Morris Marina (1971 – 1980) Review
Morris Marina (1971 – 1980) At A Glance
Lots of parts commonality with other BMC and BL cars, good performance in 1.8TC form, simple and easy to work on.
Rust, handling isn't as good as it should be (and not as bad as everyone thinks)
Replacing the much-loved Minor was never going to be easy, and British Leyland decided that the best thing to do was to create a new Cortina rival in its wake. After years of building front-wheel drive Issigonis-designed cars, the Marina seemed a step backwards, but was actually what the market wanted.
It was a strictly conventional machine, with much of its running gear Minor-, Triumph and MG-based, proving tat there were some clever parts-bin engineers at BL in the late 1960s. But despite the vogueish styling, its mechanical package was elderly for the era.
Saloon, coupé and estate were available, with engines in 1275cc A-Series or 1798cc B-Series forms, the latter unit from the MGB (which in coupe form actually outperformed the corporation's sports car). That should have made the cars quite sporty, but handling and steering where not as good as they should have been. 1978 saw the arrival of the new overhead cam O-Series in 1.7-litre form, but it was no material improvement over the old B. Gradually improved until it was replaced by the Ital in 1980.
Model History
- February 1968: Newly-formed British Leyland decided to build a Cortina rival
- April 1968: Design work began on Project ADO28
- July 1968: Styling work began on ADO28
- April 1971: The Morris Marina was launched to the press
- April 1971: Marina went on sale
- June 1973: The Marina Estate was launched
- May 1974: Work began on Marina replacement, ADO77
- September 1975: ADO77 scrapped
- May 1975: Marina Mk2 launched
- October 1978: Marina received O-Series power
- April 1980: Marina production ceased
February 1968
Newly-formed British Leyland decided to build a Cortina rival
The newly formed British Leyland Motor Corporation (BLMC) decided to plug a yawning chasm in its Austin-Morris range in order to counter dwindling production volumes. The answer was obvious: the ADO16 may have been Britain’s best selling-car, a darling of private motorists, but fleet buyers avoided it in large numbers, favouring the simplicity, perceived reliability and wide range of the Ford Cortina. BLMC needed a Cortina, or at the very least an Escort – and it needed one fast.
The Marketing department, led by Filmer Paradise agreed the plan wholeheartedly, and quickly, the BLMC Board rubber stamped the project. Harry Webster was charged with the task of rejuvenating the Austin-Morris range and was given overall control of the programme, named ADO28. His initial plan was for a comprehensive re-body of the Morris Minor, because the new car needed to be tough and reliable – if BLMC couldn’t build a dependable car based on the Minor platform, what hope did it have?
Harry Webster decided to use Morris Minor componentry clothed in a new body. Carefully developed, it was thought this package should have been easily developed into an effective Ford Escort rival. There would need to be a 10-inch stretch of wheelbase, but with an anticipated engine range of 1100cc, 1300cc and 1500cc, a company car-friendly package could take shape. Webster felt confident enough at this early stage to approach the BL board with the notion that ADO28 could be priced a £20 premium over the Escort.
April 1968
Design work began on Project ADO28
Webster told BL’s product planners the Fiat 124 was the package to aim for with ADO28. Paradise looked into the demands of the fleet market and came up with an all-embracing specification – one which promised to tax Webster’s team. Donald Stokes already had it set in his own mind the ADO28 should be launched at the 1970 Earls Court Motor show. This tight deadline led Webster to take many short cuts during ADO28′s development.
By May 1968, ADO28 was firming up, and the product planners backed up Webster’s original concept to face up to stiff competition in the 1100cc-1500cc rear-wheel-drive class. Unlike the technically-advanced ADO16, marketing decided compactness was not a key selling point in this market, and just like Ford, BLMC followed the philosophy of more metal for the money in creating the ADO28.
