40 years ago this month, Sir Alec Issigonis, creator of Britain’s best-selling motoring icons, retired.

The creator of the original Mini, the Morris Minor, the Austin Maxi and Landcrab 1800 had reached the official BL retirement age of 65. And so, left full-time employment.

He was to remain on as a design consultant – indeed, reveals AROnline, at his retirement party, deputy MD George Turnbull joked: ‘Sir Alec would be doing exactly what he had been doing for the past three years. “But, I hope perhaps working slightly shorter hours “.’

This itself was a bending of official company rules, continues AROnline: semiretirement status was not an official category on the company books. “We have had to bend the rules because we do not believe that Sir Alec’s extraordinary talents have suddenly waned or dried up”.

Even so, it marked the end of a glittering career within the British motoring giant that was so large as a direct result of his talents (and arguably was not larger due to the lack of managerial control and focus of them).

It was also no way to treat a great man.

Issigonis as technical director

Issigonis had been made technical director in 1961 after winning worldwide plaudits for creating the Mini. However, in 1968, he asked to be relieved of day-to-day engineering duties. Charles Griffin took over development of the mainstream cars with Issigonis working in a forward-looking research capacity.

Why? Because Issigonis was becoming sidelined: design by committee was the new rule as BMC headed towards its merger with (takeover by?) Leyland, leaving him isolated and preferring to concentrate on his own special projects.

He was also politically weakened, through two great ideas that were flawed because of his stubbornness and thus failed in the marketplace. The 1800 and, in particular, the Maxi were good concepts hurt by a lack of focus on what customers wanted. They were too idealistic.

This worked for the Mini but, don’t forget, even Issigonis’ brilliant 1100/1300 was styled by a designer rather than simply designed by an engineer. How could BMC subsequently forget?

Hence the request to be relieved of his mainstream car duties. He wanted instead to work on his brilliant, uncompromised, far-sighted concept for a Mini replacement, the ingenious 9X. In his mind, this was the new Mini: bigger, better, smarter, cheaper, more profitable. A decade on, it was the car to revive the industry once again.

BL, as history tells us, singularly failed to spot the potential of this. Issigonis worked on it until his retirement, yet even a knighthood in 1969 couldn’t regain power at BL.

Indeed, many of BL head Lord Stokes’ team apparently blamed Issigninis for the decline of BL. As AROnline reports, the five millionth FWD BMC car was built in May 1971: a Mini Clubman. This was a notable achievement but one that also riled those within Lord Stokes’ team: 4.3 million of that 5 million total were Mini and ADO16 1100/1300 models.

Customers were simply not buying the more expensive (more profitable) Maxi and 1800 Landcrab FWD cars. Indeed this lack of profit for BMC was part of the reason it needed to be rescued by Leyland.

Issigonis leaves Britain’s biggest car company

A great career at Britain’s largest car company thus fizzled out as the new guard took over. Even Issigonis’ leaving gift seems rather mealy-mouthed: a no. 10 Meccano set. Fitting for a great man, sure, but shouldn’t such a key figure have been given something more significant, more substantial, besides?

40 years ago, Mr. Mini retired. One of Britain’s finest inventors was no longer able to influence British cars, despite his genius remaining bright.

It is to the eternal shame of BL that his power, expertise and impact effectively ceased in 1968 and ended for good in 1971. Mini 9X is the glittering example of what could have been…

• Would 9X have worked?
• Was weak management behind Issigonis’ mistakes?
• Does Issigonis deserve his reputation as an inventive engineering genius?

BMW’s involvement with the Olympic games is not a new event: nearly 40 years ago, it was again leading the charge at the Games of the XX Olympiad. 

Leading the charge, literally. Its fleet that time round was a series of orange BMW 1602 Elektro – pure EV cars that BMW had been developing since 1969.

These boasted some decent stats, given how they were pioneering modern-day electric cars. Despite a brace of 12v lead acid batteries, the motor was able to produce 43hp, and the range was more than enough to serve as a decent escort vehicle at the Games.

The orange 1602 Elektro even led the marathon and road walk events during the two-month Olympic Games event, suggesting the real-world range was 26 miles plus a decent safety margin… not bad for something using similar batteries to those in our cars today (check out the image – literally rows of car batteries…). The quoted range was 60km at a constant 50km/h.

Marking the start of BMW’s battery vehicle research programme, several more electric BMWs followed the 1602 Elektro through the years, culminating in the forthcoming launch of the i3 and i8. But it was back at the Olympic Games in 1972 that BMW’s EV aspirations first received global recognition.

