Dave, I saw yesterday, a note that there are only ten V8 SD1s left on
the roads. What happened to them? Did they rot, or what? I was out of
the country for most of the '80s, 90s and '00s, so I didn't follow
their story. I do know that any SD1s are very rare to see.
In article <20210619112032.5b29df7d@david-NL40-50CU>,
Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
Dave, I saw yesterday, a note that there are only ten V8 SD1s left
on the roads. What happened to them? Did they rot, or what? I was
out of the country for most of the '80s, 90s and '00s, so I didn't
follow their story. I do know that any SD1s are very rare to see.
I saw that too - one of the papers?
It applies solely to one version, the Series 1 V8S. It is pretty well
the same as other V8s, but came with a higher level of equipment as
standard, including I think air-con.
I'd say the rarest of all in road going condition - MOT and tax - is
likely the diesel.
Not sure of total numbers with MOT and tax, but somewhere over 500.
With lots more on SORN.
On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 16:18:13 +0100
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
In article <20210619112032.5b29df7d@david-NL40-50CU>,
Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
Dave, I saw yesterday, a note that there are only ten V8 SD1s left
on the roads. What happened to them? Did they rot, or what? I was
out of the country for most of the '80s, 90s and '00s, so I didn't
follow their story. I do know that any SD1s are very rare to see.
I saw that too - one of the papers?
It applies solely to one version, the Series 1 V8S. It is pretty well
the same as other V8s, but came with a higher level of equipment as
standard, including I think air-con.
I'd say the rarest of all in road going condition - MOT and tax - is
likely the diesel.
Not sure of total numbers with MOT and tax, but somewhere over 500.
With lots more on SORN.
Ah, ok. But still, what was the main cause of there being so few SD1s
left? I worked for one of the contractors who built the new plant for
the assembly of the SD1, so I have an interest.
On 19 Jun 2021 at 17:58:14 BST, "Davey" <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 16:18:13 +0100
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
In article <20210619112032.5b29df7d@david-NL40-50CU>,
Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
Dave, I saw yesterday, a note that there are only ten V8 SD1s left
on the roads. What happened to them? Did they rot, or what? I was
out of the country for most of the '80s, 90s and '00s, so I didn't
follow their story. I do know that any SD1s are very rare to see.
I saw that too - one of the papers?
It applies solely to one version, the Series 1 V8S. It is pretty well
the same as other V8s, but came with a higher level of equipment as
standard, including I think air-con.
I'd say the rarest of all in road going condition - MOT and tax - is
likely the diesel.
Not sure of total numbers with MOT and tax, but somewhere over 500.
With lots more on SORN.
Ah, ok. But still, what was the main cause of there being so few SD1s
left? I worked for one of the contractors who built the new plant for
the assembly of the SD1, so I have an interest.
Rot wouldn't surprise me. A friend's dad had a 2600 which started rusting >within a year (fuel filler cap and arches IIRC).
Ah, ok. But still, what was the main cause of there being so few SD1s
left? I worked for one of the contractors who built the new plant for
the assembly of the SD1, so I have an interest.
Rot wouldn't surprise me. A friend's dad had a 2600 which started rusting within a year (fuel filler cap and arches IIRC).
Ah, ok. But still, what was the main cause of there being so few SD1s
left? I worked for one of the contractors who built the new plant for
the assembly of the SD1, so I have an interest.
In article <salhb4$opf$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
Ah, ok. But still, what was the main cause of there being so few
SD1s left? I worked for one of the contractors who built the new
plant for the assembly of the SD1, so I have an interest.
Rot wouldn't surprise me. A friend's dad had a 2600 which started
rusting within a year (fuel filler cap and arches IIRC).
Yes. At the onset they used a new 'state of the art' paint process.
Which was anything but. There were also problems with bodies in the
white being stored outside and getting rusty before painting.
BL was in general an extremely badly organised company. Factories
scattered all over the place. With no plans for when things didn't go
the way they hoped/wanted. A prime example of how 'us and them' style
of labour relations (on both sides) doesn't work.
Thanks. I was involved in commissioning the paint ovens in the plant,
but not the spraybooths or the paint system.
On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 11:57:07 +0100
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
In article <salhb4$opf$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
Ah, ok. But still, what was the main cause of there being so few
SD1s left? I worked for one of the contractors who built the new
plant for the assembly of the SD1, so I have an interest.
Rot wouldn't surprise me. A friend's dad had a 2600 which started
rusting within a year (fuel filler cap and arches IIRC).
Yes. At the onset they used a new 'state of the art' paint process.
Which was anything but. There were also problems with bodies in the
white being stored outside and getting rusty before painting.
BL was in general an extremely badly organised company. Factories
scattered all over the place. With no plans for when things didn't go
the way they hoped/wanted. A prime example of how 'us and them' style
of labour relations (on both sides) doesn't work.
Thanks. I was involved in commissioning the paint ovens in the plant,
but not the spraybooths or the paint system. The first item to be baked
in the Reflow oven was my Daimler SP250 exhaust manifold. Storing bodies >outside is an absolute no-no, for sure, especially in England!
BL was in general an extremely badly organised company. Factories
scattered all over the place. With no plans for when things didn't go the
way they hoped/wanted. A prime example of how 'us and them' style of
labour relations (on both sides) doesn't work.
On 20/06/2021 11:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
BL was in general an extremely badly organised company. Factories
scattered all over the place. With no plans for when things didn't go the way they hoped/wanted. A prime example of how 'us and them' style of
labour relations (on both sides) doesn't work.
Found this a good read.
https://www.aronline.co.uk/cars/rover/sd1/
On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 13:52:35 +0100
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
I chatted to a chap - long retired - who was a production engineer at
BL back in the day. At a car show.
He told many a horror story. Like when they transferred the Triumph
TR7 production line to a different factory and location. Zero
training given to the workers - yet they were expected to produce the
same numbers per day from the off. And of course who got blamed for assembly faults?
Things like doors often selective assembly. Yet only a fixed time
allowed for this. Meaning you could only allow for a couple of tries
in the time slot. No wonder panel gaps were hit or miss.
Such a contrast from when the Japanese makers opened up in the US. If
there was a problem on the assembly line, anyone could pull the cord to
stop the line. It would not run again until the problem was fixed.
Result: Quality cars.
On one job at Toyota in Kentucky, we were tuning up one of the ovens,
making adjustments to the zone temperatures and controller responses.
For every change, we had to do a full test of the result, which took
about an hour and a half each time. We could only go home when everyone
was finally satisfied, and it was pronounced ready for production the
next day.
I chatted to a chap - long retired - who was a production engineer at
BL back in the day. At a car show.
He told many a horror story. Like when they transferred the Triumph
TR7 production line to a different factory and location. Zero
training given to the workers - yet they were expected to produce the
same numbers per day from the off. And of course who got blamed for
assembly faults?
Things like doors often selective assembly. Yet only a fixed time
allowed for this. Meaning you could only allow for a couple of tries
in the time slot. No wonder panel gaps were hit or miss.
In article <20210621163449.163c7a1d@david-NL40-50CU>,
Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 13:52:35 +0100
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
I chatted to a chap - long retired - who was a production engineer at
BL back in the day. At a car show.
He told many a horror story. Like when they transferred the Triumph
TR7 production line to a different factory and location. Zero
training given to the workers - yet they were expected to produce the
same numbers per day from the off. And of course who got blamed for
assembly faults?
Things like doors often selective assembly. Yet only a fixed time
allowed for this. Meaning you could only allow for a couple of tries
in the time slot. No wonder panel gaps were hit or miss.
Such a contrast from when the Japanese makers opened up in the US. If
there was a problem on the assembly line, anyone could pull the cord to
stop the line. It would not run again until the problem was fixed.
Result: Quality cars.
On one job at Toyota in Kentucky, we were tuning up one of the ovens,
making adjustments to the zone temperatures and controller responses.
For every change, we had to do a full test of the result, which took
about an hour and a half each time. We could only go home when everyone
was finally satisfied, and it was pronounced ready for production the
next day.
Yes - the annoying thing is BL designed some rather nice cars. Had they
been fully developed and well built, could have been world beaters.
Instead they chose to partner with Honda and make some of the most dreary cars on the roads.
Do wonder if BMW has been given decent government
backing they could have turned it round - they made a decent start with
the 75.
Yes - the annoying thing is BL designed some rather nice cars. Had they been fully developed and well built, could have been world beaters.
Instead they chose to partner with Honda and make some of the most dreary cars on the roads.
Maybe dreary but they had a better reputation than BL's own designs.
If
the BL was handed to Honda rather than BMW then we might still have BL.
Do wonder if BMW has been given decent government
backing they could have turned it round - they made a decent start with
the 75.