If at this stage, marketing of the ADO28 appeared a straightforward affair, engineering was even more so. That is not to say that Harry Webster did not have his work cut-out with the new car. The ADO28 project was compromised by its tight production deadline, and that meant it would rely almost entirely on the BL parts-bin.
July 1968
Styling work began on ADO28
Haynes worked on two versions of the ADO28, and within weeks, had completed his first models - available in coupe and saloon versions. The Haynes models were presented to the British Leyland executive policy committee on 5 August 1968 alongside competition from the Italian design houses Pininfarina and Michelotti. Haynes’ dual proposals were given the nod by the BL big-wigs, subject to modifications. This was is an exceptional compliment to Haynes considering the strength of the opposition.
April 1971
The Morris Marina was launched to the press
When the Morris Marina was shown to the press, it was almost immediately obvious, that this was a simple car - and one that could be described as a parts bin special. There was not a great deal for the press to get excited about, but it was a new car, and the first product launched by BLMC.
The range of engines was unremarkable; the A-Series version was lifted straight from the 1275cc version of the MG Midget with only minor alterations to the sump and manifold. The 1798cc B-Series version installed in the Marina was similarly adapted from the MGB. The suspension was equally unremarkable but, unlike the ADO17 and the Maxi which had been mildly criticised by the press, the styling was judged as a success. The wide range of trim permutations and three choices of power units (1.3-, 1.8-litre single carb, and twin-carb) allowed the range to cover the market well.
The driving experience offered by the Marina was as unremarkable as the specification implied; one could pretty much write a road test report of the car without having sat behind the wheel at all. Initial road test reports were fairly kind to the car, mindful of the car’s technical shortcomings ö and it is fair to say that the 1800TC version possessed a certain potential, offering similar performance than the MGB and a slightly higher top speed of 100mph.
April 1971
Marina went on sale
June 1973
The Marina Estate was launched
During 1973, the Marina managed to become Britain’s second best selling car after the Ford Cortina. Despite this, the disputes at Cowley continued to disrupt Marina production over issues involving work study engineers, drivers, plant attendants, paint sprayers, a hoist, tyre fitters and outside disputes at major suppliers such as Rubery Owen and Adwest also stopped car output. January to March 1974 saw the imposition of the three-day-week, but at least BLMC had the consolation that its rivals in the fleet car market were also afflicted.
May 1974
Work began on Marina replacement, ADO77
As BLMC plunged deeper and deeper into crisis in 1974, work was started on the planned ADO77 Marina replacement. Because sales of the Morris Marina had never lived up to the heady expectations of it made during its development, the decision was made that the new car should follow the Cortina upmarket into the 2-litre class. Once BLMC became bankrupt and Ryder took over, the car was put under close scrutiny by management.
Allegro and Marina most definitely were not earning their keep and were not making nearly enough money to fund the development of the ADO77 - and anyway, not only did the new car sit uncomfortably close in terms of size to the soon-to-appear Leyland ADO71 (18/22 Series, Leyland Princess), but practically mirrored the work that was going on over in Solihull on the SD2 Dolomite replacement.
September 1975
ADO77 scrapped
Needless to say, the ADO77 was dropped, which meant that the Marina was now on its own, for better or for worse. As it was, sales of the Marina continued to hold up well during the Seventies, generally holding third or fourth in the UK sales charts, but it did not disguise the fact that marketing-led development was no substitute for genuine product development and, as time went on, the Marina’s shortcomings were becoming increasingly evident.
May 1975
Marina Mk2 launched
The lightly-revised Series 2 version appeared, sporting a different range of trim designations and a revised dashboard. Motor magazine’s 1978 road test of the 1.8 HL concluded with this summary: ‘Overall a disappointing car whose impressive performance is completely overshadowed by excessive noise levels. The top-of-the-range Marina…..does not live up to Leyland’s ‘Executive express’ tag. Dated suspension gives crude handling characteristics and mediocre roadholding. Moderately comfortable but driving position poor. A dated car that is way behind its competitors.’
October 1978
Marina received O-Series power
Development on the Marina was in the pipeline, but it was very much on a shoestring. In time for the 1978 NEC motor show, Austin-Morris announced the long-awaited O-Series engine and the first recipient for this OHC-power unit was to be the Princess followed by the Morris Marina.
The O-Series engine was initially conceived as an OHC version of the venerable B-Series engine, but soon developed into an entirely new engine, sharing no parts with its long-lived predecessor. The oddly-sized 1698cc engine eventually appeared on the market as an engine that was desperately in need of further development, seriously lacking refinement.
That is not to say that it was not an improvement over the original, it was certainly more economical and produced enough power. Some cosmetic improvements were also incorporated into the design, with new bumpers and ablack plastic chin-spoiler, but the effect did not disguise the fact that the Marina was now ageing badly.
April 1980
Marina production ceased
Driving Morris Marina (1971 – 1980)
Morris Marina vs Hillman Avenger
During the 1960s, both The British Motor Corporation (BMC) and The Rootes Group found themselves in deep, deep trouble. Rootes had been suffering struggling since launching Imp in 1963. Profits had rapidly turned into losses as investment in the new factory in Linwood, Scotland had mounted up. The new car was sucking money out of the group – warranty costs and poor sales saw to that. Finding itself Rootes a weakened position, the American car giant, Chrysler, decided to buy-in, wishing to expand its European presence.
With an extra infusion of cash, Rootes went all conventional. A two-pronged attack to strike at the heart of Ford’s all conquering UK operation was conceived: the Arrow range to replace the Super Minx and the smaller B-Car (Avenger) to supercede the Minx.
The Avenger was launched in February 1970, and impressed all who saw it. Effectively, it was a Rootes designed, Chrysler funded car. Very little existing Rootes hardware went into it and resultantly, Rootes-Chrysler had high hopes for its chances.
If the struggles of Rootes Group were obvious for all to see, the same couldn’t be said for BMC. Thanks to the success of the Mini and the 1100 range, it offered two of Britain’s best-selling cars – and was proving to be the darling of young car buyers looking for something fun to drive. However, these cars were never sold for a profit – and that meant BMC didn’t cash in.
Where it did matter – up in the mid-range – BMC had not been wholly successful. The Farina bodied Oxford-Cambridge was fading, and its intended replacement the 1800 range had spectacularly missed its sales targets. BMC profits plummeted, and as a result the ambitious Leyland Motor Corporation took it over in January 1968 (to form BLMC), with a little help from the government.
The new management regime quickly realised a new car was needed to fight the Escort/Cortina – and a simple car was needed. The ADO28, or Marina as it became subsequently known, took all the best bits of the BLMC parts bin (MG engines, Triumph gearboxes and some Minor running gear), and clothed it in a tidy new body. It was a rushed programme – and development took a mere three years. It wasn’t supposed to last long on the market place.
In the end, BL tried to win the hearts of Britain’s sales reps with a tried and trusted package, whereas Rootes-Chrysler thought something all new would float his boat. Targeting the same buyers, both cars ended up looking very similar, and performed their roles as Ford rivals with great aplomb.
Character
Considering these cars were built for sales reps, they are both remarkably characterful – well, maybe not. With conventional mechanical layouts, deliberately trans-Atlantic styling and low-power engine options, you’re going to struggle to find any real talking points.
Neither well set the pulse racing with tarmac shredding performance nor possess an engine note to die for, but what the Avenger and Marina have in equal doses are tough, no-nonsense demeanors. They are simple to service and are suffused with a slightly naff style reserved for cars designed with Xerox salesmen in mind. Cortina buyers, then…
Neither is at the head of the charisma league – and if you looked through the bottom of a beer glass at them, you’d be hard pressed to tell them apart. Roy Axe designed the Avenger in Coventry and Roy Haynes styled the Marina in Oxford – and yet, one has to wonder at how they both arrived at the same conclusion: Pure, scaled down Detroit…
We’ve put the Avenger slightly ahead of the Marina for a couple of very good reasons. It was possible to buy a more luridly coloured interior for the Hillman, and most importantly, those rear lamp clusters present a smiley face to anyone following. Okay, that’s a pretty thin reason for giving the Avenger the nod over the Marina, but then, we’re talking about cars designed to drive up and down motorways – with photocopiers in the boot…
Performance
Take a look at the performance figures of the Marina and the Avenger, and you’d be mistaken for thinking that these cars are so slow they would find difficulty getting out of their own way. However, the bald figures do not convey that reality of the situation – both cars are perfectly lively to drive, and although stepping out of a modern saloon into either would come as a bit of a culture shock, you’re not going to feel short changed in most situations.
The Marina is actually fairly impressive for a relatively large-bodied 1.3-litre saloon. As always, the A-Series engine manages to punch above its weight, thanks to generous torque and a fairly unstressed nature. Sprinting might not be impressive, but a 0-60 time of 17.9 seconds can be counterbalanced with reasonably lively in-gear acceleration. The best way to make progress in the Marina is to get into fourth gear as soon as possible and leave it there. It’ll not be fast, but you’ll not hold up too many people, either.
The Avenger may only have a 2bhp advantage over the Marina, but it’s enough to provide the Linwood-built car with an on-road advantage. A 0-60 time of 16.5 is impressive compared with the Marina. The engine note is smoother, and that means the driver isn’t forced to keep the revs low – not that this would be a chore given the Avenger’s nicely tractable nature.
Back in the Seventies, speed was everything in the outside lane of the M1 on the way to a pressing engagement with the regional sales director – so it’s advantage Coventry.
Handling
For much of the 1970s, lambasting the Marina’s suspension was the fashionable thing to do. Motoring journalists relied on two stories to get them by: accounts of James’ Hunt’s public indiscretions, and the monumental understeer generated by any Marina lacking a front anti-roll bar. Some were so scathing, you’d be left under the impression that BL should have issued health warnings with every Marina sold to an unsuspecting member of the public.
Now’s let’s put that story to bed. You won’t crash a Marina at the first sign of a corner you come to, but – and here’s a shocking statement – drive it sensibly, and it’s a tidy and reasonably well-handling car. The rear suspension has primitive leaf-springs, allowing the car to hop sideways if one encounters a mid-corner bump, and a new driver may find this disconcerting. At the front, there are no such vices – there is a feeling of under-damping, which doesn’t inspire confidence, but tales of terminal understeer are well wide of the mark.
However, it pays to take care in the wet. That lively rear axle can play tricks in corners – and it is possible to be surprised by snap oversteer if you’re not careful. You have been warned.
The Avenger’s handling is much less of a talking point. In fact, after the Marina, it feels very sophisticated. Roll angles are kept more tightly in check, and where the Marina would surprise, the Avenger merely delights. It has a firm and stable feel when cornering that marks it out as a well sorted family car – and not only do its abilities transcend those of the Marina, but also most of its other rivals.
The basic excellence of the Avenger shone through when applied to the higher powered and considerably more interesting Tiger model. In 1.3-litre form, its suspension was more than capable of handling whatever the driver would throw at it. Shame about the heavy steering, though…
Ride
Neither car is renowned for offering particularly cosseting rides – but to think of either as uncomfortable would be to sell both of them short.
However, both are a long way from being perfect. The Avenger may have a nicely damped, firm ride, and is reasonably subdued in the suspension noise department, but you’re always aware of bumps in the road when you start to press on. Stick to nicely maintained smooth roads, and the Avenger comes across as a very civilised car indeed.
Those traits make it a very good motorway car, and one that inspires confidence on long journeys; just don’t expect too much finesse when driving through town.
