Major errors with introduction of new motor vehicles...
#1
Posted 24 February 2006 - 21:17
Several million later the dang things are still selling to the masses!
Any other little (or big) errors out there?
Henry
Side note: This is the new 1964 1/2 that Dad purchased for my brother and me:
Advertisement
#2
Posted 24 February 2006 - 22:14
"The Edsel serves as a textbook example of corporate presumption and disregard for market realities."
Detroit still suffers from this malady.
#3
Posted 25 February 2006 - 00:00
Legend has it that when J Armand Bombardier launched his first recreational snowmobile in the early fifties, it was intended to be known as a Ski Dog, but a printing error caused the material to come back with the words Ski Doo...and they left it as it was. Led to the Sea Doo ...
Mo.
#4
Posted 25 February 2006 - 00:05
#5
Posted 25 February 2006 - 00:15
The Austin/Morris Marina
#6
Posted 25 February 2006 - 00:22
Originally posted by David Birchall
.....The Austin/Morris Marina
Eclipsed by the Austin 3-litre Deluxe.
#7
Posted 25 February 2006 - 00:37
#8
Posted 25 February 2006 - 01:30
Originally posted by HistoricMustang
The fact that the Ford Motor Company introduced the 1964 1/2 Mustang with the horse emblem going against the norm and running left rather than right has always intrigued me. Just wondering if other cosmetic errors have occurred with initial new model introductions. The theory is that a left handed engineer designed the "horse" and as you know there was a real rush in getting the Mustang to market.
Several million later the dang things are still selling to the masses!
Any other little (or big) errors out there?
Henry
Side note: This is the new 1964 1/2 that Dad purchased for my brother and me:
Maybe the same left-handed engineer (or stylist) was responsible for the logo on the Mercury Cougar as well. It shows a cougar slinking right to left. And the current Chevy Impala logo also goes right to left. I'm really not sure there is a norm for portraying an animal.
As for big (or little) errors, how about anything designed by Chris Bangle for BMW. And, is it just me, or does the current Subaru Tribeca front end remind one of the Edsel?
Cheers,
Kurt
#9
Posted 25 February 2006 - 06:41
Richard
#10
Posted 25 February 2006 - 07:18
Is that against the norm? Things like the Vauxhall griffin go that way, and heraldically animals' default settings are to go towards the dexter, if you will.Originally posted by HistoricMustang
The fact that the Ford Motor Company introduced the 1964 1/2 Mustang with the horse emblem going against the norm and running left rather than right has always intrigued me.
#11
Posted 25 February 2006 - 13:06
Originally posted by ensign14
Is that against the norm? Things like the Vauxhall griffin go that way, and heraldically animals' default settings are to go towards the dexter, if you will.
I guess what gives this story lore is the fact that Ford admitted the pony should have been going left to right........................in to-days world of individuality am sure the powers to be would have simply said the original design was correct and left it at that. You know, kind of an "Enron" spin to the facts!
#12
Posted 25 February 2006 - 14:51
Originally posted by WGD706
The 1975 Chevy Monza.....Chevy's small cars began in the early seventies with the Chevy Vega but was soon replaced by the Chevy Monza, though Monza was not intended be Vega’s successor but more as a base or foundation. It was intended to house GM's Wankel rotary engine but that never materialized so the traditional 2300 I-4 and 262 V8 engines were installed. Due to the small vehicle size, the lack of space under the hood became the primary problem when the engine was installed, that it resulted in a crowded engine compartment. Stories were spread about GM having to invent special tools just to replace the 2 rear spark plugs!
I had a '75 Chevy Monza. Bought it used. A HORRIBLE car! It was the 4-cyl with an automatic.
The suspension couldn't cope with anything. I'd hit a series of small undulations in the road and with each successive dip, the suspension would compress more & more until the car started crashing down on the road. Never mind the curves, I had to learn to watch for bumps on the straight sections of road.
