Talk:Leyland Princess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My pic is definitely 1967 so how can the Princess have been introduced in 1975?
The Vanden Plas 4 litre version started in August 1964 and stopped in May 1968 (according to the internet).
Have you failed to mention the earlier versions of this car or have I made a big dating error on my pic?
Adrian Pingstone 21:01, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think I've seen the light. The article concerns the BL Princess, before that it was made under the BMC banner. So should my pic be removed for the time being?

My web site for the 4 litre is ......

http://www.redlemon.co.za/vandenplasprincess/frame.html

Adrian Pingstone 21:15, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes it should

• There was a 1940s/50s limousine
• On the evidence of your picture there was a 60s Austin Princess
• There was a 70s wedge- shaped Princess made by British Leyland and badged as an Austin

Three completely different cars. The Leyland Princess is just the last one. We need another article for the others. Andy G 21:33, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That's why I titled this one 'Leyland Princess' - so an article on the earlier Austins could be put under Austin Princess. I think I have a redirect there right now -- how about I write up a little stub and put the image there?

--Morven 22:08, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Created an Austin Princess article and included Adrian Pingstone's picture. --Morven 22:49, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Should it be Leyland Princess or BL Princess? I think - but I'm not sure - that Leyland, unqualified, was used for commercial vehicles, while the cars were all British Leyland or BL. Andy G 18:22, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. The Princess bore no marque identification on the outside, as I recall from my dad's vehicle. Just 'Princess' on the grille, C pillars, and boot.

Probably technically was a BL, but I've always heard people refer to it as 'Leyland Princess' or (inaccurately) Austin Princess (a name it never officially bore -- when it was an Austin it was the Austin 18:22) --Morven 18:47, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted anon changes

since they seemed inaccurate, 'playing around' and with atrocious grammar and spelling to boot. —Morven 09:51, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wording way too POV

Princess enthusiasts are entitled to their opinions, but this does sound a bit too 'enthusiastic' for Wikipedia. Granted there may be those who think that the car was unfairly maligned at the time, but that's history, and hindsight and dispassionate views are neither here nor there. I dare say there are people who feel the same way about many other cars. Quiensabe 2005-08-24 00:37 UTC

I agree, though I think at one time the article was very POV the other way. Some objective balance is what we need. Graham 01:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Front Wheel Drive

There is no mention that the car was front wheel drive which was unusual. While the styling was radical the car's mechanical layout and suspension were derived from the older Austin 1800 which had hydrolastic suspension and used the same B series engine.

The FWD contributed to the interior space (and poor gearchange).

The engine bay was indeed large and there was plenty of space on the 1800 models (which made the engine very accessible for maintenance). However the 2.2 straight six + gearbox left very little space.

Once the three badges versions were consolidated into the 'Princess' brand the 1800s had the round headlight pairs and the 2.2 litre models had the halogen lights.

Power steering was an option on the 1800s and the car was very heavy to control at low speeds with the FWD layout putting lots of weight over the front wheels. Dryce 04:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)