available to the volume manufacturers.

On the other hand it might be seen as part of the cause - did so much design and engineering talent accrue to F1 that there was too little left over for the volume industry?

I'm not saying for a moment that F1 might be the principal cause of the decline of the British car industry - that would be bad management - but did it have an effect?

In the 1950s, Italian manufacturers won the annual Formula One constructor’s championship eight times. British and German manufacturers managed one win each. The British volume car industry was both strong and profitable.

In the 1960s British manufacturers won seven times, the Italians won twice and the French once. The British volume car industry began to falter finding foreign competition increasingly difficult to beat.

In the 1970s British manufacturers again won seven times, Ferrari taking the other three championships. The competitiveness and quality of British volume cars declined steeply, markets were lost abroad and foreign penetration of the home market increased.

In the 80s all 10 championships were won by British manufacturers. The British volume car industry continued its precipitous decline.

In the 90s British manufacturers won eight of the constructors championships, the remaining two, were one by Benetton formula which at that time was a British registered company. The Benetton cars were also manufactured in Britain so you could argue that once again it was a clean sweep across the decade for British manufacturers. The British volume car industry died.

Is there a link here?