Home of the official* MG3, MG6, MG GS & MG ZS forum Forum Index Home of the official* MG3, MG6, MG GS & MG ZS forum

"The most refreshing forum in the galaxy" ó Paul Stowe
"The forum the AROnline forum could have been" ó Keith Adams
"Very committed subhumans" ó NickTL

REMEMBERING OUR FRIEND "DROITWICH LLOYD" RIP
 
 HomeHome   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


PLATFORMBALLS
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Home of the official* MG3, MG6, MG GS & MG ZS forum Forum Index -> Motorfuck
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
5ivegearsinreverse
ROBERT JEKYLL & GORDON HYDE


Joined: 07 Nov 2018
Posts: 749
Location: A Town Called Bastard

PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:35 am    Post subject: PLATFORMBALLS Reply with quote

I am indebted to Sandie (and Autocropley) for this snippet of knowledge:

Sandie wrote:
Meanwhile, they are taking deep measures: https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/land-rover-launch-heavily-revised-discovery-sport-summer

Quote:
Currently sitting on the D8 platform, the updated Discovery Sport moves over to the Premium Transverse Architecture, which underpins the new Evoque. Crucially, this mixed-material platform allows for electrification and enables more interior space to be created.


A bit extreme for a facelift, isn't it?


How clever of Tatuar to make their new platform capable of being reverse-engineered to be compatible with the Ford / Volvo EUCD based cars. And perish the thought that perhaps the "Premium Transverse Architecture" is perhaps not quite the tabula rasa these clever Tatuar engineers would like us to think it is.

Some rascally Forens are not above this sort of trickery, re-naming old platforms to make the gullible masses think that they're investing vast sums, as VAG and Bob do.

Actually, do the masses give a fuck? I suspect not. 'Scalable platforms' which can underpin everything from superminis to large saloons, with SUVs and vans in between are all about economies of scale, rather than the qualities of the end product.

Some of these products are going to end up being overweight, others will be under-engineered. Tailor the componentry to individual products and the original purpose is lost.

I suspect that the spread of platform and powertrain rationalisation is a signifer of the End of Days before legislation brings in the EV era, and car companies become technology businesses and mobility providers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Sward
SWARDUS ET PKLESS


Joined: 08 Nov 2018
Posts: 1164

PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What are you saying Funf?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Giles
DOING IT AGAIN FOR FUN AND PROFIT


Joined: 07 Nov 2018
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:54 am    Post subject: Re: PLATFORMBALLS Reply with quote

5ivegearsinreverse wrote:
the End of Days before legislation brings in the EV era, and car companies become technology businesses and mobility providers.


That is a genuinely upsetting thought. But you are probably right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nick Besonderes
Modern Gentleman


Joined: 09 Nov 2018
Posts: 242
Location: Here

PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I read in ANE mag that one of the companies said exactly that - it's practically the end on innovation and the future is adding more electronic gewgaws on top of an old plank.

It's all a bit reminiscent of FIAT dropping a 124 shell onto the old 1500 plank to create the 125, because the 130 had suffered from too much project drift.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marinast
1.2 C4 PICASSO


Joined: 07 Nov 2018
Posts: 866

PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Many might be predicting EVs will take over the world but for many drivers here in the UK living in a terraced house or flat without a driveway or convenient electric charging they make no sense.
The industry is simply hedging itís bets, it knows the future is a wide range of power trains and short term why spend billions on a platform which is not Ďfuture proofí when an older and just as capable platform already exists.
Itís hardly like companies are in the transition from cart springs to coil springs like the early 1980s, a chassis from 2015 will still give acceptable ride and handling even today so just tweak settings for different weight distribution and vehicle mass.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ottertronic
WORSE THAN HITLER


Joined: 09 Nov 2018
Posts: 928

PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Re-using platforms ad infinitum while adding 'high tech' trinkets on top is hardly new. It was the bedrock of the US car industry for much of the 20th century. Same old ladder chassis, now with electric windows and auto lights.

This Land Rover reporting is sloppy though. The EUCD box of bits has been through incremental change from Freeloader 2 to Ewok to Ecstasy-Pace to Disco Spurt to Ewok 2 but the idea that the last of those has a brand new platform is BALLHAIR, even if it probably has few interchangeable parts with its oldest forebears.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sandie
FLOPPY-TROUSERED BUCKFAST-SWILLING CUNT


Joined: 09 Nov 2018
Posts: 849
Location: The EPC

PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marinast wrote:
Many might be predicting EVs will take over the world but for many drivers here in the UK living in a terraced house or flat without a driveway or convenient electric charging they make no sense.


In the future this will be irrelevant as the most likely outcome of some of the developments in autonomous tech will be the end of such a thing as a personal car.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seamaster
PEDDLING OPTIMISM


Joined: 11 Nov 2018
Posts: 2001
Location: Scottish Riviera

PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sandie wrote:
In the future this will be irrelevant as the most likely outcome of some of the developments in autonomous tech will be the end of such a thing as a personal car.


Correct.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
620bob
HORMONAL REMAINIAC


Joined: 08 Nov 2018
Posts: 1381
Location: Bobniston

PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

...but will it really be the end? People like to have their own stuff.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nick Besonderes
Modern Gentleman


Joined: 09 Nov 2018
Posts: 242
Location: Here

PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd agree that once people become reasonably wealthy, they want their own shit. Or to rent it, at least. It's often unpleasant enough having to share a taxi with its driver.

I'd imagine most of this is blind panic caused by 'focus groups'.

Back in the 1970s, everyone was looking at acquiring Wankel licences because it was the new powertrain. That ended well for those who did. Perhaps that Felix's personal car was an Isabella Coupe might've been a hint.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Giles
DOING IT AGAIN FOR FUN AND PROFIT


Joined: 07 Nov 2018
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ottertronic wrote:
Re-using platforms ad infinitum while adding 'high tech' trinkets on top is hardly new. It was the bedrock of the US car industry for much of the 20th century. Same old ladder chassis, now with electric windows and auto lights.

This Land Rover reporting is sloppy though. The EUCD box of bits has been through incremental change from Freeloader 2 to Ewok to Ecstasy-Pace to Disco Spurt to Ewok 2 but the idea that the last of those has a brand new platform is BALLHAIR, even if it probably has few interchangeable parts with its oldest forebears.


At what point do they have to stop paying a royalty to Ford for the platform?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
5ivegearsinreverse
ROBERT JEKYLL & GORDON HYDE


Joined: 07 Nov 2018
Posts: 749
Location: A Town Called Bastard

PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nick Besonderes wrote:
Back in the 1970s, everyone was looking at acquiring Wankel licences because it was the new powertrain. That ended well for those who did.

Perhaps that Felix's personal car was an Isabella Coupe might've been a hint.


A man of discernment and good judgement, at least in his choice of cars. Not so sure about engineering matters or his politics - he was a bit right wing in the 1920s even before it was popular and profitable.

Felix did eventually own Ro80s; this one was on show at an exhibition in Neckarsulm last May:










The Wankel engine section badges are a nice touch, but isn't the late series "Ro80" badging horrible?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Derek
SAUCEBOX


Joined: 10 Nov 2018
Posts: 357
Location: Upside down

PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks fantastic in that colour. This thing must've offered some inspiration for the Audi B3.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nick Besonderes
Modern Gentleman


Joined: 09 Nov 2018
Posts: 242
Location: Here

PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Late badging is very 'corporate'.

Still a big woof! though. Correct colour and correct rimz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chucky
ES YOUR U WANT A POPULARITY CAR NTEST


Joined: 12 Nov 2018
Posts: 316

PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The only person who got the modular concept bob-on was Ed Turner.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
620bob
HORMONAL REMAINIAC


Joined: 08 Nov 2018
Posts: 1381
Location: Bobniston

PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We've come late to the party with TNGA, it's total upheaval for us, first new platform in 25 years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
5ivegearsinreverse
ROBERT JEKYLL & GORDON HYDE


Joined: 07 Nov 2018
Posts: 749
Location: A Town Called Bastard

PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

620bob wrote:
We've come late to the party with TNGA, it's total upheaval for us, first new platform in 25 years.


Festina lente...

It's only 23 years since the first unitary-bodied Crown.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nick Besonderes
Modern Gentleman


Joined: 09 Nov 2018
Posts: 242
Location: Here

PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FFS, Bob - are you the new FIRM?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
5ivegearsinreverse
ROBERT JEKYLL & GORDON HYDE


Joined: 07 Nov 2018
Posts: 749
Location: A Town Called Bastard

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Firm were never much good on platform scaling, rather the opposite, for example underpinning the Farina A40 and A55 Mk2 with the mechanicals of their predecessors, then reworking them within two years with new chassis with longer wheelbases and wider tracks.

