Car Features/Engineering You Never Knew Existed...

[ChasR]

The Cars you only recently discovered existed [/img] is a very cool thread! There is probably things most of us have meant to have aded on there, but haven't!

But it got me thinking. For years, maybe it's the geek or nerd in me, but seeing what cars came with in the yesteryears is fascinating at times. So, which ones fascinate you?

I'll get the ball rolling.

If we start off with Merc:

-2 years ago, I didn't realise the 300SL was the first car to have direct injection, albeit mechanical direct injection. Quite a feat for a car from the 50s!



-When I bought my cheap C209 CLK, I didn't clock that it had Keyless start. In a car made almost 20 years ago! I think that's the earliest mainstream car I've come across with it. It seemed like a big deal when cars in 2010 had it for me anyway! Maybe I only appreciate things as they get older:



Then I come onto the SD1.

A couple of things surprised me here.

-Reading a Motor article from the time it was released, it detailed how the factory at Lode Lane in Solihull was improved to take it on, and how the car was developed. I never realised it had Nivomats; a self-contained self-levelling suspension damper. This is a discovery from a while ago. I was under the impression these were a 90s and 00s invetion and exclusive only to Volvo-related cars ; I was wrong here too. Mercedes used something similar on the W108/9 called the Hydromat.

But yup, the SD1 had it back then.



-The Dolomite Sprint wasn't the only engine to have one cam lobe actuate two valves. This technology was carried over onto the PE166 engine, which was in turn a revised Triumph 6 pot unit. Apparently the engine made decent power in testing, but was tamed alot for road use, and initially came across as an unreliable powerplant for Rover.



So, what random, or boring facts or features have you discovered about cars recently?

[carledo]

Mechanical fuel injection sounds like a big deal for the 1950s till you realize that the Messerschmit BF 109 had it in 1935! The only real surprise is that it took so long to filter down to mainstream car production. It's a system that, in detail, mimics almost exactly what was used on diesel engines from back in the mists of time until the advent of the common rail diesel with electronic injectors (based, in a "full circle" move on EFI petrol injection) somewhere in the late 90s.
I find it particularly poignant that they detuned the prototype 6 cyl SD1 Rovers. The 2.6 version in particular was only a few horses short of the V8 in output (probably why it was detuned) and vastly superior to the V8 in fuel economy. I was working at a BL dealer in 77 when the SD1 was launched, it was an open secret in the trade, that the 2.6 6cyl car was better in every way than the V8. It proved impossible to convince the buying public however, they preferred the tried and proven V8 to the unproven 6 banger. In some ways you can't blame them, BL had a lousy rep for building new engines that turned out to be underdeveloped money pits. Though in this case it wasn't true with the block/crank almost entirely from the 2.5 Triumph 6 and the head developed from the Dolly Sprint. Nor had the motor been rushed into production in normal BL style, it had been in development for years.
In much the same vein, the Rover K series was also seriously detuned for production. I met a couple of the engineers who developed the K series motor and heard a lot of stories about it's design and development. But the best one was this:- As you probably know, modern engines are designed to produce a predictable (and predicted) amount of power, so when the first prototype K seies engines hit the test beds and produced 30% MORE power than predicted by the computers, there was some........well, consternation is probably the right word! But it didn't stop them breadboarding a prototype engine into an old Metro and lapping MIRA at something like 140mph! Must have had solid stainless steel cojones to do that in a Metro!

[carledo]

Here's a proper one for you, Audi started the 5 cylinder engine thing in the 80s right? Followed by Volvo in the 90s. Naw, ROVER were working on a 5 cylinder version of the Rover 2000 4 cylinder engine in the mid 60s. I've got a picure of it in a book somewhere round here. The project was abandoned when Rover got the rights to build the Buick V8 circa 1965. And this may not be the first, just the first I know of!

Steve

[jimi]

in 1913, a patent for a common rail fuel injection system with mechanically actuated injectors was issued to Vickers Ltd. of Great Britain

More here LINKY

5 cylinder engines are older than you think LINKY2

[kevins]

Range rovers had a single nivomat type thing acting on the centre of the rear axle, not sure when they were introduced, my 1986 car has one.

[rattlecan]

I’m pretty sure the Trabant was the first bodyshell to be made from recycled pants & vests 😀

[droopsnoot]

Lots of Mk1 Audi TT owners don't realise that there's a third sun visor just above the rear view mirror. It's intended to fill the gap between the other two visors in low sun, and almost works.