BL was always going to fail with or without government backing. BMW lost
a fortune, that tax payers would otherwise have lost.
Then of course some went back into UK ownership with aptly name Phoenix Vulture Holdings, of course supported by the UK government, so more
money down the drain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Venture_Holdings
Perhaps if there wasn't a march through Birmingham against the Alchemy
bid they might still be making family cars.
The real problem specifically with Austin Rover was unions hell bent on taking the company down. I never understood their hatred towards UK car manufacturing.
In article <saqmus$idj$1@dont-email.me>,
Fredxx <fredxx@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
Yes - the annoying thing is BL designed some rather nice cars. Had they
been fully developed and well built, could have been world beaters.
Instead they chose to partner with Honda and make some of the most dreary >>> cars on the roads.
Maybe dreary but they had a better reputation than BL's own designs.
Really? My SD1 was replaced by the 800 series, basically a Honda. An
inferior car in almost every way. Just another ultra bland FWD generic.
If
the BL was handed to Honda rather than BMW then we might still have BL.
Ah - right. But you later state it was all down to the unions. ;-)
Do wonder if BMW has been given decent government
backing they could have turned it round - they made a decent start with
the 75.
BL was always going to fail with or without government backing. BMW lost
a fortune, that tax payers would otherwise have lost.
The mess that was BL was never going to be sorted without huge investment.
Then of course some went back into UK ownership with aptly name Phoenix
Vulture Holdings, of course supported by the UK government, so more
money down the drain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Venture_Holdings
Perhaps if there wasn't a march through Birmingham against the Alchemy
bid they might still be making family cars.
The real problem specifically with Austin Rover was unions hell bent on
taking the company down. I never understood their hatred towards UK car
manufacturing.
And yet those same workers now make Minis etc for BMW. In the same places.
BS. None of the original austin rover car workers were employed at the
new Mini factory. BMW trained people from scratch.
Nissan similarly refused to employ anyone who had ever worked in the
UK car industry. They employed local people and trained them in the Nissan-way from the outset.
On 24/06/2021 18:33, Andrew wrote:
BS. None of the original austin rover car workers were employed at the
new Mini factory. BMW trained people from scratch.
Nissan similarly refused to employ anyone who had ever worked in the
UK car industry. They employed local people and trained them in the
Nissan-way from the outset.
Which eliminated anyone that worked to "British standard piss fit".
Norton forged crankshafts in one piece. Fully machined them in one
piece. Then parted them in the middle to bolt a flywheel in. Put all the
left halves in one bin and all the right halves in another bin, never
the twain to meet again. Then they had to fit expensive "superblend"
self aligning bearings to survive the out of true running.
On 25/06/2021 09:09, Peter Hill wrote:
On 24/06/2021 18:33, Andrew wrote:
BS. None of the original austin rover car workers were employed at the
new Mini factory. BMW trained people from scratch.
Nissan similarly refused to employ anyone who had ever worked in the
UK car industry. They employed local people and trained them in the
Nissan-way from the outset.
Which eliminated anyone that worked to "British standard piss fit".
Norton forged crankshafts in one piece. Fully machined them in one
piece. Then parted them in the middle to bolt a flywheel in. Put all
the left halves in one bin and all the right halves in another bin,
never the twain to meet again. Then they had to fit expensive
"superblend" self aligning bearings to survive the out of true running.
Various stories exist across manufacturing industries with non-Japanese production lines purposely having to make designs that accepted wide tolerances, which worked, and were serviceable without having to going
to the extremes of special working practices. That does have its
advantages, particularly when some UK vehicles have an extended life
abroad in the midst of basic tools and training.
However the Japanese like their fine production for performance and reliability, and a worker would strive to make parts to close
tolerances, well within in the range of allowable.
In the west making a similar product we'd naturally and unhappily sail
close to the tolerance limits of the range, and call it a day ... Then someone would have to implement even stricter tolerances and training
over here, with expense, to manufacture equivalent products.
So different attitudes...
When Yamaha re-designed the Ford Kent into the Zetec to accommodate the sloppy tolerance of Ford's block machining line they had 20 main bearing shell thicknesses with the right tight running clearance. They couldn't
stock undersize shells so the bottom end can't be repaired.
On 25/06/2021 09:09, Peter Hill wrote:
On 24/06/2021 18:33, Andrew wrote:
BS. None of the original austin rover car workers were employed at the
new Mini factory. BMW trained people from scratch.
Nissan similarly refused to employ anyone who had ever worked in the
UK car industry. They employed local people and trained them in the
Nissan-way from the outset.
Which eliminated anyone that worked to "British standard piss fit".
Norton forged crankshafts in one piece. Fully machined them in one
piece. Then parted them in the middle to bolt a flywheel in. Put all
the left halves in one bin and all the right halves in another bin,
never the twain to meet again. Then they had to fit expensive
"superblend" self aligning bearings to survive the out of true running.
Various stories exist across manufacturing industries with non-Japanese production lines purposely having to make designs that accepted wide tolerances, which worked, and were serviceable without having to going
to the extremes of special working practices. That does have its
advantages, particularly when some UK vehicles have an extended life
abroad in the midst of basic tools and training.
However the Japanese like their fine production for performance and reliability, and a worker would strive to make parts to close
tolerances, well within in the range of allowable.
In the west making a similar product we'd naturally and unhappily sail
close to the tolerance limits of the range, and call it a day ... Then someone would have to implement even stricter tolerances and training
over here, with expense, to manufacture equivalent products.
So different attitudes...
On 25/06/2021 17:58, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 25/06/2021 09:09, Peter Hill wrote:
On 24/06/2021 18:33, Andrew wrote:Various stories exist across manufacturing industries with
BS. None of the original austin rover car workers were employed at the >>>> new Mini factory. BMW trained people from scratch.
Nissan similarly refused to employ anyone who had ever worked in the
UK car industry. They employed local people and trained them in the
Nissan-way from the outset.
Which eliminated anyone that worked to "British standard piss fit".
Norton forged crankshafts in one piece. Fully machined them in one >>>piece. Then parted them in the middle to bolt a flywheel in. Put all
the left halves in one bin and all the right halves in another bin,
never the twain to meet again. Then they had to fit expensive >>>"superblend" self aligning bearings to survive the out of true running.
non-Japanese production lines purposely having to make designs that >>accepted wide tolerances, which worked, and were serviceable without >>having to going to the extremes of special working practices. That
does have its advantages, particularly when some UK vehicles have an >>extended life abroad in the midst of basic tools and training.
However the Japanese like their fine production for performance and >>reliability, and a worker would strive to make parts to close
tolerances, well within in the range of allowable.
In the west making a similar product we'd naturally and unhappily
sail close to the tolerance limits of the range, and call it a day
... Then someone would have to implement even stricter tolerances and >>training over here, with expense, to manufacture equivalent products.
So different attitudes...
Yet the most successful gun in the world designed by Mikhail
Kalashnikov was one built to agricultural tolerances.
There is a reason why it is successful, and reliable. And why others
are called 'Widow Makers".
On 25/06/2021 09:09, Peter Hill wrote:
On 24/06/2021 18:33, Andrew wrote:
BS. None of the original austin rover car workers were employed at the
new Mini factory. BMW trained people from scratch.
Nissan similarly refused to employ anyone who had ever worked in the
UK car industry. They employed local people and trained them in the
Nissan-way from the outset.
Which eliminated anyone that worked to "British standard piss fit".
Norton forged crankshafts in one piece. Fully machined them in one
piece. Then parted them in the middle to bolt a flywheel in. Put all the left halves in one bin and all the right halves in another bin, never
the twain to meet again. Then they had to fit expensive "superblend"
self aligning bearings to survive the out of true running.
Various stories exist across manufacturing industries with non-Japanese production lines purposely having to make designs that accepted wide tolerances, which worked, and were serviceable without having to going
to the extremes of special working practices. That does have its
advantages, particularly when some UK vehicles have an extended life
abroad in the midst of basic tools and training.
However the Japanese like their fine production for performance and reliability, and a worker would strive to make parts to close
tolerances, well within in the range of allowable.
In the west making a similar product we'd naturally and unhappily sail
close to the tolerance limits of the range, and call it a day ... Then someone would have to implement even stricter tolerances and training
over here, with expense, to manufacture equivalent products.
So different attitudes...
When Yamaha re-designed the Ford Kent into the Zetec to accommodate the sloppy tolerance of Ford's block machining line they had 20 main bearing shell thicknesses with the right tight running clearance. They couldn't
stock undersize shells so the bottom end can't be repaired.
In the 1970s, a works colleague had a Hillman Hunter estate. He did
various bits of maintenance on it, including stripping down and
refurbishing the automatic gearbox (in the works mechanical workshop
while leaving the car in the carpark for a few days). He reckoned that Hillman deliberately designed their vehicles to work with loose
tolerance in order to allow them to be easily serviced and maintained in
the far distant parts of the British Empire.
In article <ijmg9iFf0hmU1@mid.individual.net>,
Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
On 25/06/2021 09:09, Peter Hill wrote:
On 24/06/2021 18:33, Andrew wrote:
BS. None of the original austin rover car workers were employed at the
new Mini factory. BMW trained people from scratch.
Nissan similarly refused to employ anyone who had ever worked in the
UK car industry. They employed local people and trained them in the
Nissan-way from the outset.
Which eliminated anyone that worked to "British standard piss fit".
Norton forged crankshafts in one piece. Fully machined them in one
piece. Then parted them in the middle to bolt a flywheel in. Put all the >> > left halves in one bin and all the right halves in another bin, never
the twain to meet again. Then they had to fit expensive "superblend"
self aligning bearings to survive the out of true running.
Various stories exist across manufacturing industries with non-Japanese
production lines purposely having to make designs that accepted wide
tolerances, which worked, and were serviceable without having to going
to the extremes of special working practices. That does have its
advantages, particularly when some UK vehicles have an extended life
abroad in the midst of basic tools and training.
However the Japanese like their fine production for performance and
reliability, and a worker would strive to make parts to close
tolerances, well within in the range of allowable.
In the west making a similar product we'd naturally and unhappily sail
close to the tolerance limits of the range, and call it a day ... Then
someone would have to implement even stricter tolerances and training
over here, with expense, to manufacture equivalent products.
So different attitudes...
Remember the story of Rolls allowing a US company(s) to make their V12 >engine, as used in the Spitfire etc, under licence? The US ones never made >the specs, power wise. According to Rolls, because of not being able to
work to the close tolerance needed.
In article <EBIU3aBtU01gFwS8@brattleho.plus.com>,
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In the 1970s, a works colleague had a Hillman Hunter estate. He did
various bits of maintenance on it, including stripping down and
refurbishing the automatic gearbox (in the works mechanical workshop
while leaving the car in the carpark for a few days). He reckoned that
Hillman deliberately designed their vehicles to work with loose
tolerance in order to allow them to be easily serviced and maintained in
the far distant parts of the British Empire.
Hillman didn't make the auto box.
In article <ijmg9iFf0hmU1@mid.individual.net>,
Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
On 25/06/2021 09:09, Peter Hill wrote:
On 24/06/2021 18:33, Andrew wrote:
BS. None of the original austin rover car workers were employed at the >>>> new Mini factory. BMW trained people from scratch.
Nissan similarly refused to employ anyone who had ever worked in the
UK car industry. They employed local people and trained them in the
Nissan-way from the outset.
Which eliminated anyone that worked to "British standard piss fit".
Norton forged crankshafts in one piece. Fully machined them in one
piece. Then parted them in the middle to bolt a flywheel in. Put all the >>> left halves in one bin and all the right halves in another bin, never
the twain to meet again. Then they had to fit expensive "superblend"
self aligning bearings to survive the out of true running.
Various stories exist across manufacturing industries with non-Japanese
production lines purposely having to make designs that accepted wide
tolerances, which worked, and were serviceable without having to going
to the extremes of special working practices. That does have its
advantages, particularly when some UK vehicles have an extended life
abroad in the midst of basic tools and training.
However the Japanese like their fine production for performance and
reliability, and a worker would strive to make parts to close
tolerances, well within in the range of allowable.
In the west making a similar product we'd naturally and unhappily sail
close to the tolerance limits of the range, and call it a day ... Then
someone would have to implement even stricter tolerances and training
over here, with expense, to manufacture equivalent products.
So different attitudes...
Remember the story of Rolls allowing a US company(s) to make their V12 engine, as used in the Spitfire etc, under licence? The US ones never made the specs, power wise. According to Rolls, because of not being able to
work to the close tolerance needed.
Of course it's the sort of story every maker criticises a rival with. The smallest hypodermic needle being sent back with one threaded through it.
And so on.
In article <sb6i97$mjb$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Peter Hill <skyshac@yahoo.com> wrote:
When Yamaha re-designed the Ford Kent into the Zetec to accommodate the
sloppy tolerance of Ford's block machining line they had 20 main bearing
shell thicknesses with the right tight running clearance. They couldn't
stock undersize shells so the bottom end can't be repaired.
