At the Time

It's perhaps difficult to imagine the response to the Princess at the time of its launch. Was it honoured, revered, respected? Was it a great improvement on the models before it? Did it have weaknesses, and strengths, and how did it compare with other cars at the time?

If you drive one of these cars today, it feels different to newer cars. The ride is fairly smooth and controls responsive, but the performance feels lacking and the engine feels harsh. Also the high-speed stability does not inspire much confidence compared with today's cars.

Then again, you might have expectations of loud roars and heavy steering , of weak brakes and difficult starting , and of cramped interiors and draughty ventilation. These turn out to be unfounded, even by modern standards - they have simply reached a 'ceiling'. Yes, you now have air conditioning, but ventilation is still the same basic target.

How interesting then to see that road tests turned up exactly the same conclusions you would draw today. The standards in 15 years have not changed as much as you might expect. The high speed ride was good then, it is now. The steering was light then, it remains so. Braking was powerful subjectively and objectively - even today, many cars lack the sophistication of triangular split brakes with four-pot calipers. It was even found that the engine started easily and pulled smoothly, and these days, engines still start easily and pull smoothly.

Faults that we perceive today were known from the start.

Some cars like 'sports' models from the 70's, Japanese hatchbacks and large cars stand out now with much lower performance, poor 'driveability' and practicality and sometimes unsafe handling and body structure. These were not always known at the time. The Princess on the other hand clearly held no surprises - the overall standard was high, as one magazine put it:

"There is still a great car in there trying to get out, but BL Cars will have to give the new engine still better performance and refinement, improve the gearchange, and redesign the interior before it finally succeeds."

Specifics - 1975-78 1800HL

This car was an all-new replacement for the previous 1800. The conclusion in the car's favour was of generous accomodation, good fuel economy, low wind noise, and a relaxed feel at high speed. Against it was a poor gearbox and mediocre performance.

The aim of an improvement in style was met with a "striking and pleasing" appearance. The roadholding and handling were of a high, modern standard - ignoring the lack of feel in the optional power steering. Body booms and an around-town jiggling stiffness were noted.

Engine power of 82bhp and 102lb ft were below par, the mounting found to give low noise and vibration, however a valve clatter in low gears was inferior to rivals. Starting was easy, however acceleration to 60mph (16.2s) was 4s slower than all its rivals and the top speed (92.8mph) about 7mph slower. Performance was therefore disappointing throughout the range - "Although the engine will pull without snatch from less than 20mph in top gear, it does not do so with any vigour. One or two of our drivers, in fact, complained of occasional slight difficulty in accelerating the car away from rest, though this is perhaps partly because the gearing is a little high." <<And you thought I was writing verbosely!>>

Fuel economy of 22.5mpg overall was one of the best in its class, with touring fuel consumption of 28mpg. The gearchange however was notchy and obstructive, with a tendency to baulk into 1st gear from rest. There was addtional whine, and snatching on the overrun. The clutch was smooth in its action. The suspension effect was no better or worse than that achieved with conventional springs and dampers in the class-leading Audi 100. Therefore the ride is good, but still fails at small undulations and high-frequency disturbance.

The multi-adjustable driver's seat was criticised for being too complex to adjust (both tilt and height, as well as conventional recline.) The instruments were considered hard to read, although the level of standard equipment was good.

Princess 2 2000HL - 1978-79

The new overhead-cam engine provides improved, but still mediocre performance. Ride and handling are improved, but the engine is disappointingly noisy, the gearchange remaining stubborn and the instruments not improved. Interior space and comfort remain the best features.

The price is difficult to compare because the obvious class-rivals from Ford and Vauxhall are the same price but have less space and equipment; the larger models from Chrysler, Lancia and Renault are more expensive but have similar interior accomodation.

The performance is still only a two-star rating. The 93bhp occurs at only 4900 RPM although the engine revs freely to 5500RPM with a good spread of torque, the peak of 115ft/lb at 3400RPM. On the road the acceleration, though 3.2s quicker, at 13.1s is still a good second slower than its rivals. The top speed of 98.5mph is still short of the average 100mph, however the Princess does not feel unduly sluggish and can maintain a good pace. The top gear acceleration time of 50-70mph in 12.1s is comparable with all the rivals.

Economy has been improved despite a larger engine and more power; the entire speed range gives better mpg of 45mpg at 30mph and 20mpg at 90mph. The overall consumption was 23mpg, the touring figure being 28mpg. The transmission is as bad as before, although without the snatch and with quick synchromesh. Changes to the suspension valves give detectably better ride, the power steering now 'nicely-weighted and direct'. Unusually for a FWD car, the Princess is almost entirely free of wheel scrabbling and understeer under power. The steering is slightly vague at the straight-ahead position, and tyre squeal is easily provoked in low speed cornering. This is probably related to the choice of wide section tyres on narrow rims. At speed the handling is fairly neutral, moving from mild understeer to roll oversteer. The level of adhesion is high despite large and porrly-damped roll angles.

The brakes provided deceleration over 1g, with twenty 0.5g stops giving no increase in stopping distance, although pedal force increased slightly. Braking, ride comfort and driving position all received four stars, the adjustable driver's seat having 240 different positions. The instruments are still hard to read in daylight, but the heating system is comprehensive, although the air volume sometimes hard to regulate.

In noise, finish and visibility the Princess gets only an average rating; good points are a lack of wind noise, against body booms in the 70-80mph range, a good (optional) metallic paint finish but a lack of interior 'showroom appeal', with a cheap plasticky-appearance to the fascia top rail. The scuttle shake of past Princesses has been eliminated, although there are still rattles. Corners of the body are difficult to see as a result of the 'bold wedge styling', however windscreen pillars are slim and mirrors adequate. The bonnet is easy to raise with its gas struts and engine bay access is excellent.

A quick check of the features rounds out the observations; most expected items are standard including a laminated screen, lockable glovebox, reclining seats, rear armrest, and heated rear window; however items such as headrests and a radio were only optional. Metallic paint, power steering, automatic transmission and tinted glass were also options.

Service intervals of 600 miles (10,000km) and registered dealers of 1900 were better than average. Service parts were notably more expensive; the starter motor and (laminated) windscreen being three times the price of rivals.

Back to the Front Page