Topic: Motoring Memories: The decline of the British motor industry

[Autos_Editor]

Following the Second World War, England was the world's leading car exporting nation, but for a variety of reasons, including militant labour unions, nationalization, and an inability to adapt, Britain lost its leadership by the 1970s, laments Bill Vance.

Read More...

[Gardiner Westbound]

Sounds like the Detroit Three. Accepting good enough instead of excellence put them in deep doo-doo. They focused on pleasing Wall Street, maximizing executive bonuses and buying off the union bosses; customers not so much. Cars were reduced to cheap, nasty crapmobiles; hard plastic interiors, flimsy switchgear and body metal you could dent by looking at it hard. Mechanical Mean Time to Failure (MTTF) engineered to coincide with warranty expiry made parts and repairs cash cows. Weary of early failures and warranty denials consumers rebelled. Millions hold them in contempt. Most won't look at their wares.

[Sival]

Nationalization had nothing to do with the decline of the british automobile industry, it happened only AFTER it had gone bankrupt. Nationalization just postponed its decline into irrelevancy and allowed Britain to salvage what was worth salvaging of it.

It must be pointed out that Britain had a strong automobile sector after WWII in no small part due to the fact that it was one of the only countries with any kind of industry left in Western Europe. France, Germany and Italy had been ravaged by wars waged on their land, their industries plundered or bombed to oblivion. Britain on the other hand, though it had had some bombing, didn't have anywhere near the sort of devastation the rest of Europe had. Hence why the British industry had a strong headstart, but arrogance followed and when the competition from the recovering other European countries emerged, the British car industry didn't react quickly. Gardiner is right when he points out the comparison with the Big 3 who were taken off-guard by the arrival of Asian competition and have lost a lot of their luster since then.

[PJungnitsch]

Talking once with a former auto plant worker in New Zealand, who'd been there both when the factory produced British cars and later when it was taken over by Honda.

He said that under British ownership if an engine came back under warranty it was just tossed in the garbage.

With Honda it was taken apart and studied meticulously until they figured out what went wrong.

[tpl]

Nationalization had nothing to do with the decline of the british automobile industry, it happened only AFTER it had gone bankrupt. Nationalization just postponed its decline into irrelevancy and allowed Britain to salvage what was worth salvaging of it.

It must be pointed out that Britain had a strong automobile sector after WWII in no small part due to the fact that it was one of the only countries with any kind of industry left in Western Europe. France, Germany and Italy had been ravaged by wars waged on their land, their industries plundered or bombed to oblivion. Britain on the other hand, though it had had some bombing, didn't have anywhere near the sort of devastation the rest of Europe had. Hence why the British industry had a strong headstart, but arrogance followed and when the competition from the recovering other European countries emerged, the British car industry didn't react quickly. Gardiner is right when he points out the comparison with the Big 3 who were taken off-guard by the arrival of Asian competition and have lost a lot of their luster since then.

Certainly the unions had a lot to do with it. Several old fashioned "craft" unions and demarcation disputes all the time.  All helped along by that particularly British affliction of "class" where the management and the workers had no common ground or even spoke to each other if they could avoid it.    A lot of these attitudes came from the "dirty thirties". Finally, several year of Labour governments made things worse in their own way as did the Conservative governments in another way.  Lack of investment was the cherry on top.


I am not so sure about the Asian car influence.  Asian cars were under quotas certainly when I left in early '75 but the French and German cars ( and even Fiats!!!)  were taking market share.

[Sival]

I didn't mention the unions, I suppose that the bad labor relations had a lot to do with problems regarding inertia. At the same time, I think we shouldn't blame only unions, labor relations depend on both unions and the company's administration. At the very least, strong unions don't seem to have hurt the Germans much, even if they sit at the table where decisions are taken regarding the company.

I agree that Asian cars didn't influence much, I only mentioned the Asian cars in the context of the Big 3, ie the American car industry. The Asian cars did to the American industry what the French, German and Italian cars did to the British industry, expose its weaknesses and lack of innovation and steal its market share.

[Power2Weight]

I lived and worked in the UK until 76, I was brought up in a trade union family. My father worked in both the auto and aircraft industries and as a young man I sold British Leyland cars for almost 5 years. This does not make me an expert but here's my take on the British car industry.
From the manufacturers side.
Design ranged from strokes of total genius to total stupidity, often the latter was more common. i.e. the Mini to the Allegro.
Technical development in most areas was non existent, they kept the A and B series engines for close to 45 years. Yes they did develop it in during that time but it was still a gas guzzling push rod lump. Rather than develop new models for export they slapped on rubber bumpers, raised ride heights and removed 1 carburetor further diluting the models popularity.
Unions had already been instrumental in the demise of the British motorcycle industry so you would have thought they may have got wiser. Wisdom and long term worker protection had little to do with their actions. Union leaders suffered from megalomania and were out to bring down the establishment. Unions may not have been solely to blame for the death of the British car industry but they can certainly lay claim to 50% of the blame. Maggie Thatcher was born too late.
As for the Asian Invasion, yes they dumped thousands of cars in the UK but British manufacturers did nothing to offset this. They sat back thinking people would get tired of their 2 year old Datsuns and Hondas rotting in the driveway. But the Japanese got smart and learned by their mistakes and soon left the British cars far behind in areas of quality and longevity.
Yes I see parallels here in N. America, again both "sides" management/unions are too blame. Certainly GM and Chrysler are far from being out of the woods, unfortunately I don't see any change in strategy that will help either company survive.

[tpl]

Rather than develop new models for export they slapped on rubber bumpers, raised ride heights and removed 1 carburetor further diluting the models popularity.

Those three things were done for US emission controls and bumper standards.   The carb thing was because a SU carb just could NOT be controlled for emissions because of its design.   You forgot the 3 windshield wiper blades  on some models to wipe sufficient of the screen on LHD models... easier than redesigning the linkages I guess.

[Power2Weight]

Rather than develop new models for export they slapped on rubber bumpers, raised ride heights and removed 1 carburetor further diluting the models popularity.

Those three things were done for US emission controls and bumper standards.   The carb thing was because a SU carb just could NOT be controlled for emissions because of its design.   You forgot the 3 windshield wiper blades  on some models to wipe sufficient of the screen on LHD models... easier than redesigning the linkages I guess.

You are correct but because of these stop gap measures to satisfy the US all countries got the rubber bumpers. Cars like the MGB were already loong in the tooth and should have been re-designed while there was still interest in the model.
You cannot rest on your laurels.

[Paul Noel]

Contempt for the marketplace; refusal to learn; indifference; socialist workforce; shareholders'  plundering greed; lack of adequate R & D; shoddy workmanship; you name it.
From Minis to Jags, the term "British cars" became a by-word for junk, and still is  --  look at the Jags , even the more recent X Types and S types, and the XJs. They never learn. Land Rover is still at the bottom of the heap quality wise. The only hope for British makes is to move production to India where jobs are valued and quality is appreciated. Enough of the "I'm all right, Jack" mentality.

[No H2O]

Taken from the book "Whatever Happened to the British Motorcycle Industry"...

"Most motorcyclists love to spend their Sunday mornings taking off the cylinder head and re-seating the valves."
Donald Heather, director of Norton, 1957.

Little wonder they didn't survive. I guess he wasn't a motorcyclist.

Lucas, prince of darkness. I always like that one.

[Power2Weight]

Taken from the book "Whatever Happened to the British Motorcycle Industry"...

"Most motorcyclists love to spend their Sunday mornings taking off the cylinder head and re-seating the valves."
Donald Heather, director of Norton, 1957.

Little wonder they didn't survive. I guess he wasn't a motorcyclist.

Lucas, prince of darkness. I always like that one.

Don't forget "British guys like warm beer because Lucas make refrigerators" which of course they don't.

Having said that it has been my experience both in the UK and in Canada that most British car electrical woes stem from poor connections and bad grounds or in the Brit vernacular bad earths rather than component failure.

[safristi]

..she fainted when he said "I'm buying a Lotus 7 honey............."...............

[Canada Stig]

Contempt for the marketplace; refusal to learn; indifference; socialist workforce; shareholders'  plundering greed; lack of adequate R & D; shoddy workmanship; you name it.
From Minis to Jags, the term "British cars" became a by-word for junk, and still is  --  look at the Jags , even the more recent X Types and S types, and the XJs. They never learn. Land Rover is still at the bottom of the heap quality wise. The only hope for British makes is to move production to India where jobs are valued and quality is appreciated. Enough of the "I'm all right, Jack" mentality.

Land Rover, bottom of the heap?  I agree with most everything else, having worked for British Leyland, later Jaguar Canada, for the better part of a decade, but today's Range Rovers in particular are bulletproof and still coveted around the world for their combination of reliability, off road capability, and on-road manners (and I no longer work for Jaguar/Land Rover, I actually work for a competitor of theirs now...).   Unfortunately cheap discounted versions like the Disco and Freelander have sullied the brand and were pretty lousy quality wise. 

Careful about Land Rover/Jaguar's new owners - Tata motors makes the world's cheapest car so I doubt "quality" is something they do better than other manufacturers.

And on the British Cars are crap theme - tell me you wouldn't take an Aston Martin DB9 over just about anything else in the world....and they're still British.