In cold weather, I always had trouble getting it started, and in hot weather, I had trouble shutting it off. It would "diesel" badly. Many times, after I'd parked somewhere and shut it off, I'd just walk away, leaving it to "diesel" merrily away, figuring it would stop sometime...
Another thing it did was backfire thru the Holley carb and stall. The butterfly would jam shut and the only way to get going again was to take off the air cleaner and poke the thing open with my finger. This happened one morning at a light on a 50-mph road. I thought FOR SURE the guy screaming up from behind was going to hit me, but he swerved at the last minute. After that, I hard-wired a choke cable to the butterfly.
At 70 mph, I could hear all sorts of noises & clattering from the engine.
Horrible car.
#13
Posted 25 February 2006 - 16:08
Originally posted by David Birchall
"Major errors with the introduction of new motor vehicles":
The Austin/Morris Marina
Said over here to be the only car with such bad handling that it was unsafe, even if transported on a trailer.
On the other hand, there was also the Allegro and its wunnerful "quartic" steering wheel.
#14
Posted 25 February 2006 - 18:25
Tooling had already begun for the bumpers so early cars are distinguished by halved bumpers with a metal spacer joining them...and yes, that raised strip down the middle of a Minor's bonnet is also testament to the last-minute widening scheme.
#15
Posted 25 February 2006 - 19:18
Legend has it that the car was ready for introduction, cars produced including emblems, press material printed, when someone mentioned the spelling error. Somehow, this story always reminds me of Benny Hill and his Chinese bureaucrat.
Jesper
#16
Posted 25 February 2006 - 20:10
Originally posted by David Birchall
"Major errors with the introduction of new motor vehicles":
The Austin/Morris Marina
Ah, the old Marina. On our first visit to the UK in 1975 we hired one to drive around the Island. The gear box kept jamming (a flat tyre as well) so we exchanged it for another and just outside Perth the complete exhaust pipe fell off. (We then took on a Ford Escort which would not go over 50mph until we looked in the boot and found it jammed full with firewood. We returned it several days early at Folkestone and on being asked for a refund the woman in the office had a complete nervous breadown - this is quite true. UK car rental was not for the fainthearted.)
#17
Posted 25 February 2006 - 20:20
Or is this an urban myth?.
#18
Posted 25 February 2006 - 21:26
Originally posted by stevewf1
I had a '75 Chevy Monza. Bought it used. A HORRIBLE car! It was the 4-cyl with an automatic.
The suspension couldn't cope with anything. I'd hit a series of small undulations in the road and with each successive dip, the suspension would compress more & more until the car started crashing down on the road. Never mind the curves, I had to learn to watch for bumps on the straight sections of road.....
I think the key here is that you bought it used...
The two main items you mention, this suspension compression thing and the Holley carby, they definitely sound like aftermarket parts problems. I doubt that any maker would fit dampers so overly firm that they would prevent the car returning to normal ride height before the next undulation, but I've known many an idiot owner who would do that.
And I don't think a Holley would have been a standard fitment on a GM car. Could be wrong there, but Holleys seem to mostly be aftermarket units.
#19
Posted 25 February 2006 - 21:27
Hasty modifications to prevent an unforeseen over-heating problem proved ineffective and all 3 cats were scalded enough to retire within the first hour or so of the race (which is presumably why so few race photos of these cars survive).
Peter Dumbreck and Mark Webber will doubtless recount Mercedes' attempt at building a stunt plane at the same circuit...
Advertisement
#20
Posted 25 February 2006 - 23:02
In 1969 General Motors announced plans to combat the rising tide of imports with a small, stylish, economical vehicle more suited to American tastes.
Designed by GM Central's corporate engineers, the Vega fell to Chevrolet for manufacture and sale. GM VP and Chevrolet General Manager John Delorean immediately recognized the value of and the need for an image booster for the new kid on the block.
He memoed Jim Musser, suggesting that he contact Keith Duckworth at Formula One engine builder Cosworth Engineering, Ltd. to see if they might be interested in the new technology/high silicon content Vega engine block for use as a four- cylinder racing engine.
Intrigued by the idea and recognizing the value of an association with Chevrolet, Keith Duckworth considered the proposal an attractive way to build a racing engine.
He promptly visited the States to examine the new Vega block closely. Impressed by its sound structural concepts and logical lines of stress from top to bottom, he was overheard to say, “You couldn’t easily see where it was likely to break first.” Duckworth decided that Cosworth was interested, and a dialog with Chevrolet's engineers began in 1969.
Meanwhile, in Detroit a disappointing launch of the stock Vega during the fall of 1970, worsened by a 2½ month strike, saw sales of the inaugural 1971 Vega languish. It quickly became obvious that the American public hardly appreciated the groundbreaking technology of the Vega’s die-cast lightweight aluminum block. It also became obvious that the Vega GT lacked the panache to bolster the standard Vega's disappointing sales.
The pressure on Cosworth of England to deliver quickly increased exponentially. During the year that followed, as Cosworth of England experienced repeated catastrophic failures of the engine blocks—they had an unhealthy propensity to split horizontally below the cylinder bores—Chevrolet pursued a diverging path toward a streetable version of the twin cam cylinder head design, seeking a reliable engine that developed gobs of power. Lloyd Reuss, then Assistant Chief Engineer at Chevrolet, decided that a streetable version of the Cosworth engine would be the hot ticket to improving the Vega’s image and Chevrolet’s sporting image as well. He hoped to produce the reciprocating heart of a street fighter capable of dueling with the BMW’s of the day on more than equal terms.
The Cosworth Vega was thus conceived as a complete sports sedan: high performance engine, high performance chassis, unique outward appearance. It was to be introduced in 1974. Efforts to bring the horsepower developed by the EAA engine to the street, though initially promising, were slowly strangled by the twin hands of corporate average fuel economy (CAFÉ) requirements and EPA emissions standards.
Initially drawn with a compression ratio of 12:1, a fat fuel curve, and a need for Sunoco 260, the engine design suffered from repeated compromises as emissions standards tightened, the fuel crisis hit and continued, and leaded high octane fuel trickled down the trail of the dinosaurs. The designers ratcheted down the CR first to 11.25:1, then to 10.5:1, then even further to a weak 9.5:1, and finally all the way down to a nominal (and optimistic) 8.5:1, abandoning along the way porting and polishing of the cylinder head and several other hot rod tricks.
Horsepower plummeted from the 185 HP level quoted in 1971, to less than 130 HP reported internally on May 1, 1973, back up to 135 SAE net HP on July 23, 1973 (though 140 HP was reported in the August, 1973 issue of Car and Driver, an apparently wishful number), before the bottom fell out by the time of production in 1975 when the rating plunged to 110 HP in street trim. In April of 1973 the first Cosworth Pilot Program was conducted at Ste. Therese, Quebec Assembly Plant. The Lordstown plant was “down” due to a strike at the adjacent Fisher Body Stamping Plant. Seven Cosworths, painted Neutral Silver, were built for Engineering testing.
Unfortunately, emissions testing proved to be the Achilles heel of the new engine. In April of 1974, just one month before the planned introduction, two of the three engines in the Emissions Certification test cars burned exhaust valves by the 46,000-mile mark, just before reaching the 50,000 mile limit marking the end of the test. The third car was withdrawn from testing and a teardown of its engine revealed incipient exhaust valve damage as well.
The emissions test failure debacle was from an irrational decision to run the timing substantially ******** on the test cars in an effort to provide a safety margin in the emissions numbers. That decision dumped excessive heat into the exhaust valves and seats, and they predictably failed.
