In <323C97EC.6DB6@psu.edu>, edm107 wrote:
>Since purchasing my first MGB as a restoration project last year I've
>heard quite a few comments on the quality of British cars (...flow
>through oil systems, etc., etc.). My question is, what really are the
>weak spots in the design and construction of British cars? Is it
>material quality? Poor design? Also, are there any parts that can be
>replaced with newer, improved parts? I would really like to hear a
>discussion of this.
I thought I'd be boring and take this query a little seriously. I
think that the weak spots (that can be both frustrating and endearing)
stem from three primary factors. (1) Materials. For some reason,
most British auto production has used alloys that are barely serviceable
at best. I know that there are exceptions, but by and large the sheet
metal, the cast iron and (shudder) the aluminum castings seem to be
made out of whatever was around to throw into the pot. This seems odd
coming from the country that brought us Wilkinson razor blades....
But I find that in many instances the alloys in my Roller are are
inferior in durability to some of those found in the most humble of
American cars, such as the Model T. It is not at all unusual to be
required to bore a British block at 70,000 miles, but some Japanese
engines still have hone marks visible at 150,000 miles. The aluminum
suspension components on my Aston Martin nearly dissolved when I took
them in to have them anodized. The guy at the shop was mystified by
the sleaziness of the alloy. The materials problems seem especially
acute in British production that is immediately post-war, e.g., MG
T-series and the like. Everything wears on these, extraordinarily
rapidly.
(2) A lot of the problems (and the charm) arise from the fact that
many British cars were built in very small production runs (or runs
that were anticipated as being small). This gives rise to coach-built
bodywork and fine attention to detail. One singular advantage is that
short-cut methods that might have been more profitable with production
of a million tended to be avoided with production of 10,000. For
example, one finds many more forged or bolted parts than stampings.
The disadvantage is that assemblages that are utter Chinese puzzles to
repair or replace arise. ("Well, yah, they are hard to service,
mate, but then again there aren't very many of them, are there?" (the
twin cam on the MGA comes to mind....)) A corollary of this problem is
that most British iron is _not_ purpose-built, again due to small
production runs, which must lead to compromise in the design. The
same engine must serve sports cars, taxis and tractors.
(3) "Over-designed and under-engineered" is the phrase that is thrown
at the much-maligned Lucas equipment. In part this is a state of
mind. The design does not have a lot of sophistication. It uses
great bleeding hunks of metal when sylph-like wisps will do, but does
not take into consideration the impact of work-hardening with flexion or
the tendency to break at welds. Lucas switches are generally immense
and crude and use enormous contacts, but of a brass alloy that rapidly
pits. Worst car I ever owned was a Rover 2000. Comfy, smelled like a
shoe store, handled great and was fairly fast (when it ran). In three
years it had three valve jobs (due mainly to broken welds in the
exhaust--bad hanger design), two starters, two clutches (bad
hydraulics wore them out prematurely) and it burned a rod bearing.
I drove one day at about 70 mph on an interstate. The partial vacuum
created under the hood (due to Bernoulli effect) evacuated the sump
through the oil breather and deposited the remains on my firewall. I
saw the oil creeping up the windshield about the same time I heard
the rod start to knock. Folks, the art is in the details....
A. B. Bonds
|