Triumph Acclaim (1981 – 1984) Review

January 1978

BL begins looking for a collaborative partner

A long and exhaustive search into potential suitors then followed and a serious investigation into which suitable competitors would a) BL like to co-operate with, b) not feel engulfed by and c) had a suitable mid-sized car in development. According to internal documents on the subject, the companies that were short listed by BL were: Alfa-Romeo, AMC, BMW, Chrysler (US), Chrysler (UK), Fiat, Ford, GM, Honda, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Peugeot-Citroen, Renault, Saab, Subaru, Toyota, Volkswagen and Volvo.

As Ray Horrocks stated at the time, ‘Chrysler UK was number one and Honda was number two.’ Much groundwork was covered in pursuing the Chrysler deal, and the project, which was called “Dovetail”, would have involved a partnership, a rationalised range of factories (Longbridge, Poissy, Cowley, Ryton, Solihull and Browns Lane), and a slimmed-down range of cars. The combined BL-Chrysler range of cars would have looked like this: (BL) Metro, (Chrysler) Horizon, (Chrysler) Alpine, (BL) Princess and (Chrysler) C9/Tagora, Rover, Jaguar, sports cars and the off-road vehicles.

Looking at the plan, and putting aside the relative merits of the cars on offer, the plan did seem to have a firm footing, but the deal with Chrysler fell through when the US parent company pulled out of the UK, leaving the company to be bought by PSA (Peugeot-Citroën). Negotiations continued after the sale, but following a final meeting between Michael Edwardes and David Andrews and the chairman of PSA, Jean-Paul Parayre on the 6th September 1978, it became clear that PSA were not interested in hiving off any of their UK Operation to the British company. BL were eventually relieved about losing Chrysler UK to the French, however, because once PSA started running the company, it quickly became apparent that the Anglo-French operation had actually been in worse shape than them!

Serious talks with Renault had also been taking place since early 1977, and the following summer, discussions had reached a point where a collaborative plan was being finalised – the intention was for Renault to offer BL the upcoming R9 model to produce in return for marketing rights for the Land Rover in Europe and the USA. However, Edwardes felt that Renault viewed BL as a weaker partner and the terms of their agreement stacked heavily in favour of the French. The Renault 9 would only be marketed as a BL product in the UK – and the company would have no rights to export it anywhere else under their own name. Worse than that, some high-ups within Renault felt that they should be allowed to continue to sell their version of it in the UK!

In fact, speaking in the early months of 1978, Michael Edwardes had stated that he would have liked to increase his co-operative links with Renault, but due to delays, the deal was never finalized and so, on April 1st 1978, Edwardes found out by reading in the Financial Times that Renault had, in fact, decided to partner AMC in the USA – and market Jeeps worldwide. The deal was off. It was always felt that the company would eventually engulf BL, because of their relative sizes – and this was something that no one in the company felt was desirable.

May 1978

Honda enters the equation

With the French well and truly out of the equation by this time, it became apparent that the second choice of Ray Horrocks was now the best option left. When presented with the idea of a possible collaborative partnership with Honda and after much persuasion, management eventually agreed that the Japanese company could be a suitable partner to do business with. As soon as the BL board gave the go ahead to pursue talks with the company, Michael Edwardes soon began to put the feelers out in Japan regarding how Honda would feel about collaboration.

When the soundings came back as positive, Edwardes requested that his colleague on the Chloride board and ex-Ambassador to Tokyo, Sir Fred Warner telex the President of Honda, Kyoshi Kawashima, asking to consider a deal with BL. Shortly after, a positive response was forthcoming, and arrangements were made to begin talks on neutral ground in San Francisco between the management teams of both companies. BL’s delegation was led by Ray Horrocks, David Andrews and John Bacchus, and they Jetted off to Japan in October 1978 to formally begin talks with Honda.

This was a shrewd choice of partners because at the time, Honda was approximately the same size as BL; they were regarded as innovators and were the most “European” of all the Japanese car companies.

The Honda version, the Ballade, demonstrates just how little input British Leyland had in the design of the Triumph Acclaim. As part of the licencing agreement, the Ballade was not marketed in the UK so as not to tread on the toes of the British-built car.

Negotiations were long and hard but good progress was made – the negotiation groups talking with Honda were shown the likely product that the joint venture could be based upon, and the news coming back the UK was all good thus far.

In early 1979, Mike Carver, BL’s Head of Business strategy flew out to Japan to bang out more concrete plans with Honda and sound out what products they could offer and see how it would fit into the BL range. After seeing the prototype of the then yet-to-be launched Ballade, a notchback version of the Second generation Civic, Carver was pleased with what he considered to be a product that would fit in nicely with the future slimmed down BL range of cars. In no way did Carver reflect to Honda the mild sense of disappointment that the BL negotiation group had felt when they saw the Ballade – they felt that a hatchback would have been a much preferable option.

The relationship between the two companies’ negotiating and engineering teams mirrored that between the Ballade and the BL range. So much so, in fact, that once a rapport was established, the nuts and bolts of the collaborative effort were brought to a satisfactory conclusion at a very rapid pace. Traffic between Birmingham and Tokyo was thick and fast, so much so, that on Boxing Day 1979, Sir Michael Edwardes flew out to Japan to meet Honda President, Kyoshi Kawashima and officially sign the collaborative deal between the Two Companies.

December 1979

The deal between Honda and is signed

Boxing day, 1979 and the deal is finally done. The implications of this partnership were far ranging, resulting in the wholly Japanese-influenced Rover-badged range of cars, a new factory for Honda in Swindon, UK and the adoption of improved working practices in British Leyland’s factories. It all ended in acrimony in February 1994.

January 1980

Project Bounty takes shape

Now it was down to the JRT division to tune the Ballade, at this time codenamed Bounty, to appeal to more European tastes – with a view to replacing the Dolomite range. Production was earmarked for the Canley factory, where Dolomites were currently produced, but this coincided with Edwardes’ streamlining of BL’s factories. The internal re-organization that resulted in JRT being phased out in favour of the Light Medium division meant that the Acclaim would be incorporated into the Austin-Morris range and be built at the under-utilized Cowley factory in Oxford.

Following initial market research, BL strategists became more bullish about the chances of Project Bounty’s success on the British and Continental markets and as a result, upped their production targets for the new car. The view within the company was that the this car, to be marketed as the Triumph Acclaim, was so complementary, that it would not steal sales from the Metro or the LM10, both hatchbacks and that it could be regarded as much more than the stopgap it initially was intended to be. The Acclaim was marketed as a replacement for the Dolomite, but marketing strategists knew that as the Ital and the Allegro were fading in the market, potential customers would look at the Acclaim as a natural alternative instead of the competition. That was the hope, anyway.

Ray Horrocks already knew that the “discreet collaboration programme” with Honda was going to be more far ranging than a simple licence deal to build the Ballade in the UK. It was obvious that the car would form part of model range after the launch of the new British middleweight cars. The production targets for the Acclaim were set at 1,500 per week and it would prove to contribute more to the British economy than people may have initially feared, using 80 per cent British sourced parts, contributing to 70 per cent of the ex-works price being British. Horrocks also dropped hints that although the car’s 1335cc engine was produced in Japan, it could be built in Britain, if the volumes dictated it. A very subtle hint was dropped that it was “conceivable” that the engine could be used in other BL products.

The fact that the Austin Metro would require serious and expensive changes to its floorpan in order to accommodate the engine did not stop tentative investigations into this very plan.

Before the launch of the Acclaim, plans were drawn up to extend the collaborative deal and codenames were allocated: HD9 was to be a hatchback version of the Acclaim, HD14 was to be a very small car and the HD17 was an executive car. The HD9 and HD14 amounted to nothing more than paper projects – there was no need for them in the then current Austin-Rover range, but the HD17 would go on to become the XX or Rover 800 as it eventually appeared. Significantly, these codenames and projects would indicate that even as early as 1981, BL were looking at Honda to “assist” with the development of their future models – and that following the Montego in 1984, there would be no more entirely British saloons produced by the company.

October 1981

Triumph Acclaim launched

Externally, the Triumph Acclaim was almost pure Honda Ballade – only the smallest of details differentiated the two. (Photograph: Rene Winters.)

The interior benefitted from new front seats (using Ford Cortina frames!) and more UK-friendly trim materials and colour schemes.

Politically, the Acclaim was a very interesting proposition. During the 1970s, the European car makers had looked upon the inexorable march of the Japanese with great suspicion and once BL’s collaborative plans entered the public domain, the French and the Italian governments, in particular, began to raise concerns that Project Bounty was, in fact a Japanese “Trojan Horse”, a way the they could circumvent the import quotas set by the Europeans. In a strongly worded letter to the Times just One week before the official launch of the Acclaim, Sir Michael Edwards defended his product in the strongest terms

“The Launch of the Triumph Acclaim, which results from a unique piece of collaboration between BL and Honda, will not go without significant debate. Some people will see the project as a realistic response to the rapidly changing nature of the world automotive business, being fully in line with BL’s business and market requirements. Others will find it unacceptable and, to put it crudely, describe it as prejudicial to the Triumph name, a ‘sell-out’ to the Japanese and in conflict with BL’s opposition to the import of Japanese cars into Britain”.

What Edwardes was saying in emotive terms was that the Acclaim was a “proper” British car in as much as that it was directly responsible for saving 2000 jobs at the Cowley factory and helped maintain countless jobs in the UK component industry. Yes, this is undoubtedly true, but in 1981 inter-manufacturer collaboration with the Japanese on this scale was yet to become fashionable, so competitors and commentators remained unconvinced.

So politically, the Acclaim may have been a hot potato, but what about the car itself? Well, BL engineers at the newly opened Gaydon facility had worked feverishly on the Acclaim during its gestation period in order to tune the car into the tastes of the intended customer base. There were dark mutterings of “things that broke” during testing – the usual things that happen during vehicle development, but Honda would never acknowledge that anything was wrong at all, even if they would quite happily share the fix. Mechanically, the Acclaim was pure Civic/Ballade with the same 1335cc engine, end-on gearbox and independent suspension, front and rear by McPherson struts.

As with the Honda Ballade, the body was light, the Engine was willing and excellent performance with what BL referred to as “Triumph virtues”. It is fair to say that the Acclaim was an eager car to drive, but it did fall short of British Leyland principles of space efficiency.

It had a 91-inch wheelbase, barely longer than the Metros, and low roofline, which meant that whichever way you cut it, the Acclaim was a cramped car inside. BL’s contribution to the car was the re-designed seats (that were actually very good – and used Ford Cortina frames) and Europeanisation of the interior trim and colours. The seats were smaller than the original Honda items, but did not free up enough space from a car that had none.

The “Edwardes letter” aside, the lead-up to the Acclaim’s launch was very quiet and it failed to grab the public’s attention in the way that the Metro’s had. The public perceived it as the re-badged Japanese car that it was, but did not condemn the car for that, reasoning that if it was built in Britain, it was as British as the (German Built) Ford Cortina, if not more so. Triumph traditionalists may have looked on aghast, but many of the Dolomite’s customers did return and buy an Acclaim when it came to trade-in time.

The road testers found that they had a further BL product that they could test and not be embarrassed by the fact that there was so little to be excited by (like the Ital). It was praised for good performance, excellent economy, high levels of build quality and an appealing, engaging nature. Betraying its Japanese origins, it also had an excellent level of equipment – things that road testers and customers alike looked upon in a positive light. BL had swallowed some pride and learned some lessons from the Japanese.

In their road test of the Acclaim against established rivals, What Car? summed the car up very favourably. “The new Triumph Acclaim is a good new car and it displays all the qualities needed for success in this section of the market; refined engine and transmission, fine crisp handling, creditable comfort and a good economy potential. Perhaps just why the Acclaim was not voted top by either (customer clinic) panel or ourselves could therefore be a subjective matter concerning its image – the car is clearly just a Japanese design dressed up very thinly by the odd plastic Triumph badge, and so BL are really due little credit in engineering though they may be in production if they continue to match Honda’s high standard. The Acclaim’s market appeal does seem to be rather questionable in view of the fact that one associates Triumphs as traditionally British cars, but of course that is something for buyers to judge.”

Clearly, the magazine’s road test staff could not come to terms with a “British” car being so oriental, but it did not stop them being impressed with the way the car performed. “…the Acclaim’s engine is already a known quantity, and a smooth and responsive unit it is too. There is never a hint of harshness at any point in the rev-range; the Triumph eagerly accelerates to 60 mph in 12.7 seconds and the rev counter needle easily flicks round to its 6000 rpm red line.” Also, “the gearchange itself is very light and direct with well chosen ratios, although fifth is a pure overdrive of little use at any other time apart from cruising – top speed in fourth is actually one mile per hour faster, at 90 mph.”

Nevertheless, the Acclaim did prove popular, reaching a best of 2.71% market share in 1982, slightly shy of BL’s bullish predictions of 3% once it became a fully-fledged Austin-Morris product. In line with BL’s private concerns, it did feed off the Allegro and Ital to a degree, but also helped restore some pride in the products of the beleaguered company.

The car suffered from no reliability issues (as the trade would often say “It’s a Honda, isn’t it!”) and secured itself a niche in the market, being beloved of those sometimes referred to as the “Eastbourne set”. Examples of this car can still be seen driving around today with nary a trace of rust on them, the engines in rude health, thus proving that the Acclaim was indeed an amalgamation of the good points of Japanese Engineering and British Assembly work. BL quickly learned much from the Japanese and gained much knowledge on how to improve the standard of assembly of their own cars: “The most critical thing it achieved was to prove to BL engineers that BL assembly workers could achieve good quality if the product was DESIGNED FOR ASSEMBLY, which previous cars manifestly had not been”, is how one insider related the situation.

June 1984

Production of the Acclaim ended

Whatever, both BL and Honda were pleased with what they had produced with the Triumph Acclaim and as things proved, it was the precursor of more, much more, to come. This car may have only had a Three year production run (1981-1984), it may have been the last Triumph badged car, it may also have been the product of a marriage of convenience, but it led directly to the range of Eighties and Nineties Rovers and a partnership that resulted in Hondas being built in Longbridge, Rovers being built in Japan and Honda setting up a production plant in Swindon.