(first posted 12/15/2017) If you’d have asked me for a list of car least likely to be found on the streets of my neighborhood, a Wolseley Six would certainly be an appropriate pick. I almost thought I was seeing things when it drove past our house last summer while I was working in the front yard. Holy Wolseley! I caught another glimpse of it a few days later, also on the go. And then, taking a slightly different route to my rentals, I spotted it, sitting politely at the curb, with its silly little classic radiator grille adorning one of the least classic cars ever.
By “classic”, I mean classic in it being so unorthodox, for a British luxury saloon from the very traditional old brand of Wolseley.
Its predecessor, the 6/110, which we covered here, was cut from a very different cloth. As traditional as you could get, given that it was built like this until 1968.
The 6/110 is a traditional black suit from Savile Row; the Six is a lapel-less suit worn by the Mods. Well, it should have been, given that the ADO17 wears styling that was fresh in 1964 (barely). Imagine wearing a lapel-less suit in the 70s!
Roger Carr’s homage to the ADO17 cars (Austin/Morris 1800) covers all of its brilliance and foibles. But let’s just say it was a big disappointment sales-wise, despite having many very redeeming features. Unfortunately, styling wasn’t quite one of them. It did have superlative space utilization, but it just didn’t convey the prestige or harmonious looks that one very much did expect in a car of its class. That already applied to the Austin/Morris 1800, never mind in the Wolseley’s more elevated class.
It was very wide in relation to its short length, and the truncated trunk did it no favors either. And of course, there were the typical Issigonis ergonomic trade-offs. And others.
Needless to say, Issigonis was trying to turn BMC into the British Citroen at the time. But the uncompromising DS works, aesthetically; the ADO17 doesn’t. No wonder one was called “The Goddess” and the other “Land Crab”. Sums it all up right there.
The Austin 1800 arrived in 1964, but the Wolseley Six not until 1972. Maybe just as well, as it allowed for more gestation time than the Austin 1800, which arrived not even half-baked. Lukewarm, more precisely. Issigonis was not into building lots of prototypes and testing them under various conditions; he only built three, and never took them off the island. That’s what happens when you’re a megalomaniac. And in the first few years, there were a stream of fixes and improvements.
In the case of the Wolseley Six (and Austin/Morris 2200), the trial and testing of its new six cylinder engine very much happened off the island. That was in Australia where the oddly squared-off Austin Kimberley and Tasman first appeared in 1970 with the E-Series OHC six stuffed transversely under the hood. Well, it wasn’t really all-new; it was just the Austin Maxi’s 1.5 L four with two more cylinders. But to let the Aussies and Kiwis be the beta testers was certainly a good idea, given the many serious issues with the 1800’s engine in its first few years, despite it being just an updated version of the venerable B-series four as used in the MGB and such.
Here it is, in our featured car, but from the owner’s web site, not from my camera. He buys cars in Europe and resells them here, which explains why the Wolseley Six wasn’t around for very long. And how does an inline six fit? A bit tightly, and the only reason it’s even possible is because all of these Issigonis cars had their transmissions under the engine; in the sump, actually. Worked ok, once a few initial bugs were worked out. And it made this possible.
Oddly, I can’t readily find a source for its horsepower rating, but with twin SU carbs, it must have been reasonably decent for its times. Actually, one source said it was slower than the twin-carb version of the 1800 four. The same engine went on to be used in the ill-fated Austin Princess.
I couldn’t get a good shot of the well-wooded dash, and the seats of this one have some sort of crude covers. These were very nicely trimmed in their time. The odd steering wheel angle and the very long reach to any switches on the dashboard (literally) is quite apparent here. But then so is its excellent room, given the lack of any transmission tunnel and a console.
Actually, here’s a shot of the dash from that website. Very traditional in a very nontraditional setting.
The rear seat room is huge. This car is shorter than a Focus, but has more interior room than a Mondeo.
Which reminds me of another very nontraditional American car that was similar to the Land Crab in certain key respects, with FWD and a much greater width-to-length ration than usual for American cars, and exceptional interior space as a consequence. It even came in a six too. And had a rather checkered career to boot. The American Land Crab.
It should be noted though that the Land Crab had a stellar reputation for its exceptionally robust structure. Mr. Issigonis was really good at that sort of thing, if not so much at certain others. And of course it had a terrific ride, thanks to its Hydrolastic suspension. Which made it a surprisingly capable car to tackle the roughest roads in the world. These qualities endear them to its loyal followers.
Surprisingly, or not, the Wolseley was the best seller of the six cylinder cars. If you’re going for a six, might as well let the world (or at least the neighbors) know it. Of course, it helps if the neighbors know what a Wolseley Six is; not likely in this neighborhood.
And if you’re going to drive it around with its UK plates, better to at least have a temporary registration sticker in the rear window. Actually, this is just a trip permit, which means it hasn’t been actually registered yet. If I had to guess, this will be the first time tat the Oregon DMV registers a Wolseley Six.
(digression alert!) Speaking of Wolseley Six, it suddenly reminded me of the Borman Six, from the movie Putney Swope. There’s a few seconds of it in this short excerpt from that 1969 movie, which I first saw then at the impressionable age of 16. It was an eye-opener, on a number of levels, and probably explains a few things about me. Bonus points for identifying what car was disguised as the Borman Six.