Each Cosworth Vega came with gold stripes, cast-aluminum wheels, wide radial tires, full instrumentation, an engine-turned gold dash panel, front/rear anti-roll bars, a four-speed gearbox, and the Cosworth Vega twin overhead cam engine with Bendix Electronic fuel injection sporting a stainless steel competition header. About this time the press was beating heavily on GM about its problems with the Vega engine. Alas, GM hadn't made the standard Vega engine foolproof (just as it hadn't made the front fenders rustproof), and, as a result, only a little neglect or abuse caused these engines to self-destruct. Even though Chevrolet went far beyond it's warranty obligations in repairing these engines, and despite the relatively minor changes that solved the overheating problem on the 1975 through 1977 "Dura-Built" Vega engines, irreversible reputation damage had been done done. Vega sales plummeted, and dragged Cosworth sales with them.
Because the engine as delivered produced only 110 bhp, because it took 12.3 seconds to reach 60 mph, because it traversed the quarter mile in a yawning 18.5 seconds, and because it had a top speed of only 112 mph, "knowledgeable enthusiasts", did not beat a path to its doors. The Cosworth Vega lacked the stoplight-to-stoplight grunt so loved by the American and Canadian publics. Small wonder that the sales were so slow. Even Chevrolet's own advertising department was ineffective.
Basically, it was a great looking car. I owned a Vega GT and loved it. OK, it wasn't a Porsche or BMW but the price was great for someone just out of school and the car was fun to drive.
There's a great web-site with tons of photos and history about the car http://www.cosworthvega.com/
If the original idea was carried out and the corporate heads hadn't gotten involved, more than the 3500 or so would have been built.
Cosworth has this to say about the entire project..."It was extremely light compared to the BDA with its pressure die-cast aluminium block from Reynolds, but was not up to the ratings we were putting through it. Designed to be a two litre racer, we could not make the cylinder block live. There was nothing we could do.
" It started as a race engine with Chevrolet, dry sump, the whole works, and it was Chevy who productionised it for the Vega car, They even had problems with the engine in road trim just as they did with the standard engine. The project died but they are now collectors' items!"
Thus the first road car to carry the Cosworth name did not enhance any reputations. It was not the engine which was at fault, only the block, but that tends to be somewhat critical and the whole episode fated before it began. Hundreds of blocks were being delivered, many failing a pressure test Cosworth devised for them and littering up the place while a solution was found. It never was.
Warren
#21
Posted 26 February 2006 - 04:31
Originally posted by Ray Bell
I think the key here is that you bought it used...
The two main items you mention, this suspension compression thing and the Holley carby, they definitely sound like aftermarket parts problems. I doubt that any maker would fit dampers so overly firm that they would prevent the car returning to normal ride height before the next undulation, but I've known many an idiot owner who would do that.
And I don't think a Holley would have been a standard fitment on a GM car. Could be wrong there, but Holleys seem to mostly be aftermarket units.
Could be, I suppose. I didn't know the car's previous history. I know I replaced the shocks with standard items, but it didn't really help the "floatiness" problem. Maybe the springs had gotten too weak. I'm pretty sure the Holley was standard issue, but I could be wrong about that. Thankfully, I've forgotten most of that episode.
I remember that it was a toss-up between the Monza and the '69 Triumph GT6+ I had as to which was the least reliable. I loved that GT6 by the way.
The OTHER GM car I owned was a '62 Corvair, but that's another story.
#22
Posted 26 February 2006 - 05:12
#23
Posted 26 February 2006 - 06:40
Ford, with the first 1028 Model A's, introduced a 5-disc multiple disc clutch, that worked very much the same as a similar unit used in the much larger Lincolns. This was in keeping with the concept of the Model A as a sort of "baby Lincoln." They didn't work at all well very long in service, and by March of 1928, Ford had come out with a very strong single disc clutch, and was replacing the multidisc units as they came in for repair.
Lincoln, for 1942, introduced their answer to the GM Hydramatic transmission, called Liquimatic. Liquimatic sounded good on paper, test examples worked fine, but once in the hands of the motorist, they were noisy, leaked badly, shifted roughly, in short, they were a massive failure. All but a couple of examples were recalled by Lincoln, who not only had to replace them with manual transmissions, but had to replace the engines as well, since the V12 block used with Liquimatic was specially made for that use only, standard transmission wouldn't bolt up to it.
