cars with good engineering
Discussion
Alfa's Alfetta platform.
Long lasting (although that was partially to do with lack of money to replace it) - but really cleverly engineered.
Double wishbone front suspension with longitudinal torsion bars in place of traditional springs. De-Dion rear axle employing a transaxle clutch and gearbox assembly to ensure perfect weight distribution. Later developments of the all-alloy twin-cam engine included variable valve timing, too - which I believe beat VTEC to the market.
Very obviously designed by engineers. Shame the accountants were responsible for quality control!
Long lasting (although that was partially to do with lack of money to replace it) - but really cleverly engineered.
Double wishbone front suspension with longitudinal torsion bars in place of traditional springs. De-Dion rear axle employing a transaxle clutch and gearbox assembly to ensure perfect weight distribution. Later developments of the all-alloy twin-cam engine included variable valve timing, too - which I believe beat VTEC to the market.
Very obviously designed by engineers. Shame the accountants were responsible for quality control!
Trabi601 said:
Alfa's Alfetta platform.
Long lasting (although that was partially to do with lack of money to replace it) - but really cleverly engineered.
Double wishbone front suspension with longitudinal torsion bars in place of traditional springs. De-Dion rear axle employing a transaxle clutch and gearbox assembly to ensure perfect weight distribution. Later developments of the all-alloy twin-cam engine included variable valve timing, too - which I believe beat VTEC to the market.
Very obviously designed by engineers. Shame the accountants were responsible for quality control!
Good example, some seem to be getting engineering and design confused.Long lasting (although that was partially to do with lack of money to replace it) - but really cleverly engineered.
Double wishbone front suspension with longitudinal torsion bars in place of traditional springs. De-Dion rear axle employing a transaxle clutch and gearbox assembly to ensure perfect weight distribution. Later developments of the all-alloy twin-cam engine included variable valve timing, too - which I believe beat VTEC to the market.
Very obviously designed by engineers. Shame the accountants were responsible for quality control!
My votes would go to;
Honda S2000 engineered as a drivers roadster from the start and only minimal changes over its 10 year life cycle
Mclaren 650S/12C - exploring the boundaries of engineering on a road car
Valgar said:
Another vote for a Legacy here, wish I never sold it, it was brilliantly put together. I towed with it constantly, the na 2.0 engine was a beauty, you'd swear it was bigger by the seamless torque it provided, as I recall it was designed with a near flat torque curve the whole way through the rev range and it felt like it, also handled amazingly and was brilliant in the snow.
If I had to have just one car for the rest of my driving life it'd be a Legacy Estate 3.0
Yet another vote for the Legacy here - in particular the 2004 one we had.If I had to have just one car for the rest of my driving life it'd be a Legacy Estate 3.0
Little things like having the minor bolts with screw heads set into them so they could be removed with the tool kit on board while you were on the road.
Air conditioning and power steering pipes P-clipped with aluminium fixings that don't rust.
The ECUs being held a foot above the floor behind the dash, so that if you ever tried to wade and the interior got wet it wouldn't reach an ECU before the engine.
S.H.A.D.O. said:
Unfortunately I get to do this virtually every day, position lamps, indicators etc, I have the scratches on my hands to prove it, I think manufacturers should make it possible to change what is after all an important safety item easily and without any dismantling.
Actually I think i'm wrong here, my example is about bad design and not bad engineering.
I used design and engineering interchangeably in my initial post. By design I did not mean making it look beautiful in the way it applies to for instance clothes.Actually I think i'm wrong here, my example is about bad design and not bad engineering.
Do you see bad engineering as resulting in something that will break easily and bad design as resulting in something that is not easy to use?
blueg33 said:
Subaru Outback has pins to locate the doors at the bottom as well as at the catch. Makes for a very solid door
The Levorg (also Subaru) has the same. I looked at one recently and was very impressed with the the engineering. Not the fastest or flashiest thing on the road, but very well designed and built.So far it looks like Subaru is coming up a lot...
I'll go out on a limb here, as I'm still quite impressed with it... the Trabant.
Yes, it was completely outdated by the time the Wall came down, but it was a properly engineered car when originally designed.
Very slightly bigger than a Mini, with a completely flat floor, large boot and enough room for 4 adults, which would have been a squeeze in a Mini.
Incredibly simple engine with only 5 (I recall) moving parts - 600cc, twin cylinder, 2 stroke. Could be fixed by anyone with a hammer and a few spanners. Can cruise at 60mph all day long.
Duroplast body which made use of cotton waste to make a very light (600kgs) shell which doesn't rust, and was safer to crash in than cars 20 years younger.
I really do love mine.
Yes, it was completely outdated by the time the Wall came down, but it was a properly engineered car when originally designed.
Very slightly bigger than a Mini, with a completely flat floor, large boot and enough room for 4 adults, which would have been a squeeze in a Mini.
Incredibly simple engine with only 5 (I recall) moving parts - 600cc, twin cylinder, 2 stroke. Could be fixed by anyone with a hammer and a few spanners. Can cruise at 60mph all day long.
Duroplast body which made use of cotton waste to make a very light (600kgs) shell which doesn't rust, and was safer to crash in than cars 20 years younger.
I really do love mine.