Rather surprisingly, the whole movie is on Youtube, at least for now. So if you have 85 minutes to take you back to 1969 and you can handle some “Truth and Soul”, go for it. Maybe you better not, and just skip to 1:04:00 for the full Borman Six commercial. Don’t say I didn’t warn you, though.
Enough of the Wolseley Six and my free associations on it. But its brief appearance does mean that all of the Issigonis-mobiles have come to visit me, at one time or another. The MG1100 that Roger wrote up here on the ADO16 is still there just around the corner from our house. And I shot a couple of original Minis which lived in a rental nearby for a while, but I’m not sure I ever posted them. But those two were both sold in the US, although in small numbers. Not so the Land Crab; probably a good thing. In a rare moment of clear-thinking, BMC undoubtedly knew that probably wasn’t going to work out so well. By the late 60s, eccentric British sedans were heading out, and German sedans were moving in. And those were nimble, little sporty ones, not wide soft-riding cars with odd steering wheel angles that cost too much. Better to send the conventional RWD Marina stateside. Right. That worked out so well.
Yes, this is an odd car any way you look at it, sitting low on its feet in Eugene, Oregon. Or anyplace else, actually. But that’s not to say one can’t feel some love for a Land Crab Wolseley Six. It does have soul, if not so much truth.
Wow, what a find indeed, thank you for sharing this. Once in a great while I will see an Oregon Trip Permit that is out of the norm with the most common variation being the reversal of the month and date. Sometimes one of the Zeros is made into a smiley face or the date is written incorrectly, but that is very uncommon.
I hope the new owner enjoys their vehicle and is able to keep it up and running. Good thing it is a 1973 since DEQ (Smog Testing) starts with 1974 vehicles, but only within certain parts of Oregon.
Just . . . wow! First, I love the name. “Wolseley Six” sounds just like something out of 1929. This is not a dig, its just that the name pays homage to an era of cars having very functional and forthright names.
Second, the styling has some promise for the first 2/3 of the car. And then comes that back end. Oh my. A longer rear end, a different rear roof treatment, there are so many ways this could have been fixed.
What a fun find for a Friday afternoon!
Ironically the ordinary Austin and Morris 1800s (and all 2200s) gained small tail fins in Mk.II and Mk.III guises, but the Wolseley stuck with its own unique type (same as the 1800 engined 18/85 from 1967). In good condition the interior can look quite inviting
https://www.flickr.com/photos/landcrabman/5573908052/in/photostream/
Note how both front seats have separate, fold-down arm rests. The inertia reel seat belts must have made it much easier reaching the switches on the dash than the earlier ‘Kangol’ fixed ones.
Very rigid bodyshell too, equivalent to a late 1990s vehicle in torsional strength. Never stylish though! It does demonstrate that FWD doesn’t have to have a massive overhang at the front.
Haven’t seen one in the wild for years.
Back end of Mk Is and the Wolseley Six = cow hips
Not wrong. Read that earlier and cannot forget it.
And when it comes to the best looking body on the platform disregard anything but the Pininfarina BMC 1800 styling exercise, the essence of which initially saw production as the CX Citroen, Lancia Gamma and their smaller siblings.
http://www.carstyling.ru/resources/studios/1967_Pininfarina_BMC-1800_Berlina-Aerodinamica_02.jpg
Yeah, about that back end..hmm..The British car industry was starting to fall apart around this time. Lots of labour unrest, strikes, walkouts, etc. Looks like the designers got 3/4 into the car, and then got to the back doors and said..”ah hell, just slap something on it”! “What have we got left in the body shop?”
And Wolseley is indeed an interesting name choice. But, I watched a BBC/America Top Gear a while back. (Back before Clarkson slapped producers up side the head!) And they tested a really ugly exotic sports car called, no kidding, the GUMPERT
The Austin ADO61 3-litre gave better trunk, and the proposed Bentley version (below) cleaned up the greenhouse to make a very attractive saloon from the landcrab midriff.
Another alternative would have been to use the Australian X6 body just for the Wolseley (it was considered for a Vanden Plas model). I sort of modded the Wedge grille onto it:
*This* would have been a proper Wolseley Six.
I doubt that clean model window treatment would have translated into reality!
That would probably be the rarest of all Curbside Classics ever spotted. I wonder how many would be still on the road in North America? Single digits at best.
Wow! Just about the most ignorant post ever. So many inaccurate things said I just don’t have the time or patience to bother pointing them out. Gutter-press level journalism! No surprise. As soon as I saw Wolseley in the header I knew what to expect.
For heaven’s sake, if you don’t have the time or the patience, then why bother us with your whingeing at all?
So many inaccurate things said I just don’t have the time or patience to bother pointing them out.
Gutter level commenting! 🙂
Of all the car sites on all of the internet , the last (only?) Wolseley Six Fanatic in North America has to find this article and on the day it’s first published too.
Amazing.
Say, do you think, as an obvious expert on the subject, he could tell us who first called these ‘Land Crabs’?
Putney Swope – one of my favorites from the good old days. I had plans to go into advertising, but Adelphi canceled that major one year in and I ended up in Marketing.
I love the “lucky ticket” holder reward bonus program that Putney Swope developed for the airline.
The car? It looks like a 1958 Fiat TV Roadster 1200. I drove one once, padded dash, swing out seats, easy fold top, and a 4 speed manual. I was surprised they weren’t more popular.
forgot the picture…
Wow, great call on a car I’ve never seen before. I cheated and looked at the IMCDB before seeing your comment. They call it a “1958 Fiat 1200 Granluce Trasformabile”.
The one I drove was blue, but the red one below shows the hood ornament that I grabbed once as I was closing the hood; the backwards pointing tip went into my hand. The hood was hinged from the front.
In those days, sharp and dangerous auto ornamentation was quite common.
This car was owned by a single woman in NYC and I volunteered to drive it out to Rockville Centre (not Center) where a local dealer serviced it. I was just a kid and thought the four speed manual was fantastic. No tach that I can remember and the padded dash was a soft off white fabric/material that could be used on a sofa. With the swing out seats, I got the impression it was a car designed with women in mind.
It was not fast.
Many jealous emoticons from me RL. I love this (in-house) shape more than the subsequent Pininfarina versions.
Eleanor Roosevelt had one of these late in life. It was a gift from her son, who was importing them.
Great tidbit Robert! Cheers
Remarkable! Fiat-Roosevelt Motors was apparently the US distributor at least into the 1970s. Here’s a brochure crop.
As for the movie, I did go into advertising in the late 80s and thanks to my first boss discovered Putney Swope. It’s a fantastic bit of social commentary. And all the spots within the movie are spot-on. Two fun facts: Robert Downey Sr. made the movie, which may explain a thing or two about Junior’s life, and he also wound up dubbing all of Putney’s lines himself.
Very unexpected. I can picture Jason Shafer providing running commentary while driving this:
Full marks for no console, my left leg is impressed. However the door is impeding my right leg.
BTW that is a very strange commercial, I think I’ll skip the rest of the film 😛
What would likely throw me off as much as anything is shifting with my left hand. Yet for a driving jaunt in this car, I’d gladly undertake this new endeavor.
Yes, you and Paul are right. I do heartily approve of the absence of a console. Proof positive it’s possible to build a car without one. Or at least one that is the size of the Isle of Man.
You’ve also hit upon an idea I’ve been toying with – a video of a CC (preferably a drive report) with running commentary. Depending upon the car it may not be for sensitive ears. And my videography could quickly mimic some of the amateur videos on youtube. So maybe I shouldn’t do a video….
Yes, you and Paul are right. I do heartily approve of the absence of a console. Proof positive it’s possible to build a car without one. Or at least one that is the size of the Isle of Man.
Can’t do that today. Everyone has to have an armload of cupholders, and places to put their phones and stuff.
That was my first car bought in 1979, it was automatic, bronze with Rostyle wheels
With the autobox the transmission was not in the sump and was connected to the converter via a hyvo chain.
It was certainly strong, I had never driven an automatic before, so after picking it up drove home and was parking up, got confused and hit the accelerator , it leapt forward into my dad’s Morris Minor van and shoved it back 10ft, my dad was standing next to it, the look on his face was pure disbelief.
Not a mark on the Wolseley but we had to wrench the front of the Morris back out with a scaffolding pole.
It was quite a shock to do such a thing but taught me not to be complacent, I have never made an error like that since then.
The engine looks tightly packed in but was easy to work on, in comparison to todays front drive cars, it is a dream to work on, simple overhead cam engine with twin SUs , if you can’t fix one of those, you shouldn’t be picking up the spanners.
You adjusted the changeup speed of the gearbox by tightening or loosening the kickdown cable.
It drove very smoothly and was quite powerful hitting 90mph into a gale , the space allowed you to take plenty of friends with you, happy times
PS forgot to mention that the badge in the grill lit up when you put the lights
on, can’t think of any other British car that had that feature
Wolseleys had their ‘name up in lights’ from a very long time ago but thanks to BMC cheapness the time honoured OHC engines were dropped in favour of cheap BMC models.
The ignition switch is on the left side of the steering column? From an American point of view, this car is completely reversed. A sort of looking-glass car. I love it.
Left-side ignition switches were quite common in Europe. Peugeot had them on most, if not all their cars until the 505 (perhaps the 604, I don’t remember). Fiat had them until the late 70’s in several models (not all…). BTW, ignition switches on the right side, over the steering column, were more or less Government mandated in the US. Before 1969-1970, depending on brand, switches were mostly everywhere.
A famous left-side ignition switch: Porsche 911.
And R-R.
And Citroën 2CV.
Fords and Studebakers used left-hand ignition switches pretty commonly in the 50s and early 60s. The newest one I can think of was the 1969 Plymouth Fury – a new design that went to a steering column ignition the following year.
Actually all the ’69 C-Bodies had the switch there.
My ’66 F100 has it on the left.
Thinking about it, Ford E series vans kept it on the left into the late 70s.
My Uncles 2 International Scouts (64 Scout 80 and 70 800A) had the switch on the dash to the left of the column. Hand choke to the right of it.
My 1979 Fiat Strada (Ritmo) had the switch on the column on the left side.
Bob
Rootes and BMC had them on the left, Ford and Vauxhall on the right, until there was much convergence in the mid 1970s. They started moving away from close proximity to kneecaps around then too.
Also, this was something that was never flipped for LHD or RHD, so the UK gets the ignition on the right side, away from the passenger.
Perhaps I should have said “from a MODERN (post-modern?) American point of view. ” ?
Wolseley Six. One better than Dave Clark Five. Though somewhat less than Seven Landcrabs for Seven Brothers.
And significantly less than the Hateful Eight Cylinders.
One shall not count four unless then proceeding to five and six.
Oh, if only I was a fly on the wall watching as the Oregon DMV undertakes the chore of registering this car. The VIN will most certainly NOT fit the standard 17 digit format, which will mean the mainframe software will reject it.
Most vehicles built before 1980 don’t have 17-digit VINs, so this will most certainly NOT be a problem to anyone who has previously processed a title for a pre 1980 collector car.
I had a 1953 Dodge pick-up in 1998-99, and Here in Ky. when you buy any vehicle from out of state, I bought it in Indiana, you have to take it to the Sheriff’s office in your county and have the VIN verified. Used to be a big problem with stolen cars being brought into Kentucky, years ago. The Police were tickled by the 6 or 8 digit VIN. They also had VET here, Emissions testing. They took photos, as it was the oldest vehicle they ever tested. The next year they sent a letter exempting it.
The DVLA website seems to think that it hasn’t been exported to beautiful Oregon…
Interesting…
A reference book I often use (Classic And Sportscar 1996-1997 Classic Car Buyer’s Guide….published in the U. K) has the engine output at 110 horsepower.
BTW, there was a short-lived follow on Wolseley 6, produced for about half a year, before it was subsumed by the Princess, with 3800 units produced….of what truly was the last Wolseley car to be produced.
I don’t know enough about it to know if it was also an Issigonis design.
That would be the one in the 18-22 range, dropped when renamed as the Princess range. (‘Princess’ had previously been associated with Vanden Plas which is probably why the Wolseley model was dropped). The only ‘modern’ interpretation of the Wolseley grille (and the badge still lit up).
https://www.wolseleyownersclub.com/wolseley-cars/front-wheel-drive/wolseley-18-22-wedge/
The Complete Catalogue of British Cars (1974) quotes 100bhp at 5250rpm for the Six and 96 bhp at 5700 rpm for the 1800, both with twin SU carburettors. Max speed was 101 (99 for the 1800), 0-60 8.3 sec (9.2) and a standing 1/4 mile 18.6 (19.4).
But mpg went to 17.6, from 22.3 for the 1800
The 1800 failed in the UK marketplace for a number of reasons – not immediately associated with the styling. Factors were fleet buyers were wary of the FWD mechanicals and costs; reliabily was patchy; fuel consumption very poor; diveabilty was not great with heavy steering not appealing to all and the basic models were so austere they would have even shocked a Trappist monk. Families bought the smaller but similar 1100; fleet buyers bought Ford Cortinas the market leader and those who wanted a luxury model of similar size bought Triumph or Rover. All-in-all the wrong car for the marketplace. A shame – but a nice curiosity when sorted out and fun to drive. And the article sadly mentions that very little proper prototype testing was undertaken – really incredible.
So if I’m reading this right, they put the old Big Farina saloon out to pasture after ’68, then had nothing to offer until this unfortunate effort rolled around in ’72? Given both the Triumph 2000/2500 and Rover P6 were now in the fold, amazing that they bothered, let alone with the 1-year only Wolseley badged-Princess.
From personal experience, the Brits are some of the best marketers around – but are sometimes deluded into seeing segments that don’t really exist. Arguably the case here.
No 6-cylinder version until 1972, but the same body (with very minor trim differences) was introduced in 1967 with the 1.8L Wolseley 18/85, replaced/upgraded into the ‘Six’ in 1972.
Ironically the original aim was for the ADO17 was to replace the 1.6 litre Farina range (Austin Cambridge/ Morris Oxford, etc.) but while the car was shorter than those it was roomier than the bigger Farina sixes so ended up making them redundant instead while the Wolseley 16/60 Farina was produced until 1971 (no direct replacement – we were spared the Wolseley Marina!).
A Wolseley Marina? What a shocker that would have been.
Our neighbours had a Wolseley Six when I was young, and it was a spacious and comfortable car to travel in the back of – and the grille lent it a certain presence. But its appearance in 1972 underlines the struggle British Leyland had with rationalising the bucket of brands it inherited in 1968. Ramming together so many carmakers in one go was a disaster – compare it to VAG’s steady accumulation and rationalisation of brands from Skoda to Bugatti by way of Seat, Audi, Bentley et al.
Wrong conclusion I think , the land crab came out in 1965 and was voted European car of the year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMC_ADO17
Unfortunate effort is an extreme summary, from what viewpoint, purely aesthetics? I would agree that the later Austin/Morris versions looked better, especially from the rear
Perhaps they didn’t sell in the number BL wanted , but they were hardly a rare site on the roads, it was a big car for the time and very few people in the UK and Europe actually bought 2 litre plus cars, especially right after the 73 fuel crisis., second hand 2 litre plus cars dropped significantly in value hence why I was able to afford to buy one aged 19, my trip to work was only 6 miles.
There was some clever design going on, massive structural stiffness and the interior space of a huge American car but a minimal footprint, very important on our small roads and quite a technical achievement, the ride quality was really good, no heavy live rear axles crashing about
Speaking as someone who actually owned one they were no worse than their competitors at that time.
Reliability for all cars back then was all about maintenance, I remember people trying to fix rock hard radiator hoses with bandages then wondered why the things overheat, don’t have that problem today with improved synthetic rubber, points ignition required setting as they wore, few people could do that properly and if you cannot sort out SU carbs , surely the simplest of carbs to rebuild, don’t mess
Also, Paul, big shout-out from me (and President Mimeo!) for bringing the best movie about advertising ever made into this post.
“Putney says the Borman Six has got to have soul!”
I actually like the styling of these cars, and like it even more with the Wolseley grille. Beautiful blue colour too, that I’ve never seen before on any 1800. It’s not as if a Cortina etc of the day was beautiful or avant garde, so I don’t really get the dislike that many seem to have for its styling. I find it interesting although undoubtedly something like the Michelotti styled Triumoh 2500 is more attractive.
We never got the Wolseley 6 or the 6 cylinder engine in that body, nor the twin carb 1800s but we did unfortunately get the Austin Tasman/Kimberley twins.
As one of the previous comments, it seems the twin carb version of the 1800 went harder. A shame as a properly developed 2.2 OHC with twin carbs, a sports dash with full instrumentation and a 5 speed from the Maxi/Nomad (if that’s possible) could have amounted to a decent car back in the day.
Despite the wood trim that dashboard doesn’t look like it has much thought put into it. A Triumph sedan dash was far better. I have seen photos of when they were new and they had nice cloth trim.
I remember growing up with our next door neighbours who were always fixing up cars. They had a talent for always picking the most unattractive and undesirable models to restore (early 1960s Datsun Cedrics – need I say more). They had not one but 3 examples of the Tasman/Kimberley twins in various states or repair, which I saw every day for many years when coming and going. I was scarred for life. ?
Great find. Literally one in a million!
These are interesting cars for a number of reasons. The east-west FWD straight-6 layout is obviously a technical point well worthy of mention. Symbolic of a company that asked itself “Why not?” when everyone else would have wondered “Why?”
And it’s virtually the last of the illustrious Wolsesley marque. There’s a whole alphabet’s worth of BL Deadly Sins, probably. This could be Exhibit A…
The exceptionally wide body and that exceptionally short six with its transmission under the engine made it quite feasible. The E Series engine was obviously designed from the get-go to be used like this, because it had siamesed cylinders. Frankly, it made a whole lot more sense than that ridiculous 3 Litre Austin, with the big six mounted longitudinally and with RWD, which ate into the interior room considerably. That one was a real head scratcher.
These ADO17 cars have so many positive characteristics, but as usual, the devil is in the details.
The biggest negative was that they were simply bigger and heavier than what they should have been. They were to replace the 1.6L PF cars, but they had to have the 1.8 because of their size. The 1.8 L class at the time represented some 5-7% of the market; the 1.6 L class 20+%. Which explains the Ford Cortina’s huge success. It hit the heart of that market size; the ADO17 didn’t. Too big and expensive. Which is why they kept the PF cars in production for a number of years yet.
BMC was very bad at planning, in terms of market segments. That was Ford’s strength. The Mini was too small; it never sold in truly large numbers. The ADO16 lucked out and hit its target squarely. 1 out of 3; not good enough.
BMC was very bad at planning, in terms of market segments. That was Ford’s strength. The Mini was too small; it never sold in truly large numbers. The ADO16 lucked out and hit its target squarely. 1 out of 3; not good enough.
I don’t have industry wide sales from the 60s at my fingertips. Today, the C segment is still the big seller: October sales for the A segment leader Fiat Panda: 16505, B segment leader Renault Clio: 23440, D segment leader VW Passat: 13086. C segment Golf 43682.
It’s been a while since I have seen an NSU Prinz or Fiat 850 in the metal. I have seen BMW Isettas and Fiat 500s in the metal recently, as well as scores of Minis. By the standards of it’s time, I would not say the Mini was irrationally undersized for it’s segment. It was simply in a lower volume segment, ie, significantly smaller than a Bug while the ADO16 zeroed in on the Bug.
The ADO17 was more of an executive size car, with…unfortunate styling. I rather like the Austin version, from the front. It’s Princess successor I also find quite handsome, until the styling again falls apart at the rear.
The problem was that Issigonis made the car too large for its supposed target market. From what I’ve read, during development the engine to be used shifted from the Farina’s 1600 to the MGB’s new 1800 (before the UK market was ready to embrace a 1.8 litre family car), so Issi made the car bigger becuase the engine could handle it – which shifted it out of the regular family sedan market into a kind of No-man’s land. Apparently nobody in management had the intelligence to see what would happen, or the clout to tell Issi ‘No’.
Great cars though.
ADO17 could easily have been made three or four inches shorter in the wheelbase and still have had sufficient rear seat room. Would have had better proportions too.
I’ve always had a soft spot for the Land Crab, although most of the non-Austin/Morris versions were a little silly.
The Wolseley front end is growing on me though. But then I liked the 2006 Tribeca too.
That popped int my head too.
Turn the grille upside down and it could be an ’06 Wolseley!
Which reminds me of another very nontraditional American car that was similar to the Land Crab in certain key respects, with FWD and a much greater width-to-length ration than usual for American cars, and exceptional interior space as a consequence. It even came in a six too. And had a rather checkered career to boot. The American Land Crab.
Other than FWD, seems the greater claimant to the crown for a “groundbreaking/bizarre” width to length ratio would be the AMC Pacer.
Though the Pacer has far less useable space for the length.
In the article Paul compared the Landcrab to the Citroen DS; back to the present day and the facelifted Citroen C4 Cactus (no knobbly bumps any more) looks kind of familiar side on….
Though the Pacer has far less useable space for the length.
The wagon solved that beef.
In later years, the ADO17 featured a proper automatic transmission, courtesy of Borg Warner, which was exceptionally flexible in how it would adopt it’s Type 35 to varying powertrain layouts (longitudinal rear drive for the Rover 3500, transverse, under the engine, front drive, for the Landcrab, longitudinal, front drive, under the backwards mounted engine in a Saab 99 and longitudinal, front drive, in front of the backwards mounted engine in a Citroen SM)
From the Steve archive, pic of a Type 35 mated to a Landcrab 1800.
The BW installations with the chain drive were not unusual for their time. The museum in Ypsilanti that the CC crew visited last June has a room full of cut-away display models of various Hydramatic transmissions. The THM-125 used in the 80s X bodies used a chain drive, though the trans lay next to the engine, rather than directly under it.
I learned to love the forward-tilted steering wheel on the 124 Sport Spider: one pushes on the rim to initiate a turn, rather than lifting. Noticeably better use of the arm muscles, and a delight in use. Nearly horizontal wheel, as in VW bus — not so much.
A Fiat TV like the one above showed up in the window of a local merchant, as a raffle prize, when I was a kid. I made (and lost) my first bet, on that sweet face . . . blue or green, as I recall. Never seen one since, ’til now !
Those cars are now laughed at but as someone who covered considerable mileage in an Austin 1800 I can attest to the comfort it offered as well as its ability to cruise along at 85 MPH all day long (which in the UK with its strict policing of the preposterously low 70 MPH motorway speed limit, was fast enough). As was noted by another poster above, you had to maintain them on a regular basis, yes. But that would not have been different for any other car built back in the day, and I honestly do not believe say a Cortina would have been more reliable. By that time (the 90s) any teething troubles were long dealt with by the factory or the previous owners anyway.
But the woman I dated at the time refused to be chauffeured in it – it would have utterly ruined her Sloane Ranger image. Hmmm…
The X6 Austins looked a good deal nicer than the Crab, and much more than just the six panels changed would suggest. They were also super comfy, and that OHC engine really smooth and revvy next to some Ford or Holden six. But the development budget was tiny and thus they were also shocking cars.
The front radiator was far too small. The lack of a side-mounted fan didn’t cool the carb, so vapour lock ensued. They crudely diverted one of the interior vents to try fix this. The steering was just too heavy, even in 1970, which is saying something. You needed three suburbs of heaving to do a u-turn. The driveshafts chopped out, the idler gear to the box fell apart, the engine mounts failed, and the engines only lasted 50,000 miles at best (too much heat and a bad design of thrust bearing at the end of the crank, same thing in this Wolseley too). And like all Hydrolastic cars, at some time they would inevitably leak and sag on one side, with special tools needed to fix it.
Two family friends had these, and I absolutely loved riding in them. They felt different, and a bit posh, and Matt’s dad was a nutter who regularly wound it up to 90mph+. Neither family had them for very long, as both broke down too often – twice with me on board too.
Cars were less reliable then, for sure, but the BMC/Leyland jobs were poor even for the times, and just hopeless in this country. Ironically, the local adaptation of the X6 was the worst. How sad they got no proper development, because dynamically, they were quite superior to the competing Holdens and Fords.
An ex GF had an automatic Tasman it wasnt much of a car but quite fast on sand roads in the Pilliga scrub where I lived at the time, a school friends parents bought a Kimberly new but fortunately retained their old 66 Impala which remained on front line duty while the Kimberly sat at the dealers being fixed repeatedly under warranty, very rare cars in NZ these days I saw a Tasman recently in a collection of wreck classics in Hinds NZ owned by an American gentleman, he has some great stuff there.
Australia is definitely not the place for an undersized radiator.
They were nicknamed Landcrabs due to the Rally versions propensity to go sideways not their looks. And they have hydrolastic suspension not hydropneumatic. They were common as muck in their day. My school mates dad had a white Wolseley whilst my dad had a green Princess.
Yes it was the 1800S with works driver Paddy Hopkirk at the wheel that generated the Landcrab monika due to his driving style, it now seems to encompass all of issigonis cars.
You’re 50% right. I did use the wrong term for its supension; Hydrolastic is of course right.
As to the origin of the term “land crab”, it did originate in Australia, but not in response to to their tendency to go sideways, but simply because of their looks. These are the first quotes anyone could find in a search for their origins, from the lancrab forum:
I’ve looked through the Australian magazine articles I have with the following results:
Moderm Motor, Feb 1968
” Don’t let me put you off. In an 8500· mile three·week test trip over some of the best and worst roads in Australia,
that was the one and only time the 1800 looked like stopping. For the rest of those 8500 miles I was blessing, not cursing, Mr. Issigonis. His creation may look like a giant land crab, but it has the room and comfort of a super.limousine, the handling and point-to-point speed of a rally car. ”
Wheels June 1968
“Body styling is the giant land crab variety, and could not be called handsome. However, the 1800 has many compensating habits.”
Why would the have a propensity to go sideways, more than any other car?
AROnline, the undisputed best source for Brit car history, also says the origin of the name is its looks.
I love watching old english movies just for the cars…specifically from the 60s and 70s.
Isnt it a total bummer that this entire auto industry with such many diverse brands has dropped from the face of the earth?
When you nowadays travel to the UK and walk across some random parking lot you would never notice that you are no longer in mainland Europe. No distinction whatsoever…German and Asian brands as far as the eye can see. Only difference is central London where you get to see Rolls Royces and Bentleys driving around in spades just like MB S-Klassen in Stuttgart.
What a find for the US – any Landcrab would be a great find on the road in the UK.
These cars truly did have a huge amount of room in them, both length and width. I recall an four way wrestling match in the rear footwells at the age of 10 or 12. They also had a reputation for comfort, and were pretty hard work to drive. Very low geared steering and strong understeer were key features, as well as an odd driving position and ergonomics. And BMC never did a wagon either.
The Tasman rear end with the British front end was considered for a Vanden Plas version, and a prototype built, as seen here. The interior may have had more wood and leather than even the Wolseley but the actual equipment levels were still pretty low. What is never answered is why the company building the Triumph 2000 would consider, never mind justify, building this as well.
The subsequent and related Austin 3 Litre was an even bigger disappointment, offering very little the Landcrab itself did not.
https://www.aronline.co.uk/news/news-vp-1800-prototype-star-nec-show/
There’s a wonderful looking Landcrab on the Cohort, added very recently.
In Australia where I live, I barely have seen any Austin Kimberleys or Austin 1800s (the lower spec of the Wolseley Six) here. They may of completely rusted away due to the bad BL quality. My dad had an Austin Maxi (similar to the Austin 1800) during the late 70’s/early 80’s in England.
PS. Does anybody know how to add images into comments?
Weird and wonderful .
-Nate
I’ve always liked the Landcrab; it’s not beautiful but not hideous either, and who doesn’t like great space utilization and outward visibility? (answer: apparently plenty of people, given how new cars are shaped)
Was any version of the Land Crab sold in the US? I’ve never seen one. The small FWD Chevy that reminds me of the Landcrab isn’t the Citation but rather the Malibu Maxx that was sold for a few years. Same stretched-in-the-middle with short overhangs layout, and it had great space utilization too, plus reclining rear seats and a rear sunroof. I’ve always kind of liked it, even though the more popular Malibu sedan of that generation is a snoozer.
I didn’t know there were any cars with transverse inline 6’s. The inability to fit an I6 in a transverse-layout FWD car is always given as a reason for their demise in the US.
Gotta remember “Putney Swope,” and the Borman-6 girl, who “got to have soul‼️”
😎
Former Landcrab driver here. Dad had the ute version in which I had my first interaction with the police- pulled over at 14.
It was notorious for wet weather starting. Or rather not starting.
My Dad bought an Austin 1800 in the late 60s after 3 air cooled VWs he decided FWD was the new thing. I’m not sure if he drove it before he bought it, he was a small man 5’4 1/2″ (the half was very important to him) and struggled to reach any of the controls particularly the umbrella type handbrake the mk1 versions had. Mum was even smaller and really didn’t like driving it, called it the tank.
As kids we loved the space, big comfy red leather seats, our own doors and a choice of windows to open. It was the first car I drove, in a field when we were on holiday.
Pininfarina was allegedly involved in the styling, if you squint a lot you can see a hint of Peugeot 504 boot lid in the cow hips. The headlamp surrounds also look like 60s Farina, the prototype VW type 4 had similar, another car Farina probably doesn’t want reminding of.
With regard to reliability and rust, I don’t remember any problems, certainly not as many as some other cars of the time. But I could probably still reset the points in a distributor if cars still had them.
In the 60s English Ford were bad mouthing BMC as a marketing strategy. They didn’t want FWD, especially after the Cardinal went to Ford Germany. Ford would say that BMC were selling the cars at a loss and question the reliability. For example, everyone is critical of the servicability of the Hydrolastic suspension, but the struts at the front of a Ford would need replacing at 40,000 miles, if the towers hadn’t already rusted through.
BMC didn’t do product planning and BL under its many guises was a disaster. Now Toyota, Nissan and BMW MINI roll out of British factories. I’d rather have a Wolseley. Incidentally the name Wolseley survives as a chain of plumbers merchants that was hived off from the other business.
For us non-British, is there a family tree/timeline, preferably with illustrations, for all the manufacturers and brands that became British Leyland? I’ve watched some “Big Car” videos on YT mostly to hear him say “coo-pay”, but don’t remember Wolseley, though its backend looks somewhat familiar from the Peugeot 504 post.
Was the Marina named after the late Duchess of Kent, Princess Marina of Greece?
Nobody has replied to you Ralph, there are articles on wikipedia and aronline although they tend to concentrate on the disintegration of the company.
I’ll try a brief history, but it’s from memory and I’m not sure about how many commercial vehicle manufacturers there were. Can’t download pictures to this site. Dates from my ‘The Observer’s Book of Automobiles’ given to me for my birthday in 1969.
Wolseley was one of the oldest companies, and built first car in 1896.
Many of the constituent companies were based in the English Midlands and started by making bicycles. Most of them turned over to armaments production in 1939 -1945 and after WW2 were encouraged to export everything, raw materials being allocated on that basis.
Alvis made upper middle class cars, became part of Rover in the 60s.
Authi were Spanish assembler/ manufacturer of Minis and 1100s, now part of SEAT/VW.
Austin worked for Wolseley before making his own cars. Best known pre war car was the 7 which was made under licence as the first BMW and not licenced by Nissan,
BMC (British Motor Corporation) formed in 1951 by the merger of Austin and Nuffield.
BMH (Brirish Motor Holdings) formed in the early 1960s by the merger of BMC and Jaguar.
Daimler formed 1893 to make the German cars, but later made their own designs very high class Rolls Royce rival. Bought by Jaguar in the 1960s and Daimler badged Jaguars available until recently.
Healey was a rally driver, his cars were made by BMC and sold as Austin Healey. contract expired 1971.
Jaguar were established as Swallow Sidecars, renamed Jaguar due to the unpopularity of SS initials. Founder Sir William Lyons was worried about the company being able to survive independently when he planned to retire and merged with BMC. After BL Jaguar were sold to Ford, then Tata.
Innocenti were an Italian manufacturer who made A40, Mini and 1100. Bought by BL shortly before they went bankrupt in 1975 and sold straight away to De Tomaso.
Land Rover, sub brand of Rover established post WW2 as a farmers Jeep. Subsequently owned by BMW, now by Tata. One of the few brands to survive.
Leykor, South African subsidiary.
Leyland, Lancashire based commercial vehicle maker who acquired Standard Triumph and Rover in the 1960s. Used as a brand on the last Australian made car.
LDV (Leyland DAF Vehicles) commercial vehicle maker sold off from the car business.
MG (Morris Garages) sports orientated Morris cars. Now used as a brand name by Chinese.
Morris started making cars in 1912, grew by buying suppliers and rivals including Wolseley in 1927 and Riley 1938 to become Nuffield group.
Pressed Steel made bodies for many manufacturers, they were acquired by BMC in the 1950s, which caused concern for some other manufacturers.
Riley, first car 1898, first brand retired by BL in 1969.
Rover, first car 1904 and the name of the whole company when it went bust.
Standard, brand name phased out after they acquired
Triumph (in 1945) Triumph’s last car was a Honda Ballade assembled in the Morris factory.
Vanden Plas, London coachbuilding firm owned by Austin, briefly a brand name in its own right and then a trim level.
British Leyland was formed by the merger of BMH and Leyland.
BMC had expanded capacity rapidly and were replacing the model range with front wheel drive vehicles, they hit cash flow problems.
Having seen Chrysler buy the Rootes group, and with the majority of the rest of the British motor industry being American owned (Ford and GM Vauxhall) the British government were worried about the future of BMC and brokered the merger.
Hope that helps and apologies for inaccuracies.
The Landcrab was hard work in the city, but wonderful on country or main roads. The only issue with running one was that when the hydrolastic suspension needed to be pumped-up you needed to take it to a BMC dealer, because the dealer had a hydrolastic pump and fluid. Any garages in Oregon with a hydrolastic pump I wonder….
Genuinely a brand and car I never heard of before.
Two Questions:
How much of UK Auto sales were from the home companies by the 70s?
What was the peak British sales in the US? I am fascinated by how many small non-German Euro Imports used to be sold here in small numbers.
This car with it’s ‘Elephant Ear’ rear doors looks like it may have made a good taxi .
-Nate
My grade 6 teacher drove a Wolseley 1500, which was a much smaller car, but still introduced me to the British style of leather seats and a wooden dash. It was a real contrast to our 57 Plymouth.
My first car was a 65 Austin 1800 which was sold in Canada. It was probably not the best choice at the time, but I certainly enjoyed it. It had the largest interior of any car I have ever owned, particularly the back seat. For pre AWD days it was amazingly good in deep snow. Once I figured out how much choke to give it, it always started in the coldest weather.
The main problems I had with it were a cracked cylinder head, oil leaks and rust. It had a burnt out valve, so I learnt to take the head off and seat new valves by hand. I was not smart enough to take the head to a machine shop, so the same thing happened the next year. At least I was quicker taking off the head and I spotted a crack in the valve seat. I got a used MGB head and that was one problem solved. The transmission was in the engine sump and the shifter was connected to it by 3 cables that seemed to be quite porous. It leaked so much I bought oil by the case and never parked in anyone’s driveway. I probably could have cured that with new cables, but rust was devouring the body. It was a 65, I got it in the summer of 68 and I scraped it early in 72. I never had any problem with the suspension.