Another Daimler ? No sh.t Sherlock !

Norfolk Lad
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:23 pm

Re: Another Daimler ? No sh.t Sherlock !

Post by Norfolk Lad » Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:54 pm


Phillmore
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:25 pm
Location: Worcestershire Herefordshire border

Re: Another Daimler ? No sh.t Sherlock !

Post by Phillmore » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:29 am

No Daimlers or Lanchesters.
Andy

1954 Conquest Mk1, 1956 Conquest Mk2, 1957 Conquest Century Mk2, 1955 Austin A90 Westminster

Norfolk Lad
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:23 pm

Re: Another Daimler ? No sh.t Sherlock !

Post by Norfolk Lad » Fri Jul 13, 2018 4:36 pm

This has some http://www.jaguarheritage.com/heritage-certificate

and still we are at Gaydon usual round and round in circles why make things simple i ask myself

Fossil
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:08 pm
Location: Helensburgh, Argyll

Re: Another Daimler ? No sh.t Sherlock !

Post by Fossil » Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:18 pm

To follow the discussion about the failure of Jaguar to develop the 2.5 V8, their real crime was failure to use the 4.5. The late Alan Clark wondered aloud many years ago why they didn't put it in the E Type. It was the engine that would have rewarded further development, being already a superior design to the 2.5 in some ways other than just size.

However few folk seem to be aware that drawings exist for a DOHC 3 litre version of the engine, which I believe the Daimler Company would have liked to sell to other car makers. I have a copy of the drawings which I was kindly given by Keith Humphries of the NZ Club, I'm not sure where/how he found them.

So the obvious potential of the design was recognised by some at an early stage - just not by Sir Bill. Idiot.

Cheers

Fossil

Christopher Storey
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:40 pm
Location: Cheshire

Re: Another Daimler ? No sh.t Sherlock !

Post by Christopher Storey » Tue Jul 24, 2018 11:45 am

Strange, isn't it ? Lyons was a very , very successful idiot

The V8, lovely though it is, is not all that good a design in terms of durability , the bottom end just not being up to it for everyday use. Compared with the XK engine it is a lemon . I love my V8 , which is far superior to the Buick/Olds/Rover design in terms of refinement. However, as I well remember from my days as a director of a distributor, we had endless trouble with " out of warranty " claims with the 2.5 litre ( the Majestic Major only sold in penny numbers ) mostly associated with apparent bearing failure , and one of the troubles that I recall was that many of the engines produced a nasty knock , but when stripped revealed no actual failure. Presumably it was an excessive clearance problem, but this did nothing for the customer's confidence . In contrast I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of claims for defects on the XK ( the 2.8 XJ6 pistons excepted, but even these were not very common ) . So Lyons ( IMHO the most astute leader of any manufacturer ) was certainly not an idiot, but shrewd, in not sanctioning any further investment in Turner's brilliant but fatally flawed - from a production point of view - design

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests