Talk:Daimler Conquest

Roadster (1953–1955) or Mark II Drophead Coupe (1955–1957)
(Moved from User talk:OSX) Hi, Sorry I missed your edit to the image in the article Daimler Conquest. I'm writing to tell you the car in this picture is a Daimler Roadster and very far from a Conquest Century Coupé. Its about two feet lower and as you will have seen even less easy to look at than a Dart or SP250. Both (Roadster and Dart/SP250) were promoted as apprentices' projects that were 'so good we just had to put them into production', ha ha. I think there may first have been a version of the roadster without tailfins or gaps for air-conditioning but maybe that (no tailfins) was just the way the apprentices wanted it and the somewhat arrogant MD of the day over-ruled them. According to Daimler Century by Montagu and Burgess-Wise the Roadster engine was the Century later put into the Conquest so I will accept the description/name for the car and the image of Daimler Conquest Century Roadster but not 'Daimler Conquest (Mark II) Century drophead coupe' which may or may not (I can't tell) belong to the image of the green and white car above the Roadster. OK if I change the caption to the Roadster image back to what it was before you changed it? Have a very nice Sunday and please find some more interesting pre-1960 Daimlers for Commons. Thanks Eddaido (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * By looking further into this, I believe that the image is definitely a Mark II drophead coupe (1955–1957). According to this article:


 * The original drophead coupe (the 1954 to 1955 "Mark I") is as you said, a more upright model (see these two images). However, the roadster (Mark I) and drophead coupe (Mark II) are almost identical. The main discernible difference is the addition of the (admittedly very cramped) rear seat:


 * Roadster (Mark I): note where the rear/boot of the car joins the doors. There is a sharp drop where the rear of the car meets with the doors. In fact the roadster's doors are shorter those of the Mark II drophead and I can't see any exterior door handles either., , , ,


 * Drophead (Mark II): the black upper portion of the bodywork on the images below highlights the increased height of the drophead's doors (also note the door handles). Thus, these higher doors eliminate the sharp drop evident on the roadster where the rear meets with the doors. Lastly, the addition of the rear seat means the gap between the top of the boot lid and the folded canvas roof is only a few centimetres compared to the much larger gap seen on the roadsters., ,


 * And yes, if I see any more of old Daimlers that can be photographed I will do so and upload them, but to be honest I am not very good at identifying cars of this vintage. I only took the photos due to the apparent age of the car, which I presumed would be rare (plus I did noticed the "D" for "Daimler" on the hubcaps). OSX (talk • contributions) 04:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am very sorry about this but that is wrong.
 * See this photograph which you have provided http://www.flickr.com/photos/48871732@N08/5321399548/lightbox/
 * On the left is the 4 seater drophead coupé, on the right is the Roadster. Two separate models if sisters under the skin. How do we resolve your misunderstanding?
 * Some Wikipedia articles are more reliable than others(!)
 * best, Eddaido (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * See this which I note was put there by Seasalt in 2006
 * "The roadster was dropped from production in 1955, and even though the dropheads had outsold them by over 3:1, the Drophead was axed too (??!!), allowing a new revamped drophead version of the roadster to be produced for the 1955 Motor Show. The New Drophead, or Mark II, had a sideways facing single rear seat." Well Seasalt has somehow become confused in research and what is meant is:
 * The roadster was dropped from production in 1955, and even though the dropheads had outsold them by over 3:1, the drophead coupé was axed too. A new revamped drophead coupé was produced for the 1955 Motor Show. Like the Mark I it had a rear bench seat heavily restricted by the space taken by the folded hood which postwar fashion now decreed must disappear right out of sight. The unlamented Roadster could carry a third sideways facing passenger on a single rear seat squab in one corner.


 * The drophead coupe was made by simply lopping the top off the staid 'luxury' Conquest and it was intended for women of a certain age who may have hoped for the genuinely luxurious Special Sports with the 3 litre engine. The Roadster on the other hand (roadster is an American term) was meant for their daughters and the daughters of the USA whose parents might have been worried by the word sportscar. Anyone in the Roadster sat up so high they must have felt very vulnerable unless they were petite enough to get their eyebrows below the top of the windscreen! If there are so many Roadsters still about (the Flicker photos) that has to be because the first owners were so shattered to be able to buy (deep deep discounting) a new Daimler they set out to keep it for their grandchildren from day one - look at Seasalt's production numbers - every single one of them must have survived! Eddaido (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Have just noticed the version of Roadster in your set of three photos is the one with wind-up windows and the sideways seat. Is that causing any confusion? Eddaido (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for getting back to me so quickly—I am totally confused now. Unique Cars and Parts has a paragraph on the "Daimler Conquest Drophead Coupe", stating:




 * Then British Car Links has additional references to the Roadster-based Mark II Drophead, as does Motorbase. These two "Classic Cars For Sale" advertisements (both for 1957 drophead coupes) also utilise the higher doors, et cetera.


 * The 2008 book, "Daimler V8 S.P. 250" by Brian Long also lists/illustrates the Conquest Roadster/New Drophead Coupe as one and the same.


 * If there was only one roadster as such (i.e. 1953–1955), then why do two separate versions exist? That is, the differences listed in the bullet points above: "Roadster (Mark I)" and "Drophead (Mark II)". OSX (talk • contributions) 07:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

For reference purposes:
 * 1. Daimler Conquest Saloon (1953–1956), 4/5 seater annnounced May 1953, 4 months after Bernard Docker (MD of BSA) made himself MD of Daimler, really a six-cylinder Lanchester Leda with a Daimler grille and probably had been meant to be sold as a 6 cyl. Lanchester
 * 2. Daimler Conquest Century Saloon (1954–1958), 4/5 seater announced March 1954, just a Conquest with the higher output engine originally for the slow or no selling Roadster


 * 3. Daimler Conquest Century Drophead Coupe (1954–1955), 4/5 seater (no, a genuine 4) a Conquest with its roof cut off and a soft top, probably done by Barker. It replaced in the catalogue the Barker Sports Special on the DB18 chassis (which was really replaced by the Barker Special Sports on the Regency chassis)
 * 4. Daimler Conquest Century New Drophead Coupe. 4 seater Dunno what was new about it but here's part one of our problem solved The Book refers to it (p271) as the Century Drophead and says it went out of production late in 1957


 * 5. Daimler Conquest Roadster (1953–1955) open two-seater with clip on sidescreens this is the Roadster announced October 1953 using what became the Century engine
 * 6. Daimler Conquest Roadster / Mark II Drophead Coupe open two seater / wind-up sidewindows and therefore a dhc or convertible, a more civilised Roadster. I can find no useful info about this except it must have been forgotten by April 1959 when the Dart (became the SP250) was announced in April 1959 and that too, just the way the Roadster was at first, was Unbelievably crude.

The Whole Daimler Car Production for 1959 was 110 SP250s of which 77 went to USA 14 years earlier the workforce was 16,000 people.

(below written first before the table above but no matter)
 * Ah, OK, I see some light. See the Flicker versions of the car rely on the wet-weather driver clipping on sidescreens as well as pulling up the hood - perhaps taking just ten minutes into the start of a Sydney downpour - its a VIC car I note - well I think what is probably the Mark II (in your three pictures) will have been in English classic parlance an all-weather car/drophead coupé. i.e. with wind-up side-windows and so in US parlance of the day a Convertible and genteel. That phrase drophead coupé has confused Seasalt (he only goes wrong in that one paragraph which you and I have both quoted) - and thereby you.
 * Would you consider checking with your local library system and getting from it Daimler Century, the full history of Britain's oldest car maker, by Lord Montagu and David Burgess-Wise, foreword by HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, published by Patrick Stevens Limited 1995, ISBN 1 85260 494 8.
 * For some reason the book does not tabulate models and variations and production figures. I guess this is because while they often had that info they were unable to find all of it but that's a guess. If you go to the index at the back and work from that it may become clearer to you though I must admit in this particular case my confidence comes from my memory of the events in the 1950s rather than that book. Anyway this is why I am being so slow and careful about amending the separate articles on individual Daimler models. This article is the first that I have taken more than a casual glance at.


 * Does all this typing by me make you any more comfortable? Eddaido (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Working through your last lot of picture links
 * British Car Links Light grey is dhc, dark grey is open 2 seater
 * Motorbase. Drophead coupé Mk II as marked
 * These this car seems to have no triangular vent window and so I think the photo is of a 2 seater roadster - whatever the car that is being sold - and the word Century is wrong - All Roadsters were Centuries
 * two Yup, that's a dhc
 * and again that's a dhc with its sideways seat at the back Eddaido (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not have the eye for detail that you guys display.  Nor do I have ready access to the sources that you've been using.   But there's plenty of scope for ambiguity over model dates arising simply from the length of time cars spend sitting in compounds and in showrooms before they get sold.   And before you had large-scale assembly lines, there's nothing to stop people making a few of "last year's" model (eg, to fulfill old orders or to reduce the stock of expensive over-purchased parts) even several years after the "replacement" has been put into production.   I've seen that, for myself, in the 1990s visiting a small scale auto assembly plant assembling domestic market Peugeots in Africa:  with the volumes Daimler were producing in the 50s, something very similar could have applied to Daimler in 1950s England.   Add to that the fact that the "authorities" tend to assume a car is new when it is first registered and it's easy to see how a car can turn up as a new car in April 2006 even though it spent six months sitting on a dockside in Bristol before that and was almost certainly assembled before the summer break (ie August) in 2005.   (I know about this one:I drive it.)   With manufacturers who build separate chassis for other people to put "bespoke" or quasi-"bespoke" bodies onto - as Daimler still did in the 1950s - the scope for a chassis to be built - maybe even registered as a taxable car - in one year, but only usable by it's first owner one or two years later is increased, though that may not apply in the case of the body types you are discussing here.   Forgive me, please, if you guys already covered this ground in your detailed discussion.   But I don't find it.  And I do sense that you may be hankering after a nice clean cut-off (as we accountants call it) between model years that simply does not reflect reality (1) within the plant and (2) in the supply chain between the plant and the customers.    Regards  Charles01 (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Charles01 and you put it neatly too.
 * Hi OSX, sorry, even with the world's finest operating system this brain is still slow to pick up on what its being told, will try harder. Can I amend the description for the image yet? Eddaido (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you’re seeing the differences, so I'll try again in tabular format:

Does this make any more sense? Unfortunately the book, Daimler Century, the full history of Britain's oldest car maker is unavailable at the State Library of New South Wales, but is available at the Victorian and Queensland equivalents. None of the other libraries in Australia stock the book according the the National Library of Australia database.

The other solutions are asking for help at WP:CARS or enlisting the help of someone more knowledgeable outside of this project (i.e. a Daimler fansite). OSX (talk • contributions) 10:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * All I need to explain to you (and I agree that my explanations have been muddled) is that there are two versions of the Roadster, X = sidescreens or Y = (introduced later) wind-up windows (with sideways seat) and, this is very important here, the custom of the day was to call a wind-up windows car a drophead coupé.


 * The next thing is the difference between
 * A a Daimler Conquest Century Mk II drophead coupé. a four-seater  AND


 * B a Daimler Conquest Roadster Mk II drophead coupé, a two cum three seater.
 * which were confused as being just one vehicle by Seasalt and so yourself.


 * You should be able to get your (very local) library to arrange an interloan but I suspect they will charge a little for it and anyway if its a nuisance it isn't essential is it? To be honest I think we do in fact see eye to eye on this but at moments I worry. Just tell me if I have not got my thoughts across to you.  Thanks Eddaido (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Frinstance
 * X Jaguar open two seater http://kikamulitzauto.blogspot.com/2007/05/1956-jaguar-xk-140.html
 * Y Jaguar drophead coupé http://www.crackteam.org/2006/01/29/movie-car-collection-cruel-intentions-1956-jaguar-xk-140/
 * Z Jaguar fixed-head coupé (first one) http://www.philseed.com/jagxk140.html
 * P.S. I'm in the Shakies. cheers Eddaido (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, that clears things up a lot as I did not realise there were two separate models. Do you have any photos of the "Daimler Conquest Century Mk II drophead coupé" (four seater). Also, please confirm that my three photos are the "Daimler Conquest Roadster Mk II drophead coupé" (three seater).


 * Do you know what years the "Daimler Conquest Roadster Mk II drophead coupé" was made between? Was is it 1955 to 1957?


 * Thanks, and please fix up the article with what you know. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait! I'm going to have to arrange for the chef of my choice to make me a humble pie.


 * Look at this catalogue on sale on eBay, if you click on it you can enlarge and read in a genuine "1956 Daimler Conquest Mark II Drophead Saloon Brochure" (muddled thinking there) that "The new drophead coupe with three full-sized seats meets the demands of the fastidious enthusiast. In the 100mph class . . . . . " Go on down the same page and there are photos and all! Aargh! Am going to look around a bit more. May be there was no such thing as a Mark II Four-seat drophead coupé, ahem, darn it.