Then there was Triumph, butchering their first FWD car to accommodate a RWD drivetrain to save money and accommodate an engine which wouldn't fit any other way.

Some time before, BMC designed three cars around the same set of very recognisable doors, but with practically nothing else in common.

The only modest success in platform scalability was the LC10 series. If XX hadn't happened it would have been stretched to produce an SD1 replacement. Although it's never been suggested as far as I know, a supermini could have been a possibility too. It happened - in a very roundabout way - with R3, which has wheelbase and track dimensions within millimetres of the Maestro.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nick Besonderes
Modern Gentleman


Joined: 09 Nov 2018
Posts: 242
Location: Here

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Troo, but they were very good at 23 year old platforms.

Only they ended up changing so much, that it wasn't. Yet the Allegro was an 1100 and the SD1 still had some Triumph 2000 bits, allegedly.

Fuck knows where bits of the Marina came from - MGB, Knacker, Morris Oxford probably.

Mind you, it's not unusual to recycle; the last Euro Accord was still a relative of the Rover 600.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ottertronic
WORSE THAN HITLER


Joined: 09 Nov 2018
Posts: 928

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In what way was an Allegro an 1100, carryover A-series aside?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
austin-towers
PLASTIC WELSH SPASTIC


Joined: 07 Nov 2018
Posts: 911

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HERE WE GO
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nick Besonderes
Modern Gentleman


Joined: 09 Nov 2018
Posts: 242
Location: Here

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ottertronic wrote:
In what way was an Allegro an 1100, carryover A-series aside?


Did they not carry over the chassis (apart from being Hydragas) or is that just another one of those things they made up in the press somewhere?

Bit like the Metro being a cut-down Allegro.

Then there was Mann's four-door TR7, of which no evidence has ever been found.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ottertronic
WORSE THAN HITLER


Joined: 09 Nov 2018
Posts: 928

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't think so. It was a brand new design and larger in every dimension.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marinast
1.2 C4 PICASSO


Joined: 07 Nov 2018
Posts: 866

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Engine and gearbox aside, the Allegro was a whole new design, it did not even use ADO16 subframes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seamaster
PEDDLING OPTIMISM


Joined: 11 Nov 2018
Posts: 2001
Location: Scottish Riviera

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

THREAD LOCKED.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
5ivegearsinreverse
ROBERT JEKYLL & GORDON HYDE


Joined: 07 Nov 2018
Posts: 749
Location: A Town Called Bastard

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nick Besonderes wrote:
Troo, but they were very good at 23 year old platforms.

Only they ended up changing so much, that it wasn't. Yet the Allegro was an 1100 and the SD1 still had some Triumph 2000 bits, allegedly.

Fuck knows where bits of the Marina came from - MGB, Knacker, Morris Oxford probably.

Mind you, it's not unusual to recycle; the last Euro Accord was still a relative of the Rover 600.


Jesus, Nick, have you borrowed Giles' brain?

The Allegro was developed using what I'd call a Marina philosophy. Existing engines (full powertrains in the case of the Allegro) and a new chassis and BIW developed with cheapness of manufacture as the foremost priority. The Allegro's front suspension followed the 1100/1300 in geometry and general arrangement - because it worked, but dispensed with subframes. At the rear the subframe was replaced by a circular hollow section cross tube, and the trailing arms had much wider pivot bases than the 1100/1300.

The Allegro also buried what remained of the Issigonis vision. It wasn't very well packaged in terms of maximising passenger space, but in its favour had crumple zones, a decently large boot, and excellent engine accessibility. It was also as wide as a Maxi and only marginally heavier than the 1100/1300.

I'd mischievously describe the Allegro as an attempt by Ford engineers to produce a Ford using only BMC front wheel drive powertrain components. It was so very nearly a good car, but the the true heirs to the ADO16 vision were being made by Peugeot, CitroŽn, Alfa Romeo, and VW.

The SD1 was the most "clean sheet" car of the Leyland era, particularly in six cylinder form. The Rover Company did things that way, but the SD1 was a Rover-Triumph collaboration.

The only commonality I can think of with the big Triumphs was the use of MacPherson strut front suspension, but I doubt if they were the same struts. The live axle rear end was developed using P6 mules. Triumph used their own cars for PE146/166 engine and LT77 gearbox testing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marinast
1.2 C4 PICASSO


Joined: 07 Nov 2018
Posts: 866

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oddly the Allegro was more of a Moulton creation than an Issigonis one, Moulton and Dunlop worked closely on suspension development from its inception and I believe his belief in the Hydragas system swayed BL management to not fit subframes as he believed a well designed body with Hydragas did not need to use them.
Good his initial development was, the early Series 1 cars suffered from bump-thump and excessive rough road vibrations but Series 2 and 3 cars both received further refinements and later cars easily feel a nicer vehicle to be driven in than almost all its contemporaries excluding the Shitroen GS.
BL could have developed a more cost effective conventionally spring FWD model based on the Marina chassis I guess, but letís not forget it was ditching the in sump gearbox in favour of an end on design that made the Fiat and VW (and FWD Fords) such a success, along with adding a hatchback.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nick Besonderes
Modern Gentleman


Joined: 09 Nov 2018
Posts: 242
Location: Here

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

5ivegearsinreverse wrote:
Nick Besonderes wrote:
Troo, but they were very good at 23 year old platforms.

Only they ended up changing so much, that it wasn't. Yet the Allegro was an 1100 and the SD1 still had some Triumph 2000 bits, allegedly.

Fuck knows where bits of the Marina came from - MGB, Knacker, Morris Oxford probably.

Mind you, it's not unusual to recycle; the last Euro Accord was still a relative of the Rover 600.


Jesus, Nick, have you borrowed Giles' brain?

The Allegro was developed using what I'd call a Marina philosophy. Existing engines (full powertrains in the case of the Allegro) and a new chassis and BIW developed with cheapness of manufacture as the foremost priority. The Allegro's front suspension followed the 1100/1300 in geometry and general arrangement - because it worked, but dispensed with subframes. At the rear the subframe was replaced by a circular hollow section cross tube, and the trailing arms had much wider pivot bases than the 1100/1300.

The Allegro also buried what remained of the Issigonis vision. It wasn't very well packaged in terms of maximising passenger space, but in its favour had crumple zones, a decently large boot, and excellent engine accessibility. It was also as wide as a Maxi and only marginally heavier than the 1100/1300.

I'd mischievously describe the Allegro as an attempt by Ford engineers to produce a Ford using only BMC front wheel drive powertrain components. It was so very nearly a good car, but the the true heirs to the ADO16 vision were being made by Peugeot, CitroŽn, Alfa Romeo, and VW.

The SD1 was the most "clean sheet" car of the Leyland era, particularly in six cylinder form. The Rover Company did things that way, but the SD1 was a Rover-Triumph collaboration.

The only commonality I can think of with the big Triumphs was the use of MacPherson strut front suspension, but I doubt if they were the same struts. The live axle rear end was developed using P6 mules. Triumph used their own cars for PE146/166 engine and LT77 gearbox testing.


It's been a long week...

I think the brain fart was caused by the All Aggro having the same interior dimensions as the 16, despite the size increase. What's more surprising

There was a rumour that there were similarities in the SD1's rear floorpan/inner arches to the Triumph. Which sounds a bit unlikely, since the new car was wider.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marinast
1.2 C4 PICASSO


Joined: 07 Nov 2018
Posts: 866

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Part of the rear floor pan section of the SD1 is allegedly a modified P76 pressing, though given the time frame from the P8/9 cancellation to SD1 full size prototypes I would suspect a bit more P76 might have crept into the design, even if it was used as a basis to provide a guide for the SD1. Both were rear wheel drive V8 models using very simular layouts and post BL Oz closure the P76 pressings were there for the taking.
The susprising thing was the faliure to adopt the E6 for the SD1 outside South Africa, a 2200/2600/3500 SD1 might have been a reality from launch without the costly process of developing the limited build PE engines.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Home of the official* MG3, MG6, MG GS & MG ZS forum Forum Index -> Motorfuck All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


HomeNewsForum ∑ Wiki ∑ Brochures

Powered by K Seal © 2018 MacDroitwich Fisheries