Art
#24
Posted 26 February 2006 - 07:34
Oldsmobile's engines, the 5.7 L LF9 and 4.3 L LF7 V8s and this 4.3 L V6, were notoriously unreliable. Although over one million were sold between 1978 and 1985, the failure rate of GM's engines ruined the reputation of Diesel engines in general in the United States market.
http://www.absolutea...iesel_v6_engine
#25
Posted 26 February 2006 - 11:35
Originally posted by swintex
Somebody obviously thought that the dinky little boot-lid spoiler on the Audi TT looked like an afterthought and decided it should not be fitted to the first models .
Richard
I thought the spoiler WAS an afterthought, introduced during a major recall of the TT when a reported linked it's aerodynamics to an autobahn accident, unless I horribly misremember.
Or am I misinterpreting the rolled eyes and your post is sarcastic. Either way... skip to next post.
#26
Posted 26 February 2006 - 11:50
#27
Posted 26 February 2006 - 12:24
Or could it have been the 6/90? I don't think so, I seem to recall a hole in the radiator of mine...
#28
Posted 26 February 2006 - 12:34
But there was another glitch: the original red plastic steering wheels showed their age by leaving red gunk on your hands, specially if it got wet, which was easy in an open car. After about 1929 the steering wheels were black.
Otherwise, it was a damn good car, although 40 bhp at 2,200 rpm from 200 cubic inches (3.2 litres) was kind of puny even in 1927. 12 bhp / litre roughly.
#29
Posted 26 February 2006 - 12:38
A reputation for overheating problems did them no good, and doubtless having an aluminium engine would have caused corrosion problems for a market which had only known cast iron.
Being launched at the death of rear engined cars didn't help.
My father-in-law's Marina nearly put me off the road driving conservatively in rural Norfolk. A damp patch in the shade of weak sushine snapped it into massive oversteer.
#30
Posted 26 February 2006 - 12:48
Henry
I want to add this link for your reading pleasure. Notice all the "big name" GM brass associated with this project:
http://en.wikipedia....evrolet_Corvair
#31
Posted 26 February 2006 - 14:42
Originally posted by Terry Walker
Ford A multi-plate clutch: I remember it well. The idea was all plates would separate at the same time, but clutch dust would gradually gunk up the splines they slid on and eventually only one plate would be doing all the work and rapidly burn out.
But there was another glitch: the original red plastic steering wheels showed their age by leaving red gunk on your hands, specially if it got wet, which was easy in an open car. After about 1929 the steering wheels were black.
Otherwise, it was a damn good car, although 40 bhp at 2,200 rpm from 200 cubic inches (3.2 litres) was kind of puny even in 1927. 12 bhp / litre roughly.
Terry, quite true about the red hard-rubber steering wheel! ( had one in a '28 Special Coupe!)
However, a '28-'29 Model A wasn't at all anemic. Properly driven, it would skin the pants off most other cars of the day. particularly in a stoplight drag race. One of the stories surrounding the development of the Packard Model 734 "Speedster" series is an anecdote of the president of Lordly Packard being dusted off by a $500 Model A. One could store up a lot of power in that engine's 80lb flywheel for a fast getaway!
One other error in the first Model A's was the dual-purpose AR series brake system: This mechanical brake system used the same rear shoes to provide emergency/parking brake action from the hand lever, which violated the motor vehicle laws of several states, and those of several European Countries, most notably Germany. Those early cars can be spotted by their very small wheel hubs. In March, 1928, a new, dual brake system debuted, having a separate self-engergizing internal emergency brake band inside the rear drums, which had two separate braking surfaces, and was actuated by a completely separate set of pull rods and cross-shaft. But with all that, Model A was the first popularly priced car in the US to have 4-wheel brakes, safety plate glass (in the windshield only). Also, Model A was the first in its price class to be equipped entirely with ball and roller bearings throughout the car, aft of the engine itself. On level ground, it is possible for a fairly young child to push a Model A fast enough for it to be started on the clutch.
A lot was made over the Model A's cowl-mounted fuel tank (on 28-29 roadsters, coupes, Tudors and commercials, the cowling IS the gas tank!), critics claiming fire or explosion hazard. However, to this day, no Model A is known to have caught fire from this gas tank position, which was far superior in safety to the vacuum operated tin-can fuel reservoirs mounted on the engine side of the firewall, above the exhaust manifolds on just about every other make of car at the time.
Art
#32
Posted 26 February 2006 - 14:48
Originally posted by Ray Bell
I think the key here is that you bought it used...
The two main items you mention, this suspension compression thing and the Holley carby, they definitely sound like aftermarket parts problems. I doubt that any maker would fit dampers so overly firm that they would prevent the car returning to normal ride height before the next undulation, but I've known many an idiot owner who would do that.
And I don't think a Holley would have been a standard fitment on a GM car. Could be wrong there, but Holleys seem to mostly be aftermarket units.
Ray,
Another very solid reason why GM didn't use Holley's: GM had their own Division making carburetors, Rochester, who supplied every carburetor used on GM cars, I believe, from the late 1930's well into the 70's, in addition to building every Corvette fuel injection system. Holley, once the old 2bbl Stromberg 97 on flathead V8's went away, equipped primarily Fords.
Art
#33
Posted 26 February 2006 - 15:06
#34
Posted 26 February 2006 - 16:02
#35
Posted 26 February 2006 - 20:36
Originally posted by A E Anderson
.....One other error in the first Model A's was the dual-purpose AR series brake system: This mechanical brake system used the same rear shoes to provide emergency/parking brake action from the hand lever, which violated the motor vehicle laws of several states, and those of several European Countries, most notably Germany.....
Only 6:34am and already I learned something today!
I doubt that we ever had such a law in Australia at all. But it does help explain why Chryslers (notably) persevered with that crazy transmission brake all those years...
#36
Posted 26 February 2006 - 21:35
Originally posted by A E Anderson
Ray,
Another very solid reason why GM didn't use Holley's: GM had their own Division making carburetors, Rochester, who supplied every carburetor used on GM cars, I believe, from the late 1930's well into the 70's, in addition to building every Corvette fuel injection system. Holley, once the old 2bbl Stromberg 97 on flathead V8's went away, equipped primarily Fords.
Art
While it's been a long time ago, and an "episode" I'd just as soon forget, I do remember having my '75 Monza (a "Towne Coupe", by the way) into the local Chevy dealer for service several times. I don't remember hearing any comments or complaints about a "non-standard" Holley carb on it.
I DO remember when I asked the dealer if there was a way they could connect a "manual" choke cable to it, he said "Not From Chevy, No Way!". I think it had something to do with new EPA laws back then, but he didn't seem to care that it was a Holley.
There is a little brain cell somewhere back there in my mind trying to remind me that "some" Monzas did have Holleys on them for some reason...
#37
Posted 26 February 2006 - 21:43
#38
Posted 27 February 2006 - 00:15
Part of the reason my daughter is such a sensitive and accomplished street and slalom driver is that she learned standing starts in our Elan.Originally posted by Sharman
What about the doughnuts on an Elan? Kangaroo juice to the unwary and prone to letting go leaving the drive shaft to take out the fuel tank. Imp again.
About Model As: combining elements of two threads, my first real auto race viewing was at Carrell Speedway, to which we were driven in my friend's father's 1928 A 2-door. Earlier he and his family had migrated to Southern California from Montana, trailering their household goods.
Second racing event was "big cars" at Pomona, on the horse track, same transport.
About Vegas: I had excellent experiences with th four I owned. The first, a 1971 wagon, was nimble and responsive. Subsequent years added weight and smog encumbrances, and the last one, a 1974 wagon was sluggish and almost wallowed on surface streets, but was a pretty good freeway flier.
What I had consistent trouble with was tread separation on several Semperit radials; otherwise they wore well and were responsive.
