historic failures

[Aanderson44]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The steel cylinder sleeves used in the early Mercury (and maybe Ford as well) wore out quickly; almost as fast as the aluminum cylinder walls on the Chevrolet Vega. The Mercury engines were ready for pressing out the sleeves and installing new pistons and rings at fairly low mileage. </div></div>

Charles,

A correction: Prewar Mercury engines used a cylinder bore to make them 239cid, while Ford remained at 221cid. It was the Ford engine in those years that used a pressed-in sleeve, not the Mercury.

Art

[Aanderson44]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What were some of the earlier (pre Nader ) engineering failures that may or may not have lead to recalls of a car such as the copper cooled 1923 Chevrolet http://www.mindspring.com/~corvair/cococo4.html. </div></div>

Well,

There's always the 1942 Lincoln Liquimatic transmission. All but a handful answered Lincoln's recall notice, having their Liquimatics changed out for 3-spd boxes.

Early 1928 Model A Fords came equipped with a multiple disc clutch, which type certainly had performed well in larger, heavier cars, but were a disastrous failure in a mass-produced light car such as the A. No recall was issued by Ford, but a service bulletin was put out to dealers authorizing them to replace the multiple disc unit with single plate clutches as customers brought them in for clutch repairs, at no cost to the customer.

As a general rule though, factory recall notices were almost nonexistant in the years prior to the 1970's--mostly because the products produced worked rather well, particularly in the standards of years gone by. Many failures that were once commonplace would be reason aplenty to spark a recall today, but not yesterday.

Art

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

AMC didn't build the Metropolitan, but rather Austin did, in England, on the chassis of the Austin Princess. AMC's contribution to the car was the styling, and of course marketing and sales.

Art </div></div>

Austin Motor Company built the Nash Metropolitan under strict specifications. Nash's engineers who worked closely with George Mason were most likely responsible for this failure.

[Guest De Soto Frank]

I can't resist...

"Austin Motor Company built the Nash Metropolitan under strict specifications. Nash's engineers who worked closely with George Mason were most likely responsible for this failure."

Perhaps, but then let's consider the oxymoron of the "fine British sports car"...

Did the Nash engineers who kept their distance from Mason turn out better designs?

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

AMC didn't build the Metropolitan, but rather Austin did, in England, on the chassis of the Austin Princess.

Art </div></div>

Although all the parts and components were supplied by Austin, Fisher & Ludlow, Ltd., a body manufacturer also of Birmingham, was picked to supply the unitized bodies. This was not built on a Austin Princess chassis..........

Read The Metropolitan Story by Patrick R. Foster.........it explains the birth of the Metropolitan...........

[Aanderson44]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

AMC didn't build the Metropolitan, but rather Austin did, in England, on the chassis of the Austin Princess. AMC's contribution to the car was the styling, and of course marketing and sales.

Art </div></div>

Austin Motor Company built the Nash Metropolitan under strict specifications. Nash's engineers who worked closely with George Mason were most likely responsible for this failure. </div></div>

How does one consider the Met to have been a failure? It was actually a pretty good little car, trouble is, the US market wasn't into tiny little commuter/urban cars in the days when longer, lower, wider, more powerful cars meant status to nearly everyone.

I do not see it as a failure at all, but at least a limited success.

Art

[Guest Skyking]

Art, I didn't state that the Met was a failure. I did indeed state the front spindles were a poor design and should have been corrected. I really like my Metropolitans.

[Aanderson44]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

AMC didn't build the Metropolitan, but rather Austin did, in England, on the chassis of the Austin Princess.

Art </div></div>

Although all the parts and components were supplied by Austin, Fisher & Ludlow, Ltd., a body manufacturer also of Birmingham, was picked to supply the unitized bodies. This was not built on a Austin Princess chassis..........

Read The Metropolitan Story by Patrick R. Foster.........it explains the birth of the Metropolitan........... </div></div>

That said,

How does one explain the presence of frame rails underneath the floorboards of a Metropolitan? I did some extensive research, including study and a full series of overall and detail pics of a 1961 Met owned out of suburban Detroit for the purpose of executing the design of the Johnny Lightning '54-'62 Metropolitan (1:64 scale diecast miniature)--perhaps you have seen it?

Generally speaking, a unitized body doesn't have a full chassis frame underneath, only subframes front and rear for attaching suspension and carrying the engine.

Art

[Guest Skyking]

Art, the rails you describe above <span style="font-style: italic">are</span> part of the body, they can't be separated, of course, unless you use a torch. Unibody cars don't have any body mounts and you won't find any on a Met..........

[Aanderson44]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Art, the rails you describe above <span style="font-style: italic">are</span> part of the body, they can't be separated, of course, unless you use a torch. Unibody cars don't have any body mounts and you won't find any on a Met.......... </div></div>

Ok, I understand! Of course, for the purposes of such a small scale diecast model, we weren't able to do any sort of massive detailing on the diecast chassis, as the entire car is slightly over 1" long, the bulk of the space on the chassis plate needed for engraved logo's and imprinted legal information (acknowledging licensing, etc.

I guess what threw me here is that most true unibody cars have just subframe sections welded to the body shell, up front to provide engine-bearing and suspension strength and rigidity, in the rear to provide solid, stable leaf or coil spring mountings (the latter with one of the various forms of locating links for the rear axle).

Now for one more question: Are those frame rails more or less what was used underneath the comparable Austin, or were they engineered in Kenosha, specifically for the Met? Much of the popular literature, including the Krause Publications book on the Met (reprints of contemporary enthusiast magazine (both Brit and American magazines) have references to the Met having been an Austin chassis/driveline clothed in American Motors styled sheet metal?

Art

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Now for one more question: Are those frame rails more or less what was used underneath the comparable Austin, or were they engineered in Kenosha, specifically for the Met? Much of the popular literature, including the Krause Publications book on the Met (reprints of contemporary enthusiast magazine (both Brit and American magazines) have references to the Met having been an Austin chassis/driveline clothed in American Motors styled sheet metal?

Art </div></div>

Art, from what I understand the complete Metropolitan was designed solely from American Motors (Nash) engineers.

I think the literature is in reference to the Metropolitan being built with Austin parts,ie. brakes, rearend, frontend, axles, engine, transmission, incidently, the transmission was Austins 4 speed, but Nash had them fit it to a 3 speed because that's what America was used to and George Mason wanted it to resemble a baby Rambler. I do have the Johnny Lightning Met and the underside does look close to the original.............