(first posted 4/4/2015) CC has recently seen the MG Maestro, the hot hatch version of the Austin Maestro hatchback. In summary, a car with a solid and rational appeal on paper or spreadsheet but that failed to translate into the metal for a variety of reasons, and not just the usual BLMC/Austin-Rover reliability issues. The result was that it ultimately disappointed in the showroom and marketplace. But, what of the larger saloon version, the Austin Montego? The feature car, shot in Spain by kurtzos, is perhaps the best example of the Montego I’ve seen on the road for some years.
The Montego was launched exactly a year after the Maestro, in the spring of 1984, after an even more protracted and painful development saga than the smaller hatchback. Remember, the Maestro was derived from the Montego, not the Montego from the Maestro, but that car came a year earlier. Have I or BLMC confused you yet?
The good news was that the Montego was the right size to take on the market-leading Ford Cortina; it was a sound configuration (front wheel drive, competent suspension, reasonable price, newish engines, quite spacious, big boot) and had a good range of trim levels and other options. The bad news was the styling – it was described in CAR magazine as having been styled by “a committee that hadn’t met”. That was untrue – but it was styled by two people about six years apart – one at the Austin-Rover design centre in Canley, Coventry in 1976, and one at Longbridge in 1982. But they did meet.
Photo from www.aronline.co.uk
The first styling exercises for the Montego (also known as LM11) had been done in 1976, and were representative of their time. Then came the decision to develop the LM10 Maestro from the LM11, ahead of the saloon version. This implied a problem BL had had before – using the doors from one car for another, supposedly different, car. It was the Landcrab and Maxi again, but with that distinctive concave curve in the centre of the doors, influencing the front and rear quarter styling as well.
Photo from www.aronline.co.uk
In practice, this is perfectly possible for such a conversion – after all, at that time, most saloon/hatchback pairs, such as the Ford Sierra, Vauxhall Cavalier (GM J-car), Renault 9 and 11 (Alliance and Encore) or the VW Golf and Jetta used the same doors–but crucially, usually on the same wheelbase. The Montego had a wheelbase of 101 inches, 2.4 inches longer than the Maestro, and consequently the doors that fitted the shorter hatchback were arguably too short for the larger saloon, and undeniably too short for the longer saloon glasshouse. Hence, the awkward third window, aft of the relatively thick C-pillar on the Montego. Many methods of incorporating this were tried and it wasn’t until BL’s new Director of Design, Roy Axe, arrived from Chrysler in 1982 that the problem was resolved. Sort of, just.
Roy Axe had made his name at the Rootes Group, which he had joined as an apprentice in 1955 and where he had become director of design at the age of 29. In 1976, he went to Chrysler in Detroit before being tempted back to the UK by Harold Musgrove, Austin-Rover’s Chairman, six years later. Musgrove by this time had the view that Austin-Rover had a fully competitive manufacturing capability and needed to improve the products to match. He also had an infamously poor relationship with David Bache, Axe’s predecessor, and the designer of the Rover SD1 and 2000, effectively firing him in 1981.
Axe actually saw the Maestro and Montego on his first day at work in early 1982 and recommended that the designs be totally revised. Such action was not possible by then, and the Maestro had to go into production as it was.
Still, Axe was able to some remedial work on the Montego–he put a capping along the door window line to visually raise and level the window line and lifted the third-window sill to match. This was to hide one of the Maestro’s weakest points – the dropping waistline, which dropped as it went rearwards, in a manner opposite to the more fashionable wedge shape. But it still wasn’t by any means a great-looking car.
The Montego estate was much better visually, as it had a specific rear door frame and a very different third side window treatment.
One other crucial thing Axe was able to do for the Montego was to create a much better interior and fascia for the car, which acted to separate it from the Maestro probably more than the exterior styling. This was actually the first of several successful interiors for Austin-Rover, and was arguably more attractive than the equivalent Vauxhall or Ford interiors.
Engine-wise, the Montego had a range of transversely mounted 1.3-, 1.6- and 2.0-litre four-cylinder engines, with end-on four or five speed gearboxes. The 1.3-litre was really an entry level special, powered by the venerable A series. The 1.6 was the core of the range, with the new Austin-Rover S series engine, linked to a VW gearbox. The 2.0-litre was the O series, from the BL Princess and Ambassador, linked to a Honda gearbox. With fuel injection, it created the MG Montego EFi, which achieved almost all that could have been reasonably hoped for it in terms of image boost. It was certainly fully competitive, as a driver’s car or in showroom appeal, for the similarly configured Ford or Vauxhall products, and the red car, a 1990 MG Montego 2.0i, shows the attraction is there.