--
Frank S
#39
Posted 27 February 2006 - 01:25
Originally posted by Sharman
What about the doughnuts on an Elan? Kangaroo juice to the unwary and prone to letting go leaving the drive shaft to take out the fuel tank. Imp again.
They shouldn't have, of course...
They should have been centralised, so if they let go, the would stay in place at least.
Advertisement
#40
Posted 27 February 2006 - 10:16
#41
Posted 27 February 2006 - 10:30
Originally posted by ian senior
The NSU Ro80. A lovely car, years ahead of its time in so many ways, but completely useless for everyday motoring. Its ability to lunch engines was phenomenal - didn't NSU ever bother to do any testing involving the kind of motoring that its potential owners would put it through? No stop-start, short journey stuff, no fast runs followed by a few short ones ... all that kind of thing. The common cure for its maladies at the time was to insert a Ford V4 engine - a nasty engine by any standards, but at least it worked.
A neighbour had an Ro80, as a car-mad teenager, I thought it was the most beautiful thing I'd ever seen. Neighbour rapidly grew disenchanted with it though. He told me it was the best handling car he'd ever had, and he'd had some interesting stuff, but every time one Ro80 driver met another one on the road, they had their own greeting. They used to indicate with their fingers how many replacement engines they'd had. He stopped doing that when it meant he had to take both hands off the wheel, and kept on indicating that he'd had 5.
#42
Posted 27 February 2006 - 10:37
#43
Posted 27 February 2006 - 10:47
Originally posted by Terry Walker
Swap in a Mazda 13B engine?
I've heard of that before, and it just has to be a better answer than the Ford.
Regarding the Marina, I'm inclined to look on it a bit more kindly these days (rose tinted specs, and all that). Sometimes we forget it was cobbled together in a hurry, and in any case it was never intended as something to be driven with exuberance (although perhaps the availability of the meaty 1.8 TC proves me wrong here). Yes, it was full of understeer, but so were many other family cars at the same time - Cortina mkIII 2 litre, anyone?
Anyway, the Marina's understeer was easily solved if you adopted the solution my Dad did, with the one he was lumbered with as a company car: simply change the weight distribution by carrying a sack of sand in the boot.
#44
Posted 27 February 2006 - 10:48
Great, it had been my dream car for many years, a small Porsche 911... sure.
Friction pump had to be changed every couple months.
Fuel corroded the fuel lines (one morning I found my car lying in half the tank content. Luckily I was not smoking).
Coolant thermostat once blocked water circuit altogether, almost melted engine (a nice habit my Renault Super5 had too) .
Throttle got stuck because of bad castings.
Alternator literally fell off the car.
The last one left me walking on highway, got rid of the damn thing the day after.
I had hoped for a better quality of replacement parts when WV bought Skoda, but it was the same, at least in the early years.
#45
Posted 27 February 2006 - 11:13
Er ....
#46
Posted 27 February 2006 - 11:34
#47
Posted 27 February 2006 - 11:45
#48
Posted 27 February 2006 - 11:55
#49
Posted 27 February 2006 - 12:01
Originally posted by BRG
IIRC, there was a story that when Ford Europe introduced the Mark IV Escort, which was by then quite a well developed and capable, if uninspiring, car, the accountants decided at the last minute (after the press launch and all the media tests) to save £1.25 or something by deleting the front anti-rollbar on the cheapest versions. As a result, these handled poorly, with bad understeer. After a lot of complaints and bad publicity, Ford had to reinstate it, making the car uninspiring, but safer, again, but it was never a car that was regarded with any affection thereafter.
I took several attempts to get that car anything like remotely right. It got an almighty slagging-off from all the motoring magazines when it first appeared and Ford couldn't beleive the amount of flak it got. Like the 1987 model Audi 80, when it first arrived on the scene it was inferior to its predecessor in almost every way.
#50
Posted 27 February 2006 - 12:04
http://www.motherjon...09/dowie-2.html
Basically, it was cheaper to pay the death and injury lawsuits than it was to produce a safer car.....