Purely from a design point of view, the best engineered car i've worked on is a 986 Porsche Boxster (engines excluded), all the suspension components are aluminium, very nicely designed and easy to work on. The way they've packaged the radiators in the front bumper and the ducting is impressive. Everything about it seems quality.
The complete opposite is my Mk5 Golf. Get that up in the air and it's plastic everywhere, you can see how they make their profit.
The complete opposite is my Mk5 Golf. Get that up in the air and it's plastic everywhere, you can see how they make their profit.
Escy said:
Purely from a design point of view, the best engineered car i've worked on is a 986 Porsche Boxster (engines excluded), all the suspension components are aluminium, very nicely designed and easy to work on. The way they've packaged the radiators in the front bumper and the ducting is impressive. Everything about it seems quality.
The complete opposite is my Mk5 Golf. Get that up in the air and it's plastic everywhere, you can see how they make their profit.
I have a love / hate relationship with my 986. Some stuff is overly complex and made with cheap components. I've had to replace a window regulator and a headlamp switch in the last 12 months, not particularly impressed with either job. I still need to work out why the windows don't drop when I pull the roof handle, too.The complete opposite is my Mk5 Golf. Get that up in the air and it's plastic everywhere, you can see how they make their profit.
caelite said:
I would say VAG from the late 90s to mid 00s, so many good engines and great designed cars. Then it all went a bit tits up.
Good call - I had a B5 Passat with silly miles on it. The 1.8T engine was a gem, and the trick front suspension meant it handled pretty well, even though the engine was mostly in front of the front axle! Build quality was astounding for a mass-produced car. I really miss that car.LordHaveMurci said:
simonr100 said:
LordHaveMurci said:
The 996 thread on here mentions the good engineering in the cars, he seems to know his stuff.
Loads of problems with these - RMS, IMS and bore scoring are some examples. They are great cars and I nearly bought one 18 months ago.
Rayy said:
Got to add the Mercedes W124. Does what's intended beautifully, solid as a rock. And yes you can change practically any lamp bulb in seconds.
Can't agree with the classic Mini mentioned earlier. Ours rusted like fury and needed a gearbox and suspension rebuild before 30k miles.
Yes but the mini was a very clever design!!! I don't think we will ever see cars of the quality and driver appeal we got in the 90s merc build quality , basic good engineering in toyotas, sportyness and pure driving fun in a 205 /405 peugeotsCan't agree with the classic Mini mentioned earlier. Ours rusted like fury and needed a gearbox and suspension rebuild before 30k miles.
going back further the original Willys Jeep , the landrover was just a poor copy ...
Mercedes Benz used to make well engineered cars!
Many years ago I had a W123 280E then some years later a W201 190E and they both felt over-engineered - unlike the W202 C Class I bought later!
Next best I have had since is my BMW 325Ti E46 - now I've done a few small jobs on it I am starting to appreciate the quality of the engineering. And it drives better than the Mercs did!
Many years ago I had a W123 280E then some years later a W201 190E and they both felt over-engineered - unlike the W202 C Class I bought later!
Next best I have had since is my BMW 325Ti E46 - now I've done a few small jobs on it I am starting to appreciate the quality of the engineering. And it drives better than the Mercs did!
jhonn said:
Firstly - welcome to pistonheads!
I'm going to proffer a fairly mundane candidate - the Fiat Panda; for what it is it appears well designed, can carry 4 large adults comfortably, has decent ergonomics, cheap and easy to fix, tough and economical, it's light, handles well, can take a thrashing and is pretty much classless.
I'm going to take exception to your example of the Defender for the following reasons..
Poor ergonomics
The chassis is full of mud-traps which hasten corrosion
Aluminium/steel galvanic corrosion
They leak (from new)
Poor turning circle
The gearboxes give trouble
Hit-and-miss build quality
Design flaws (oil in wiring loom, etc)
Badly sited components (fuel/water separator exposed in the rear wheel bay)
Yes, I know that they have their good points and people love them despite their flaws, however that's just some of the areas where I feel that they are not particularly well designed and engineered.
The defender must be the UKs overrated vehicle just dire and a sick joke in most countrys where a reliable vehicle is a matter of life or death ... I'm going to proffer a fairly mundane candidate - the Fiat Panda; for what it is it appears well designed, can carry 4 large adults comfortably, has decent ergonomics, cheap and easy to fix, tough and economical, it's light, handles well, can take a thrashing and is pretty much classless.
I'm going to take exception to your example of the Defender for the following reasons..
Poor ergonomics
The chassis is full of mud-traps which hasten corrosion
Aluminium/steel galvanic corrosion
They leak (from new)
Poor turning circle
The gearboxes give trouble
Hit-and-miss build quality
Design flaws (oil in wiring loom, etc)
Badly sited components (fuel/water separator exposed in the rear wheel bay)
Yes, I know that they have their good points and people love them despite their flaws, however that's just some of the areas where I feel that they are not particularly well designed and engineered.
powerstroke said:
The defender must be the UKs overrated vehicle just dire and a sick joke in most countrys where a reliable vehicle is a matter of life or death ...
I knew some would not like my example of the Defender but this thread is not about the pros and cons of the Defender it is about good engineering.Let's stay on topic as much as possible.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff