Wolseley 18/85 II mod 18

[Rosieuk]

Originally Posted by Lemmy

But as well as the Smart I have a family car, Triumph GT6, and an FZR600, FZR1000 EXUP, and a Hayabusa.

When new it was Euro NCAP 4, so for it's day among the safest small cars to have a smack in. I wouldn't fancy my chances in yours, which wouldn't achieve 1 star. Glass houses, you say? No other A segment car from 2004 achieved a higher rating as standard. As for the Landrab being the stiffiest monocoque until into this century, what a load of bull. Monocoque, more like load of old cock!

But the point is that you can't take a joke, which is a shame as a sense of humour was essential for a landcrab owner when they were new. BMC were laughiing their backsides when they sold it. Even Allegro drivers smirked at the Landcrab. Landcrab were for people that wanted a P6, but couldn't afford one. Fortunately I could, so had the P6.

I've driven both; the P6, owned an SD1 and now have the Wolseley, not to mention 3 Sceptres. P6 was I think a 2.2? And was terrifying to drive - although that may have been suspension wear - it was worse than a point & pray super snipe. The body strength on the landcrabs (18032 nm/degree) was exceeded in I think 2002 and it still has 2/3rds the strength of the latest 4x4 from Kia I think which is best in class. It's fact. The crash performance was fairly impressive too. The only reason the cops didn't get them was slow speed - and the repco engine v8 model would have solved that (although I'm not sure how it'd be on bends) but they only made one.
I've only driven one car with a better ride & that was a Citroën C5 estate, although the Renault Safrane had arguably better seats.
It'll get better too because the suspension is about 20mm low at this point & will be pumped up next week.
The smarts are the modern version of the microcar that had Len Lord coughing up his tea, and led to the ADO15 car (Mini, Elf etc) - there's no metal between you and the cretin in the BMW - there's no room, the derivatives aren't much better - the Toyota Ay (wish it'd) go (away) is even worse. Issigonis & Len Lord would be spinning in their graves faster than a Honda VTEC @ redline if they knew.
I've had the joys of being driven in an Aygo & it can be best described as a washing machine with air-conditioning & alloys (if you are lucky).
At least with a P6, Wolseley or for that matter a Mini you have a chance of survival (although I will concede that whoever designed the Wolseleys fuel tank needs a good kicking) - and cars with crumple zones are even better - but those "city cars" are deathtraps because there's just no space between the occupants and whatever you hit/hits you.

[Rosieuk]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

What could go wrong?

The problem is that the total springing in a hydrolastic/hydrogas car is a function of tyre pressure and the suspension. It's also important to note that each set (side) of wheels is linked through the suspension. When you hit a bump therefore as the front wheel rises, the pressure in the displacer pushes the rear one down. If the tyre pressure is higher than it should be you get a bouncing effect which isn't very pleasant. You don't get it on the Citroën type suspension because that isn't passive & you don't get it on conventional suspension because the wheels aren't interlinked (except on the 2cv and that's a separate case).
So if you raise the tyre pressures say to 40psi & you hit a bad road it rides something like a 1200kg kangaroo after 7 pints of Guinness. It would eventually become undrivable because the suspension would just go into a permanent oscillation (I'm not sure that's the right word). Even raising the front from 30 to 32 is marginal.
The advantages of hydrolastic are a much better ride (because of the front rear interlink) much less (read almost no) body roll (because the roll moments are countered by both wheels on one side tightening up the springing rate (effectively) and much simpler packaging because the displacers take up less space & are cheaper than, a mcpherson strut arrangement. The disadvantages are that for each application you need to use a computer to work out springing rates (horribly expensive in the 60s/70s (now you could do it on a smartphone)) and the like, so if you wanted to build a new model with hydrolastic you'd need to simulate it, work out spring rates in the displacer, fluid pressures, what rubber compound to use and the thickness of the metal parts inside supporting the membranes - as well as the bore of the interconnecting pipes. It needs to be pressurised/depressurised to be worked on (you do NOT want to make a mistake dealing with 230-245psi pressures).
The real problems nowadays are age & spares/maintenance - that said I can get mine pumped up at a garage within walking distance. Surprisingly it's not the displacers that fail, it's usually the joints of the interconnecting pipes that give up the ghost.