Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

A-Series - Could It Have Evolved Differently?


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#16 grizzler73

grizzler73

    Speeding Along Now

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 300 posts
  • Location: Cheshunt

Posted 19 June 2018 - 10:27 AM

If the motor industry had been looked after then we would have been in a position to take part in the next evolution, namely the death of the internal combustion engine. It is happening now and will be a massive industry shift, but the UK will play a very minor role in the coming decades.

#17 Mite

Mite

    Stage One Kit Fitted

  • Noobies
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Location: London

Posted 19 June 2018 - 10:32 AM

Am aware of the A-OHC project though the former appears to be similar in many respects to the abandoned B-OHC project that unfortunately could not be built due to worn out tooling, prior to forming the basis of what was supposed to be an all-new design in the O-Series that would go through two more iterations.

 

Agree that BMC needed to begin designing a new generation of engines in the late-1950s with earlier and properly developed versions of the 9X, E-Series and 18-degree V4/V6 (minus longitudinal-only layout) projects. Yet an A-Series that had potential scope for 1600cc built into it earlier on in development would have been an asset, especially for ADO16 in the face of competition from the first 2 generations of Ford Cortina. Even more so with the Mini and the Midget.  

 

Was basically envisioning the evolution of the A-Series engine following a similar path to the Nissan A and Nissan E2 engines that grew to displace around 1500-1600cc, which were said to have some distant relation to the A-Series to the point where some parts could allegedly be swapped. The Renault Ventoux and Cléon were also said to have a number of similarities to the A-Series and in the case of the Cléon, were reaching displacements of 1565-1596cc depending on the market beyond the Cléon's 1397cc limit.



#18 Cooperman

Cooperman

    Uncle Cooperman, Voted Mr TMF 2011

  • TMF+ Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,014 posts
  • Location: Cambs.
  • Local Club: MCR, HAMOC, Chelmsford M.C.

Posted 19 June 2018 - 11:03 AM

Weak and incompetent management, lack of forward planning and intransigent unions who would not accept engine plant closures if rationalisation took place.
In a word 'stupidity'.

#19 EasterBern

EasterBern

    Stage One Kit Fitted

  • Noobies
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Location: Wells, Somerset

Posted 19 June 2018 - 11:09 AM

The A series engine was designed when the cost of road tax in the UK was based on a very strange HP calculation method. For dome strange reason the bore to stroke ratio was a big factor and a small-bore long-stroke engine attracted lower tax than a similar capacity engine with a shorter stroke.
Unfortunately BMC failed to design a nee engine range when other manufacturers did. For example, Ford introduced the new 997 engine in their Anglia in 1959 and it was an over-square unit of modern 8-port design.
BMC stuck with the old A, B and C Series long stroke engines which soon reached the practical limits of further development whilst Ford went on to develop larger versions of their same basic unit including twin-cam versions.
Realistically a new engine range was needed for BMC in the late 1950's but it didn't happen.
One can only imagine an MGB with a 2-litre OHC alloy engine.
Even more odd is that when Triumph and Rover became part of BMC no attempt was made to rationalise the range of power units and take the most modern ones as the way forward. The Dolomite engines were quite good.
It is a real shame that BMC failed with their engine development and why they designed a good OHC engine for the Maxi but went no further with it does seem strange.

 

I think it goes back to the inter-war years, maybe earlier still, but to make British cars more attractive than the (at the time) short stroke American imports they gave an HP rating that favoured long stroke engines and so making the American cars more expensive to tax, and encouraged the British engineers to make the stroke even longer!

 

There was a plan to replace both the B-series in the MGB and the slant 4 in the TR7 with the O-series, as both engines were being made in limited numbers towards the end of the 70s. 

 

But yes, quite why they developed the o-series when they already had the similar sized e-series does seem very strange.



#20 unburntfuelinthemorning

unburntfuelinthemorning

    Camshaft & Stage Two Head

  • TMF+ Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,914 posts
  • Location: Bedfordshire

Posted 19 June 2018 - 11:14 AM

 

 

In what ways were the series just prior to the A+ engines streets ahead?  I was always under the impression the A+ was an improvement e.g. block stiffness, improvements to the crankshaft fillet radii...

