Stokes’ New Order: Maxi
Previous Page	Next Page

he Maxi was born out of the desperate necessity to replace the ageing Farina saloons which had been selling steadily since their launch in 1958, but by the mid-Sixties, they were fading fast. As discussed in Chapter four, ADO17 was conceived in order to undertake this task, but as we have seen, Alec Issigonis built it too large and too fast – and so, the Farinas were required to stay in production. This was a rather poor situation as, the Oxford and Cambridge saloons were by this time fighting a rearguard action against the onslaught from the all-conquering Ford Cortina – and so, this aged and expensive-to-produce saloon was regarded as being somewhat of a liability for the company.

When it became clear that the ADO17 was not selling in the volumes that had been envisaged, a rushed plan was put into place – the intention to produce a new car that perfectly filled the gap between ADO16 and ADO17. In the summer of 1965 when serious thought was being put in to the conception of the new car, it was known internally as the ADO16 3/8 – which would imply that the new car would sit on a wheelbase that was roughly three eights of the way between the two cars – in other words, round 100 inches, which was almost exactly the same size as the Farina saloon. Of course, it did not long to start taking this agreeable specification apart and the first decision was – amazingly taken by George Harriman himself to use of the ADO17 doors. Now, the doors are a good, sound design in the ADO17, but the trouble is that they were not exactly donated from a car noted for its beauty but also, their use meant that the wheelbase of the new car was now dictated as being very close to the 106 inches of the ADO17 – a huge amount longer than that of the Cortina. It also meant that all the Austin-badged cars between 1.5-litres and 3-litres would use the same basic centre section.

As in the case of the ADO61, the new car (named the ADO14) would result in being an expensive car due to the adoption of a new engine, gearbox package – so the money saving measures adopted in the design of the body had been negated. In essence, the requirement for an effective mid-market car would be for an entry-level engine of 1.3-litres and a premium model of 1.5-litres – and as the A-series engine at the time had only recently been stretched to 1.3-litres in the Mini Cooper, it was not seen as being a suitable basis for a the power plant of the ADO14. So, the rather bold decision was taken to embark on the design of an entirely new engine for the car, which would be overhead camshaft and have sufficient upward expandability for any upward development of the range.

As the marketing department were forecasting sales of 6000 Maxis a week (laughable in retrospect), it was decided that the new engine would need to be produced in a new and purpose built factory at Cofton Hackett, near Longbridge. The site of the plant was exactly right (Cofton Hackett is on the main road out of Longbridge), but the planning was all wrong.

The design of the new E-series unit was compromised in the way that it was engineered to be extremely compact in order to facilitate the upward expansion of the unit – which in the case of the E-series engines was by the addition of an extra pair of cylinders, rather than the more common practice of “boring-out” or “stroking” the engine. It also needed to remain compact in size because all new BMC mass-market cars (with the exception of the 3-litre) were to now have front wheel drive and transversely mounted engines. Even as a straight-six, the E-series needed to be extremely compact – the design brief was for the E6 to fit transversely across the ADO17. So, engineers facilitated this, by the adoption of siamesed cylinder bores, which meant that there was no water jacketing between them. This design may have had its advantages, but what it meant was that it was seemingly stuck at a maximum of 1500cc without easy provision for enlargement.

During the early stages of development of the ADO14, George Harriman decreed that BMC would from that moment on, not enter into direct competition with Ford and so, gave the engineers the chance to radically alter the focus of the new car. Because BMC were now in effect not designing a “Cortina rival”, the idea of a 1.3-litre entry level engine was also abandoned – and so, they concentrated on the development of the 1485cc unit and its 2227cc six-cylinder variant. Had the 1.3-litre version remained, it would have formed the perfect basis of the six-cylinder version of the engine, resulting in capacity just shy of two-litres – perfect for some of the other products that British Leyland would subsequently offer. It was also felt from this point on, that the Maxi should be a high technology showcase to show what BMC were capable of and so, it was going to have a 5-speed gearbox, a hatchback and would be highly adaptable and spacious. It was to be seen as a British version of the Renault 16, only better – because it would have the benefit of several years’ further development over the 1965-vintage Renault.

Four door Maxi was dropped because of the management's desire to avoid direct competition with the Ford Cortina. The failure of the Maxi to sell in sufficient numbers may well have nailed the coffin door shut on this derivative.

Of course, development of the car went on in the background as BMC (now BMH) entered into a deeper and deeper crisis of confidence. The main problem with the ADO14 was that it was proving a difficult car to style because of the adoption of the ADO17 doors. This resulted in the unappealing situation that it was proving extremely difficult to make the car significantly smaller than the ADO17 – a car that was blessed with short front and rear overhangs already. As it was, the ADO14 continued to develop into a production car, but along the way, it received a couple of hasty makeovers.

