Talk:Austin Motor Company

Your help requested

The Mini article is in the Wikipedia:Peer review process - perhaps heading towards Featured Article status. I would greatly appreciate experts on Austin taking a look at it. (If you find a problem, please either fix it or post your concerns on the Talk:Mini page. TIA SteveBaker 20:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That Austin Allegro pic

I think the pic of a 1979 Austin Allegro is actually a Vanden Plas either 1500 or 1750 model. You can tell by the raised grille attached to the bonnet - the VP was a luxury (sic) version of the Allegro mark 2 model produced between 1975 and 1979. It had a classic wood and leather interior including walnut picnic tables recessed into the backs of the front seats, and the different frontal treatment you can see hints of in the pic. The VP was something of a freak - who was it aimed at in marketing terms and did anyone ever associate Allegros with luxury motoring? It was probably produced because Ford was having big success with the Ghia versions of some of its models, upgraded and laden with extras for which a premium price was charged, and cash-strapped BL was desperate for some of the action. The reason for raising this is that VPs weren't actually badged as Austins (or Allegros for that matter), but sold as a separate marque albeit through the same BL dealderships,so the pic shouldn't appear on the Austin history page cos it isn't. Pedantic Big Mike

I think you are right. Malcolma 19:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Princess

I replaced this inaccurate stuff about the Princess. It was never officially the "Austin Princess" in its home market. "The larger Princess was a wedge-shaped large saloon that began life as a Wolseley in 1975, but adopted the Austin badge a year later."

Austin Rover era

The original article said that the Metro, Maestro and Montego became Rovers. They didn't. The Metro did, eventually, but spent three years marqueless. In fact, in some markets the Montego did gain a Rover badge. I saw one in the Netherlands once. But in the home market, the Montego and Maestro were never Rovers (although the bonnet badges were Rover-esque).

This info comes from Austin Rover marketing boss Kevin Morley and chairman and chief exec Graham Day, and is from the authoritative Unofficial Austin Rover website; "The renaming of the company also served to heighten the brand, “I admit there was a danger of adding to the confusion”, when asked to his motives for doing this, “but Rover was the oldest name we had, and it applied directly to the products we make - Rover cars, Freight Rover, Land Rover, Range Rover. I hoped it would not so much confuse as remind.” This of course, left the Austin marque out in the cold - and the first decision made was to de-badge the Austin range so that the only identification on the Metro, Maestro and Montego was the model name - Austin was now effectively dead. Day added, “Our research indicates, particularly in the 17 to 34 age group, that people do not wish to drive an Austin.” And that was it - the Austin name would be consigned to history by the new incumbent, just as the Riley, Wolseley and Morris name had at previous changes of management."

Allegro

I don't think it's correct that the Allegro, - awful as it was - was prone to rust. By the standards of its day, it was better than many of its contemporaries in this respect. In just about every other area it was dreadful.

Ian mcrae (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC) IanIan mcrae (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Allegro had pretty good rustproofing - but terrible steel quality and bad water traps. So long as you didn't let rust get started, it did pretty well - but once it got into the car, it would rust out in record time. You're right though - there were other cars with similar problems. Over the years, popular cars like the Mini got the tiny little tweaks to the design that would gradually eliminate the water traps in later model years - but the Allegro never did. There were enough other things wrong with it that it was horribly un-loved which makes separating out the fact from the fiction rather difficult. SteveBaker (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Austin Allegro publicity shot.jpg

The image Image:Austin Allegro publicity shot.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Austin Rover.png
• Image:Austin Rover.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Metro Photograph

I am going to change the photo of a Metro to an Austin model instead of an MG model, any objections? Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Austin aircraft made by a separate business? company?

There is reference in an Austin article to something called Austin Aero Ltd. I have searched in many places and so far all I have come up with is:

• 1917-1922 Aircraft Design Department (of The Austin Motor Company Limited)
• 1936-1946 Aero Division or Aero Works (of The Austin Motor Company Limited)

No mention anywhere else of the company named in this extract from the Longbridge plant article: "During the Second World War the main plant produced munitions and tank parts, while the nearby East Works of Austin Aero Ltd at Cofton Hackett produced several types of aeroplane such as the Short Stirling and the Hawker Hurricane."

Can anyone come up with more information? Eddaido (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Austin Motor company had a hanger at longbridge as per aronline.co.uk but no mention of what was built.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Use of US $ to discuss tax incentives in interwar UK?

