Making more of the Maxi

British Leyland's alternative reality

 

As a fan and owner of the Austin Maxi, I have spent some time thinking about why it didn't achieve the success it deserved. BL didn't really know what to do with the Maxi and basically pushed it to the sidelines, but with a different attitude it could easily have formed the very heart of the range and spawned many more variants. One of the biggest reasons I came up with for its failure was the simultaneous existence of both the Maxi 1750 and the 1800 Landcrab, which seemed to be a pointless duplication that did nothing other than create internal competition, as the latter was basically the same car but with an older engine and without the benefit of the fifth gear or hatchback. This realisation provided the starting point for an entire train of thought that could have changed the course of British Leyland's history for the better!

The Maxi could have been so much more than this dumpy unloved hatchback

Had the Maxi been used as a direct replacement for the Landcrab, the Princess would then become redundant and extending this thought a little opens up the possibility of its place being taken by a whole series of Maxi-based cars using all of the E-series engine variations that existed in reality, from 1500 right up to 2600cc. The existence of these additional Maxis would then cause other models to develop in a more logical way to fit around them, rationalising the range and providing full market coverage that was equivalent to Ford, with the Allegro and Escort, Maxi and Cortina, and SD1 and Granada pairings all being direct competitors. Here's how things might have turned out in this alternative reality... 

Maxi

The Austin Maxi 1500 and 1750 would exist here just as they did in real life, but would form the heart of a much wider range of Cortina rivals. Instead of continuing alongside it and providing unnecessary internal competition for four years, the superfluous 1800 Landcrab would have disappeared when the Maxi 1750 was launched in 1970. With the Maxi thus directly replacing the Landcrab, there would be no need for the wedge Princess and the development budget for this would instead be spent on making mechanical changes and much-needed styling improvements to the Maxi, maybe getting Harris Mann or David Bache to restyle it. These developments would include a saloon variant along the lines of the Australian Austin Kimberley and Tasman to broaden its appeal among those who found the hatchback too radical. The saloon was planned by BMC in the earliest days of the project, to be called Morris 1500, but never saw the light of day.

The Maxi saloon might have been a success. It needed better styling than this though. (Image: AROnline) 

In need of more power to suit local conditions, Leyland Australia developed a 2227cc six-cylinder version of the E-series by effectively combining one and a half 1500 blocks. This was adopted in the UK in 1972 and found its way into the Landcrab to create the Austin-Morris 2200 and Wolseley Six, but in this scenario the Landcrab was long gone by this time so the E6 instead went in the Maxi, where it should have fitted thanks to the two cars' close relationship. It seems appropriate to badge this more upmarket six-cylinder car as a Wolseley to distinguish it from the humble four-cylinder Austins, and it would have taken the place of the 2200 Princesses and hopefully kept the Wolseley name alive beyond 1975. All Maxis would have an improved version of the five-speed rod-change gearbox as standard, with automatic available as an option.

Why was the 2200 E6 put in the Landcrab and not the Maxi?

The Australians went one step further and also created a 2622cc six by applying the same principle to the 1750 block. This never came to the UK and was only ever used in inline RWD applications such as the Australian-built Marina and Leyland P76, but in theory it should have been capable of transverse FWD use like its smaller brother. In this alternative reality, this larger E6 was also adopted for UK cars and would have created a flagship Maxi that succeeded the Austin 3-litre but wore the Vanden Plas badge that was more befitting of such a car, and featured the usual Vanden Plas luxuries such as wood trim, Wilton carpet and picnic tables. While all other Maxis would be available in both hatch and saloon form, the 2600 would come only as a saloon to avoid competing with the Rover SD1. This would have been something of a niche product, the most expensive and lowest volume model in the range, but the FWD layout would also make the Vanden Plas Maxi easy for limousine and hearse builders to convert.

