Those were dark days, undeserving of alliteration.
As bad as the Fiat X1/9 was, the best Leyland could counter with was the TR7?
I'll agree - a properly set up 2.0 Cortina would outrun and outcorner either.
For that matter, for less money, a little time, some sweat equity and a Racer Walsh catalog, the 2.0 Pinto or first gen Fiesta would be a serious threat.
Too true . . . .
If you look at the competition results between the manufacturer's supported teams during the "gestation period", say 1958 to 1968, Ford went from "nowhere" with a new, unproven engine design. The new "oversquare" design, bucked the "traditional" British designs, tractor engines really, designed around the UK "Road Use Tax". That regressive tax was based on: the bore diameter of the engine. That hampered the development of road car engines based off the knowledge gained from the successful "warbird" engine designs of WWII.
But the rising fortunes of Ford Competition revolved around some other people. To wit:
A/ Colin Chapman
2/ Walter Hayes
d/ Keith Duckworth
z/ Mike Costin
zz/ The dozens of "unsung" production people at Cosworth Engineering
This is formidable, nay, World Class, competition. Leyland's dependence on spreading their development among a variety of "tuners" fell short, as it would inevitably, given the handicaps of the engine's basic design.
So, once again, "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."
Duckworth's Golden Rules of normally aspirated racing engine design are:
B/ Sums, ALWAYS add up. (You had better be correct!)
3/ Inlet valve area, is . . . . . everything.
e/ When in "uncharted territory", trust your own engineering skills. (But this method only works if you are "smart" . . . .)
In spite of the pool of very talented BMC tuners, the result fell short against the genius of the "New Racing Engine Order" . . . . . . .

Historyboy