|
Cheers Boggles, I stand corrected.
One of the reasons for so much space was the adoption of Austin 1800 doors. The Maestro wasn't in the same league for space. This was a time when some BL cars had lots of space, but not enough style. It was the opposite, for the Rover 75. My dad was prepared to accept the Maxi's faults, which included interconnected hydrolastic/hydragas suspension. At night time/towing a caravan the car adoptef a sit up and beg pose. Even with dipped headlights, oncoming traffic often thought we were on full beam. This was partly remedied by suspension assisters and these were fitted to the last one.
Dad also had the last one converted from single carb to twin. This made a considerable difference. It's a shame the car was never developed as it should have been. Sadly the Maxi2 only seemed to have cosmetic changes. It was strange that in 1981 it still didn't even have head rests.
After the Maxi an Austin Ambassador was nearly bought (often known inside BL as the Embarrasser!), fortunately a Saab 900i was bought instead.
Doc, I'll have a look at the Maxi article - thanks.
Edited by Trilogy on 11/12/2011 at 18:19
|
|
Talbot (Matra) Rancho, jacked up 4x4 style vehicle with modest front wheel drive passenger car underpinnings.
|
|
Are you suggesting the Rancho was the Qashqai of its time?
|
|
It was basically an old Simca van dressed up to look macho as Talbot thought that's what 4x4 buyers wanted.
How was it ahead of its time? I'm not sure.
|
|
Fiat Tipo, alas it wasn't very well built and the quality of some components was rather rubbish. However the internal space was excellent and for a small family car it was superior to most of the cars of the time. The Ford Focus that was released 11 years later seemed to have copied serveral ideas from it.
Edited by carl_a on 12/12/2011 at 00:02
|
|
The Nissan Prairie, the first of the mini-MPV market. Toyota, Honda and Mitsubishi followed shortly after and then Renault apparently invented the segment a decade and a half later with the Scenic.
|
|
The Fiat Multipla, was the first of the mini MPVs, with a 6 seater, pre-dating the Japs. The Japs, generally, just copy. :)
http://microcarmuseum.com/tour/fiat-multipla.html
|
|
Porsche 959 - sequential turbocharging, composite body panels, active four-wheel drive and suspension.
|
|
The Bond Bug.
Innovative, funky, economical.. At the right price It would sell like hot cakes today.
I'd much rather have a bug than a smart car.
|
|
The Fiat Multipla, was the first of the mini MPVs, with a 6 seater, pre-dating the Japs. The Japs, generally, just copy. :)
Agreed, it is a similar people carrying concept, but they're very different types of car, the Multipla was rear engined and just plain weird looking. I don't think you could call the Japanese cars a copy of it, they look normal in comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
Talbot (Matra) Rancho, jacked up 4x4 style vehicle with modest front wheel drive passenger car underpinnings.
If this thread was about which cars deteriorated the fastest this is what I would pick !
|
|
The Rancho definitely wins the award of most scary handling car of all time, It would understeer like an Audi, then snap oversteer ending up on its roof! Completely uncatchable.
|
|
|
|
|
After the Maxi an Austin Ambassador was nearly bought (often known inside BL as the Embarrasser!)
Nothing wrong with the Ambassador, basically it's a Princess with a tailgate. Something they should have done years earlier[1]. Door wedge styling toned down a bit too.
Still suffered from the Achilles' heel of all the Issigonis pattern gearbox-in-sump cars, only four gears. The Mini Centre in London had been doing a 5-speed box conversion for many years, I still wonder why B/L never bought the design off them.
[1] A common problem. ISTR that one of the very first hatchback cars was a prototype Astin 1800. Shame that they sat on the concept until the Maxi, I can't help thinking that the 1800 hatch, with its additional boot length, would have been the better car. At least it would have beaten the Octavia to the idea by a few decades....
|
|
|
|
Interesting comments on the Maxi - and article (thank you, Doc). I chose a Maxi HL (twin-carburettor) in 1973 even before marriage and children - it was livelier and cheaper to insure than an MGB GT and more reliable than a Triumph Dolomite, the others on the shortlist. I had another in 1976 but by 1979 the design hadn't changed and the faults were still there - so typical of British Leyland.
Some of my family had Maxis back in the 70's and I drove one once, and IMHO they were an awesomely powerful car for a family shed so to speak. I endorse your comments on the livelyness of the 1750 Maxi let alone the HL model, as I think they made the MGBGT feel staid in comparison.
|
|
I had a Princess. Good cars.
Did you know there was a covered tunnel that spanned a road between two parts of the factory building the Princess. So car bodies still unpainted should have gone on a conveyor through this tunnel to the paint shop. Cept the tunnel was built for the narrower Maxi. So the Princess body was too wide.
Easy one make the tunnel wider right?
No BL put the unpainted cars on a lorry, drive them out the factory a mile on the road and into the shop at another exit. In the winter in the rain, salt etc. So you had a rust issue right from the time the car was built!
Good design, just about adequate engineering...idiotic management, couldn't give a stuff workers.
|
|
Technically, wasn't the sierra ahead of its time ?
The mark 1 sierra's did not sell well but then the mark 2's did.
I could be wrong so please correct me.
Also the Mark 1 mini's didn't sell well.
The mark 's did.
I could just be reading history wrong but I believe both cars were ahead of their time.
A sierra on the road today would look old but it wouldn't look to out of place.
|
|
I think we need a tighter definition of 'ahead of its time'. I would define it as a concept(s) whose merits were not appreciated or understood at the time. This could be because the concept was underdeveloped or simply unaccepted by the general public.
I would also be tempted to exercise caution with sophisticated and complex showpieces. These are really PR stunts, rather than advancing general automotive technology.
Sequential turbocharging being a prime example. It sounds good, but compared to a good single twin scroll of variable geometry turbo, it is clumsy and expensive. It is redundant. Same goes for VAGs twincharged 1.4. An old idea that has rightly been dismissed by everyone else.
A lot of 4X4 systems fall into the same catagory. Redundancy and an increasing concern for fuel economy will keep two wheel drive dominant for the near future.
|
|
I agree about the Nissan Prairie - the second generation was a nice looking car.
However Renault could take credit for the "modern" MPV concept in the Espace, which was so rakishly different to the basic van-based VW or Toyota Spacecruiser-type offerings and inspired all manner of copycat designs. But then again you can't not mention the Chrysler Voyager/ Dodge Caravan, which was a revelation in the US (and saved the companies bacon, so I hear)
Also the Volvo Amazon/ 122 & 144 for introducing safety features that are now the norm
|
|
Don't think I read the original post right - as these cars weren't flops at the time. Sorry!
|
|
|
|
I think we need a tighter definition of 'ahead of its time'. I would define it as a concept(s) whose merits were not appreciated or understood at the time. This could be because the concept was underdeveloped or simply unaccepted by the general public.
By 'ahead of its time' i meant a car which exhibited something new (styling, layout etc) which at the time wasnt well received yet became popular only a few years later. Thats why i picked out the Cougar, it flopped but it was one of the first cars Ford made with their 'New Edge' design which was popular in the 2000s but most people dont remember the Cougar.
Obviously theres some concepts which cannot be classed 'ahead of their time' because they were just rubbish and never did take off, the Peugeot 1007 with its 'revolutionary sliding doors' for instance. Exterior styling success really does depend on timing, if the Focus had come out in 1990 people wouldve given it a wide berth. I'd say the Ford Scorpio deserves a mention, not for being 'ahead of its time' because it wasnt but it was derided as being horribly ugly in the 90s but can you honestly say its any more offensive than a BMW 5 series these days? And that sells. Vulgar is the new beautiful.
|
By 'ahead of its time' i meant a car which exhibited something new (styling, layout etc) which at the time wasnt well received yet became popular only a few years later.
That'll be the Talbot Rancho then, a humble two wheel drive car dressed up to look like an urban warrior for school-run mum. It may have been rubbish but it was ahead of its time.
|
|
|
|
|
Technically, wasn't the sierra ahead of its time ?
Mechanically it was little more than a Cortina in a party dress - nothing sophsiticated about it at all - the Vauxhall Cavaliar of the day was a far, far better car, Aerodynamically the Sierra was vaguely interesting but nothing more than Citroën, Audi and others had been doing for years. The Mk1 Sierra was a deathtrap in sidewinds due to legendary instability.
|
|
|
|
I had a Princess. Good cars.