The Australians showed what a restyled six-cylinder Maxi saloon might look like with the Austin Kimberley
(By John Shepherd from Tooting, London, Great Britain, cropped and lightly adjusted by uploader Mr.choppers (Austin Kimberley) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons)

 

Allegro

The real-life failure of the Maxi had a disastrous effect on the Allegro, as it became necessary to use the tall E-series engine in the latter to utilise the excess capacity of the Cofton Hackett engine factory and this turned Harris Mann's sharp wedge-shaped design into an infamous dumpy blob. In this alternative scenario, Cofton Hackett would be fully employed producing four and six-cylinder E-series for the expanded Maxi range and the other cars that used this engine, so the Allegro could be launched with 1098 and 1275 A-series power only and Mann's original design would remain intact. It would thus be a direct replacement for the ADO16 that didn't overlap with the Maxi, and all Allegros would have four-speed or automatic gearboxes, leaving the five-speed to the Maxi range and eliminating the real-world anomaly that the basic Allegro 1500 had the benefit of five gears while the flagship Princess 2200 HLS had to make do with four. The 998cc A-series could also be used further down the line to create a basic economy-model Allegro that might appeal to Mini owners needing a bigger car, and this would possibly eliminate the Metro from the plans.

Without the E-series, the Allegro could look more like this sketch by Harris Mann (Image: AROnline)

Alternatively, the Allegro may not have needed to exist at all had BL looked to South Africa and the Austin Apache, an effective and fresh-looking Michelotti facelift of the ADO16 with very Triumph-like styling. That latter property would make it a perfect fit into the Triumph range, where it would naturally replace the ageing Triumph 1300 instead of the RWD Toledo. Maybe there could even have been a place for both, with the Apache as a Triumph saloon and the Allegro given a hatchback to complement the Maxi in the Austin range and compete more effectively with the likes of the Volkswagen Golf.

Triumph

In real life, Triumph were largely independent of Austin-Morris and weren't involved in the badge-engineering, continuing to produce their own range of sports saloons and roadsters that dated back to pre-BL days. There is an opportunity here for rationslisation though by adopting Triumph as the brand for sporting versions of the Austin saloons, much as MG became to Austin-Rover in later years. A Triumph Allegro or Apache with the twin-carb 1275cc A-series and possibly reusing the Herald name would be a logical successor to the original FWD Triumph 1300, as well as taking over from the Austin 1300 GT. The Dolomite's place would be taken by the twin-carb Maxi 1750 that in reality became the HL but with its higher performance fits more naturally as a Triumph here and seems worthy of being badged as a new Vitesse.

The Austin Apache would have made a natural small Triumph
(By Paul Horn from Benoni, South Africa; cropped, plates anonymized by uploader Mr.choppers (Austin 1970's Apache) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons)

Finally, the big Triumph 2000/2500/2.5 PI range would be replaced by a fuel-injected version of the Maxi 2600 with an emphasis on performance plus luxury rather than the outright opulence of the Vanden Plas, the loss of the Triumph estates (which wouldn't really fit with the new sporting image anyway) being compensated by the SD1 estate, which did in reality exist in prototype form but never reached production. In keeping with the 'V' theme of its four-cylinder brother, this could revive an old Standard name and become the Triumph Vanguard. To give them their own distinct identity and follow Triumph tradition, maybe these versions could be styled by Michelotti while sharing the same platform as the in-house designs, in the way that all modern manufacturers put a range of different bodies on common underpinnings. The Maxi-based Triumphs would be the logical choice for BL's motorsport endeavours, promoting the virtues of Hydrolastic and front-wheel-drive through competition.

Morris

In a rare moment of clarity concerning their often confused array of marques, BL had briefly decided that the advanced FWD transverse-engined and Hydrolastic-suspended cars would be the preserve of Austin, while Morris would build conventional RWD models aimed primarily at the fleet market, hence there being no Morris version of the Maxi. There is thus still room for the Marina to exist in this scenario as it did in reality, but hopefully a bit better developed and without the handling issues that plagued the real one. Basic Marinas would be powered by the 1.3 A-series and I had initially proposed to retain the 1.8 B-series but have since discovered that the Marina was actually designed around the 1500 and 1750 E-series and Australian versions used these engines.