[Flingstam]

Mar 31, 2022 18:12:30 GMT ChasR said:

The Cars you only recently discovered existed

-When I bought my cheap C209 CLK, I didn't clock that it had Keyless start. In a car made almost 20 years ago! I think that's the earliest mainstream car I've come across with it. It seemed like a big deal when cars in 2010 had it for me anyway! Maybe I only appreciate things as they get older:

The first car I know of which had keyless entry and start was the K12 Nissan Micra from 2002. It was a big surprise to see this feature on a supermini when cars in more expensive segments still used ignition keys. 

[welshpug]

Apr 1, 2022 9:21:03 GMT Darkspeed said:

Apr 1, 2022 8:22:20 GMT droopsnoot said:

Lots of Mk1 Audi TT owners don't realise that there's a third sun visor just above the rear view mirror. It's intended to fill the gap between the other two visors in low sun, and almost works.

Beat me to it - also on VW's - Same with the hold the lock or open button to fully open or close all the windows.

Vauxhall and bmw did that in late 80's with the key

[VIP]

Apr 1, 2022 8:22:20 GMT droopsnoot said:

Lots of Mk1 Audi TT owners don't realise that there's a third sun visor just above the rear view mirror. It's intended to fill the gap between the other two visors in low sun, and almost works.

My D2 A8 had this too, and pre-dates the TT by 4 years.

[adam73bgt]

Apr 1, 2022 11:11:31 GMT VIP said:

Apr 1, 2022 8:22:20 GMT droopsnoot said:

Lots of Mk1 Audi TT owners don't realise that there's a third sun visor just above the rear view mirror. It's intended to fill the gap between the other two visors in low sun, and almost works.

My D2 A8 had this too, and pre-dates the TT by 4 years.

My 2nd gen Honda Legend has one as well, and they started in 1990 😅

[misteralz]

Apr 1, 2022 11:11:31 GMT VIP said:

Apr 1, 2022 8:22:20 GMT droopsnoot said:

Lots of Mk1 Audi TT owners don't realise that there's a third sun visor just above the rear view mirror. It's intended to fill the gap between the other two visors in low sun, and almost works.

My D2 A8 had this too, and pre-dates the TT by 4 years.

B3 Passat as well - from 1989...

[Stiff]

I only found out last week about the shark 'easter eggs' in the later cars. Never knew, and I've had a few Vauxhalls.

[mrbounce]

Apr 1, 2022 8:22:20 GMT droopsnoot said:

Lots of Mk1 Audi TT owners don't realise that there's a third sun visor just above the rear view mirror. It's intended to fill the gap between the other two visors in low sun, and almost works.

I found that one of nicest little additions in my Bora Highline. So many times I'd been troubled by the sun being in the "middle" and half blinding me, and considering that the journey home often meant looking directly into the sun, it was an absolute Godsend. Someone had sat down and thought about that. Surprised we don't see it more often. Think I may have to create one in the Midas project. 

[tofufi]

Apr 1, 2022 12:11:44 GMT misteralz said:

Apr 1, 2022 11:11:31 GMT VIP said:

My D2 A8 had this too, and pre-dates the TT by 4 years.

B3 Passat as well - from 1989...

My 1986 S Class has it too - that model started from 1979 although I don't know if it was fitted throughout the range...

[biturbo228]

Continuing on the thread of the Rover PE166, I've been doing a boatload of research into these engines and I'm pretty confident they'd have a ton of potential. Head design looks great, and looks like it's got plenty of scope for improvement. There's a procedure for sleeving the block in the workshop manual which involves boring out the block to 84.4mm to fit the sleeve, so boring it out to 84.5mm for O-Series Turbo pistons (direct fit onto stock rods) or T16 turbo pistons (with Datsun L24 rods) should net 2.8l. Measuring the head I have suggests this should be fine with bore wall thickness. The crank, although it's 4-bearing, is quite frankly a massive unit of a thing. Massive webs and oversized bearings. Should be really rather stiff. Rod ratio is a little short, but that helps keep the height down so I might just be able to fit one in my Spitfire.

It's a bit of a misconception that they're based on the Triumph OHV (or, rather, they are but share no parts or critical dimensions). The project started as an OHV head for the old pushrod engine, but quite quickly ran into the limitations of the old block and rotating assembly. They'd basically stretched the old OHV engine as far as it could be taken (massive long stroke, siamesed bores to squeeze as much wall thickness in as they could etc.). The block's a clean-sheet casting, as is the crank, and the only thing held over from the old engine was the camshaft being used as a jackshaft for the distributor. Once they decided to drive the distributor from the cam they deleted the jackshaft which was the last direct link to the OHV engine. They were intended to share a conrod with the Dolomite Sprint, but the needs of an I6 to have a stiff crank meant an increase in big-end bearing size so the only thing that's shared is the conrod length.

As a link back to the 'engineering features' theme, despite being an OHC engine the PE166 is pretty much exactly the same height as the old Triumph OHV (meaning I might jsut possibly be able to fit on in my Spitfire!).

[rattlecan]

Apr 1, 2022 9:03:12 GMT Flingstam said:

Mar 31, 2022 18:12:30 GMT ChasR said:

The Cars you only recently discovered existed

-When I bought my cheap C209 CLK, I didn't clock that it had Keyless start. In a car made almost 20 years ago! I think that's the earliest mainstream car I've come across with it. It seemed like a big deal when cars in 2010 had it for me anyway! Maybe I only appreciate things as they get older:

The first car I know of which had keyless entry and start was the K12 Nissan Micra from 2002. It was a big surprise to see this feature on a supermini when cars in more expensive segments still used ignition keys. 

Yes & the ones that still use a key are by far the best. This keyless ignition nonsense is nothing more than a gimmick & a pretty curse word one at that. It has got to rank as one of the worse ideas ever thought up. Utter utter tripe

[stealthstylz]

Apr 1, 2022 13:27:04 GMT biturbo228 said:

Continuing on the thread of the Rover PE166, I've been doing a boatload of research into these engines and I'm pretty confident they'd have a ton of potential. Head design looks great, and looks like it's got plenty of scope for improvement. There's a procedure for sleeving the block in the workshop manual which involves boring out the block to 84.4mm to fit the sleeve, so boring it out to 84.5mm for O-Series Turbo pistons (direct fit onto stock rods) or T16 turbo pistons (with Datsun L24 rods) should net 2.8l. Measuring the head I have suggests this should be fine with bore wall thickness. The crank, although it's 4-bearing, is quite frankly a massive unit of a thing. Massive webs and oversized bearings. Should be really rather stiff. Rod ratio is a little short, but that helps keep the height down so I might just be able to fit one in my Spitfire.

It's a bit of a misconception that they're based on the Triumph OHV (or, rather, they are but share no parts or critical dimensions). The project started as an OHV head for the old pushrod engine, but quite quickly ran into the limitations of the old block and rotating assembly. They'd basically stretched the old OHV engine as far as it could be taken (massive long stroke, siamesed bores to squeeze as much wall thickness in as they could etc.). The block's a clean-sheet casting, as is the crank, and the only thing held over from the old engine was the camshaft being used as a jackshaft for the distributor. Once they decided to drive the distributor from the cam they deleted the jackshaft which was the last direct link to the OHV engine. They were intended to share a conrod with the Dolomite Sprint, but the needs of an I6 to have a stiff crank meant an increase in big-end bearing size so the only thing that's shared is the conrod length.

As a link back to the 'engineering features' theme, despite being an OHC engine the PE166 is pretty much exactly the same height as the old Triumph OHV (meaning I might jsut possibly be able to fit on in my Spitfire!).

There's something really curse word about them which the old boys at work go on about but I can't remember what it is.

[nickwheeler]

Apr 1, 2022 14:00:02 GMT rattlecan said:

Apr 1, 2022 9:03:12 GMT Flingstam said:

The first car I know of which had keyless entry and start was the K12 Nissan Micra from 2002. It was a big surprise to see this feature on a supermini when cars in more expensive segments still used ignition keys. 

Yes & the ones that still use a key are by far the best. This keyless ignition nonsense is nothing more than a gimmick & a pretty curse word one at that. It has got to rank as one of the worse ideas ever thought up. Utter utter tripe

It was about as reliable as you'd expect from a Renault electrical system too.

[biturbo228]

Apr 1, 2022 14:46:01 GMT stealthstylz said:

There's something really curse word about them which the old boys at work go on about but I can't remember what it is.

They had issues with seizing the cam without a great deal of warning. I can imagine that leaving a sour note in a lot of owners and mechanics!

From what I gather the issue is a restrictor in the oil passageway to the head designed to limit the feed of oil (you don't need buckets of oil in a head, you want to keep it in the bottom end really). That gets sludged up with poor maintenance and starves the head of oil, seizing the cam. It's possible that the engine has sludging issues anyway (I know a lot of early PCV systems did), but finding out if it's that or poor maintenance is tricky. No-one taking a car in for warranty repair is going to own up to not doing oil changes!

I gather some BL mechanics back in the day simply pulled the restrictors out and they seemed to run fine. Could probably drill them out slightly as well if you wanted to keep some restriction.