This just doesn't make any sense to me and it doesn't say what era USD at that, surely it would make much more sense to give us the figures in the pre decimal Sterling that wree used at the time and let people work it out for them selves if they want to know what that is equivalent to in a completely different currency and time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morcus (talk • contribs) 05:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.181.201 (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The Vehicle Excise Duty page has a link to a company which makes replica road tax discs: they say an annual registration fee of £1 was introduced in the Motor Car Act of 1903. Lloyd George introduced a graduated scheme based on the RAC formula: nominal horsepower was calculated as cylinder bore (in inches) squared, multiplied by number of cylinders and divided by 2.5. The Finance Act of 1920 brought in a tax rate of £1 per HP, rounded up for fractions of a horsepower, with a minimum of £6. The Finance Act of 1934 reduced the rate to 15 shillings per horsepower, with a minimum of £4 10s 0d. The scheme ended in 1948, when ordinary cars were charged £10 a year. These figures referred to the following years, since tax discs used to expire at the end of the year. I have confirmed these figures on www.legislation.gov.uk where pdf files of Public General Acts may be downloaded, but it may be overkill to add those to the Austin page.

The Austin 7 was actually rated at 7.8 HP, and so taxed as if it had 8 HP. The Austin page has a comparison to a Ford Model A, which I don't have the information at hand to verify, but other sites say that the Ford Model T came to 22 HP. Others point out that the RAC-based scheme encouraged British manufacturers to build narrow-bore, long-stroke engines, which were allegedly unsuited to prolonged flat-out driving in North America, and may also have delayed the change from side to overhead valves. Conversely (and probably intentionally) it made foreign cars relatively more expensive to run in the UK. NRPanikker (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Austin 30 hp

one of the car built by Austin motor company , feel content to weak to get its own notability Shrikanthv (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. All these early car articles are of varying degrees of stub or start status. Absolutely no need to merge. Warren (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. These early Austins provided the base for development of (in competition with Morris) Britain's biggest car brand. Eddaido (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. This page is no weaker than other Austin model pages and was a notable model in its line up.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. No reason to merge Austin 30 hp into the main company article. The model is no less notable than any other individual car model (more so than some) produced by any other manufacturer, numerous examples of which have their own article. Eagleash (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Austin Motor Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100930044607/http://austin-rover.co.uk/ to http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Nissan

Currently the section states:

....Austin entered into another agreement with Datsun for assembly of 2,000 imported Austins from "knock-down kits", to be sold in Japan under the Austin trademark. The agreement called for Nissan to make all Austin parts locally...

So was it Nissan trading as Datsun or Datsun that had the agreement? Barlalain (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you change all references in this article from Datsun to Nissan. The name Datsun was well-known in USA which may account for the confusion. How are you going on our other problems? Eddaido (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Bonnet Ornament

It would be good if someone could add a picture of the "winged A" bonnet ornament that used to stand at the front of Austin of England cars up to the 1950s. This was small point of distinction between an Austin Princess limousine and a Bentley, which only had a winged B. NRPanikker (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you know when they started with it? I don't think "winged A"s featured on wartime or prewar Austins. Might it have started with the A40 Devon? I think the "winged B" probably started with the Bentley Mark VI (unless someone else knows better). Still waiting for the "winged C". There was a very aggressive lion-inspired emblem on the nose of the Peugeot 403 - maybe also 203 - till the mid 1950s when it got flattened, reportedly because it was injuring pedestrians. The Jaguar on the nose of the Jaguar disappeared for the same alleged reasons some years later. I don't know if there were any reported injuries from a "winged A". Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't remember them on the big Princesses (as present company knows, I can be wrong) I specifically remember them on the A90 Atlantic so— here you are / it is. Eddaido (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

There was so much CAR I forgot the thing on the front. Eddaido (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Since looked at old brochures and photos and the memory and I suspect those big As were not fitted to cars sold in Australia and New Zealand. May have only been seen by me on a privately imported A90 (which when new looked quite weird, believe me, so short and wide not to mention blunt). We have been advised of a campaign in Australia for a united nation called Neustralia <sigh> but it was later, 27 January, reported this was only a stand-up group's special press beat-up for Invasion Day celebrations aka Australia Day. Eddaido (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Company name

There are, or have been, several British companies named Austin Motor Company. From: <https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/>

• AUSTIN MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED, Company number 00133747, incorporated 04 Feb 1914, name changed on 07 Nov 1994 to EVENFELD LIMITED. Dissolved 28 Mar 1996. Restored by order of the court 29 Jan 2013. Dissolved via compulsory strike-off 15 Oct 2019.
• AUSTIN MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED, Company number 08135188, incorporated 09 July 2012, dissolved 18 February 2014.
• AUSTIN MOTOR COMPANY LTD, Company number 09572167, incorporated on 01 May 2015. Active on 20 October 2019. See also Talk:Aluminium–air_battery#Trevor_Jackson_and_Austin_Electric for further information. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)