Austin AR6: What could have been...
Metro had been launched to an expectant world back in 1980, but the company knew that they needed to work hard on a replacement, which would capitalise on the success of the car, whilst being a significant technical step forward. AR6 was the answer, and proves to be yet another fascinating "might-have-been" for the company.
Words and pictures: Keith Adams
Paradise lost
AR6 prototype as pictured at Gaydon in 2007...
The Roy Axe studio in Canley had been created to move Austin Rover forwards with a new design direction. Interesting projects were soon underway, with the initial effort being concentrated the XX Programme - however, by the end of 1982, ARG designers were also working hard on the replacement for the MiniMetro, dubbed the AR6.
The AR6 was designed to fit into a suite of models that would be launched by Austin Rover during the mid-to-late 1980s, bracketing the AR5 (Rover 213/216 reskin) and the AR7 (Maestro reskin). It's DNA lay in the ground-breaking ECV3 prototype, which featured a three-cylinder engine (that would evolve into the K-Series and aluminium bodywork developed by ALCAN).
Unnamed and uncommented, this prototype was on display to the press at the opening of the Roy Axe Studios at Canley in 1982...
The AR6 always intended to be powered by the K-Series engine that was concurrently under development at BL Technology in Gaydon. This new engine was totally unrelated to the K-Series that was designed for the 1973 ADO74, and incorporated many lessons learned during the ECV3 Programme. Unlike the Metro, and following the lead of the Maestro and Montego, the new car was developed with a conventional McPherson strut/rear coil suspension system, which would no doubt be honed to a level of competence shared with its bigger brothers.
The body, styled by Roy Axe's team, was always intended to be highly aerodynamic, and the early prototype model (pictured above) certainly reflects this way of thinking. Even the most cursory of glances are all it takes to realise that the styling of this car was heavily influenced by Ital's then current work, such as the Megagamma and Medusa, especially at the real with its radically curved rear window.
This running prototype of the AR6 from c.1985 shows that there has been a significant amount of tweaking of the design since the 1983 styling mockup (above). The design is still pretty radical at this point with some overy aerodynamic detailing. The rear treatment shows showcar-like rear lamps (that probably would not have made production) and complex curving of the rear glass.
Front view of the AR6 demonstrates the “family look” that Austin Rover was trying to achieve. Compare the frontal arrangement of this car with the Rover CCV and MG EX-E concepts of 1985 and 1986 - slim, elongated headlights and a slit like grille; these were also a feature of Gerry McGovern's AR6-based MG Midget concept (see below). These styling cues would become industry standard by 1990, but by that time, Rover was already seeking to move away from the look it had helped to pioneer. (Picture: Kevin Davis)
During 1984/1985, the most critical parts of the car's development, upheavals were going on in the company. Finance for the AR6 and its engine were proving hard to obtain from the government: and this was in part, down to the disappointing sales of the Maestro and Montego, which it was hoped, would have generated sizeable profits for the company. Without these profits, it was proving difficult for BL to fund these new Austin Rover programmes without outside help. In fact, the government did relent in the end, and provide BL with a further hefty injection of cash, which assured the future of the K-Series programme.
According to Simon Weakley, a marketing trainee between 1982 and 1986, the AR6 was a very interesting technical package indeed. He said: "The 'new' Metro was due to be launched in 1985/86 and Harold Musgrove was clear that it needed to be a world beater and technically advanced. This involved making the car out of bonded aluminium and I was tasked with tracking aluminium prices on an almost daily basis! The new car was going to have the new K-Series engine as a 3- and 4-cylinder unit (including Turbo) and was designed to be made as a diesel without need for strengthening!
Some work to do, but the fundamentals are there...
"The target was for the 3-cylinder to get 100mpg - a long time before others were targeting that figure. The light weight, roomy interior and improved quality combined with Roy Axe's excellent interior/exterior styling skills would have surely created a true world beater. It was to be the only car to carry the Austin name, with the Mini set to be discontinued at its launch."
The rest of the AR6 was also pushing forwards. The 1985 product plan identified that the AR6 would hit the market in 1988, with the diesel version (powered by a dieselised S-Series engine of 1.6-litres) following on in late 1989. By this time, fully engineered prototypes were nearing completion, and the three/five door hatchback was looking all set for production.