The Marina may be bested by the Avenger in the ride stakes, but get yourself behind the wheel of one and don’t demand too much from it, and you’ll not be too disappointed. Despite the myths about the Marina, it’s ride is not a bad news story – driving it, you get the sense its bodyshell is solid enough not to make it creak and groan over the potholes that litter our roads today. Bump-thump absorption is also quite good, even though most of that comes from a slightly unbalanced set-up, which sees soft front suspension married to a slightly firmer set-up at the rear.
Around town, the Marina’s ride is a match for the Avenger’s, but up the ante and take it on a flowing A-road or motorway, and it starts to feel all at sea. The ride comfort goes all choppy on you, and there’s less stability that you’d expect there to be.
So, although it may have been designed to plough a furrow on the motorway, that’s exactly the environment, the Marina seems to be at its worst…
Gearbox
Neither car has anything to shout about here. It’s not that either has a poor gearchange – because they don’t. It’s just that compared with the sublime gearchange of the Ford Escort or Cortina or anything vaguely Japanese, they were lacking.
Of course, we don’t have an Escort or Cortina here – we’re in splendid isolation. And with that in mind, one can’t help but be impressed with the Avenger’s gearbox. The first impressions are of a car with perfectly judged gear ratios – one never feels as though the gearing it too high or low in general driving. Gear stick movement might be a little on the long side for our liking, but engagement is always positive, and it is complemented by a nicely firm and progressive clutch pedal.
Of course, you can’t help yourself from trying to snatch fifth gear when getting up to motorway speeds, but that was par for the course when the Avenger was vying for outside lane supremacy.
The Marina’s gearchange is also a conventional four-speeder. Taken from the Triumph Toledo, the gearbox certainly performed a capable job, but never did you find yourself changing gear for the sheer sake of it.
Change action is slightly notchier than the Avenger, but travel is shorter. Also like the Avenger, it tends to whine a bit on the overrun – but time has softened this weakness. Back in the Seventies, it might have annoyed road testers and owners, but today it simply adds amusement to an endearing car…
Brakes
Rather like the rest of this shoot-out, there is little to choose from between the two cars when it comes down to stamping on the middle pedal.
The Avenger’s brake pedal possesses a nice firm feel to it, and it is easy to graduate stopping enough to make the process a very smooth affair. In terms of the performance the 1.5-litre version offers, it is fair to say the brakes are adequate enough for the job. But it would not be wise to use the term, ‘stop on a six-pence’…
It is much the same story for the Marina. The pedal action is slightly more positive than the Avenger’s, but not really enough to make a distinction.
In both cases, the best way forward is to describe their braking is that they are more than up to the job in hand, and never a concern. Unless, of course, it’s wet and you’re going too fast – something no self-respecting middle-ranking salesman of the Seventies would ever find himself doing…
Cabin and Controls
ONE can see that both Rootes-Chrysler and BLMC made great efforts to create stylish and desirable interiors for their new family cars.
The Avenger impresses right away. Not because it is an ergonomic masterpiece or a feat of interior packaging, but because it’s extremely eye-catching. As soon as you jump in the Avenger, a rather over-styled American looking steering wheel dominates the stylish and minimalist looking dashboard. That wheel is a little on the large side, and not to everyone’s liking, but you can’t knock the Avenger for not trying its hardest.
Another lovely feature if you like that kind of thing is the strip speedometer. Glancing at this wonderful piece of design, one couldn’t help but think about the wonderful chase scene from the classic film, ‘Duel’. But then again, did the average British driver really want a prime slice of Motown for that taxing high-speed dash to the next Hemel Hempstead conference? Perhaps he did… the speedometer was always nice and easy to see from the passenger seat.
The driving environment is a little on the cramped side, though, and this situation is exacerbated by a driver’s seat lacking in rearwards travel. This pushes the driver too close to the pedal and the steering wheel.
The Avenger’s designers may have decided to save money on glass by equipping it with non-opening front quarter lights, but that didn’t stop them making the most of the situation. You’ll find ample bottle holders in both front door pockets – something that would not have been possible with single piece front glass.
After the Avenger, the Marina looks slightly ordinary. It’s not stark or even boring to look at, but there’s simply not as much design flair. Like the Avenger, the Marina’s dashboard is a slab sided piece of plastic, but instead of a strip speedo, you’re presented with two large round dials. There’s no real attempt at style here, but at the same time, it cannot be criticised for being cluttered. Compared to the Maxi and 1100, it seems like a luxury car…
Ergonomics aren’t too bad at all. All the major controls fall nicely to hand – wipers and indicators handled by two column stalks, with the light switch and choke on the dashboard panel to the right of the steering wheel. It’s a no-nonsense approach that mirrors the rest of the Marina design.
Interior room is a close run thing – although its wheelbase is two inches shorter than the Avenger’s, the Marina seems the roomier car. Driving position and visibility are also good – and unlike the Avenger, the Marina’s driver’s seat offers plenty of adjustment for the taller driver.
Luggage Space
Even Stevens again. Considering the Marina and Avenger where designed by completely different companies, it’s amazing to see how close they are in so many categories.
Both boots are capacious, meanly trimmed (no panels separating the inside rear wing for either) and feature a high loading sill. In terms of absolute load space, according to manufacturer’s figures, the Avenger nips it, but to the naked eye, you’d be very hard pushed to tell the difference.
Both will happily swallow whatever the hard-working sales rep would throw at it. Besides, if huge load space is required, both offer the option of a stylish estate.
Running Costs
A cigarette paper separates the cars again – at the fuel pumps, anyway. The Marina is frugal, easily beating 35mpg on a gentle run. It’s a testament to the efficiency of the A-Series engine that it can power a relatively large bodied saloon like the Marina, and yet deliver acceptable performance and excellent fuel consumption.
In terms of servicing, the Marina holds a considerable advantage. We’ll cut to the chase: it has the same A-Series engine as the Mini 1275 and MG Midget. With brethren like that, there’s no way that the Avenger would ever be able to compete on terms of spares and parts availability. Put simply, there’s a huge international cottage industry which has been set-up simply to support that engine – even in Outer Mongolia you’ll be able to find a garage which can fix your Marina…
The same cannot be said for the Avenger – it doesn’t quite match the Marina at the fuel pumps, and it certainly cannot boast the spares availability. Having said that, consumables are still readily available – and although Rootes-Chrysler only used the engine in one other application (the Sunbeam hatchback), spares don’t seem to be drying up. You’ll find no difficulty in keeping your Avenger in tip-top service – just that compared with the Marina, it is going to be a slightly more expensive experience.
As for other problems in service – both cars are synonymous with lax build quality and poor rust proofing, so plan for unexpected expenditure…
Verdict
It's decision time – and if you didn’t skip straight to the verdict, you’ll have seen there is very, very little to separate the Marina and Avenger. Both are competent cars – neither is particularly charismatic.
In terms of style, performance, dynamics, accommodation and running costs, it’s almost too close to call. And in a way, that does allow the Marina to prove itself as a rather clever little car. Mechanically, it might be completely predictable – the complete antithesis of the generation of clever BMC cars that preceded the Marina – but it does demonstrate that with considered use of its parts bin, BLMC put together a car that could fight toe-to-toe with Rootes-Chrysler’s clean-sheet high budget effort.
On the road, the Avenger just edges it, thanks to a less ‘loose’ feel on the road, and a more resolved suspension set-up. But it isn’t a convincing victory for Coventry, by any means – and sales figures showed more people were prepared to put up with the Marina’s faults than they were to embrace the brave new world of the Hillman Avenger.
In objective terms, the Avenger wins. Keys on the table, we'll take the Morris…
Morris Marina 1.8TC
0–60 | 12.0 s |
Top speed | 100 mph |
Power | 95 bhp |
Torque | 106 lb ft |
Weight | 970 kg |
Cylinders | I4 |
Engine capacity | 1798 cc |
Layout | FR |
Transmission | 4M |