With it thus proven that the E-series would work in inline RWD form as well as the transverse FWD layout that is more familiar, the hypothetical UK Marina would now follow the Australians' lead. This allows the venerable B-series to be discontinued and further rationalisation of the group's engine range to take place, leaving just the A and E-series families and the V8. The other difference would be that BL would emphasise the Allegro and Maxi-based Austin range as their core mainstream products to compete with Ford, Vauxhall and Rootes, while Morris would play second fiddle as a lower-volume alternative for particularly conservative private buyers and the fleet market.

Marina: the simple alternative for those who really didn't want a Maxi

MG

MG would become the group's sole brand for sports cars at the expense of Triumph, who would instead concentrate on the luxury performance saloon market in competition with BMW. The four and six-cylinder E-series from the Triumph Maxis, together with the Rover V8, would form the engine range for an MGB replacement that would become a full four-seater to compete head-to-head with the Ford Capri, while the Midget continued as a small roadster with A-series power.

The Triumph Lynx provides inspiration for a proper four-seat MGB replacement that was badly needed to compete with the Capri

Rover

While the SD1 was available with a 2600 six-cylinder engine, this was not the Australian-designed E6 but an all-new 2597cc unit developed by Triumph specifically for this car. It seems wasteful duplication having two unrelated engines of the same capacity, so here BL would follow the lead of their South African subsidiary Leykor, whose Rover 2600 (known as SDX rather than SD1 for some reason) used the larger version of the E6 with some success. Despite sharing the same engine, with its inline RWD layout, conventional suspension and hatchback body the SD1 would appeal to a different market from the FWD Vanden Plas and Triumph Maxi saloons, while higher-spec SD1s continued to use the Rover V8 as in reality.

The SD1 estate should have been produced to replace the big Triumphs

Land Rover

As happened in South Africa, the E6 engines could be adapted to produce more powerful petrol-engined Land Rovers. The Range Rover was a great success but was available only as a single model with the V8, so maybe one or both of the E6s could also be used to create an entry-level six-cylinder version that widened its appeal.

Could the E6 have also found a home in the Range Rover?

Jaguar

Given that Jaguar's independence within the group was zealously protected by Sir William Lyons and there was no major component sharing with the other brands, I see no reason to change this in the alternative scenario. Just like in real life, Jaguar would continue with the XJ series and their own design of straight-six and V12 engines, which would sit at the very top of the range above the Rovers and the Vanden Plas Maxi.

A Jaguar or Daimler Maxi is a step too far so the XJ series can stay as it was

So by the mid seventies the core BL range would look like this:

• Mini 850
• Mini 1000
• Austin Allegro 1100
• Austin Allegro 1300
• Triumph Herald (Allegro 1300 twin-carb)
• Austin Maxi 1500 saloon and hatch
• Austin Maxi 1750 saloon and hatch
• Triumph Vitesse (Maxi 1750 twin-carb saloon)
• Wolseley Six (Maxi 2200 saloon and hatch)
• Vanden Plas Princess (Maxi 2600 saloon)
• Triumph Vanguard (Maxi 2600 fuel-injected saloon)
• Rover SD1 2600 hatch and estate (with E6 engine)
• Rover SD1 3500 hatch and estate

These would be supplemented by the Morris Marina for the fleet market, MG sports cars, Land Rovers and Jaguars. Much of the wasteful duplication is removed, each marque has a more obvious position within the group hierarchy, and a whole range is built around the Maxi and the E-series engine for cost savings through component and platform sharing, something that is taken for granted today. Doesn't that sound a whole lot more logical and potentially successful than the confused mess of brands and models that existed in reality? If only BL management had taken such a view, but hindsight is a wonderful thing and no doubt they believed what they were doing was right at the time. There's no harm in dreaming of what could have been though!

There was no real need for the Princess and its place could have been taken by the Maxi