How fitting that, 40 years on, the firm is back at the Games with a fleet that again includes electric vehicles: 200 MINI E and BMW 1 Series ActiveE will help make up the 4500-car fleet, which meets the sub-120g/km overall CO2 target set by LOCOG with ease.

Indeed, the green BMW and MINI fleet has seen BMW become a Tier One ‘Sustainability Partner’ for the 2012 London Olympics, no doubt aided, as board member Ian Robertson pointed out, by being voted Dow Jones’ most sustainable car company for five years in a row.

It says something for progress, though, that the chief reason for this big Olympic sustainability win is not the presence of EVs, but the fact 1842 320d EfficientDynamics will be used on the fleet. Yes, the 1602 Elektro showwd the world BMW could do zero emissions back in the 70s but, four decades on, it’s the low emissions of that car’s generational successor, the 3 Series, that gives BMW the real world win.

Seems even now, the world is not quite ready for electric cars. At least the Olympic effort to change minds is now underway…

London 2012 Olympics and BMW: the fleet

• 200 Electric Vehicles (MINI E and 1 Series ActiveE)
• 1842 320d EfficientDynamics (68.9mpg)
• 679 520d EfficientDynamics (62.8mpg)
• 20 5 Series ActiveHybrid (44.1mpg)
• 3 730Ld SE (41.5mpg)
• 6 MINI Cooper D Countryman (64.2mpg)
• 308 318d and 520d Touring EDs (62.8mpg/57.6mpg)
• 23 X3 and X5
• 30 on- andoOff-road motorcycles
• 400 BMW bicycles
• 971 Vans, MPVs and Minibuses

The home of William Morris needs saving – and the National Trust needs £600,000 to do so.

Nuffield Place is currently owned by Oxford Nuffield College. It has offered to donate it to the National Trust: but, despite the ubergenerous donation, £600k is still needed to secure its future.

The idea is to open it up once again to the public, as part of the National Trust estate – the cash sum is thus needed to renovate it, install visitor facilities and run through all the other necessary (expensive) processes.

Here’s where you come in: the National Trust is asking for donations, which you can make through the National Trust donations page.

OK… so, why save Nuffield Place?

The house near Henley-on-Thames was the home of William Morris – later Lord Nuffield – between 1933 and his death in 1963. Remarkably, it remains all-but unchanged – it is, says the National Trust, a rare example of a complete 1930s upper-middle class home.

Supporters say it is ripe for conversion into a working museum, one ideal for educational visits. More ambitiously, some see it, in time, becoming an unofficial offshoot of the National Heritage Centre in Gaydon. The cars would be at BMIHT: the lifestyle behind them, at Nuffield Place.

There’s also potential to extend its corporate use: fascinatingly, BMW Group has already said it is willing to hold management away-day meetings there, particularly those related to Lord Nuffield’s old Cowley plant (now MINI Oxford).

Basically, saving Nuffield Place would preserve a look into the home and lifestyle of a UK car industry giant, who has been shamefully forgotten and unrecognised up to now.

Who was Lord Nuffield?

William Morris was Morris Motor Company, whose achievements we all know well. Morris Motor Company was the Volkswagen of its day: in the 1920s, the Morris Cowley and Oxford duo alone represented 40% of all British car production. Morris was the industrial giant at the head of this powerhouse.

What’s less well known is Morris’ remarkable philanthropy. It is this generosity that the National Trust hopes saving Nuffield Place will bring to the public’s attention – because Morris was a very, very generous man indeed.

He founded the Nuffield Foundation in 1943, with a £10m endowment, charging it with advancing education and social welfare. He also founded Nuffield College, Oxford, and gave generously to many other good causes, too. He had no children: charity was his way of leaving a legacy.

Over his lifetime, he gave away £30m. An amazing sum… and all the more eye-opening when you realise that’s the equivalent of £11 billion in today’s money.

Yes, £11 billion.

He’s thus not only one of the world’s greatest automotive entrepreneurs, says the National Trust, but he’s also one of Britain’s greatest modern benefactors. Morris was a pretty standout industry captain, a fact simply not all that well known by non-car fans.

The idea is for Nuffield Place to become the flag-bearer to tell people about this.

Morris Motor Company today

Morris did what he always vowed he wouldn’t do by the time of his death in 1963 – joined forces with Austin. After his death, the company slowly declined, with the name being phased out unceremoniously in 1984.

The final Morris car was the Ital; the last Morris made was a Metro van.

Currently, the Morris name is owned by SAIC – which, in further irony, is now making MGs under the MG Motor brand at Longbridge, former HQ of Morris’ arch-rival, Herbert Austin…

Morris deserves to be honoured much better than he is. Here’s hoping Nuffield Place is saved. It’s not only a fascinating 1930s time capsule, but it’s also a very significant piece of British motor industry history that gives an insight into an historical giant.

Spread the word: Save Nuffield Place. And here’s more reasons why:

+ June 2011: What is Land Rover doing at the moment?

+ MG insight ensures insurance advantage

+ Why Victoria Beckham is right for Range Rover

The MINI Coupe was an in-the-metal visual challenge for me last week in Austria.

The swirly tape didn’t help. Covering the bit that’s different, emphasising the bit that’s the same. Above the shoulderline, it is far-out different. Below, it is a MINI Hatch*.

Baffled? Blindingly. I didn’t get it. But, wait.

On the MINI ‘mood board’ at the Austrian first drive was a bit of history. MINI is very keen on all this, as BMW is committed to fill the gaps good old British production planning neglected.

What was there? The Mini that never, officially, was. The Mini Coupe. Well, Mini Broadspeed, actually. And Mini Marcos. And Mini Midas. And Mini Unipower (one I’d never even heard of).

All were, yes, Mini Coupes: more sporting-style versions of the Mini saloon, giving the looks to match the spicy handling. All boasted a rear side profile almost identical to the MINI Coupe.

Look at the Mini Unipower (thanks, @andrewnoakes) Then, the MINI Coupe. Now has the penny dropped?

You don’t have to love either. You can idolise one and despise the other if you wish. Just give credit to BMW. The MINI Coupe is just a wee bit quirky and leftfield, a niche-within-niche, that proves, finally, MINI isn’t just about playing it safe with more blends of the same.

A Mini Coupe, until now, never was, but should have been. Thanks to BMW, it finally is – paying pleasing homage to the original Mini Coupes of all those years ago.

Which, to me, makes it that little bit cooler than I first thought. Do I get it now? You’ve got it.

*Make that MINI Convertible – the two share underpinnings, for that’s the only way the MINI Coupe could have such an open rear deck. So open, in fact, it additional strengthening over even the Cabrio (behind the rear seats is 25kg’s worth of reinforcement).

MINI is helping pay off the economic deficit that is preoccupying Cameron and Clegg’s coalition Government.

How? By making lots of cars and exporting 4 in 5 of them.

Last year, Plant Oxford made 216,000 MINIs (a car every 80 seconds). With more than 170,000 exported, this added up to a huge amount of cash flowing into the country.

How much? Try north of £2bn… that’s the total worth of MINI’s exports last year.

Even better, many of the bits used to make the cars were sourced from UK firms. MINI’s 40-odd UK components suppliers were paid £1bn for the bits they sold.

This all boils down to a total contribution of £1bn to the UK GDP, each and every year. As Jurgen Hedrich, Plant Oxford MD explained, ‘that is 1 percent of all UK manufacturing output…’

1 percent! Not bad, aye?

Mind you, we’ve still got some way to go before we match other nations. Germany exports 86 percent of its manufacturing, while China exports more than 90 percent. The UK, in its entirety, exports just 60 percent…

At least MINI, along with other car makers such as Nissan, Vauxhall and Toyota, are trying to up that.

+ MINI eyes on Nissan Juke

+ MINI not so mini? Blame the photographer!

+ MINI theory on two nation future

Citroen DS3 new car prices start at £12,100. Back in 2004, the Citroen C2 range started at £7300.

That’s a £4800 difference. OK, the C2 was a 1.1 L (holiday-rental spec), whereas the DS3 is a 1.4 VTi 95 DSign (first car on a PCP spec). A more relevant comparison is a 2004 1.4 C2 Design: that started at £8600. Narrowing the difference to a ‘mere’ £3500.

Why the comparisons? Because it’s struck me: the DS3 is actually a slice of premium-pricing genius by Citroen, that shows just what smart marketing can achieve.

Remember what the C2 was: but a 3-door version of the Citroen C3, launched in 2002 as a successor to the Citroen Saxo. It had unique body panels but the interior was largely shared with the C3, and the mechanicals beneath were pure C3.

It had to sell for less than the Citroen C3 because it was a less practical car: 3 doors can rarely command as much, particularly in the price-sensitive supermini sector.

Not that much less, though. With the inevitable incentives added on too, the C2 risked ending up going the same way as the Citroen Saxo – special edition overload, piled high and sold cheap, using the Tesco principals of making money through volume, not margin.

And so to the DS3. It is, in effect, a Citroen C2, reinvented: shared platform, shared interior, bespoke body panels. Citroen has already equipped the factory (and the body part suppliers) to economically produce two distinct body variants, already secured the supply chain to feed the components, already established the logistics to ensure just-in-time parts are delivered on time, to the right car.

Making the DS3 won’t cost it that more than making the C2: it’s still based on the C3, still shares commonality in the expensive parts. Adding premium detailing inside and out adds negligible cost compared to the savings being made elsewhere.

But who, really, is aware of the link? Who looks at a DS3 and thinks ‘C3′? Instead, how many look at the DS3 and thinks ‘MINI rival’? Citroen’s achieved something of a masterstroke with the DS3, giving it a proper premium rival in a way the C2 could never hope to be.

But there’s more. The prices. Despite all what’s been suggested here, the DS3 STILL sells for less than the comparable C3: the saving’s about £1k, spec for spec. That 1.4 VTi 95 DS3 DSign costs £12,100; a 1.4 VTi 95 C3 VTR+ costs £13,790. 1.6 VTi 120 DS3 DStyle? £14,100. A 1.6 VTi 120 C3 Exclusive costs £15,190.

So buyers will STILL feel like they’re getting a bargain, despite the clear upmarket status of the DS3. It’s pitched exactly right to appear premium without actually being premium-priced, hitting the sweet spot in its brand image ascendancy.

For an extra dose of brilliance, consider this: a 1.6 MINI One costs £13,400. A 1.6 MINI First costs £11,810. The DS3 is both cheaper AND dearer than its chief rival – the cat amongst the pigeons of direct model comparisons that ensures any value judgements are utterly muddled. Quite brilliant.

Let’s just hope Citroen doesn’t get greedy and seek extra volume with a cheaper 75hp 1.4 DS3 DBasic or similar. There’s a premium platform to be built upon here, guys, that you’ve quite brilliantly formulated from nothing. Customers like it: the surprise-and-delight factor abounds within it. Be sure not to lose it.

+ Citroen DS3 Racing past

+ Journo in petrol engine love shock

+ First Impression: Citroen C3 2010

HOW do you make a MINI One engine? Make a MINI Cooper engine and detune it. Simples.

It’s true, as well. All 1.6-litre MINI engines, be they in the First, the One or the Cooper, are now exactly the same. They’re built on the same line and have all the same bits inside.

A MINI engineer from UK build centre Hams Hall told me this is for production efficiency. By standardising all the parts, it actually works out cheaper than having bespoke variations for each version.

So, although a MINI First engine may thus seem more ‘valuable’ than a Cooper engine, it’s actually much more efficient for MINI and all its buyers alike to do it this way.

Besides, the intelligence is in the ECU mapping, anyway. Releasing the power in the Cooper is more than just switching a different number or two in a computer. That’s where your extra Cooper value comes in – knowing brains have been boffing-ing away in giving you the extra value, but in a driveable and linear way. You’re buying into someone’s IP.

It’s the two other versions that really benefit, though. See, the old MINI First and One had 1.4-litre engines. ‘People complained they lacked torque – with the 1.6-litre, we’ve filled in the gaps, but the longer gear ratios also mean it’s more efficient, too.’

Does beg one obvious question, though. How long will it be before Superchips-like companies offer a Cooper-creating First tuning kit for the MINI?

There’ll be distinct Porsche crossovers if they do: back-to-basics Cooper Club Sport, anyone?

+ MINI is not the only firm doing this – can you name any others?
+ How does MINI’s approach contrast with the downsizing trend?
+ Could future MINIs move back to smaller engines with turbo to fill the torque hole?

MINI isn’t mini anymore – you don’t have to hunt on forums for long to find this grumble.

Indeed not: the current hatchback is 3699mm, which is far larger than the original. Just as, well, a Ford Mondeo is 4788mm long, whilst the first Cortina was 4274mm (and 300mm narrower!).

It’s also true to say the fact Mini was frozen in a 1959 mould for 50 years, rather than developed and progressed along with its peers, accentuates this impression of big bones.

However, MINI designer Gert Hildebrand explains part of it actually IS an impression. ‘Our cars always look bigger in photos, due to their rounded shapes.’

The bulbous lines and details of MINI appear disproportionate in shots. ‘This is why we always try to get relativity in images – another car, a person, and so on.’

French makers love getting beach ball-wielding people in images for traditional reasons. MINI does too, but it seems the reasoning is a bit more purposeful.

There are other tricks to make it look smaller too, though. ‘Wheel-to-body relation is important. This is why we have 5 Series sized wheels on a MINI! Big wheels make a bigger car look smaller. The wheel is an important factor.

‘Front overhang is also important – for the MINI, it should be as short as possible. It’s much more expensive to package mechanical components here, but the MINI’s front overhang proportions are unique and have to be retained.

‘Besides,’ adds Hildebrand, ‘it also has benefits for the chassis guys.’ It’s not often designers and engineers find themselves united, but the need to retain mini-ness seems to have achieved that here (even if there may still be a division over wheel size).

Certainly, it’s a better solution than only selling MINIs in black. Or, Gok Wan, does this only make people slimmer?

MINI theory on two nation future

Marina and the Ford Escort

Advice from Ford’s Walter Hayes

MINI is going head to head with Nissan this autumn as an all new car sector fast hots up.

The small crossover market is one both makers hope will bring big sales gains for them – but the route to entry for both has been rather different.

MINI, of course, stokes the most controversy. This is the biggest MINI ever, the first 5-door, the closest a MINI has ever got to the 4 metre long threshold.

Nissan, though, is coming at it from the other way. It’s enjoyed amazing success with the fine Qashqai family crossover; now it’s bringing similar thinking down to the supermini market.

In the Juke and the Countryman, the two firms meet at last. Yup, it’s the first time a Nissan has ever eyeballed a MINI!

It’s a significant meet in two ways – one, in showing the desire of BMW Group to win extra sales volume for MINI, further strengthening its future. But, two, it is also a measure of how the Nissan brand has come on from its Almera-riddled past.

In recent years, we’ve been obsessed with premium, and questioned what volume makers can do to respond. Nissan’s answer is to do things premium makes can’t – go avant-garde with design, be bold, design smart and affordable cars for head-turning hip in the higher-volume market.

MINI can be bolder than the premium norm but it’s still got heritage to follow. Nissan has none of that.

Bizarre thing is, though, as MINI moves up and Nissan moves down in size, so MINI’s moving mainstream and Nissan’s edging premium. One imitates other, and the result is – well, the perfect twin test meet.

The proof comes this autumn: premium doing mainstream or volume going avant-garde? It would be great to hear some marketing experts offer their view before we journos stick our oar in…

+ What do you think about the MINI Countryman and the Nissan Juke?
+ Do you think the two cars are natural rivals?
+ What’s your opinion on how MINI and Nissan should market them?

MINI theory on two nation future

iPhone App from Rolls-Royce: best in the world?

BBC comes up trumps for MG Rover

MINI is expanding vehicle production abroad with the new Austrian-built Countryman.

The model is assembled by Magna Steyr in Graz, using a production line to be shared with a new small BMW crossover model. They will use capacity vacated by the BMW X3’s move to Spartanburg, US.

Controversial stuff? What about MINI UK? Is this MINI losing its British soul? Not a bit, argues MINI designer Gert Hildebrand. Rather, it is ‘a new family member.’

MINI will always remain a volume British-built car, he explained. ‘Its Britishness is at the very heart of it.’ And this future is going to be centered on Oxford – which now appears to have gained an official ‘profile’ within MINI.

‘The Oxford Family will always keep the core values of the car. The Countryman is a bigger brother, with which we can go further. We can develop things with it than we can’t with the Oxford Family.’ Hence, 5 doors, 4-wheel drive, VW Golf-like dimensions. All the things the Mini never offered.

Back to the UK though, Hildebrand constantly refers to the Porsche 911 when discussing the Oxford Family MINI. Which means the Countryman, and no doubt other variants too, will be MINI’s equivalent of the Porsche Cayenne and Porsche Panamera. (Lest we forget, the Cayenne is actually built by VW, in Slovakia…)

The differentiation extends to a completely different colour palette for the MINI Countryman: ‘Not a single colour is shared with Plant Oxford. This car must be optically different from the hatchback, to recognise its bigger brother status.’ Nothing like using colour for instant differentiation…

And for those who say the very idea of a non-mini MINI is anathema, Hildebrand references his favourite Issigonis car – the 1100. ‘That was related to the classic Mini, but was recognisably nothing other than an 1100.’ The 1100 was, of course, also designed – by Pininfarina – rather than defined by Issigonis.

‘With the Countryman, we have an historical joint to it.’ Rather this than some sort of spurious historical link to wood-laden Travellers…

+ Are you happy with the Oxford Family definition of MINI?
+ What are your first impressions of the Countryman?
+ Do you agree with Hildebrand’s interpretation of the 1100 link?

Marina and the Ford Escort

5 facts on the MGF

How Ford would have made a Rover