Jump to content

Unpopular Motoring Opinion Thread


UltraWomble

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Rocket88 said:

The Ford Capri is a vastly overrated car…. As is most Ford junk

 

3 hours ago, rattlecan said:

Wow that’s a statement !!

He's not wrong though is he. British Leyland cars were always way ahead technologically, except the Marina obviously before anybody buts in, but that was there because they could see Ford were outselling them with their horseless carts and thought they'd have a go.

But by the early seventies BL had FWD, five speed boxes, fuel injection, 16 valves, hydraulic suspension (and proper springs on the ones that weren't hydraulic) and self levelling suspension. And not just Leyland, most of the continental manufacturers were dabbling in these things too.

Yet Ford couldn't even manage FWD until 1977. But Ford knew how to sell cars and Leyland didn't. BL came up with lots of good ideas but never developed them properly. Any problems at the start of production tended to stay throughout the life of the car. And of course they were selling cars competing with themselves. Ford were selling simple to the point of ancient technology but people liked that because they understood it. 

Obviously Ford won by keeping it simple but there's no doubt everybody else was building better cars.

  • Agree 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I loved my Mk2 Fiesta. It was a really good "an car".

I cant say looking back it was any more / less reliable than the modern things I have in my life now, nor any better to drive. But it did the job and it was a piece of piss to work on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Yoss said:

 

He's not wrong though is he. British Leyland cars were always way ahead technologically, except the Marina obviously before anybody buts in, but that was there because they could see Ford were outselling them with their horseless carts and thought they'd have a go.

But by the early seventies BL had FWD, five speed boxes, fuel injection, 16 valves, hydraulic suspension (and proper springs on the ones that weren't hydraulic) and self levelling suspension. And not just Leyland, most of the continental manufacturers were dabbling in these things too.

Yet Ford couldn't even manage FWD until 1977. But Ford knew how to sell cars and Leyland didn't. BL came up with lots of good ideas but never developed them properly. Any problems at the start of production tended to stay throughout the life of the car. And of course they were selling cars competing with themselves. Ford were selling simple to the point of ancient technology but people liked that because they understood it. 

Obviously Ford won by keeping it simple but there's no doubt everybody else was building better cars.

BL way ahead on tech? 🤣🤣🤣😀🤣 Yeh obvious when you think about it, I mean I always longed for a shit looking fwd car with a square steering wheel. I’m sorry, that’s piss funny. We haven’t even mentioned the ‘really cool’ 1750 Maxi, that every up & coming wanted as their next company car, or worse still went & paid hard earned for. 
Then let’s jump forward a bit to the Maestro & Montego ffs, my brother had an MG Maestro, what an absolute pile of dogshit. The build quality was nothing short of shocking, really bad. What’s with the FWD anyhow? Ask BMW, it’s simple, it’s the BEST driving experience, end of

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, rattlecan said:

BL way ahead on tech? 🤣🤣🤣😀🤣 Yeh obvious when you think about it, I mean I always longed for a shit looking fwd car with a square steering wheel. I’m sorry, that’s piss funny. We haven’t even mentioned the ‘really cool’ 1750 Maxi, that every up & coming wanted as their next company car, or worse still went & paid hard earned for. 
Then let’s jump forward a bit to the Maestro & Montego ffs, my brother had an MG Maestro, what an absolute pile of dogshit. The build quality was nothing short of shocking, really bad. What’s with the FWD anyhow? Ask BMW, it’s simple, it’s the BEST driving experience, end of

I never said they were cool or desirable, I just said they were technologically more advanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ProgRocker said:

The 1994-98 Ford Scorpio is quite stylish.

I'm 'almost' with you on that one. It's just the face that lets it down. In particular, the headlight to grille ratio just doesn't work. Managed to make it look wide mouthed and beady eyed. It wasn't even like they got it that wrong. on late models with the outer edge of the grille body coloured and the badge central rather than chrome with it perched on the top edge, it almost manages to pull it off.

