Reply to: Rolls-Royce and Mini owner BMW sees profits quadruple

[lilelvis2000]

The first series of The Professionals used Leyland cars.



"Turmeric yellow" being another term for dogtulip brown I suspect.

Ahh yes, forgot they had merged the companies together then....I noted one of the Capri's they had in the series went for £20,000 in 2009.

Shame my 1800 will never get that high..the previous owner being a retired man from Blackpool.

[zeitghost]

Yes I have been looking around to buy a 2000s and quite hard to find. Plenty of parts as well. Parts for my 1800 cost a mint. £250 for a wing.

Yeah I think there is a reason you don't see too many BMC cars in the TV shows of the era....as they kept breaking down.

The first series of The Professionals used Leyland cars.

However, in the first (1977) series, the cars used were mainly those of British Leyland, including a Rover SD1, a Rover P6, a Leyland Princess, a Triumph 2000, a Triumph Dolomite Sprint and a Triumph TR7. The SD1, a turmeric yellow 3500, bore the registration MOO 229R; in The New Avengers John Steed drove an identical-looking car with the number MOC 229P.

The producers of The Professionals DVDs have speculated that these may in fact have been one and the same car.

However, reliability problems with the cars and BL requiring them back to give to the motoring press was causing disruption to filming.

Midway through the first series, the supplier was then switched to Ford after they offered to provide vehicles for the production crew as well as for on screen use.

The first Ford to be prominent was a black 1600 Capri used by another CI5 agent (Tommy Macay).

"Turmeric yellow" being another term for dogtulip brown I suspect.

[lilelvis2000]

A relative had a Princess. Nice car to drive, excellent at towing. Unreliable as heck. That relative never bought a British car again.

The depreciation was criminal. Nobody wanted to take one off your hands.

The local taxi firm got shut of them ASAP, and that should tell you something.

A colleague had an example of it's successor the Ambassador. He absolutely hated it.

The Triumph Dolomite Sprint was good, as were the Triumph 2000 and 2500s. The injection version of the latter went like sh!te off a stick. Don't really know why they discontinued those.

Yes I have been looking around to buy a 2000s and quite hard to find. Plenty of parts as well. Parts for my 1800 cost a mint. £250 for a wing.

Yeah I think there is a reason you don't see too many BMC cars in the TV shows of the era....as they kept breaking down.

[zeitghost]

**I wouldn't include the Triumph Mayflower in with the quality cars.

TRIUMPH Mayflower | car specs | octane

Stone me, it was worse than I thought.

Top speed, flat out down hill with the wind behind it, a probably terrifying 63 mph.

[Sysman]

Yes, but it's best to sell the car first to get those services, spare parts, upgrades, replacements next...

As an example, the early Ford Escorts didn't make a profit on manufacturing, but once they were out there as a best seller, the spare parts market made tons. Not to mention all the other companies selling tuning kits and whatnot off the back of the Escort's rallying success.

[Sysman]

Heeyyyyyy. My '72 1800 takes great offence to that remark! However I would agree the Marina, Maxi and anything after that (except maybe the Princess) were utter crap and never should have been made.

A relative had a Princess. Nice car to drive, excellent at towing. Unreliable as heck. That relative never bought a British car again.

The depreciation was criminal. Nobody wanted to take one off your hands.

The local taxi firm got shut of them ASAP, and that should tell you something.

A colleague had an example of it's successor the Ambassador. He absolutely hated it.

The Triumph Dolomite Sprint was good, as were the Triumph 2000 and 2500s. The injection version of the latter went like sh!te off a stick. Don't really know why they discontinued those.

[zeitghost]

How do you define "decent"? They make desirable good looking cars (I mean Range Rovers here), perhaps their reliability is still tulip, however their customer base abroad who buy expensive Range Rovers won't be driving them for 10 years.

Way back in the mysts of tyme, there were separate companies, Rover, Jaguar, Standard Triumph, which made good quality cars** more often than crap ones.

Then the Liebour Govermint in the 1960s decided that they should all be joined together to make worse ones.

Eventually, JaguarRoverTriumph was joined to the abortion that was BMC (aka AustinMorris) to produce poor quality cars that no one wanted.

Then it was called British Leyland.

And eventually AustinRover, then Rover, then it went bust.

Which proves that goverments know feckall about making cars.

Or about much at all really.

Other than taxing people to death*.

*And taxing people once they've died, come to that.

**I wouldn't include the Triumph Mayflower in with the quality cars.

[lilelvis2000]

It must be said that AustinRoverLeylandBMCJaguarRoverTriumph never managed to make a decent car between the lot of them.

Which was a bit of a contrast to the decent cars* they made before being combined together.

*Apart from BMCAustinMorris of course which never managed to make a decent car later than about 1959.

Heeyyyyyy. My '72 1800 takes great offence to that remark! However I would agree the Marina, Maxi and anything after that (except maybe the Princess) were utter crap and never should have been made.

[AtW]

It must be said that AustinRoverLeylandBMCJaguarRoverTriumph never managed to make a decent car between the lot of them.

How do you define "decent"? They make desirable good looking cars (I mean Range Rovers here), perhaps their reliability is still tulip, however their customer base abroad who buy expensive Range Rovers won't be driving them for 10 years.

[Fred Bloggs]

Similar story at Bentley too in Crewe. VW have been good for Bentley, the factory still has a very good craft skills base even if much of the vehicles are now imported and assembled in the UK.

[ThomasSoerensen]

There are still unions there.

I'd say the difference is management - it takes longer term view.

It is amazing to see how they succeed in spite of the unions.

[zeitghost]

Why bother making good cars that can sell around the world when you can trade hot air?

It must be said that AustinRoverLeylandBMCJaguarRoverTriumph never managed to make a decent car between the lot of them.

Which was a bit of a contrast to the decent cars* they made before being combined together.

*Apart from BMCAustinMorris of course which never managed to make a decent car later than about 1959.

[AtW]

Under UK ownership they would never have survived. The unions had such a grip on them that they would be history.

There are still unions there.

I'd say the difference is management - it takes longer term view.

[PRC1964]

I'm glad the UK offloaded / sold / disregarded those brands

Under UK ownership they would never have survived. The unions had such a grip on them that they would be history.

We can be nostalgic about the brand names, but the name is all we have left to trade on, any engineering skills have been lost.

[AtW]

I thought services were supposed to make us rich.

Yes, but it's best to sell the car first to get those services, spare parts, upgrades, replacements next...