Certain types of treatment to crankshafts mean they can't be reground. And aluminium cylinder bore are coated, so can't be re-bored either. But if
that treatment extends the life dramatically, the engine may well never
need a major overhaul anyway.
On 26/06/2021 16:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article <ijmg9iFf0hmU1@mid.individual.net>,
Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
On 25/06/2021 09:09, Peter Hill wrote:
On 24/06/2021 18:33, Andrew wrote:
BS. None of the original austin rover car workers were employed at the >>>>> new Mini factory. BMW trained people from scratch.
Nissan similarly refused to employ anyone who had ever worked in the >>>>> UK car industry. They employed local people and trained them in the
Nissan-way from the outset.
Which eliminated anyone that worked to "British standard piss fit".
Norton forged crankshafts in one piece. Fully machined them in one
piece. Then parted them in the middle to bolt a flywheel in. Put all the >>>> left halves in one bin and all the right halves in another bin, never
the twain to meet again. Then they had to fit expensive "superblend"
self aligning bearings to survive the out of true running.
Various stories exist across manufacturing industries with non-Japanese
production lines purposely having to make designs that accepted wide
tolerances, which worked, and were serviceable without having to going
to the extremes of special working practices. That does have its
advantages, particularly when some UK vehicles have an extended life
abroad in the midst of basic tools and training.
However the Japanese like their fine production for performance and
reliability, and a worker would strive to make parts to close
tolerances, well within in the range of allowable.
In the west making a similar product we'd naturally and unhappily sail
close to the tolerance limits of the range, and call it a day ... Then
someone would have to implement even stricter tolerances and training
over here, with expense, to manufacture equivalent products.
So different attitudes...
Remember the story of Rolls allowing a US company(s) to make their V12
engine, as used in the Spitfire etc, under licence? The US ones never made >> the specs, power wise. According to Rolls, because of not being able to
work to the close tolerance needed.
It was the other way round. Rolls-Royce made parts to a slack tolerance
and fitted them to the required tolerance. Fitting was done by skilled >craftsmen "Fitters" and would entail hand scraping, lapping, honing,
filing or a final light machining. The car makers told Rolls-Royce that
if they were to have any hope of supplying the demand they would have to >adopt car makers interchangeable fits.
Car makers every part fitted every other part to much tighter tolerance.
If very tight tolerance was needed there would be selective fit. Such as >pistons having 4 or 5 grades.
https://www.autoweek.com/car-life/classic-cars/a30763715/rolls-royce-vs-packard-who-built-a-better-merlin/
Of course it's the sort of story every maker criticises a rival with.
smallest hypodermic needle being sent back with one threaded through it.
And so on.
On 26/06/2021 16:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article <sb6i97$mjb$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
   Peter Hill <skyshac@yahoo.com> wrote:
When Yamaha re-designed the Ford Kent into the Zetec to accommodate the
sloppy tolerance of Ford's block machining line they had 20 main bearing >>> shell thicknesses with the right tight running clearance. They couldn't
stock undersize shells so the bottom end can't be repaired.
Certain types of treatment to crankshafts mean they can't be reground.
And
aluminium cylinder bore are coated, so can't be re-bored either. But if
that treatment extends the life dramatically, the engine may well never
need a major overhaul anyway.
How many treatments? Most are a very thin layer, such as nitriding. Shot peening being another.
Both can be done after a reground, but I've always been sceptical how
they increase the life for the crankshaft.
On 26/06/2021 16:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article <ijmg9iFf0hmU1@mid.individual.net>,
Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
On 25/06/2021 09:09, Peter Hill wrote:
On 24/06/2021 18:33, Andrew wrote:
BS. None of the original austin rover car workers were employed at the >>>>> new Mini factory. BMW trained people from scratch.
Nissan similarly refused to employ anyone who had ever worked in the >>>>> UK car industry. They employed local people and trained them in the
Nissan-way from the outset.
Which eliminated anyone that worked to "British standard piss fit".
Norton forged crankshafts in one piece. Fully machined them in one
piece. Then parted them in the middle to bolt a flywheel in. Put all the >>>> left halves in one bin and all the right halves in another bin, never
the twain to meet again. Then they had to fit expensive "superblend"
self aligning bearings to survive the out of true running.
Various stories exist across manufacturing industries with non-Japanese
production lines purposely having to make designs that accepted wide
tolerances, which worked, and were serviceable without having to going
to the extremes of special working practices. That does have its
advantages, particularly when some UK vehicles have an extended life
abroad in the midst of basic tools and training.
However the Japanese like their fine production for performance and
reliability, and a worker would strive to make parts to close
tolerances, well within in the range of allowable.
In the west making a similar product we'd naturally and unhappily sail
close to the tolerance limits of the range, and call it a day ... Then
someone would have to implement even stricter tolerances and training
over here, with expense, to manufacture equivalent products.
So different attitudes...
Remember the story of Rolls allowing a US company(s) to make their V12
engine, as used in the Spitfire etc, under licence? The US ones never made >> the specs, power wise. According to Rolls, because of not being able to
work to the close tolerance needed.
It was the other way round. Rolls-Royce made parts to a slack tolerance
and fitted them to the required tolerance. Fitting was done by skilled >craftsmen "Fitters" and would entail hand scraping, lapping, honing,
filing or a final light machining. The car makers told Rolls-Royce that
if they were to have any hope of supplying the demand they would have to >adopt car makers interchangeable fits.
Remember the story of Rolls allowing a US company(s) to make their V12 engine, as used in the Spitfire etc, under licence? The US ones never made the specs, power wise. According to Rolls, because of not being able to work to the close tolerance needed.
It was the other way round. Rolls-Royce made parts to a slack tolerance
and fitted them to the required tolerance. Fitting was done by skilled craftsmen "Fitters" and would entail hand scraping, lapping, honing,
filing or a final light machining. The car makers told Rolls-Royce that
if they were to have any hope of supplying the demand they would have to adopt car makers interchangeable fits.
On 27/06/2021 00:23, Fredxx wrote:
On 26/06/2021 16:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article <sb6i97$mjb$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
   Peter Hill <skyshac@yahoo.com> wrote:
When Yamaha re-designed the Ford Kent into the Zetec to accommodate the >>>> sloppy tolerance of Ford's block machining line they had 20 main
bearing
shell thicknesses with the right tight running clearance. They couldn't >>>> stock undersize shells so the bottom end can't be repaired.
Certain types of treatment to crankshafts mean they can't be
reground. And
aluminium cylinder bore are coated, so can't be re-bored either. But if
that treatment extends the life dramatically, the engine may well never
need a major overhaul anyway.
How many treatments? Most are a very thin layer, such as nitriding.
Shot peening being another.
Both can be done after a reground, but I've always been sceptical how
they increase the life for the crankshaft.
Shot peening introduces a compressive layer at the surface. As
compressive stresses do not crack, resistance to fatigue cracking is
greatly improved. The stress is additive, a tensile stress that would normally cause cracking can be reduced below the endurance limit. If
stress is below endurance limit of steel it will never crack.
Other
materials with alloys such as titanium, nickel or aluminium have no
endurance limit, they will crack with very small stresses applied often enough (Mr Geller's stainless steel tea spoons).
To double the cyclic
life the stress only has to reduce by 12.3%. For instance, 500 Mpa
tensile stress with 61 MPa compressive stress due to shot peen.
All rotating jet engine parts, shafts, discs and drums are shot peened. Everything in a jet engine is going to crack sometime. The art and cost
is removing and replacing them at 2/3 of the life that the worst min
spec part will fail at.
All journal bearing surfaces should be hardened and polished. This
prevents scuffing on startup before oil film develops.
The treatment that is pure hogwash is dunking in cryogenic Nitrogen. The
only aerospace parts that are processed using cryogenic heat treatment
are steel ball and roller bearing tracks. They use an acetone and solid
CO2 mixture at -75°C to quench the red hot bearing ring, the whole
heating and quench process is done in an inert atmosphere to prevent oxidation. This is to obtain the required hardness and not life. As each flight for a large civil jet engine is around £500 in overhaul costs,
one more flight life would pay for a huge amount of liquid nitrogen
dunked parts. But as it doesn't give any life improvement at all they
don't bother. Dunking parts in liquid nitrogen is worse than using
water. Water makes steam which insulates the hot part, nitrogen will
boil and bubble just the same with room temperature parts. That's why quenching is normally done in oil.
Meanwhile jet engine makers do platinum plate some parts, for corrosion protection, paint would burn off.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 227:05:07 |
| Calls: | 6,624 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 12,171 |
| Messages: | 5,318,848 |