Did you know there was a covered tunnel that spanned a road between two parts of the factory building the Princess. So car bodies still unpainted should have gone on a conveyor through this tunnel to the paint shop. Cept the tunnel was built for the narrower Maxi. So the Princess body was too wide.
Easy one make the tunnel wider right?
No BL put the unpainted cars on a lorry, drive them out the factory a mile on the road and into the shop at another exit. In the winter in the rain, salt etc. So you had a rust issue right from the time the car was built!
Good design, just about adequate engineering...idiotic management, couldn't give a stuff workers.
The problem was a lack of money. BL were bust. (Literally) ..
The design was carp - think the 2200 where the angle between gearbox driveshaft outlet and wheel bearing was such that original driveshafts failed after 2,000 miles. (Longbridge was covered in them - dead - awaiting a repair - change to mountings)
Personally I would nominate:
Citroen DS.
Austin Mini.
Lotus Elan (the original one).
VW Golf GTI - Mark 1.
US cars? none
Edited by madf on 12/12/2011 at 13:49
|
US cars? none
GM have had quite a few innovations.
First car with all synchronised manual gearbox. (1920 Cadillac)
First car with automatic transmission (ugh!) (1939 Packard)
First turbocharged passenger car ( 1966 Chevrolet corvair )-long before Saab/BMW bumped on the band wagon
First all alloy V8 (that Brit fanatics like to pretend is 'British) (1961 Buick special)
American cars were fitted with EGR systems and catalytic converters almost 20 years before such equipment became mandatory in Europe.
Laughing at American cars is a lazy trope-not backed up by any substance. Your precious Toyota have built their success on conservative plagarism of everyone else's ideas. It's easy to not make a mistake if you never innovate.
|
|
All instantly forgettable.
Thanks you for making my point admirably.. I could not have put it better myself even if I tried - which I did not as it is self evident:-)
Where did I claim Toyota made ahead of their time cars?
The only car even vaguely ahead of its time was the Prius and that was at the same time as Honda's Insight.. or even later.
Edited by madf on 12/12/2011 at 16:26
|
|
The cars themselves may be forgettable but the American engineers do a spectacular job of working within some of the strictest emissions rules in the World, whilst working with financial constraints and making them economically viable at the same time. Honestly we think Euro IV emissions and London's LEZ are strict, compare that to California. People may laud the British designer behind the McLaren F1 but its not hard to make a really fast car if you've got an endless bucket of money which never needs to be made back. Even i could do that.
It was highlighted on an episode of Top Gear a few years ago - and already known to total anoraks - that Cadillac made the first car with what we'd call conventional controls but it was too expensive, some British chap called Austin then nicked it and made it for a third of the price but the fact is the layout of your car (accelerator, brake, clutch, handbrake etc) dates back to an American design, a design which is still with us nearly a century on.
|
|
Well put Jamie.
How about the Willys jeep as being ahead of its time?
Or the '63 Wagoneer-first SUV.
I wouldn't describe the C5/C6 corvettes as 'forgettable'.
|
|
TeeCee,
'Nothing wrong with the Ambassador, basically it's a Princess with a tailgate. Something they should have done years earlier[1]. Door wedge styling toned down a bit too.'
Indeed, that's true. Given the fact the Maxi had a hatchback its a mystery the Princess didn't have one. Maybe someone at BL (generally consistent for a catalogue of management/design mistakes) thought with a hatch it would take sales from the Maxi. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the Ambassador was launched at about the same time production of the Maxi ceased.
BTW, the Ambassador was rated as having a superb ride.
|
|
jamie and unthrottled,
I don't think you've mentioned...................The 1973, Oldsmobile Toronado was the first car with a passenger air bag intended for sale to the public. General Motors later offered an option to the general public of driver side airbags in full-sized Oldsmobile's and Buick's in 1975 and 1976 respectively
|
|
Volvo fans will be frightfully miffed!
Wasn't the Olds Toronado also the first car to have a (455CID!!) V8 engine coupled to the front wheels?
|
Volvo fans will be frightfully miffed!