7 hours ago, Bazfr69 said:

Agreed. I watched Jonny Smith interview him and came away from that liking him quite a bit. 
For balance I tried for quite a while to get into Edd’s solo stuff on YouTube and found it unbearably dull. 

He did one excellent thing on Youtube, which was basically wheeler dealers without the trading. Taking over a semi abandoned project and getting it finished. Was meant to be a pilot, but 5 years ago now, clearly more effort to make than he wanted to put in/never got picked up in the way he wanted.

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Yoss said:

 

He's not wrong though is he. British Leyland cars were always way ahead technologically, except the Marina obviously before anybody buts in, but that was there because they could see Ford were outselling them with their horseless carts and thought they'd have a go.

But by the early seventies BL had FWD, five speed boxes, fuel injection, 16 valves, hydraulic suspension (and proper springs on the ones that weren't hydraulic) and self levelling suspension. And not just Leyland, most of the continental manufacturers were dabbling in these things too.

Yet Ford couldn't even manage FWD until 1977. But Ford knew how to sell cars and Leyland didn't. BL came up with lots of good ideas but never developed them properly. Any problems at the start of production tended to stay throughout the life of the car. And of course they were selling cars competing with themselves. Ford were selling simple to the point of ancient technology but people liked that because they understood it. 

Obviously Ford won by keeping it simple but there's no doubt everybody else was building better cars.

It doesn’t matter how technologically advanced or even how great to drive a car is, if it doesn’t start every time you end up hating it. Reliability sells . That’s how the Japanese got their foot in the door. Early stuff was weird looking and rusted badly even by 70s standards, but they started every time and people want that more than anything else.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Yoss said:

 

He's not wrong though is he. British Leyland cars were always way ahead technologically, except the Marina obviously before anybody buts in, but that was there because they could see Ford were outselling them with their horseless carts and thought they'd have a go.

But by the early seventies BL had FWD, five speed boxes, fuel injection, 16 valves, hydraulic suspension (and proper springs on the ones that weren't hydraulic) and self levelling suspension. And not just Leyland, most of the continental manufacturers were dabbling in these things too.

Yet Ford couldn't even manage FWD until 1977. But Ford knew how to sell cars and Leyland didn't. BL came up with lots of good ideas but never developed them properly. Any problems at the start of production tended to stay throughout the life of the car. And of course they were selling cars competing with themselves. Ford were selling simple to the point of ancient technology but people liked that because they understood it. 

Obviously Ford won by keeping it simple but there's no doubt everybody else was building better cars.

Exactly…. Ford have always been run by their accountants, hence their cynical ( and unfortunately) successful attempt to market the Capri as a “ sports car “. There are some basic requirements for a “ sports car”….decent performance and good suspension being but two.

The Capri had neither 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mrcento said:

I'm 'almost' with you on that one. It's just the face that lets it down. In particular, the headlight to grille ratio just doesn't work. Managed to make it look wide mouthed and beady eyed. It wasn't even like they got it that wrong. on late models with the outer edge of the grille body coloured and the badge central rather than chrome with it perched on the top edge, it almost manages to pull it off.

He did one excellent thing on Youtube, which was basically wheeler dealers without the trading. Taking over a semi abandoned project and getting it finished. Was meant to be a pilot, but 5 years ago now, clearly more effort to make than he wanted to put in/never got picked up in the way he wanted.

 

I did watch and enjoy this back when it came out but the subsequent videos have sorely missed a ‘Mike’  and it made me realise that the contrasting styles were really what made Wheeler Dealers work imo. 
 

That said, I haven’t watched it regularly for years, I get all of my car content from YouTube now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/04/2024 at 19:20, Rod/b said:

The classic F1 film “Grand Prix” is about 2 hours too long. 

You should try that Steve McQueen yawn fest that is Le Mans

On 13/04/2024 at 23:15, warren t claim said:

And Bullitt is a slow and boring film other than the chase scene.

Every time I've tried to watch this I have fallen asleep before the car chase and get woken up by the dubbed on V8 noises.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, purplebargeken said:

Reliability and marketing win every time.

Let’s face it. We (this forum) are a minority. Most people aren’t that interested in cars other than the convenience of getting from A to B (or B&Q), without going via C and D  and smelling other people’s BO.

They prefer internet connectivity to handling  and cup holders to performance. 
Brand snobs are even worse. They pretend they know about cars but they wouldn’t know a 118d from an M3, all they know is their BMW is better (I.e more expensive) than your Ford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Yoss said:

 

He's not wrong though is he. British Leyland cars were always way ahead technologically, except the Marina obviously before anybody buts in, but that was there because they could see Ford were outselling them with their horseless carts and thought they'd have a go.

But by the early seventies BL had FWD, five speed boxes, fuel injection, 16 valves, hydraulic suspension (and proper springs on the ones that weren't hydraulic) and self levelling suspension. And not just Leyland, most of the continental manufacturers were dabbling in these things too.

Yet Ford couldn't even manage FWD until 1977. But Ford knew how to sell cars and Leyland didn't. BL came up with lots of good ideas but never developed them properly. Any problems at the start of production tended to stay throughout the life of the car. And of course they were selling cars competing with themselves. Ford were selling simple to the point of ancient technology but people liked that because they understood it. 

Obviously Ford won by keeping it simple but there's no doubt everybody else was building better cars.

I remember something my Dad said years ago that it was a common site to see BL cars dumped at the side of the road after loosing a front wheel due to Trunnion failure 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, goosey said:

I remember something my Dad said years ago that it was a common site to see BL cars dumped at the side of the road after loosing a front wheel due to Trunnion failure 

Yes but we're talking Minors and Marinas here aren't we. By the time the Marina came along (which is the time frame we're talking about, as the post that sparked this was about Capris) no other Leyland cars had trunnions. Certainly none of my cars did. My Triumph is 55 years old and has double wishbones on the front and cast aluminium semi trailing arms on the rear. Years ahead of Marinas and Fords of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yoss said:

Yes but we're talking Minors and Marinas here aren't we. By the time the Marina came along (which is the time frame we're talking about, as the post that sparked this was about Capris) no other Leyland cars had trunnions. Certainly none of my cars did. My Triumph is 55 years old and has double wishbones on the front and cast aluminium semi trailing arms on the rear. Years ahead of Marinas and Fords of the time.

I don't want to perpetuate an argument but..... I cannot resist!

BL weren't so much into tech as they brought disparate and competing brands who had very different views on how to make a car together were as Ford kept it simple for good reason.

Triumph were very late to monocoque construction

They managed to give us a quite scary version of independent rear suspension

Engine wise - under developed 16v head on the sprint (Ford were way more sensible going to Cosworth for the Escort RS1600s engine), they then followed that with a lovely but flawed V8 and don't mention the normal four cylinder engines appetite for conrod bearings! 

Austin -

Hydro elastic suspension - feel car sick yet?

Gearbox in the sump, gear sets swimming in old engine oil?

MG - lets not invest or develop the product after about 1970, the Yanks will keep on buying this, hopefully? 

The list goes on and yet I have to admit I still have a massive soft spot for Triumphs, Austins, MGs, Rovers but I wont wear rose tinted glasses!  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Metal Guru said:

It doesn’t matter how technologically advanced or even how great to drive a car is, if it doesn’t start every time you end up hating it. Reliability sells . That’s how the Japanese got their foot in the door. Early stuff was weird looking and rusted badly even by 70s standards, but they started every time and people want that more than anything else.

To be fair, my memory of cold 70s mornings was that the minis and 1100s would start and the Escorts and Cortinas not so much.

But that is largely based on the crap my dad drove, and that of the neighbours.

Dad's mk2 Escort once refused to start for 2 weeks, despite his spending 4 hours on it every evening and weekends.

He never did know why, but one evening having got home on the bus, it burst into life first turn of the key, having flatly refused the evening before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Marina door handles said:

I don't want to perpetuate an argument but..... I cannot resist!

BL weren't so much into tech as they brought disparate and competing brands who had very different views on how to make a car together were as Ford kept it simple for good reason.

Triumph were very late to monocoque construction

They managed to give us a quite scary version of independent rear suspension

Engine wise - under developed 16v head on the sprint (Ford were way more sensible going to Cosworth for the Escort RS1600s engine), they then followed that with a lovely but flawed V8 and don't mention the normal four cylinder engines appetite for conrod bearings! 

Austin -

Hydro elastic suspension - feel car sick yet?

Gearbox in the sump, gear sets swimming in old engine oil?

MG - lets not invest or develop the product after about 1970, the Yanks will keep on buying this, hopefully? 

The list goes on and yet I have to admit I still have a massive soft spot for Triumphs, Austins, MGs, Rovers but I wont wear rose tinted glasses!  

 

It's not an argument, it's a healthy discussion! 

I generally agree, most Leyland stuff was under developed. They had lots of good ideas but quite often got it wrong. They got the public to do a lot of their development for them unfortunately which didn't help. But I'm going to pick you up on a few points. 

Triumph weren't late to monocoque construction, it was a conscious decision to go back to a separate chassis. The Standard 8/10/Pennant, the car the Herald replaced, plus the Ensign were monocoque designs. I forget the exact reason but it was something to do with all the usual sheet metal suppliers being booked up with other manufacturers for quite a long time so using a chassis meant they could make the body from smaller individual panels. Waiting for one of the big panel suppliers to become available would have delayed the car. 

To be fair the chassis served Triumph well, with them getting four different cars out of it, or at least two variations of two designs but a Herald and Vitesse are more different than they look at first glance. 

The Triumph V8 suffered from poor cooling but it was discovered that a lot of them had poorly cast heads and blocks, with blocked oil and waterways. They even found sand still in some of them so it was more of a quality control problem. Any that have got this far will probably be fine with regular oil and coolant changes. 

Hydrolastic suspension works better the bigger the car, but I suspect that's probably the same of normal suspension. The Austin 3-litre had a terrible image problem and came along as bigger cars were going out of favour so nobody bought them but the ride was superb. There have been a few reviews on YouTube in recent years by people who've never driven one and they are all amazed by the ride quality. I know HubNut did one and their have been a couple of others who have all said if they could make a car ride this well 50 years ago why can't they do it today. 

And I don't think they bothered updating the MGB because people kept buying it as it was. It was one of their more successful designs commercially I'd have thought. 

There were so many things they could have done differently but it's too late now, and besides what would we argue about on crap car forums if they'd done everything right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Yoss said:

It's not an argument, it's a healthy discussion! 

I generally agree, most Leyland stuff was under developed. They had lots of good ideas but quite often got it wrong. They got the public to do a lot of their development for them unfortunately which didn't help. But I'm going to pick you up on a few points. 

Triumph weren't late to monocoque construction, it was a conscious decision to go back to a separate chassis. The Standard 8/10/Pennant, the car the Herald replaced, plus the Ensign were monocoque designs. I forget the exact reason but it was something to do with all the usual sheet metal suppliers being booked up with other manufacturers for quite a long time so using a chassis meant they could make the body from smaller individual panels. Waiting for one of the big panel suppliers to become available would have delayed the car. 

To be fair the chassis served Triumph well, with them getting four different cars out of it, or at least two variations of two designs but a Herald and Vitesse are more different than they look at first glance. 

The Triumph V8 suffered from poor cooling but it was discovered that a lot of them had poorly cast heads and blocks, with blocked oil and waterways. They even found sand still in some of them so it was more of a quality control problem. Any that have got this far will probably be fine with regular oil and coolant changes. 

Hydrolastic suspension works better the bigger the car, but I suspect that's probably the same of normal suspension. The Austin 3-litre had a terrible image problem and came along as bigger cars were going out of favour so nobody bought them but the ride was superb. There have been a few reviews on YouTube in recent years by people who've never driven one and they are all amazed by the ride quality. I know HubNut did one and their have been a couple of others who have all said if they could make a car ride this well 50 years ago why can't they do it today. 

And I don't think they bothered updating the MGB because people kept buying it as it was. It was one of their more successful designs commercially I'd have thought. 

There were so many things they could have done differently but it's too late now, and besides what would we argue about on crap car forums if they'd done everything right. 

I would also point out that the constant worshipping at the altar of BMW / Mercedes / Audi makes my teeth itch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Rocket88 said:

I would also point out that the constant worshipping at the altar of BMW / Mercedes / Audi makes my teeth itch

German quality engineering innit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Metal Guru said:

German quality engineering innit.

not usually, no 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah definitely angel dust influenced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/04/2024 at 19:06, Rocket88 said:

I would also point out that the constant worshipping at the altar of BMW / Mercedes / Audi makes my teeth itch

Any supermarket car park (other than Lidl) seems rather full of the German stuff these days - lucky my wife has a Bini.
Oh, hang on.....

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Triumph Stag was a decent car, my uncle restored a ‘77 S plate to concours condition. Once they were sorted they were a lovely looking car. The SD1 would have been great if they could have screwed it together properly - they could in retrospect have kept the SD1 Vitesse going until 91/92 alongside the 800 but as per they were getting it all wrong. The rest they were just having a laugh at people’s expense, I enjoy seeing a Marina, Allegro, 1800 etc but really they were inexcusably shit. I’m thoroughly glad some have survived but likewise there’s no getting away from the fact they were hilariously badly thought out. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm old enough to remember old fellas that would have a football club or political party like loyalty to a brand and would happily tell you "I'm a Vauxhall man" and had only ever owned Griffin badged cars in their 40 years of driving.

Then another chap, usually someone's brother in law would pipe up and say he had only ever have a Ford and wouldn't consider anything else.

I don't remember any Morris Austin or BMC advocates, but we were well in to the Leyland era by then, so I'm not surprised. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Timewaster said:

I'm old enough to remember old fellas that would have a football club or political party like loyalty to a brand and would happily tell you "I'm a Vauxhall man" and had only ever owned Griffin badged cars in their 40 years of driving.

Then another chap, usually someone's brother in law would pipe up and say he had only ever have a Ford and wouldn't consider anything else.

I don't remember any Morris Austin or BMC advocates, but we were well in to the Leyland era by then, so I'm not surprised. 

My Dad was a Ford man like that. Popular , Cortinas , Granadas but “deflected” to Volvo (740), because they stopped making estates with the mk3 (Scorpio).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marketing always wins. You only have to look at any VW Golf to realise that.

 

Have we had the Ford Ka, yet?

Horrific things. Badly made, rattly shit heaps with a terrible interior and an engine that seemed to be from the 1930s.  It's as if someone had a bet at Ford that they could create a smaller version of the truly awful Escort of that era, yet somehow do the seemingly impossible and actually make it worse. If ever a car was built down to a price, rather than up to any standard at all , it was the Ka.

Pile (of shit) it high, sell them cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im still trying to work out how and why someone thinks that FWD is an advance over and is better than RWD.

Its more cost effective for manufacturers, but thats about it.

Hence a purpose designed and built FWD competition car is as rare as as a hens tooth in a pile of rocking horse shit.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Bradders59 said:

Im still trying to work out how and why someone thinks that FWD is an advance over and is better than RWD.

Its more cost effective for manufacturers, but thats about it.

Hence a purpose designed and built FWD competition car is as rare as as a hens tooth in a pile of rocking horse shit.

Competition cars and road cars are like apples and oranges, for the average family car FWD offers better packaging, more space, etc etc, 95% of the population don’t care and probably don’t even know which wheels are driven, there’s very few people who are still stuck in their ways 😏

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/03/2024 at 17:32, andrew e said:

An Escort mark 6 out handled a 306 when both were new (source me - I had both new in period).

I’m not sure anyone else who’s driven both would agree, but that’s opinions, they are all different 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...