 

 

I'll agree that the A+ Rods are better than those before and the Cranks too. Like you, when I read up on them in the first instance, I thought they sounded great on paper and have tried loads of them since, but, much as I didn't want to admit to it for a long while, they fall well short. The blocks I find extremely disappointing for all the hype of them. Setting aside the really bad machining from the factory, I'm no metallurgist, however, the grade of cast Iron in them is odd and has a big grain structure, it would appear that following casting (with seeming what was swept up off the floor) they didn't undergo proper post casting heat treatment / stress relieving. No doubt, you would also be aware, that loads of early ones were porous and this only shows up this poor casting methods. The ribbing etc on the block seriously does nothing - next time you have one in bits, have a real good look at where it is and you'll see what I'm saying here. Well, I guess the ribbing does one thing - it makes them quite distinguishable from earlier blocks.

 

I've found the 1275 blocks made from around 1976 to 1979 way better every time. The cast iron itself machines nicer and gets a much more desirable finish for the job in hand. The factory machining accuracy was better and need much fewer corrections. One would think this would have continued with the A+ and I can't say why it didn't, but every A+ Block I've come across needs loads of machining corrections done.

 

Even the earliest 1275's were better than the A+ Blocks.

 

And, coming back to the money that was spent on it - I just cannot see where it was spent, I can see about 1, maybe 2 millions for the R&D, tooling etc, but that's it. The cranks, while better, weren't pioneered by Leyland, the Rods, while an improvement, also weren't 'revolutionary' and the block, well, what did they really do there? The Camshaft Profiles used in most of them were still the same profile dating back to the 60's, though some had revised 'nominal' phasing to the crank but that was only done with the sprockets.

 

For 35 millions, they could have come up with a completely new, modern (for the era) engine.

 

Yeah, I've heard about the porosity problems.  Did they not sort out a lot of the issues on the later A+ blocks?

 

Does what you say apply to the 998 block too?  I ask as I would like to build the best 998 engine I can to replace my worn out one and am trying to decide on the best ingredients for the recipe i.e. which block/crank/rods etc to start with for a proper road stormer with good long term reliability.  I was thinking of using A+ components but am not so sure now.

 

They sure did spend a lot of money on not doing an awful lot!



#21 mab01uk

mab01uk

    Moved Into The Garage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,779 posts
  • Local Club: Mini Cooper Register

Posted 19 June 2018 - 11:44 AM

The money spent on the A+ was probably about cost reduction in production but was it too late in the day to reap a financial break even/payback on the development costs with the volume sales of Metro and other A-series BL cars?

In my opinion they should have spent the A+ development cash on a 5-speed gearbox upgrade for the Metro and Mini.......



#22 mab01uk

mab01uk

    Moved Into The Garage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,779 posts
  • Local Club: Mini Cooper Register

Posted 19 June 2018 - 11:45 AM

Alec Issigonis wrote to BL boss Donald Stokes 18th April 1968.....

Quote:
"The greatest need in combating increased production costs over the year is the development of a new engine for a small car of the Mini type. The present A-Series engine offered a quick way of getting the car into production in 1959, but has now outlived its purpose both for weight and cost compared with European competition."

However these proposals were kicked into the long grass by British Leyland who were not interested in technical excellence or innovation at a time when they wanted Austin-Morris to return to financial stability and profit.......


Edited by mab01uk, 19 June 2018 - 11:46 AM.


#23 unburntfuelinthemorning

unburntfuelinthemorning

    Camshaft & Stage Two Head

  • TMF+ Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,914 posts
  • Location: Bedfordshire

Posted 19 June 2018 - 12:33 PM

The money spent on the A+ was probably about cost reduction in production but was it too late in the day to reap a financial break even/payback on the development costs with the volume sales of Metro and other A-series BL cars?

In my opinion they should have spent the A+ development cash on a 5-speed gearbox upgrade for the Metro and Mini.......

Yes, a five speed 'box for the 1980's would have made the cars far more competitive even if little else was changed but of course instead they went for the cheap option of higher final drive ratios and killed the acceleration of the vehicles.



#24 Mite

Mite

    Stage One Kit Fitted

  • Noobies
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Location: London

Posted 19 June 2018 - 01:09 PM

Ideally in better circumstances BMC could have brought any of the engine families they were working on into production to replace their existing engine range, each with their own costs and potential drawbacks. The main focus however is on whether an evolutionary approach could have been taken with the A-Series provided there were changes earlier on during development or in the same way the B-Series became the O-Series later on, which in turn became the M/T-Series as well as forming the basis for various diesels. 

 

If all the A-Series components / accessories including pushrods were on one side of the cylinder block, it should mean there would have been little need for a cylinder head with siamesed inlet and exhaust ports. Obviously there is still the issue of the A-Series being undersquare, yet it was possible for oversquare A-Series engines to be developed via the 970-1071cc that were carried over to the second generation South African A-Series engines.


Edited by Mite, 19 June 2018 - 01:09 PM.


#25 EasterBern

EasterBern

    Stage One Kit Fitted

  • Noobies
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Location: Wells, Somerset

Posted 19 June 2018 - 02:33 PM

Really all of the components are on one side, the distributor is driven from the camshaft. Or do you mean the starter motor and the dynamo/alternator as well? I assume that it's having the pushrods on the same side as the ports that meant they had to be siamesed, rather than the location of the components.

 

Easier still would have been the development a cross flow head as a way to avoid the siamese ports perhaps?

 

I think they took the bore as far as they reliably could with the 970, 1071 and 1275 engines. It was easier to make the engine taller with the 1275 and give it a longer stroke than it would have been to make the engine wider to keep it oversquare.



#26 Cooperman

Cooperman

    Uncle Cooperman, Voted Mr TMF 2011

  • TMF+ Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,014 posts
  • Location: Cambs.
  • Local Club: MCR, HAMOC, Chelmsford M.C.

Posted 19 June 2018 - 04:50 PM

It is interesting to see what Ford did in the UK and Europe in the late 1950's.

They could see that the old long-stroke small-bore formula was vrey dated, so they designed the superb Essex engine range, known as the '80-bore' engine originally. It had an 80mm bore and the stroke was adjusted by crankshaft throw to give 997, 1200, 13450, etc. Initially it was a 3-bearing block, but soon the block was modified to have 5-main-bearings. Tooling was 'commonised' quality was high and the development never stopped even after the famous 1558 cc Twin-Cam was done for the Cortina and Escort. It then developed into the superb BDA with 16-valves and an alloy block was also developed. 

 

Ford did this rather than chase a wide range of engines for a wide range of similar sized cars, which is what BMC did. Then BMC were competing more with themselves than with Ford & GM (e.g. Spitfire v Midget/Sprite, Dolomite v Maxi v Marina, Triumph 2000 v Rover 2000). Following that they screwed-up their dealer network and many dealers went over to the new Jap imports. A good friend of mine had his BMC dealership removed and was very worried, until a couple of weeks later Mitsubishi came knocking and enabled him to expand his showrooms and become a very successful Mitsubishi dealer. They also had a common engine range covering different capacity engines.

 

Failure to develop a standardised engine range and a non-competing basic model range was the main cause of their loss of market share. The amazing thing is that they not only failed to learn from Ford and Vauxhall who had huge market share, but didn't see the 'threat from the Far East' coming. I mean, which would you buy, an MGC or a Datsun 240Z?



#27 Dannyboolahlah

Dannyboolahlah

    Mini Mad

  • TMF+ Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts
  • Location: Wigan

Posted 19 June 2018 - 04:57 PM

It had an 80mm bore and the stroke was adjusted by crankshaft throw to give 997, 1200, 13450, etc.


That last one must have had one hell of a bonnet bulge!!

#28 DeanP

DeanP

    Speeding Along Now

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 499 posts
  • Location: Sutton Coldfield

Posted 19 June 2018 - 05:10 PM

Exactly Nick. It's a often trotted out story that the unions killed the car industry, but really they were protesting because they could see what was happening. Now the only big car factories in the UK are from overseas companies. You reap what you sow...

 

 

I agree, just look what Tata have done to Jaguar Land Rover, a company with no future and left a lame duck after Fords bean counting methods. They brought in management with vision, experience with the promise of banks prepared to lend on results. If that same business acumen had been applied back in the early 70's, things could well be different now.



#29 Cooperman

Cooperman

    Uncle Cooperman, Voted Mr TMF 2011

  • TMF+ Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,014 posts
  • Location: Cambs.
  • Local Club: MCR, HAMOC, Chelmsford M.C.

Posted 19 June 2018 - 05:36 PM

It is quite true that the management and the unions spent more time fighting each other than they did making cars.

 

What amazed me back then, as a design sub-contractor to several of the BMC companies, and still amazes me today, is the total lack of any sort of vision for the future. It is almost as if they realised that there was no long-term future. It was all nationalised, so making a profit was not as important as securing as many jobs as possible, funded by the taxpayers under a Labour Gov't. The Gov't did realise what was happening, but how could they stop it when the unions were their big backers. Maybe if the senior directors had gone to the gov't with a good future plan it would have helped, but they were spineless and whilst the cash kept coming from the taxpayers, why should they worry?

 

A major investment to compete with Ford and GM was needed. This to develop a complete new engine range and new small, mid-sized and luxury models was needed. The problem was that usual evolution as the competitors had, was simply not possible. It has to be said that a lot of what was produced was badly made junk.

 

The example of the engines is typical of the shambles. It is all so very sad looking back on it from several decades later. Still 20/20 hindsight is cheap, unlike the salaries of those who totally failed the taxpayers and the workers. I was just a supplier who had to wait 180 days to get paid against valid invoices, which meant I had to borrow to stay in business. In the end I refused to deal with Longbridge any further.



#30 Mite

Mite

    Stage One Kit Fitted

  • Noobies
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Location: London

Posted 19 June 2018 - 09:34 PM

Easier still would have been the development a cross flow head as a way to avoid the siamese ports perhaps?

 

I think they took the bore as far as they reliably could with the 970, 1071 and 1275 engines. It was easier to make the engine taller with the 1275 and give it a longer stroke than it would have been to make the engine wider to keep it oversquare.

 

Am reading from Graham Robson's book on the A-Series at page 29 that mentions two defining decisions, one of which would come to limit its potential later in life when a lot more power was sought for use in sporty and heavier cars. Basically interested in exploring the evolution of the A-Series without such limiting factors being made during its development and what impact it would have had in retrospect. 

 

Also later on could a clean-sheet undersquare replacement for the A-Series have had more scope for larger bores built into it along with all of the experimental A-Series developments that did not enter production and would such an engine have made it completely out the question for use in a Mini? Essentially a BMC equivalent of the Nissan A and E2 engines or an A-Series equivalent of the O-Series and subsequent M/T-Series. 

 

It is interesting to see what Ford did in the UK and Europe in the late 1950's.

They could see that the old long-stroke small-bore formula was vrey dated, so they designed the superb Essex engine range, known as the '80-bore' engine originally. It had an 80mm bore and the stroke was adjusted by crankshaft throw to give 997, 1200, 13450, etc. Initially it was a 3-bearing block, but soon the block was modified to have 5-main-bearings. Tooling was 'commonised' quality was high and the development never stopped even after the famous 1558 cc Twin-Cam was done for the Cortina and Escort. It then developed into the superb BDA with 16-valves and an alloy block was also developed. 

 

Ford did this rather than chase a wide range of engines for a wide range of similar sized cars, which is what BMC did. Then BMC were competing more with themselves than with Ford & GM (e.g. Spitfire v Midget/Sprite, Dolomite v Maxi v Marina, Triumph 2000 v Rover 2000). Following that they screwed-up their dealer network and many dealers went over to the new Jap imports. A good friend of mine had his BMC dealership removed and was very worried, until a couple of weeks later Mitsubishi came knocking and enabled him to expand his showrooms and become a very successful Mitsubishi dealer. They also had a common engine range covering different capacity engines.

 

Failure to develop a standardised engine range and a non-competing basic model range was the main cause of their loss of market share. The amazing thing is that they not only failed to learn from Ford and Vauxhall who had huge market share, but didn't see the 'threat from the Far East' coming. I mean, which would you buy, an MGC or a Datsun 240Z?

 

It would have been interesting seeing how the Kent engine related derivatives would have evolved in the absence of the Pinto, the BDA and Diesel versions suggest the production engine was capable of growing much further. Perhaps BMC could have drawn inspiration from the Kent, however have heard the Volkswagen EA827 engine was a benchmark for what the E-Series could have become. 

 

Given the 9X engine was capable of being developed into a small inline-6 with one of the gearless prototypes displacing 1500cc in 4-cylinder form, would it be accurate to describe the 9X engine in some aspects as a downsized featherweight E-Series or are they completely dissimilar to each other? If there is connection between the E-Series and 9X engines, it brings to mind how the Volkswagen EA111 was essentially a downsized version of the Volkswagen EA827 and gives a rough benchmark as to how the 9X engine could have evolved.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users