The MG version, at least initially, featured a digital dashboard, similar to the MG Maestro. It was in the spirit of the 1980s, and added some showroom glitz, but not a lot of public acceptance, and was quietly dropped within two years.
So, when the Montego arrived in 1984, to replace the awkward Austin Ambassador and the very dated Morris Ital, it should have been quite a strong package, maybe hampered only by the exterior styling. However, there was a problem. Two actually.
First, the car had been in development since 1976 and had been benchmarked against the 1976 Cortina Mk4, then the 1979 Cortina Mk5 and the 1975 Vauxhall Cavalier Mk1 (Opel Ascona B). But in 1981, the Cavalier Mk 1 was replaced by the Cavalier Mk 2 (Ascona C) with front-wheel drive (and which was a hit), and in 1982 the conservative Ford Cortina was replaced by the avant-garde (visually very, technically a bit) Sierra. So a car that would have been well able to hold its own against the competition for which it was designed was left looking late for the party, and was saddled with the Maestro association and image.
Poor quality from Cowley didn’t help. For some years, RAC and AA (the British equivalents of AAA) breakdown patrols referred to the motorway hard shoulder as Montego Bay. A bonnet that opens on its own at 70 mph is not a great feature, as one of my friends will tell you.
Secondly, there was another Montego competitor to consider: In July 1984, Austin-Rover launched a new compact Rover saloon, known as the Rover 213 and 216, to replace the Triumph Acclaim, and based on the third generation Honda Civic, although with some Rover engines and more Rover input than the Acclaim. This car was alongside the Montego and Maestro in the showroom, and if you felt the home-grown cars had awkward styling, a less than great impression for solidity or a dull image, then maybe the Rover would suit you better.
Within three years it was clear that both the Maestro and Montego were saddled with an unfortunately pedestrian image, and Austin-Rover responded by producing more appealing versions, using the old technique of additional equipment for showroom appeal and better value. In 1987, revised Maestro and Montego models were launched, resplendent with “duotone” paint that echoed the theme of the Rover Sterling (Sterling 825) luxury saloon.
The marketing of these cars was directly attempting to attract a more youthful clientele, and led to one of the most memorable advertisements of the 1980s. Austin-Rover was finally grasping the spirit of the decade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSbLGTKA_TE
At this time, Austin-Rover also accepted that the Austin brand was a positive barrier to sales and so, to the disgust of the dealers, stopped badging the cars as such – all the cars being called by their model names only. The Austin name had such a negative image that in 1988 serious consideration was given to rebranding the Montego as the Rover 400. This was never proceeded with, as the R8 Rover 400 (partnered with the Honda Concerto) was nearly ready, but in many European markets it was badged as the Rover Montego. Many versions were sold with a trim level name rather than a letter or number, such as the featured blue car, a 2.0 litre Mayfair seen by kurtzos in Madrid, Spain.
Any promotion of the Maestro and Montego finished around 1990, as the R8 Rover 200 and 400 became available, but the cars continued to be available until late 1994, when BMW stopped production of them. BMW Chairman Bernd Pischetsreider was allegedly surprised to hear from journalists in early 1994, at the time of the BMW takeover of the Rover Group, that the Maestro and Montego were still being built. By then they were selling in small numbers predominantly to large fleet customers–police, the utility companies and the military–and were being assembled in an almost hand built way in a dark corner of Cowley. In a swap for Longbridge producing the last Morris (an Ital) in 1983, Cowley produced the last Austins.
The Montego should be recognised (apart from the gearbox) as the last all-British mid-range saloon, and deserves a footnote for that. But also, it gets a footnote for the being ultimately a disappointment.
Partly this was due to the image, or rather its relative lack of a strong image, such as that personified by the 1981 Vauxhall Cavalier; partly it was the Maestro association; and partly it was the car itself. Any early reputation for poor reliability will often stick, fairly or unfairly, and the Montego certainly had one.
The estate car did gain a compact Volvo image, almost, and was available with a third row of rear-facing seats and the perhaps the first 180-degree sweeping rear window wiper. But, all in, it was probably only fairly sound rather than great.
A diesel engine came eventually, and there was an MG Turbo version in 1985, with a great appetite for front tyres. This was proclaimed as the fastest MG ever, the fastest car in its class and took a lot of Austin-Rover’s attention and marketing effort, with the car clearly seen as an important image builder for the brand, and a sign of renewal for the whole company. They were certainly trying.
All in, in 10 years over 570,000 Montegos (and over 600,000 Maestros) were built in the UK, and perhaps 500 remain in the UK. Personally, I think it deserves a higher survival rate, but I can understand I am again in a minority.
One part of the Maestro and Montego story that is worth looking at is the cars’ afterlife. Clearly, Austin-Rover were tempted by Fiat’s and Renault’s success in selling a retired product to a less well developed market, so when UK production finished, the Maestro tooling was sold to a Bulgarian business. The venture was not a success, as only around 2,000 cars were assembled, from kits shipped out of Cowley. Amid tales of skulduggery, alleged corruption and the selection of a Skoda, the deal unravelled and the kits ended up back in the UK, and some of the cars intended for the Bulgarian market were assembled in UK, by an independent company, as late as 2001.
The Montego was sold on to Sipani in India, in a deal that may have been intended to match the transfer of the 1955 Morris Oxford series II to India in the late 1950s, a car that has only just gone out of production. However, volume production never commenced, reaching only a few hundred cars before being abandoned, and the Montego ended up, along with the Maestro, in China, with the design being owned by Etsong and now the First Auto Works.
Variants of both cars are still being built, though spotting the Longbridge – Canley styling has become harder. That may not be a bad thing.
The last car my father owned till his death, an ex-BL Netherlands press car, a metallic |red I think it was called Porto Red Estate. ( I saw dad’s car featured in a Dutch car magazine as the introduction for the Montego Estate)
Actually a great car, nothing wrong with the Montego, except it came too late to the party, to save BL; although estates were quite popular I remember.
It had a VW gearbox, if I remember correctly, thak you very, very much Roger for this article.
I do really like the styling of this car, and the wagon models are particularly nice. The interior is also quite well done. Too bad these were saddled with the loser Austin nameplate, probably a major reason they were not as successful as they should have been.
Wow, I’m familiar with the Austin Montego name, but I’ve never seen one of these, even in picture. That’s a quite an unusual roofline, as are the concave doors.
Despite it’s outdatedness by the time of its launch, its still interesting just how much more modern European cars looked compared to their American contemporaries. The Big Three and AMC were still trying to capitalize on 1970’s trends, with big chrome grilles, wire wheels, vinyl roofs, very boxy exterior and interior styling, and acres of fake wood. Additionally, the lack of composite headlights until the mid-1980s made them look further antiquated compared to European cars.
The styling looks a little Japanese to me. Reminds me of the Mitsubishi Galant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Galant#/media/File:1989-1991_Mitsubishi_Galant_SE_hatchback_%282011-06-15%29_01.jpg
Mainstream British styling tended to ape America, from the first new models after the war, from the Jowett, through the Rootes Audax, any generation of Vauxhall Cresta, through to the Ford Cortina Mk III in 1970. Then things diverged – we never did Brougham, and UK market cars got cleaner and crisper as the decade progressed. For the best example, compare a Mk II Euro Granada of the late 70s with its contemporary namesake in the US.
The Montego was born to fail against what Ford, Vauxhall, Renault and Peugeot were offering in the same sector. The shift to more aspirational branding and packaging with Rover was absolutely right – if only the R8 had been the start of something, rather than the beginning of the end.
Agreed on the 1977-1985 Ford Granada Mk2. It still doesn’t look hopelessly outdated to me. Simple, square and straight-lined. Which makes it sort of timeless. My favorite big Euro-Ford model.
I had a very nice gold 2.8 GL automatic.Comfortable and ultra reliable.
Our Royal Family also had them with the 2.8 liter V6. The Ghia, of course…In dark blue metallic. Pre-oil crisis they drove several American Ford products. Post-oil crisis (Euro) Ford Granada Mk1 and Mk2 and their last Ford model was the Scorpio.
I guess that driving US landyacht Fords in the seventies was not exactly considered to be “politically correct”….I’m sure it wasn’t the fuel bill that was the problem.
They kept their ’72 LTD convertible in use for quite some time.
What are they driving today? I have a (Dutch) book on the royal fleet, but it ends with the Scorpios.
Volvo was Ford’s successor, mainly the S80 models. Limousines included.
However, the king’s new ride is an Audi A8L Remetz Executive with a 4.2 liter V8 TDI (Remetz Car is a Dutch coachbuilder).
a great example of “keep it simple” really working. Fine looking car that with a 5 speed gearbox and a higher brand equity badge could have really cleaned up in the UK
Remember Roger that back then every mainstream Euro-automaker had a model in that segment; what they call the E-segment these days.
Ford, Opel~Vauxhall, Peugeot, Fiat and Renault all offered one, from circa the mid-seventies onwards. And then you also had Alfa Romeo, Lancia, Volvo, Citroën, Rover and Saab (the not so mainstream brands).
I think the Granada did a great job for Ford, commercially. Especially the Mk2. But later on somehow VAG, BMW and Mercedes managed to “confiscate” the whole E-segment and left the rest in the dust. (Mazda, Nissan, Toyota and Mitsubishi were also among the rest)
And after that somehow VAG, BMW and Mercedes also managed to confiscate the greater part of the D-segment. You’ve seen a new Renault Laguna lately ? Or even in the past few years ?
I haven’t seen a Renault laguna ever. Of course, I live in the states.
Plausible !
Here’s one.
I drove a first-gen Laguna on the Nurburgring of all places. I rented it hoping for some kind of unique experience driving a French car for the first time. What I got was a French Camry.
I got a brief ride in a diesel Montego estate (wagon) in the mid -90’s in Scotland. It felt grim and industrial, like the area and the factories I was visiting. Most of that was due to its beige color and very clattery Diesel engine. On the same trip I rode in a Diesel Escort and it felt more civilized. But the Montego styling seemed clean and modern, even then.
Dman: that shade of tan is referred to by some members on AROnline [Austin Rover Online] as “prosthetic limb” beige.
With what we see today with all their tiny windows, 12″ wide and 18″ tall consoles and tortured crimes against sheet metal, the Austins seem downright clean and useful.
Love British cars, mostly the odd stuff like Morris Minor, Allegro, Marina and the Rover 75 [what a stunning car] and can’t help but hope MG makes it to the States in time. I know, just a British car by way of China, but from what I’ve read full of value and interesting styling with at least some input from Longbridge and a strong UK heritage at least in the name.
Thank you for an interesting article on a car about which, as an American, I know little about. I think it quite a respectable looking car – certainly much crisper and modern that the small cars Detroit was foisting off on Americans at that time. It seems like a sincere attempt to move BL forward as a maker, and looks as if it should have been a reasonable success. Were the quality problems really beyond sorting or was it just a reputation generated by a bad first year ?
The first year generated many stories, some true, some not, but many stuck.
If this car had come in 1980, had had a decent reputation for quality and a stronger, more aggressive brand, it could have been a success.
As it was, the 1981 Vauxhall Cavalier (GM J Car) was everything the Montego could have been, 3 years earlier.
The estate always was the best looking of the whole LM10/11 range and some of the late non-Austin badged versions with the simplified grille and some nice colours looked particularly smart – e.g. http://s217.photobucket.com/user/malpasturbo1976/media/M444ALPFINALS002.jpg.html
They’ve become quite rare in the 2000-teens.
I had a battleship grey hire car Montego from work.The electric drivers window fell into the door making for a very cold drive from London to Manchester.A pity it was another dud as it wasn’t a bad looking car.
A young lad at work had the MG Turbo version which was very fast(when going).After many problems it was stolen and used in a bank robbery much to everyone’s amusement though the owner failed to see the funny side.
Thanks for a great read on a not so great car Roger
Always found the four door very attractive – then again I’m taken with straight lines, low windowsills giving lots of glass (yes, I’m a complete sucker for the later RWD Volvo’s), and a moderate roof height that looks higher than it is due to the windowsill line.
But, six years to develop a car? The Edsel was done in less than five. And the long development time killed that one when the market moved. And I do like that third side window up against the rear glass. Different, and pleasant.
I often wonder, what was the most successful (maybe I should say least failing) British Leyland automobile, designed and made during their tenure?
I think you’d like a Triumph 2500(carb model).I always liked them myself,avoid the injection model as most owners burned shoe leather rather than rubber.Almost a winner from BL
How the heck did the front end of a new Kia Sportage end up on that last car? China had to be involved in that…
That’s the Sichuan Yema F12, with the identical F10 save for the Subaru Forester face next to it. Yema acquired the platform and tooling for the Maestro Van from Etsong, and used it to produce their first few mainstream models into the 2010s.
If the Project XX deal with Honda hadn’t happened, BL contemplated doing a stretched version of this car to replace the SD1. I can’t imagine that would have turned out well; I suspect it would have ended up being the same kind of disaster as the previously covered Austin 3 litre.
Underdeveloped,underfunded,using as many parts from the parts bin as possible(never mind if they were obsolete),badly built and rushed into production before it’s faults could be ironed out,like so many of BL’s cars.It would be another dud,you can’t polish a turd.A good job the Honda deal came through
Even if it had been free of mechanical gremlins, I suspect such a car would have had a hard time hiding its architectural kinship with the Montego, which would have been absolutely deadly in commercial terms, just as the old 3 litre was undone by its clear relationship to the Landcrab.
Help, that doesn’t bear thinking about
I can never fathom why the Brits went for metric tyres on the Metro, Maestro and Montego.
The whole Country is against the metric system..for the most part.
And yet of all the parts to go metric with they pick tyres…Why????????????
Most all modern tires are at least sort of metric: millimetric section widths, but wheels measured in inches. Do you mean Michelin TDX/TRX? (I don’t recall whether they were available on the Montego, but I wouldn’t be surprised.) They were very common in that era — Paul did a good overview of them a while back. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-michelins-trx-tire-reinventing-the-radial-tire-didnt-work-as-well-as-inventing-it/
The U.S. and British auto industries have a really bizarre relationship with the metric system. At this point, I think the British quote nearly everything in metric figures except speed, fuel, torque, and power.
If at all happened as per the original plans, the Montego should have rewritten the Diesel oriented mass taxi market of India. With a proven engine and rich heritage all the pundits had a great expectations but unfortunately the lame luck which never allowed the Sipani to spread its wings and finally the curtains were pulled down. Even today there are few well maintained montego’s which haunts the past.
In the early 1990s I worked for a small minicab firm. On the fleet was a mk 2 cavalier,a Ford Sierra and an Austin montego. All 1.6 low range/fleet spec.
Guess what? The montego was the one we all fought over. It was the most pleasant to drive, the best handling, most comfortable and seemed to do a lot more with 1.6 litres than the Sierra did. The cavalier seemed as if you were sat on the floor, peering up to see over the cliff face dashboard and had wafer thin seats. The Sierra felt sluggish, rolled alarmingly on corners and just felt stodgy.
One thing the article missed out on, and was the primary cause of the low survival rate of the montego, was the legendary rusting capabilities. I guess as a money saving measure, the body side mouldings on the car were stuck over bare untreated metal with obvious consequences. Wheelarches and sills (rocker panels) were usually crumbling away within a couple of years from new. The front bonnet corners usually disappeared very quickly. It’s a shame, they were actually a decent car, especially the later facelifted versions where most of the bugs had been ironed out. The turbo diesel model in particular was an absolute barnstormer of a car, showing that diesel didn’t equate to “slow” its Perkins engine meaning it could put many petrol engined vehicles to shame whilst doing 55 mpg. Lots of these engines had a second life after the montego body had rusted away as a popular upgrade for series land rovers, where it’s impressive power and economy were appreciated.
Montego are now rare in France, (the Montego’s second biggest market i believe), i’ve seen afew estates over the years but only one saloon, which i now own 🙂
Me, looking at the wagon, Hey, that’s pretty neat.
Reading further: “The estate car did gain a compact Volvo image…”
(nods understandingly)
Looking at the Montego now, the greenhouse seems really distinctive. At the time, the Maestro was a tough act to follow. The detailing and surface tension of the Maestro made it a much sportier looking car than it actually was, while the Montego followed it into production with great subtlety.
Something else that sold here new and rarely seen these days there was a Montego at a British European show I attended a couple of years ago
An interesting car . Looks a lot of a Ford Orion mk 1 mashed up with a Fiat Regata , but at least is big step ahead from the Austin Marina /Morris Ital
Anyone else notice it offered three different capacity engines from three different engine design ranges? 1.3 A series, 1.6 S series, 2.0 O series. That wouldn’t happen at Honda or Toyota.
Funny how the early GM J-Car was panned in the US for being overweight, underpowered and not as competitive with the Honda Accord as it needed to be. It ended up being in production in original form for 12 years and in restyled form for another 10.
Meanwhile the Vauxhall Cavalier/Opel Ascona C was redesigned in 1988 to become the Cavalier MkIII/Vectra A. Then both divisions called it the Vectra for the next two generations. So four redesigns in the space of the US Cavalier’s half of one.
The reason the cavalier was kept in production for so long with minimal changes was for one reason only: CAFE. GM lost money on them, but absolutely needed them to offset the higher fuel consumption of its larger cars, SUVs and trucks.
The Cavalier sold on low price alone, and it was very well documented (and acknowledged by GM) that they lost money on each one sold. They weren’t even trying to compete with the Japanese anymore. They made big profits on trucks and SUVs, which more than compensated for the losses on their small cars.
So it has essentially zero relevance to the situation in Europe, where cars had to be more competitive, and were essential to any profits. A completely different situation.
I had 3 montegos, all very reliable and good to drive, and they were good looking cars