 * Here's a Mk II saloon now a Mk I  ad for Mark II saloons - I can't see how they differ from Mark I  Can you? Eddaido (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Mmmm... now that changes things. Here's an archive of the Mark II brochure as eBay advertisements get deleted after a while.

A good reference source: All of this is very hard to follow. Can I suggest that you buy yourselves a copy of the Brookland's Books volume on the Conquest/Conquest. It has copies of 1950s articles and will make clear the otherwise very confusing question of the Drophead coupé, the Roadster, and the new Drophead coupé. The road tests are also well worth reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.208.107 (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't spend much time comparing the Mark I and II saloons, but there is one change I did note. This image of the Mark I shows additional lights situated between the headlamps and the grille. These three images of the Mark II have the additional lights mounted on the bumper overriders, with the gap previously occupied by the foglamps now filled with grilled metal inserts. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Great! Those grilles cover the horns which I suppose used to be under/behind the front bumper and died in export markets?! Doing some embarrassed changes to the article and then will take a rest. Thanks Eddaido (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Out of interest, I just put the license plate of this one and this one into the UK tax man's web site.  This one was first registered in the UK  13 March 1958, when it appears to have been registered as a new car since the year of manufacture is also given as 1958.   So yes, right at the end of the Conquest's career.


 * ....while this one was first registered in the UK only in 1994.   At that time its approximate year of manufacture was given as 1954, so presumably it spent its first forty years some place else.   Australia is a large market where they drive on the left, but it could also have been used by the army some place like Malta or Cyprus or ... there are many possibilities, mostly involving the British Empire and Dominions.   However, I wouldn't necessarily trust the approximate year of manufacture, as the declared engine capacity is also an approximation at 2500cc.


 * I'm not sure if that corroborates what you were thinking or not.  I hope it does.


 * Incidentally, if you want to check out what the UK tax man can tell you about cars registered in the UK, check out.  http://www.taxdisc.direct.gov.uk and click on VEHICLE ENQUIRY


 * Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * re cut-offs and things. On a slow day in mid 1990 I was walking past a showroom and and got distracted by writing all over the window 'manufacturer's run-out'. It was a mildly sporting 4-door hatchback with warmed engine every possible extra and spectacularly designed and made upholstery (and the crowning glory, a GT badge on its backside). Around the third proud washing I suddenly noticed the C? pillar - (very narrow) on the right-hand side was ¾ inch wider than on the left hand side! It went just fine and I could not bear to pull out a tape measure to find all the differences and the same salesman took it back in due course without comment. Perhaps a case of "OK George, now pull out the welding equipment and that disaster we had when we first tried to assemble this model . . . " One born every minute. Eddaido (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Nasser
What in the world is a video of Gamal Nasser doing on this page? It makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrunoSchwartz (talk • contribs) 02:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nasser almost cut off the entire supply of petrol to much of Europe leading to (amongst many other things, a new range of 2-cylinder BMWs that looked like this and) no or very few buyers for gas-guzzlers like Daimler and the Daimler business went into its terminal decline. This Conquest had been their idea of a mass market economy model. So the link is: Nasser shuts off petrol, Daimler dies. Eddaido (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, is there any documentation verifying this link? Secondly, how does the video either illustrate or elucidate the link?  All it says is that Nasser closed the canal and that England and Egypt had frozen each others accounts, which could easily have been said in text. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions
"The writing on the wall for Daimler grew ever larger."

Does this mean that something was written on a wall and the font size increased continuously? Or does it mean "Daimler's problems became increasingly obvious"? If it means the latter, then that should be used, as stated in the policy document WP:IDIOM.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

For a certain editor
"In 1952 BMW in West Germany produced its first car since before the Second World War. The 501 competed with and failed in terms of performance, price and engineering excellence to match the middle-range sedans made by Mercedes-Benz. The 502 was a still more dismal failure. In the years that followed BMW made every mistake in the book. They launched expensive new luxury models with temperamental high performance engines in a country that had not yet recovered its prewar confidence. They suffered huge losses, panicked, and attempted to escape downmarket by making “bubble cars” under licence for an Italian company, Isetta.

These cars had some success in post-imperial Britain where there was no Marshall Plan and the Suez Crisis brought on the first of many oil shocks. But Germany in the late 1950s was enjoying the fruits of Wirtschaftswunder. The country that had been in ruins only ten years earlier was no longer poor enough for the BMW Isetta Motor-Coupé, known colloquially but never popularly as “the egg”"


 * Extract from: Car Wars, Fifty Years of Greed, Treachery, and Skulduggery in the Global Marketplace by Jonathan Mantle

But then there was a fuel crisis and so, briefly, the Germans bought it. What a happy happy accident.

"The BMW Isetta. Despite its reputation for automotive elegance and craftsmanship, BMW laid a multimillion dollar egg in the 1950s with its Isetta minicar, sneeringly dubbed, “das rollende Ei” or “the rolling egg” The Isetta’s engine was in the rear; passengers exited and entered through the nose of the car as if it were a D-Day troop carrier. In fact, when the front door swung open the steering column and dashboard came with it. As for safety, the entire vehicle, front to back, was one big crumple zone.

Steering the Isetta was difficult, largely because its body was tapered towards the rear, like a wedge of Emmenthaler cheese. Most models had only three wheels, which didn’t make the car any easier to control. But the design enabled the manufacturers to have the Isetta officially classified a motorcycle and thus taxed at cheaper rates."


 * Extract from: What Were They Thinking?: Really Bad Ideas Throughout History by Bruce Felton

Eddaido (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * O.K., then...
 * From :
 * "The first BMW-Iseta came off the line in April 1955, and the 10,000th example was turned out less than eight months later."—
 * "In the first full year of production, BMW delivered nearly 13,000 copies of what came to be affectionately known as das rollende ei, the rolling egg."— (Please note that a full year of production would have ended in March or April 1956, half a year before the Suez Crisis hit.)


 * From :
 * "Fuelled by Germany's accelerating Wirtschaftswunder, the booming market for motorcycles had kept BMW's cashflow going through the early 1950s, the revenue disguising the continuing losses on the underperforming large luxury cars. What BMW had failed to anticipate about the ongoing economic miracle, however, was that in a sustained boom consumers would soon begin to look beyond motorcycles and their associations with basic transportation and hanker after the warmth, comfort and practicality of four wheels, a roof, and a boot. One-time motorcyclists switched in their droves to low-cost cars such as the Volkswagen Beetle as well as early midgets such as the Messerschmitt and the Goggomobil, produced not far away from Munich by Glas at Dingolfing."— (Note: Messerschmitt began microcar production in 1953 with the KR175, while production of the Goggomobil began in 1954 with the T-250; microcars like these siphoned customers away from motorcycles.)
 * "Tiny Isetta was a bought-in design from Italy but saved BMW's finances in the mid 1950s when it could not afford to develop its own mid-sized car."—photo caption,


 * Note that the BMW Isetta, like the Messerschmitt Kabinenroller and Goggomobil before it, was not a reaction to a Middle East crisis that didn't exist at the time, but to motocyclists wanting, and being able to afford, something a little better than a motorcycle. It is true that the Suez Crisis and ensuing oil shortage in Europe, increased the popularity of these cars, as their popularity sank rather heavily after 1957, but they were not a reaction to it.


 * Regarding that bit of nonsense about "Most models had only three wheels" from the Bruce Felton book you quote, here's something a bit more accurate from Tony Lewin:
 * "Britain was quick to take up bubble mania, too, a factory behind the railway station in the fashionable south-coast resort of Brighton turning out special versions with a single rear wheel to qualify the car as a motorcycle for taxation and licence purposes. Mainland European Isettas had twin rear wheels for stability, but set sufficiently close together that the designers had to go to the expense of fitting a differential."—
 * The British idea is that the Isetta was a three-wheeler without reverse because the British Isetta was a three-wheeler without reverse so that it could take advantage of British legal loopholes. The more numerous European (and Brazilian) Isettas were four-wheelers and had reverse gear.


 * Felton has strange ideas about the Isetta if he calls it a "multimillion dollar egg"; it was the only BMW car that actually made a profit in the 1950s. The 700, which began production in late 1959, also made a profit, but by the end of 1959 it hadn't quite recovered its cost.


 * In any case, microcars were not a response to the Suez Crisis. They were there at the time, and their popularity was extended by it. The British would persist somewhat longer with their Bond Minicar and Reliant three-wheelers. It would be just as correct to say that the Volkswagen Beetle was a response to the Suez Crisis.


 * Finally, it is most odd that we are discussing the origin of the Isetta on the talk page of an article about a car against which the Isetta was decidedly not a competitor.


 * Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)