Hi Barrie:
As is typical, car companies built to the demand and the historical
expectation of the customer. American pragmatists above all things wanted
it cheap and simple but expensive-looking and stylish. Couple this with
environmental and geographic realities and you get two inherently different
types of automobiles.
The Cadillacs and Chryslers of the '50s were much better cars than anything
being built anywhere in the world - for the purpose for which they were
intended. A Rolls Royce in America - except to those to whom traditional
British automobiles appealed - was an incredibly overpriced, poky,
underpowered and old fashioned-looking car. Why would anyone pay twice or
three times the price of a Cadillac - Standard of the World - to own one?
They were the stuff of urban legends but 99.9% of Americans never seriously
considered that they might actually buy one. The Rolls never even had fins
for goodness sake. With apologies to Orwell, "New - Good. Old - Bad".
Bristol, AC, Daimler, Alvis and Lagonda must fall into the same categories.
Americans would only pay for novelties which made life easier. There was
no interest in hand made, wood and aluminum. People kept cars for one or
two years. New was better. Underneath, all of those cars exept the
Bristol, were veritable triumphs of '20s and '30s construction and
mechanical practice and were typical of what I have said in my earlier post.
These cars were a hard sell in England as they were priced in a range for
the very wealthy and hardly count as "automobiles" but rather as "rich
men's status symbols". As an example, my Lagonda 3 Litre in 1953 cost more
than 3 Cadillacs and it was only half the car. If featured a load of
"advanced" features such as four-wheel independent suspension, inboard drum
brakes and a DOHC six cylinder engine. It was also seriously underpowered,
poor handling, overweight and boring-looking. It lacked any creature
comforts such as power steering, air conditioning and power windows, while
it seated only four comfortably, had a small trunk, poor heater and poor
visibility. It wasn't offered with an automatic transmission and was only
available with right hand drive. Yes it had leather and wood and aluminum,
but so did many other cars at half or 1/3 the money. For that money, one
could have bought two XK 120s and an Autin Devon. In America, people paid
for the names they knew and they also knew what that name said about them.
The MIni was a popular car where conditions warranted. In England it was
popular for two reasons. It was cheap and it was economical. The same
could be said for the majority of the cars sold in Britain. If the Mini
had cost twice as much and got half the economy, it wouldn't be remembered
today. The bonuses of great handling and excellent power to weight ratio
would not have been discovered. It was a car of youth and there was a
whole new generation which learned to love it - for those reasons.
Minis were popular in North America for the same reasons and sold to much
the same group. The "engineering" was not brilliant but was an ingenious
solution given the restrictions of the development funds available.
However it was not built to be serviced, except with great difficulty, and
was too noisy for anyone but the most determined. I have just traded mine
for a Jensen and am shedding no tears.
The XKs were a wonderful automobile - due to styling and performance. They
had all of the Jaguar faults. They looked good but underneath were cheap
and nasty with a terrible penchant for rust. If there was a corner to be
cut - where it didn't show - Bill Lyons was out there cutting it. The cars
- especially the 120 - were cramped and noisy with poor heating and
ventilation. As to roadster tops - the less said the better. Remember
that a new 120 cost more than a Cadillac, Chrysler or Lincoln in those
years. They were sports cars and were all alone in a market place - which
loved them - but were again, toys for the rich - as were the American
"sports cars" of the mid-fifties. Remember that in 1953, The Buick Skylark
and Cadillac El Dorado were sold as "sports cars" - as was the Ford
Thunderbird in '55.
John
>John,
>
>I agree with most of what you say. I was continually frustrated by the
>managers/workers conflict in the 50s and 60s. But it is interesting to
>compare the products of the USA with those of Britain. What USA cars would
>you stack against the Rolls Royce, Bristol, AC, XK120-150, Daimler, Alvis,
>Lagonda, the Mini, etc?
>
>At 06:51 PM 2/18/01 -0500, John T. Blair wrote:
>>At 10:22 AM 2/18/01 -0700, John McEwen wrote:
>>
>> >The difference is engineering. There were few if any professional
>> >automotive engineers involved with the automobile industry in Britain
>> >during the formative years, a situation which generally persisted until the
>> >end of the automobile industry in Britain.....
>>
>>John,
>>
>>I tried to email you off-line but for some reason, my ISP wouldn't
>>accept your email address.
>>
>>
>>Excellent!!! A great read. Have you thought about writing a book?
>>And the only major independents are still in the UK I think, Morgan,
>>Marcos, and possibly TVR.
>>
>>John
>>
>>
>>John T. Blair WA4OHZ email: jblair@exis.net
>>Va. Beach, Va Phone: (757) 495-8229
>>
>>48 TR1800 48 #4 Midget 65 Morgan 4/4 Series V
>> 75 Bricklin SV1 77 Spitfire 71 Saab Sonett III
>>
>>Morgan: www.team.net/www/morgan
>>Bricklin: www.bricklin.org
>
>
>
>Regards
>Barrie Robinson
>barrier@bconnex.net
|