Model Boat Mayhem

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length.
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT  (Read 3365 times)

nhp651

  • Guest
GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« on: February 12, 2012, 04:30:49 PM »

Was dreaming today of winning the lottery and what car I would buy..turned to have a look at my favorites...............but then I looked harder......

IS THIS FOR REAL!!!!!

And if so, has british car engineering gone out the wind like everything else.

Normally a V8 motor is pretty indistructable, and especially yank tanks with theyir small and big block engines........so what has happened here......35000 miles and the car needs a 22500 engine rebuild......what on earth were Aston Martin thinking about in those days, especially when the engines were hand built.

Just unreal!!

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Aston-Martin-Virage-Volante-/260903955566?_trksid=p4340.m1374&_trkparms=algo%3DPI.WATCH%26its%3DC%252BS%26itu%3DUCC%26otn%3D5%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D6279723385379550401
Logged

Shipmate60

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,375
  • You bark - I will bite!!!
  • Location: Fareham
Re: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2012, 05:53:05 PM »

Neil,
The car is a 1993 model with only 3500 miles on the clock.
Aluminium block with wet liners (as in most marine engines but not aluminium) so the landing around the bottom "O" ring seals can corrode as here:

CLICK HERE

The article explains it better.

More use would have reduced this considerably.

Bob
Logged
Officially a GOG.

Circlip

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,735
  • Location: North of Watford, South of Hadrians wall
Re: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2012, 07:07:12 PM »

Just don't seem to be able to produce a reliable "V" for any roadgoing car, Stag,Jag and Astin. Even the worlds most "Known" V had to have Detroit breathe on it to make it producible in quantities in WW2.

   Regards   Ian.

   
Logged
You might not like what I say, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
 
What I said is not what you  think you heard.

CF-FZG

  • Guest
Re: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2012, 07:55:40 PM »

Neil,

If you'd bought that car new, it would have cost 45k for the 'performance engine' option - so 22.5k for a rebuild by Oselli is quite reasonable :-))

Just don't seem to be able to produce a reliable "V" for any roadgoing car, Stag,Jag and Astin. Even the worlds most "Known" V had to have Detroit breathe on it to make it producible in quantities in WW2.

The V8 in the Stag was a beautiful engine, only let down by idiotic drivers.  The V8 in the Astons was a superb performance engine, and as for the Jag V12 - a work of art :-))

If you're referring to the Merlin in your quote in bold then you really don't know what you're talking about >>:-(


Mark
Logged

JayDee

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 947
  • Model Boat Mayhem is the VERY Best !
  • Location: Warrington Cheshire.
    • JOHN DOWD
Re: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2012, 08:12:33 PM »

 Neil,

Years ago, I was working with another engineer, who, during WW2 had been working of the servicing of the Merlin engines

When the Yanks started to make the Merlins, a party of their engineers were being shown around the service facility here in England.

A couple of them were giving the engine a really close inspection, when one of the English workers asked this question.

" What are you looking for?, are you trying to find out where all our horsepower comes from?".

The resulting Fight would have done a John Wayne picture proud !!.

The same chap said the pilots could tell which engine was fitted, before they reached the end of the runway!.

John. :-))  :-))  :-))
Logged
My Projects, Photos and Videos
http://www.john-dowd.

nhp651

  • Guest
Re: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2012, 08:20:31 PM »

Hey lads.........I never mentioned the merlin......don't bash at me for that one.
I was just wondering why an Aston engine needed a 22 grand rebuild after only 35 k miles....and Shipmate kindly answered that.....a good thrashing once a week, lol
Logged

Shipmate60

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,375
  • You bark - I will bite!!!
  • Location: Fareham
Re: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2012, 09:07:34 PM »

The Merlin only had the "NEW" Glycol cooling which was developed in the USA.
One of our old vessels was powered by 2 x Merlin cartridge start running up until the 1980's.
Yes it was an ex RAF launch.
In the 1970's the merlin was in the Centurion Tank which Egypt kept in service till the early 80's.
I used to test these downrated merlins on a dynomometer test bed in the late 70's after overhaul.

As an aside we had an aircraft with 2 x Gypsy Major engines.
The owner/pilot flew to germany to have these overhauled.
On his return he forgot to lower the undercarriage and completely wrote off one of the engines.
I had to get one that was bought from the War Ministry with a smashed magneto (so as to sell as scrap).
After timing up another Mag I destored it and tested this engine on my test bed.
The engine was produced in 1942 and stored till we used it in 1975.
It was the best engine I ever tested.
EVERY parameter was smack in the middle of its tolerance.
As far as I know it is still flying today!!

Bob
Logged
Officially a GOG.

Circlip

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,735
  • Location: North of Watford, South of Hadrians wall
Re: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2012, 11:13:55 AM »

Quote
The V8 in the Stag was a beautiful engine, only let down by idiotic drivers.  The V8 in the Astons was a superb performance engine, and as for the Jag V12 - a work of art

If you're referring to the Merlin in your quote in bold then you really don't know what you're talking about



  Yes, the Stag engines were let down by the drivers actually turning them on. Never was a water cooling problem.

  Jag and Astons were ok if you did the service agent trip every two months max and as far as the Merlin is concerned, I bow to your superior knowledge of everything aeronautical.

  Another abortion? Deltic Diesel used in HM ships.

  Regards   Ian.
Logged
You might not like what I say, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
 
What I said is not what you  think you heard.

tr7v8

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 214
  • Location: Chatham
Re: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2012, 11:37:20 AM »

The main issue with the Jaguar V8 was the nikasil bores which weren't compatible with high suphur petrol available at the time. However BMW & other manufacturers had the same issue in the UK. Other issues have been around timing chain tensioners. The V8 is now pretty bulletproof
The Stag engine is a PITA as its bearing areas are too small & the timing chains caused issues as it is a very long single row chain. However most of the issues in early service were cooling orientated & were only fixed on the Mk2 lump.
As for the Aston as others have said this is down to lack of use & possible lack of coolant changes, plus poor quality coolant in the early days. Also Aston parts being handmade are eyewateringly expensive so hence the cost.
As an aside years ago a mate rebuilt one of their straight sixes, on enquiring as to the price of bearings he was told 60. Not bad thought he until he found out that was per 1/2 shell & each one was sized to fit. This is the downside of small production number, handbuilt engines. At the time a Lotus Twin Cam bottom end was around 20--40 for the full set.

PS no such thing as a Merlin engine in a tank, it is a Meteor which is a significantly different engine (no supercharger, CI bits instead of ali etc.) also when it went to the US for production they needed significantly greater numbers, so the hand built & fitted regime undertaken at RR was no longer viable. What the US guys did with it was productionise & tighten the tolerances so it could be made in much greater numbers. In the ealry days there were issues with the US engines but they were soon ironed out. Read Alex Henshaw Sigh For a Merlin for more info.
Logged
Jim

Circlip

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,735
  • Location: North of Watford, South of Hadrians wall
Re: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2012, 11:53:22 AM »

Thanks tr7v8 I think you've filled the gaps into what I originally said. Another slight problem with the Stag engine, Wasn't it an Alumininininium copy of a Detroit cast iron lump?

   Must be two of us that don't know what we're talking about. :-))

  Regards   Ian.
Logged
You might not like what I say, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
 
What I said is not what you  think you heard.

tr7v8

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 214
  • Location: Chatham
Re: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2012, 12:11:19 PM »

Thanks tr7v8 I think you've filled the gaps into what I originally said. Another slight problem with the Stag engine, Wasn't it an Alumininininium copy of a Detroit cast iron lump?

   Must be two of us that don't know what we're talking about. :-))

  Regards   Ian.
Nope The only US derived engine was the Buick which became the Rover V8, no longer required by the US guys as they'd pioneeered productionised thinwall Cast iron which made the ali blocks redundant. Also at the time US drivers in the US weren't used to HAVING to use antifreeze in coolant & this caused corrosion issues.
The V8 Triumph lump was derived from 2 x Dolomite engines put together (why it has undersized bearings) & was a clean sheet of paper design by Harry Webster, according to Wiki & agreeing with my memory these were the issues. My late Father worked for a BL dealer when these things were current.
. long simplex roller link chains combined with inadequate engine maintenance and factory specified 7,500-mile (12,070 km) oil change intervals. The chains could last less than 25,000 miles (40,200 km) resulting in expensive damage when they failed;
.inadequately sized main bearings in the early OHC 2.5 litre V8 design with short lives, changed in the 3.0 litre design;
.aluminium head warpage due to poor castings, head gaskets which restricted coolant flow, leading to overheating;
.water pump failures relating to poor drive gear hardening, prematurely wearing out the gear and stopping the water pump.
In some cases, overheating was caused by clogged waterways in the cylinder block which were found to be filled with casting sand left over from manufacture.
Logged
Jim

oldiron

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,324
  • Location: Lindsay, Ontario, Canada
Re: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« Reply #11 on: February 13, 2012, 12:53:46 PM »

Nope The only US derived engine was the Buick which became the Rover V8, no longer required by the US guys as they'd pioneeered productionised thinwall Cast iron which made the ali blocks redundant. Also at the time US drivers in the US weren't used to HAVING to use antifreeze in coolant & this caused corrosion issues.


  US and Canadian drivers were certainly used to driving with antifreeze. Most of the States and all of us here n Canada needed antifreeze for the less than tropic times of the year. The big difference was in the type of anti freeze. North America didn't, generally, use aluminum blocks. The vast majority (all?) of our public use vehicles used cast iron blocks and heads. They type of antifreeze wasn't an issue.
 When the Buick aluminum block was introduced itwas  something cutting edge in the public market. The types of antifreeze in use at the time weren't friendly to aluminum. Hence the demise of the aluminum engine...for a time. before the end of the sixties aluminum parts (heads, and later blocks) were coming into use and the proper type of antifreeze became available.

John
Logged

john s 2

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,184
  • Location: Southend on Sea Essex
Re: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« Reply #12 on: February 13, 2012, 02:42:44 PM »

Correct me if im wrong, but wasnt the Giant snag engine being British. Had head gasket problems caused by the headbolts going in at an angle? This being a typical save money bodge it move to use existing machine tooling used on the four pot engine. This caused the gasket to move about and fail. John. 
Logged

tr7v8

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 214
  • Location: Chatham
Re: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« Reply #13 on: February 13, 2012, 03:45:01 PM »

Correct me if im wrong, but wasnt the Giant snag engine being British. Had head gasket problems caused by the headbolts going in at an angle? This being a typical save money bodge it move to use existing machine tooling used on the four pot engine. This caused the gasket to move about and fail. John. 
The angled studs compound the felony but the fundamental issue is that the cooling system was poor, the Stag being under radiatored. The TR7 & Dolomite being poorly plumbed. Interesting poit is that the Dolomite lump was used in the equivalent SAAB 99 & had virtualy no problems!
Logged
Jim

john s 2

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,184
  • Location: Southend on Sea Essex
Re: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« Reply #14 on: February 13, 2012, 05:26:34 PM »

Did not Triumph improve the cooling on the mk2 snag by fitting an even smaller radiator. British logic at its best. John.
Logged

irishcarguy

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,374
  • Happiness is running from a grizzly and escaping
  • Location: Calgary N. W. Alberta, Canada
    • Britishcars International. org.
Re: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2012, 05:42:03 PM »

Hi all, having worked on British cars all of my life & also most models I have experienced the following, a lot of the designs were world leading, (first production disc brakes by Jaguar being one that comes to mind)However the British companies were VERY slow to react to every day faults found in operation. The Stag was a piece of scrap of very poor design, even the gearbox caused no end of problems. The TR7 was worse than the stag it fell apart under you. The engine built by Triumph for Saab nearly bankrupt Saab before they dropped it from production. It was very unreliable & very expensive to repair & was no better after. The TR8 was a reasonably good car but by that time Leyland was a dead issue & could not survive. The Rover V8 engine was originally a Buick product which Rover bought the rights to & made into a very good engine over time & was also fitted to Landrovers. The Jaguar 6 cylinder was a very good motor if you could accept that it burned oil @ the rate of one pint every 250 miles. The overall Quality of production was awful. On average it took nearly a day to prep a new British car for delivery, contrast that with an hour to prep a Japanese car. A large part of British sportscar production was exported to North America. Here they get into their cars & will drive up to 6/7000 miles before they will even open the hood/bonnet. The U/K manufacturers never took that into consideration. The warranty was awful with the blame for any failure always being put on the customer, that led to no repeat customers/lack of sales/end of company. I could write a book on our woes with British Leyland & other British car manufacturers. British cars had lots of good things about them (still do.just look at Fomula 1) but the quality of production was very poor & they were Very slow to react to problems,this led to the demise of the British Motor industry in the end. There was also massive labour/management issues that were never resolved.  Mick B.
Logged
Mick B.

john s 2

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,184
  • Location: Southend on Sea Essex
Re: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« Reply #16 on: February 13, 2012, 07:04:26 PM »

Sadly the same for the British motorcycle industry. How can you invest for the future? When shareholders want money now. Dont design a new engine. Just enlarge an existing one. Norton.500 650 750 850. Ohh it Vibrates a bit? Lets rubber mount it and use it as a selling point. John.
Logged

Shipmate60

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,375
  • You bark - I will bite!!!
  • Location: Fareham
Re: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« Reply #17 on: February 13, 2012, 09:34:24 PM »

As I said the Centurion was powered by a Merlin.
The Meteor was a Merlin derivative.

The Rolls-Royce Meteor (also sometimes known as the Rover Meteor) was a British tank engine of the Second World War.
It was developed from the Rolls-Royce Merlin aero-engine by W. A. Robotham and his chassis design and development division at Belper, as they were not involved in aero-engine work. With the aid of engineers from Leyland, who were engaged in tank work, he considered RR's two V12s. The Kestrel, while having more power than the existing "Liberty" or Meadows engines, did not provide the desirable 20 bhp per ton required, so the Merlin III was used.
Despite his lack of experience in tank design or warfare, Robotham was made Chief Engineer of Tank Design and joined the Tank Board. He was involved in the Cruiser Mk VIII Challenger tank. The Tank Division at Belper was involved with the overall design of four versions of the Cromwell tank, using a standard set of components.

Bob
Logged
Officially a GOG.

polaris

  • Shipmate
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« Reply #18 on: February 13, 2012, 10:08:35 PM »


Dear All,

Don't forget the Rover V8, a lovely engine (US origin), with alloy block - never experienced corrosion in them though???

Ran them from 1979 to 2002 in V8 Land Rovers (the first produced by L/Rover with 90 hp engines), and Range Rovers (135 hp). Had the 1979 LWB hardtop V8 Land Rover engine rebuilt in the quarry workshop to the S Type engine spec. in 1982, and what an engine that was! (165hp, 10.5 -1 compression). With the 1979 V8 LR having the Range Rover 4 speed box (can't remember the box ID off hand), and with the S Type driving it, the 0 - 60 time was astounding/astonishing! - and gave a shock to many at dual carriageway traffic lights! Never needed 1st gear! One of the slight things with this fun was the 10 - 12 mpg max at 80mph!!! - but in 1981 to 1985 it didn't matter that much.

I suppose if I could criticise I could only say that the hyd. tappets could be a slight irritation if one or a two started to 'stick' a bit - slight tappet rattle that could be heard intermittently sometimes (but relatively easy to fix). For some reason that was never discovered, the impeller of the oil pump on the S Type didn't like the housing it worked on/'rested' on (impeller was downward onto the housing/pressure switch casing), and chewed into two of the alu. housings before I got fed up with it and had a white metal spacer made, and then never a problem again.

Haven't used V8's since 2002, and am pleased to admit that chipped up TD5's in LWB LR's give as near performance to the 135 hp. Range Rover V8 with an mpg. of around 25 - 28mpg (even when towing 3.5t on the level)... but it does 31 - 32 when driven quietly. Dread to think what the dear old S Type V8 would cost to run these days!!!!!!!!

Regards, Bernard

Logged

Jonty

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 829
  • Location: Hoselaw - facing The Cheviot (Scottish Borders)
Re: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2012, 10:46:27 PM »

  The MGA Twin-Cam was another potentially great British engine that failed because it was thrown together just like any other BMC lump. The Lotus twink was hardly reliable either. Maybe it's something to do with twin cam heads grafted onto production blocks; I once had an Abarth Zagato 750 twin-cam that was equally reluctant to hold its oil, water, or compression.
Logged
I eat my peas with honey,
I've done it all my life;
It makes the peas taste funny,
But it keeps 'em on the knife.

deadfrog66

  • Guest
Re: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2012, 05:45:39 PM »

hi i just strat making a  occre model calella can anly one tell me the best way to bend the wood the wood is ramin wood
Logged

polaris

  • Shipmate
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: GOOD ENGINEERING OR NOT
« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2012, 07:41:45 PM »


Dear Deadfrog66,

For you to get replies on this (though I am sure those on this Topic will know of course), you would be better I think to find a Topic more dedicated to your specialist need where there will be many more around who will know all sorts of things about this. There are plenty... have a look on the Topic 'board'.

Regards, Bernard

Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up