The first was in 1967, when it was becoming clear that BMH were deep in the mire and Joe Edwards was minutely examining every aspect of the company and found that the new 1.5-litre car possessed styling that just did not add-up – He knew that the whole future of BMH may hinge on the success of this model and so, ordered a restyle of the front end. Roy Haynes was tasked with giving the ADO14 a more definite identity – and so, gave the car a suspiciously Cortina-esque grille and headlight arrangement. Edwards could not order the designers to go any further because the majority of the body panels had been signed-off and Pressed Steel where already in the process of building the presses for the new model. The car would not prove to be the saviour of BMH.

As events transpired, the ADO14 would not be the last car from BMH, but would be the first for the newly-formed British Leyland Motor Corporation. When Donald Stokes took over the ailing company in January 1968, he looked at the Maxi (as it was to become) and decided that in order to be a saleable proposition, it needed the second of its pre-launch facelifts – he ensured that the car received a new interior – giving it some semblance of habitability.

He also ensured that Harry Webster, drafted in from Triumph, would have his work cut out trying to make the appalling cable-operated gearbox (pictured left) work; in fact, Triumph's engineers did much pre-launch tinkering with the gearbox in order for it to work, but they knew that to cure its ills, they would have to design a new linkage. The effect of this change of management at Longbridge had lasting effects on the morale of the design team – Sir Alec Issigonis was criminally pushed side by the new Leyland management and as a result, Webster would oversee the final development of the new car. These were not the only problems – by December, Webster was also hearing loud and clear from his engineers the message that the 1485cc E-series engine did not produce anywhere near enough power for the task of shifting the Maxi's not inconsiderable bulk. He tasked them with developing more a powerful version (not an easy task given the unconventional nature of the engine block design), but as with the adoption of new gear linkages, the 1748cc variation of the E-series engine would need a year to be made production-ready and would add £1 million to the cost of the ADO14 development programme.

Stokes agonized over the issue of whether the Maxi should be launched at all, but in the end he decided that there was no option at all really; the car had to be launched because of all the investment that had been ploughed in to the new Cofton Hackett engine facility. So the laughably optimistic planning of BMH had saved the new car from the ignominy of being canned before it was launched. He also decreed that the launch should go ahead as planned in the Spring of 1969 – and Webster's modifications would have to wait until it was feasible to incorporate them as running improvements to the Maxi.

In terms of marketing the new car, it would fit in perfectly with the plans that Stokes had for the company. The new company management were not shy in coming forwards with a long list of the sins of BMC in the past, the chief amongst those being that of badge engineering. In August 1968, the policy was set by Stokes that there would be no new cars launched by British Leyland that would be badge engineered in such a way. The policy was for Austin to represent the new high technology end of the market and Morris would be developed into a marque that produced rear wheel drive cars in order to fight Ford head on in the fleet market. Because the ADO14 fitted into the former category perfectly, it was only logical that it should be marketed as an Austin and therefore was introduced to replace the Austin A60 only (the Morris Oxford would have to live on for another two years). Stokes in his heart of hearts knew that the Maxi was simply not good enough and his strategists were telling him so: their projections were that the Maxi would at best take a 4 per cent share of the UK Market. But by this time, it was envisaged that the car would only be in production for a few years, to be replaced by the sweeping range of new Leyland-engineered cars that were surely to appear.

And here it is - the Maxi's raison d'etre: the huge, practical and versatile boot. Here was an area that the Maxi had an advantage over all its rivals, including the vivacious Renault 16.

As it was, the Maxi was launched in Estoril, Portugal in May 1969 and it was immediately apparent that the new management had taken over the show. This was because ex-Triumph man and then head of R&D at British Leyland, Harry Webster briefed the assembled journalists on the Maxi's finer points and not any of the old “Austin” design team. Webster had his work cut-out selling the Maxi to the assembled press and this was to prove even more traumatic after they actually drove the new car.

To say that the initial driving impressions offered by the Maxi were underwhelming is an understatement of extreme proportions: the journalists who drove the car came away with the distinct feeling that not only was the Maxi was underpowered, it also suffered from heavy and low geared steering. The failing that overshadowed all others, though, was the appalling gear change: of course, the Maxi offered the advantage of a 5-speed gearbox which offered the tremendous economy potential of having an overdriven fifth ratio, but because BMH had decided to saddle the car with a badly engineered cable operated shift, it resulted in a monumentally bad gear change. It was not as if it were a case of poor shift feel; it was as if the driver never really knew whether he was going actually slot the gearlever into the desired ratio – and if he did manage to select the right slot, it was a gamble as to whether it would engage. Gearchanging should never be stressful – in the Maxi, it was.

Nevertheless, dynamic shortcomings aside, the Maxi was an interesting concept with a great deal to recommend it. For a start, it was wonderfully commodious – like the ADO17 – but also had the added practicality of a hatchback. Like the Issigonis-engineered cars that preceded it, the Maxi was blessed with keen roadholding and tremendous ride quality, unlike its older counterparts, the Maxi was also a quiet and long-legged motorway cruiser, thanks to its overdriven top gear. Unlike its principle rival, the Renault 16, the Maxi’s hatchback arrangement was straightforward in the extreme – and it had the added advantage of being able to fold all the seats down flat – to make some kind of (lumpy) double bed. All that the Maxi really needed in order to become a good car was more power, an acceptable gear change and most importantly, a well-styled body.

This design produced by Chris Field as a result of a 1972 Daily Telegraph young designers competition was based on the Maxi's running gear. This design proposal was made-up into a full-size car(below). Although BLMC donated the Maxi, the exercise still cost the newspaper a cool £26,000! If the idea that the Maxi was an excellent car crying out for a more stylish body, it is most potently demonstrated here. Also, note the STRIKING similarity between this car and a 1977 sketch for the ADO99 project by Harris Mann.

Unfortunately, the Maxi was greeted with a feeling of total apathy from the British car buying public – and it is easy to see why. For a start, most people failed to understand the Maxi; like the ADO17, it was a great concept let down by fairly fundamental detailing, not least the styling. Whereas the Cortina (despite what Harriman may have decreed, it was a rival to the Maxi) was crisply-styled and came in a multitude of options, the Maxi was a one-model show: 5-doors and 5-speeds, take-it-or-leave-it!

By the end of its first year on the market, the Maxi was being produced at a rate of 400 per week; a far cry from the 6000 originally envisaged and because of its undoubted failure and the new management's disapproval of the car, the planned lower-priced down-spec four-door saloon version was dropped. This car was developed in parallel with the five-door Maxi, but when it came to it, the cost of bringing the car into production would prove prohibitive – especially as the Marina was looming on the horizon. It is fair to say that Donald Stokes was unsurprised by the fact that the car was such a sales flop because he knew it was not good enough and he viewed it in no plainer terms than as a stopgap.

Maxi HL looking good – and although the cosmetic adjustments over the original 1500 were small, engineering changes transformed the car.

Eighteen months later and after a lot of back-room work on the car, the 1750cc E-series version of the Maxi appeared, along with the new rod-operated gearchange and the Maxi started to come good as a car. The new version was no less odd-looking and the steering was just as heavy and low-geared, but at least the Maxi now had a reasonable turn of speed and one could now engage gear without the constant fear of wrong-slotting it.

But in reality, as far as Maxi development was concerned, that was about it: the twin-carburettor Maxi HL appeared later on, including a useful hike in power to 91bhp. Beyond that, the Hydrolastic suspension was replaced by Hydradagas and in doing so, the Maxi was brought into line with the rest of the Moulton-suspended range. Finally, in 1980, the Maxi was further, cosmetically facelifted – new bumpers, wheeltrims and interior trim brightened the car, but did not significantly improve it. It was left completely untouched to battle through the Seventies – and it has to be said that although the Maxi never sold in any great numbers, settling down to a steady 20-30,000 a year in the UK, it did pick up a loyal following in the UK. It catered to the family man who needed space aplenty and as such, there were few cars that could offer anything approaching the Maxi's space efficiency. Most car magazines tended to view the Maxi as a small estate car and so, its appeal was unfortunately severely compromised – those that did not and compared it with the Renault 16 (the Maxi's only real rival during its life) found it wanting in too many departments to mount an effective challenge to the charismatic French car.

Looking at the size and weight of the Maxi, it is actually shorter and lighter than the 1998 Ford Focus, but manages to have considerably more room inside – which demonstrates that BMC certainly knew how to obtain the most interior room for any given package. That is manages to beat the Focus – state of the art in 1998 – for packaging speaks volumes for the concept. The ultimate shame for British Leyland was that although the concept of the Maxi was fundamentally a good one, its execution (especially at the start of its life) was quite simply, rubbish.

Maxi 2 incorporating cosmetic improvements appeared towards the end of the car's life, in 1980.

British Leyland could have rescued the car, as I have said before, by redesigning the body and interior and pushing this redesigned Maxi as the car to sit in the range where the Allegro ended up. But they did not. The reason for this abandonment of the Maxi are easy to see – it was seen as a product of BMC and, therefore, something from the past and by the time of its launch, the newly installed British Leyland management were already busying themselves planning for the launch of the new company's first car: the Morris Marina.

As Alec Issigonis himself said in 1964, an advanced design only becomes a successful one when, others copy it for themselves. The fact that so few rival designers produced an answer to the Maxi speaks volumes about the car.

1969 Austin Maxi 1500 in "Outdoor pursuits" mode

Maxi Production figures (Cowley)*

1968/69	1969/70	1970/71	1971/72	1972/73
23,294	27,618	35,742	62,783	55,357

1973/74	1974/75	1975/76	1977	1978
41,639	33,132	43,983	32,479	38,567

1979	1980	1981	Total produced
27,490	15,778	12,435	354,710

* Calendar of years:
   1968/69 to 1974/75 (October to September)
   1975/76 (October 1975 to December 1976 – 15 Months)
   1977 onwards (January to December)

Copyright © 2002 Keith Adams