LocostUSA.com

I was watching a Top Gear re-run the other night and it was the episode where the three set out to buy old cars produced by British Leyland companies. The episode reinforced the typical stereotypes about British cars (poorly made, unreliable, etc) but it seemed like a few good cars slipped through the cracks.

It got me thinking about which parent company was worse: British Leyland or Chrysler?

Discuss!

Well I was the first to vote so its 100 percent BL........and it really shouldnt change much.

I voted for BL, but 'literally so': BL was a worse company than Chrysler. But if my Dodge Dakota is stacked up against Brit cars that I grew up with, I do wonder. But ... most of those cars were pre-BL: Standard Vanguard, pre-BMC Austins and Morris', or BMC Morris travellers or Austin Westminsters. My dad did have one BL car, a Marina, which did seem to be something of a low point in automobile technology. Just how many old parts could you repurpose in a new product?

To recall an earlier post somewhere, I did admit that I thought more highly of a Renault 5 that I had in England in the 70s, that I do of my Dakota. Now theres an inflamatory statement, especially since Ducelier makes Lucas look good.

This isn't a poll...It's a pass/fail car-guy test.

I am not sure which is worse, but I do know that when I turned 16(1978), my dad sold the 67 RS/SS 327 4sp conv and bought a 1967 MG MGB GT. My dad was a smart man. I am still alive because of that move and I drove that car for ten years and the only two items that were original when I sold the car was the steering column and the wire harness. Here is what owning a BMC car taught me. I became an [SPAMMER] early when I found out that you could buy a parts car and fix your car and still make money on the leftover parts. I became wiz with electrical diagnoses just keeping the car running (lots of stories here). I became real fluent at rebuilding the 1800cc motor, just about every 365 days, some were junk yard rebuilds and some were high dollar rebuilds but in the end they would only last about a year. I would drive this car like a mad man out in the country all the time, and it was not unusual to come home with clinging of broken spokes from some of my cornering. I did finally wise up and replace the spoke wheels with disc wheel, but not until I had destroyed at least three sets of used wheels (refer to parting out cars).I became familiar with body shop tools when the typical rust set in and I learned what it takes to build a car when the body was just to shot to repair and I picked up a solid shell and transferred all the parts from one car to the other. To summarize, because of BMC I became car guy that can read a wire diagram, rebuild mechanical stuff (starters to 14 to 1 motors) and do bodywork, I guess you could say that I am permanently damaged:)
Raced a bugeye sprite for 13 years in the SCCA midwest division and I have been British free for the last decade!!!!!!!


And the current project looks like this:

Great story Tony.

I have a ten year old son, I should probably start buying old MGB's soon...

I would expect that anyone who loves M.G.s hates BL for what they did to the M.G. That's how I always felt.

Tony
I think I bought that same 67 MG GT. In 5 yrs I had to rebuild the trans three times and engine was rebuilt twice. In Michigan I just could not keep up with the rust. Dave W

I'm going with BL.
They only existed from 68-86, the dark ages of English automaking.

Chrysler has been around since 1925, but recent history is full of booms and busts - i.e. the K-car, great, keeping the K-car around way too long, almost killed them.

BL didn't have any booms, just busts

I think you are mixing up BMH with BL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Motor_Holdings.

Kinda like my experience w/ the first car I ever bought -- a 1973 Renault R12. By the time I got done, I'd wrecked it (well, the E brake gave out and it rolled down the hill) and fixed it and repainted it. I replaced the starter. And exhaust. And trans. And come to think of it, I did have to get out and adjust the timing every morning by twisting the dizzy. And then there were the door latches, which needed tightening every week or so. Not to mention the water that, from time to time in a rain storm, would pour on the passenger's feet. Oh, and I had to replace the windshield. Got pulled over for the loud exhaust on the way to get it fixed (serious!) and another time 'cause the tail lights didn't work. Horn -- horn didn't work at first either, not that it mattered on a Renault.

Of the 2 years I had it, it was on the road maybe 10 months. But when I got done, I could read manuals, work on cars that no one local knew how to fix (or had parts for), and had a good set of tools.

I found one a few years back, still on the road, in Mexico. Since I was part of a church group, the locals wouldn't exactly translate for me what the owner said about it.

So, for a write-in candidacy, let me suggest "Renault."

BMH only existed in 66, 67 and 68. BL was born from BMH and Leyland merging and went from 68 to 86 when they started selling off bits and pieces (Jag to Ford, afterwards BL became just Rover, and then sold 2 years later to British Aerospace (makers of the Concord, Harrier, Eurofighter, etc) then to BMW)

Oops, really should have read that closer, i thought it was 68 not 86, damn dyslexia.

But in all fairness, (me being an MG guy) it all started to head south when Morris forced MG to switch to their pushrod motors in the late 30's. Next came the Austin merger, forming BMC which delayed the introduction of the full enveloping bodies (MGA), then the Jag/Triumph era where everything started to go wrong.

I would vote on which company was worse, but to be honest i know nothing of Chrysler other than they made some engine nicknamed the Hemi, and created the Minivan.

Chrysler's heyday was the 50's, 60's & early 70's until about 74. They had a lot of poor products from 75 on for sure, but they also did some pretty cool stuff. Currently they build the best looking 1/2 ton pickup by far, not sure how good it is but it looks great.
I bought a 2001 Dakota new and I liked it but the dealer network was a real disappointment, several small issues in the first year of ownership took way too long to fix and they seemed to lack quality techs and the desire to provide decent service.
Not to mention the hiring of fired Home Depot CEO Bob Nardelli who proved how clueless he was at the senate hearings when he stated "The only thing that is wrong with the vehicles Chrysler builds is that people don't buy them".
Hopefully FIAT will improve the name and not drag the company down any further.

Speaking of FIAT, why were they neglected in the poll? Never had one, but never talked to an owner of any FIAT that had anything good to say about them. A fantascially engineered POS is the typical owner evaluation.

Bill