Talk:BMC ADO16

Just a note: I had the other ADO16 pages redirect here as the Morris 1100 was the first on the market; I employed the same for the Austin 1800. Stombs 23:54, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

There was also a GT model. The Gt Model had a problem with the clutch, but it was good ride and quite versatile.

Successors?
I Query the Successors chosen - the Morris Marina may have been the Morris produced after the ADO16, but it wasn't to the best if my knowledge a direct successor mechanically, aesthetically, or in market sector - surely the Allegro "replaced" the entire ADO16 line, and was in turn replaced by the maestro. Of course the issue is muddied by the rationalisation reorganization which took place between models, resulting in the models being arranged by bodyshell rather than by engine size, as the Allegro, Marina, Maxi etc, were available with engine options (as opposed to the previous policy of having a different bodyshell for nearly every variant of the A B and C engines.--D.C.Rigate 21:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing is further complicated by the frankly ridiculous BL franchise system. The Morris franchise garages would have stopped selling the 1100/1300 when it stopped being made as a Morris, but while it was still available in Austin showrooms. So Morris franchise garages' range in the early 70s would have gone from Mini to Marina with nothing in between, so in a sense the Marina was the successor to the Morris 1100/1300 (as well as the Minor and the Oxford). Eventually, the franchises were unified.

Technical Data
In the tempòate on the right, should to be added various data. FF layout for example. (sorry for my english) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.142.70 (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible splits or alternative fixes
My first reaction on having Morris 1100 redirect here was "This can't be right, no way is BMC ADO16 compatible with the naming conventions".

But the topic of this page is sufficiently wide that a case can be made for the name IMO.

A few things need looking at...

There are an enormous number of redirects, from almost all the names the car went by. Many of these should probably redirect to sections of the article rather than to the lead. I've put a model list into the lead to satisfy the principle of least astonishment for now.

The status of the Austin Victoria is a question mark for me as I write... it's covered by the article, but the Austin Apache to which it currently redirects isn't.

And this brings up the main question... this article is a bit long. It's probably best to split out some articles on various models or model groups. But it's not obvious what the scopes of these more detailed articles should be.

Lots to do... Andrewa (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Amalgamated not Austin Drawing Office
I think that this is reliable and so I have changed the explanation in this article. This is my source: Model ADO codes. Eddaido (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Number produced
Was the number of the Riley variant produced, really precisely identical to the number of the MG variant ? And really 7 times as many as the Wolseley ?Eregli bob (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on BMC ADO16. 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/20040831190446/http://www.austin-rover.co.uk:80/index.htm?ado16indexf.htm to http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?ado16indexf.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)