Wasn't the Olds Toronado also the first car to have a (455CID!!) V8 engine coupled to the front wheels?
If the Americans were first, so be it.
Maybe?
|
Volvo fans will be frightfully miffed!
Wasn't the Olds Toronado also the first car to have a (455CID!!) V8 engine coupled to the front wheels?
If the Americans were first, so be it.
Maybe?
Noted for wheelspin in all gears and torque steering iirc...
and very short tyre life at front...
Edited by madf on 13/12/2011 at 09:28
|
|
Japs are copyists, the Germans aren't much better, the only innovation is usually through Bosch systems which Mercedes get first dibs on, then they claim to be innovative.
People love to knock the British car industry, Rover always innovated, even the humble Montego/Maestro gave the motoring world flat pack wiring (universally adopted) bonded in windscreens (universally adopted), the MGF gave us electric power steering which will replace hydraulic systems completely. BMW asset-stripped and dumped a company that innovated more in a week then they do in a hundred years. British BMW owners should be ashamed of themselves.
Of course Citroëns oleomatic suspension system is the definitive suspension system, practically all the compromises around steel springs and dampers are eradicated. But it costs too much which is why it hasn't been copied by the other manufacturers.
|
Japs are copyists, ......... the MGF gave us electric power steering which will replace hydraulic systems completely. .
The first electric power steering system appeared on the Suzuki Cervo in 1988.
In 1990, Toyota introduced its second-generation MR2 with electro-hydraulic power steering
As the MGF didn't come out until 1995, so who was copying who?
|
|
The Hillman Imp.
Aluminum Alloy Overhead Camshaft Engine, Independent Rear Suspension. Weighed next to nothing, room for 4, almost a hatchback.
|
The Hillman Imp.
Aluminum Alloy Overhead Camshaft Engine, Independent Rear Suspension. Weighed next to nothing, room for 4, almost a hatchback.
A flawed concept though because of it's poor front suspension design - not helped by poor build quality although on a par there with the Mini - it was much more roomy than a Mini though and was a hatchback by any definition.
|
- it was much more roomy than a Mini though
It should be, as it wasn't 10 ft and a bit long. :)
|
- it was much more roomy than a Mini though
It should be, as it wasn't 10 ft and a bit long. :)
But the Imp and Mini were competitors, nevertheless.
|
|
Wasn't the Maestro the first production car to speak?
I remember an old man (who worked at Kennings) saying 'that was it' modern cars were just too complicated and he soon retired.
|
Wasn't the Maestro the first production car to speak?
No, I think the Maestro was beaten (to talking) by a matter of weeks by a Renault (9?). The big breakthrough with the Maestro was flat-pack wiring which all cars use today. The major breakthrough (Montego then Maestro) was bonded-in windscreens, this meant that the windscreen became a structural part of the car increasing chassis rigidity markedly and yet reducing weight as less chassis bracing was needed for rigidity - everyone copied it immediately such was the step-change in design philosophy. Maestros were either the first or one of the first to use clear indicator lenses with coloured bulbs too. Very good cars, better in terms of ride and handling than a MK2 golf model for model – until you got to the Gti then the Golf was better.
|
|
What was flawed about the front suspension? Okay the early high pivot design had to be jacked up because the sidelights were too low to meet regulations or some such nonsense - more of an oversight regarding lighting regulations than suspension design!
The Imp rode and handled brilliantly, was roomier than a Mini infinitely more refined at speed - if only they had put the rad in the front and the rest may have been history. The real problem was getting strike-happy Scottish ex-shipbuilders to build the blooming things in the first place, blokes used to wielding spanners the size of an Imp were building the most technically advanced car of its day – disaster! - thank-you Labour government for interfering! (They withheld a grant for factory expansion unless it was in Scotland.)
|
The first electric power steering system appeared on the Suzuki Cervo in 1988.
In 1990, Toyota introduced its second-generation MR2 with electro-hydraulic power steering
As the MGF didn't come out until 1995, so who was copying who?
I must say I didn't know about the little Suzuki but as it was one of the home market buzz boxes I'm not surprised I've never heard of it!
The Toyota system is electro-hydralic not electric power steering.
|
I must say I didn't know about the little Suzuki but as it was one of the home market buzz boxes I'm not surprised I've never heard of it!
The Toyota system is electro-hydralic not electric power steering.
Regardless of whether you meant electric or electro-hydraulic steering - the MGF was following, not leading.
In fact the whole MGF concept was just a later take on the Fiat X1/9.
|
|
I didn't say the car was ahead of its time, I said the steering was advanced, otherwise technincally, the MGF was a parts-bin lash-up built on a shoe-string.
|
I didn't say the car was ahead of its time, I said the steering was advanced, otherwise technincally, the MGF was a parts-bin lash-up built on a shoe-stringd
... This is one reason why I don't think British BMW owners should be ashamed of themselves. Wasn't the MGF actually on a Metro floor-pan? Plus although I'm not fully up on them, I think BMW have had their innovations - didn't they 'invent' the sports saloon with the 2002? What about their ever increasing economy improvements married to greater output from their engines. Just a thought; they always say Newton stood on the shoulders of giants!!
Edited by schneip on 18/12/2011 at 11:32
|
|
didn't they 'invent' the sports saloon with the 2002?
Numerous sports saloons before BMW. :)
|
didn't they 'invent' the sports saloon with the 2002?
Numerous sports saloons before BMW. :)
:) Someone had better tell their marketing dept! The claimed to have 'invented the sports sedan' in 1968 on one of their ads. Can't post the link to Youtube but it's a 3-Series evolution ad to the 'I like to make you move' track. And to think, the Lotus Cortina came out in '63.
I'd second the Citroen DS nomination earlier. Before my time, unconventional looks (that still look good), headlights, suspension... but I understand they didn't sell very well over here because of their complexity.
|
|
I think various Jags were sporting saloons before the 2002, particularly the fabuous S-Type. The only innovation from BMW in the last 30 years I can think of has been their variable valve lift throttle system - which is good, but not earth shattering. Yes the diesels are good, development rather than innovation.
The MGF was essentially two Metro (Rover 100 version) front subframes, the rear one keeping the engine, fitted with stock Metro hydragas assisted with conventional dampers, that said it was great fun to drive and was priced reasonably.
|
|
QUOTE:...""The Renault 16 pre-dated the Maxi by some 3 years. The Renault had flair, the Maxi didn't.""
Neither the Maxi nor the Renault 16 had ANY flair, when it came to aesthetics!!
Edited by Sofa Spud on 20/12/2011 at 15:48
|
|
The Rover P6 2000 of 1963 was a car ahead of its time. It was unusual in that it was a totally new design and all the major components were unique to the P6. In other words, the 4-cylinder P6 didn't borrow any bits from existing designs and none of its bits were lent to other Rover designs**.
What made the Rover P6 particularly interesting is that the car was designed with a gas turbine version in mind. One of the prototypes was gas-tirbine powered - called the Rover T4. This was revealed to the public before the conventional petrol version was announced, and this probably got P6 sales off to a good start.
In the end the gas turbine idea was dropped and Rover turned their attention to devising a more powerful petrol engine instead. Firstly they marketed the TC twin-carb version, then they toyed with a 5-cylinder prototype, which still exists.
Rover then acquired the Buick small-block iron V8 and 'aluminiumised' the design and the Rover V8 was born. They soon stuck this engine in the P6 to make the P6B, or 'Three-Thousand-Five' in Rover parlance, which did everything the gas turbine would have done.
**OK, yes, I know the Rover V8 was used in all sorts of other vehicles, but I'm talking about the 4-cylinder manual P6 - originally the 2000, later the 2200TC, which was the original design concept.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 20/12/2011 at 16:24
|
The Rover P6 2000 of 1963 was a car ahead of its time....What made the Rover P6 particularly interesting is that the car was designed with a gas turbine version in mind.
Rover then acquired the Buick small-block iron V8 and 'aluminiumised' the design and the Rover V8 was born.
RE the gas-turbine P6s, Rover were world leaders in Jet engine development, they actually got Whittle's flawed design working, the resulting engine was handed over to Rolls Royce (pretty much forced by the fovernment of the day) – the rest is history, essentially the world's first commercial jet engine was a Rover design.
However they didn't 'aluminiumise' Buick's cast off (Fireball?), it was already an all-aluminium engine, which is why Buick dropped it, a combination of production cost considerations and problems with internal corrosion due to lack of suitable corrosion inhibitors (in those days.) Rover did however significantly improve the design, strengthening the bottom end, improving the crankshaft seals and improving the heads. Interestingly GM tried to buy the engine back at a later date when the oil crisis led to the requirement for lighter more efficient engines.
|
The Rover P6 2000 of 1963 was a car ahead of its time....What made the Rover P6 particularly interesting is that the car was designed with a gas turbine version in mind.
Rover then acquired the Buick small-block iron V8 and 'aluminiumised' the design and the Rover V8 was born.
RE the gas-turbine P6s, Rover were world leaders in Jet engine development, they actually got Whittle's flawed design working, the resulting engine was handed over to Rolls Royce (pretty much forced by the fovernment of the day) – the rest is history, essentially the world's first commercial jet engine was a Rover design.
However they didn't 'aluminiumise' Buick's cast off (Fireball?), it was already an all-aluminium engine, which is why Buick dropped it, a combination of production cost considerations and problems with internal corrosion due to lack of suitable corrosion inhibitors (in those days.) Rover did however significantly improve the design, strengthening the bottom end, improving the crankshaft seals and improving the heads. Interestingly GM tried to buy the engine back at a later date when the oil crisis led to the requirement for lighter more efficient engines.
In exchange for their contracted production of the Whittle jet engine, Rover very gratefully accepted production (but not design or development) of the Meteor tank engine which was derived from the RR Merlin as they knew they were out of their depth with aero engines - it was a mutual exchange in which both sides benefitted, bearing in mind "there was a war on".
The Buick V8 was designed by GM to use an alloy block from the start in order to save weight from the previous generation of pre-war heavy cast-iron engines - it was dropped by GM as post-war thin-wall higher strength iron castings became available. The UK hadn't got the technology for thin-wall castings so buying the obsolete Buick gave Rover the opportunity to produce a big capacity engine.
To correct an earlier posting, the ex-Buick V8 first appeared in the Rover P5B - before it was put into the P6.
Time allows too many inaccuracies and myths to surround motoring history.
|
|
OK, I accept the correction that the Buick V8 the Rover was developed from was alloy, not iron. I think I was confusing it with a different GM engine that the Rolls-Royce alloy V8 was based on, which was iron (unless I'm mistaken!).
QUOTE:..."To correct an earlier posting, the ex-Buick V8 first appeared in the Rover P5B - before it was put into the P6."
There's nothing to correct! What I said was: "They soon stuck this engine in the P6 to make the P6B, or 'Three-Thousand-Five' in Rover parlance..." I didn't say that was the first application of the Rover V8! I was going to mention the P5B but decided it might lead me into waffling territory.
Another thing I've read is that the Rover P6 was inspired by the Citroen DS, although technically it's very different. But there's a similarity in the roofline and windscreen and, on early prototypes, the front end styling.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 20/12/2011 at 20:09
|
I think I was confusing it with a different GM engine that the Rolls-Royce alloy V8 was based on, which was iron (unless I'm mistaken!).
Having served my time as an apprentice at Rolls-Royce Motors in the 1960s, the L410 engine was totally developed in-house using some of the design and production features of the R-R Merlin aero engine - it's only connections with the USA was that it was a V8 and they sold well Stateside!
Rolls-Royce and Bentley did of course use GM Hydramatic automatic transmissions for many models.
|
|
Lots of interesting thoughts here - glad to see the Maestro listed - I think it looks fine - large light interior, yet compact with a great clattering diesel which lasts for ever.
What about the Austin 1100 with its fluid suspension; the Audi 4-wheel drive; the Renault Espace both for its unique use of space and its fibre glass body; the Citroen Deux Chevaux; the Jeep [ahead, I think, of the Defender]; most Volvos were leaders in safety aspects, perhaps the 240 Estate the pick of the bunch as "the" estate car for all times.
|
|
Not quite sure why just "Austin" posted, it was all there when I pushed the button.
Anyway what I meant was, Austin A40 - an early hatchback?
|
|
|
|
|