However, the government of the time was now becoming increasingly set on selling the company at the earliest opportunity, and the poor 1985 sales figures pushed them into action. They decided that the sell-off had to happen sooner rather than later, and negotiations with Ford quickly ensued.
Later fully engineered prototype on test at the Gaydon proving ground scooped by CAR magazine in late 1986. Little did anyone outside of the company know at the time, that the car was so close to death. In profile, the rake of the windscreen looks pretty radical for its day, and many of the advanced features pictured on the earlier two models had been watered down somewhat for production (i.e., door handles, rear lamps, wheelsize). All told, the AR6 looked like a fantastic little package, that had it reached production would have demonstrated that the British company had lost none of their magic touch in producing small cars.
Many executives including Ray Horrocks and Harold Musgrove were dead against selling out to Ford, when they were on the cusp of producing some genuinely exciting cars, and made their objections pretty clear. As we all know, the sell-off to Ford did not happen (due to Political reasons) and the management of BL, and therefore, Austin Rover was handed to Graham Day. Day's mission was clear: get ARG into shape and sell it off ASAP.
Graham Day made it very clear that he felt that Rover's future lay upmarket, and that its relationship with Honda was the, "only part of the company worth a damn". In other words, projects such as AR6, AR7 and AR16/17 - those not committed to production were going to be put under serious scrutiny. In the case of AR7 and AR5, they were replaced by the AR8 (R8, as it would soon become), and the AR6 would be cancelled due to the huge costs involved in getting it into production. This was a very sad decision to make on a couple of levels:
1) AR6 proved that in-house design skills were still very strong, and that to dismiss them so readily in favour of Honda did all concerned a great disservice. 2) Without AR6, the company's small car presence - its stongest point at the time, still - would be severely compromised.
The rest of the story is well-known and covered in the Rover 100/Metro development story: the AR6 gave way to the R6 - and this car received the Alex Moulton modifications to its hydragas suspension system. It also received the excellent K-Series engine that would have powered the AR6. The last chance of an exciting body would have been the R6X, but even that project was considered too much of a luxury...
So, the question remains: was the AR6 a missed opportunity? Well, yes it was, because although the car the replaced it, the Rover Metro/100 was a fine car, its Metro bodyshell and floorpan shortened its shelf life considerably. The AR6 would have appeared a vital couple of years earlier, was an altogether larger package, and was undoubtedly more advanced. As in so many cases, this car's non-appearance compromised the company's chances significantly in future years.
From AR6, we got the R6, which in light of what could have been, was frankly a disappointement. Thankfully, its terrific chassis and classy interior rescued it from obscurity.
The AR6-based MG Midget
(Picture: "MG: The Untold Story", by David Knowles)
During the Mid-1980s, Roy Axe spearheaded the revival of the MG marque, by producing concepts wearing the revered octagonal badge. The idea was to produce interesting, affordable and saleable sporting cars using many parts from existing models. The culmination of this philosophy was the EX-E showcar, launched at the Frankfurt motor show in 1985, but this was not the only car in development. Using the AR6 as a base, the design team was tasked with producing a spritual successor to the MG Midget.
The car pictured above was the result, and close scrutiny of the picture reveals that it was essentially an AR6 with the roof chopped off. There was additional body addenda added, and some mean looking cooling slats in the bonnet, but apart from that, the car was almost pure AR6, right down to the indvidualistic rear lamps and heavily stylised door mirrors. With the K Series 1.4-litre engine under the bonnet, it would have been a very lively drive...
THE AR6 running prototype was spotted at the Heritage Motor Centre in Gaydon in 2007 looking a little bedraggled, but still very much in one piece. In the flesh it looks pert and attractive. Interestingly, it doesn't sport a K-series engine under the bonnet, but a Maestro/Rover 216-spec 1.6-litre S-Series, and much of the interior cames from a Maestro Vanden Plas donor car.
Does that mean the AR6 wasn't as advanced as we thought, or this is an early development model (the B-plate suggests, it's from around 1984, somewhat earlier than the scoop shot, which could well have been K-Series powered) - as always if you know the answers, please get in touch...
It's 1989 - would you have bought this in preference to a Fiesta or Nova?
Wedgy stance would probably not have made production. Note the dramatic angle of the windscreen - in the 1980s, this would have been very radical indeed.
BL Technology was a hotbed of design talent - this car was a motorized version of one of Roy Axe's styling models, but looks like a viable production prospect in many ways...
Interestingly for a prototype of this nature that they haven't gone for a carry-over door-handle. It did still have Metro-style Bendy Keys, though...
You'll have seen this wheel design before on the ECV3 prototype...
The interior is certainly commodious, and a useful pre-cursor to the move towards larger superminis during the 1990s.
Maestro dashboard suits rough-and-ready prototype interior.
Let's play spot the parts-bin components on this minimalist door casing...
Prototype sports prototype fuelling system...
Curved rear screen might have been would probably not have made production in unmodified form...
Rear end may have needed a little more work...
Please let us know your thoughts - would this car have helped Rover into a stronger 1990s?
BL TECHNOLOGY'S ECV3 got us all champing at the bit in 1982 when it was revealed, but nobody at that time surely believed that the company had serious plans to make a compact, lightweight, high-performing, aluminium-bodied economy car. Which is why AR6 is probably the greatest lost opportunity in BMC>MG's history. Its looks might jar today but the thing would have blown apart the small car market back in the late Eighties. Hell, it would still be something special in the Noughties -imagine the excitement if the MINI had been so conceived.
Honda's Kawamoto might have decried Rover's conservative approach when it came to developing the XX and R8, but surely this car, had it been developed with the Japanese company, would have been the absolute realisation of all our hopes for the Rover Honda alliance - British design creativity and Japanese quality.
I wonder if Rover ever floated the idea of developing the car with Honda? If not, it should have done, rather than axeing the project in favour of the re-engineered Metro.
As I understand it, the car was intended to be badged as an Austin, with the Mini ceasing production at the AR6's launch. That would have been somewhat appropriate: the world's most advanced Sixties small car giving way to the the world's most advanced Eighties small car. The AR6 would surely have trounced the opposition, re-enervated the Austin marque, and paved the way for the British maker's dominance of the small car market in the same way that ADO16 dominated the sales chart in the Sixties.
Pity it didn't have Hydragas suspension, which would have been the only way to seriously improve the concept.
Perhaps the £150 million of taxpayers' money that was spent off-loading Rover onto BAe should have been spent on the AR6. Or then again maybe the car's bold construction should have been developed for a larger, more profitable car, like the 800, R8, or 600. Whatever, if this car had been built it would still be the de facto small car choice today, the company would not have had to endure the furore over the R100's crash performance in 1997, and Rover would probably still be with us today.
All Rover ever needed was the one car to tear up the market - the global success that the MINI has received came too late to save the company that engineered it - but the AR6 had all the hallmarks of a car that would have piddled all over its competitors from a lofty height. Had it been built nobody today would reminisce about 205s, or Golves, Fiestas, or the bloomin' Fiat Uno: we'd all be celebrating Austin as what it had always been - the maker of the world's best small cars.
'ERNST BLOFELT', forum member
Oh good Lord, what an extraordinary find. What is it with your quick wanders around the back of Gaydon and turning up interesting stuff. Damn good job you did otherwise we'd never in a million years guess that this thing still lived. Does beg the question, what other amazing things have they got up there that they leave lying around outside and never display?
Interesting car as well. Is that a Maestro based dash or just a similar style? And I am imagining things or does it appear to have digital instruments? Front end looks slightly different to the other AR6 models on your site, rather reminiscent of the Renault 5 somehow, perhaps 'cos of that jutting central section below the bumper line. You could do a feature on this, the Maestro mule your previous wander unearthed and... well, wait until Gaydon say, 'Oh yea, sorry, we've got this Pininfarina bodied, KV8 powered proposal for the Montego replacement that we just leave out in the rain...'
RICHARD PORTER
AS a salesman who worked for the top Austin Rover dealer in Devon in the 1980s, I feel that the AR6 was ANOTHER lost gem and a missed runaway-success.
At that time, our best-seller (by far and away) was the Metro. Whether as a family car, a shopping runabout, a sporting hatch or a retirement carriage the Metro appealed to all sections of our customers. When we received the sneak-preview of the AR6, (a pamphlet detailing the silver prototype featured on the website), our hearts leapt for joy; here was a car that would sell itself to our buying public, building on the strengths of the car it replaced and taking the concept to a new level.
It would have been a total success... given suitable build quality and a more streamlined and sensible approach to marketing (not so many models and no oversupply of the most expensive cars). Love the website - keep up the good work.
TIM WELLINGTON
Related pages: