• Hi Guest!
    You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
    There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Tips
Tips

2 seater cars

Share this page

Bruce Bowker

Bruce Bowker

Obi Wan
Offline
Food for thought - why did the British build so many 2 seater cars? More so than any other manufacturing country. Basically talking about the 1950's into the 1970's and popular brands, not limited or one offs. The US had two in the 1950's and one ended after only 3 years.

Bruce
 
That's a great question!

Just speaking about the fifties...

I'd love to think it was because of a sporting heritage or something like that but my short answer would be that the preponderance of 2 seaters was due mostly to immediate postwar government policies that forced companies to "export or die". In 1945, steel was channeled to companies exporting over half their production and this was raised to 75% in 1947. By 1950 about 75% of all cars made in England were exported.

The US market was booming, MG showed that 2 seaters sold well here and Austin, Standard, et al followed suit. With exceptions, most 2 seaters made in the 50's were sent to the US and other markets. Most British cars were not well suited to our driving conditions and dealer support was pitiful. Sporty car buyers accepted these problems because the cars were fun and overlooked the poor parts availability and reliability problems.

So, 2 seaters were built because they were most suitable for export.

Also, once you get past the high volume 2 seaters, production numbers get pretty low. I'm not sure 2 seaters were made in much greater proportions than in the US. We had our low volume 2 seaters also.

Anyway - that's my short answer. In the middle of all this, too, were currency devaluations, other government initiatives, and more exciting stuff.

I think the 2 seaters built in Britain from roughly '65 on were pretty much products of inertia. Few major development efforts were made in this area after that.

I'd be interested in the perspective of the some of the Brits on the forum.
 
This is a very good question. Firstly, British roads are very much narrower, and they go around corners more often than the American roads do. So, a smaller and more nimble car makes sense.

Secondly, consider that the motorcycle was a very popular means of transport over there, (still is) and there were concerted efforts on behalf of car manufacturers to gain some of that market. Microcars and, of course the Mini, were aimed at the family man who had previously used the motorcycle and sidecar (the British had a booming sidecar industry, and William Lyons got his start from building them) and the two-seater sportscar was aimed squarely at the sporting single man. That's my theory.....to get the population off motorcycles.

The well-to-do did not use motorcycles of course, unless they wanted to! The majority of the population had to.
 
Steve's answer has merit & I agree that many two seaters were designed to offer a step up from a motorcycle. Certainly this was the case with microcars like the various Bonds and British-made Isettas.

I still wonder about the "sporting" two seaters, though. Their origin (before WW2) may have been a bike alternative but I think their postwar surge in emphasis was heavily influenced by government policies.

This is one of those discussions best held over a pint or three!
 
coldplugs said:
Steve's answer has merit & I agree that many two seaters were designed to offer a step up from a motorcycle. Certainly this was the case with microcars like the various Bonds and British-made Isettas.

I still wonder about the "sporting" two seaters, though. Their origin (before WW2) may have been a bike alternative but I think their postwar surge in emphasis was heavily influenced by government policies.

This is one of those discussions best held over a pint or three!
Click to expand...

You could not be more correct! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cheers.gif
 
"I still wonder about the "sporting" two seaters, though. Their origin (before WW2) may have been a bike alternative but I think their postwar surge in emphasis was heavily influenced by government policies."

True, the policies of the British government influenced production of these cars, and the simple truth of the matter is that they knew that they could sell those little cars to Americans. Take a look at the numbers for any post-war British roadster, and you will see that the lion's share of production went overseas, to the USA primarily.

In addition, is not the very nature of the small two-seater car "sporting"? Power-to-weight ratio of these cars is always going to be pretty reasonable.
 
Steve said:
and the simple truth of the matter is that they knew that they could sell those little cars to Americans.
Click to expand...

Ruined me for life!!! "Angloised" while still in nappies: First exposed to an MG-TC as a lad of 18 months/ 2 years ('51 or '52), XK-140's, TR-2's n' 3's later... by age 14 it was a ride in an S-2 Elan which cemented the inevitable.

"Guilty as charged, Yer Honour!" /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/jester.gif
 
What about taxes? I guess the size of the motor and the number of wheels has an impact. Does it matter in GB how many seats there are?

Just wondering
Steve
 
Seats don't count. Cylinders do... kinda like the number of TV's vs. the number of chairs in the house.

/bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/devilgrin.gif
 
DrEntropy said:
Seats don't count. Cylinders do......
Click to expand...

The original RAC horsepower tax was computed based on piston area (not displacement) and the nuimber of cylinders, which is one reason why so many English engine designs are so undersquare (small bore, long stroke).

They dropped the horsepower tax in 1947 mainly to soothe the manufacturers who complained about the negative effect of tax calcs on engine design. Too bad it took the makers so long to recover.
 
coldplugs said:
DrEntropy said:
Seats don't count. Cylinders do......
Click to expand...

The original RAC horsepower tax was computed based on piston area (not displacement) and the nuimber of cylinders, which is one reason why so many English engine designs are so undersquare (small bore, long stroke).
Click to expand...

This is true, they were originally taxed on the bore size,
so you got a minimum bore with lots of stroke, not conducive
to making horsepower.

Just as an asides, you can imagine my embarrassment when
I had to explain this at an MG club club meeting, where the
Rockette and I were the youngest couple there... We even
had a member who had emigrated to the US who didn't know
this little bit of trivia...

SteveL
 
I think perhaps an additional influence, or at least contributing factor were the "trials" events that were so popular just after the war in England. The type of vehicles built for this rather specialized motor sport spawned a whole cottage industry of light-weight specials which were sporty but simple to build. Cars like the Super Seven, Jowette,HRG and others owed their design heritage in no small part to the "sportsmen" who pioneered the lightweight two-seater that could be taken on virtually any kind of road back then!
 
Interesting point.
Bruce
 
Back
Top