Ernst Blofeld
Member
Offline
I'm from the UK and don't know so much about the Nash Metropolitan even if it was built here under licence from Nash.
What perplexes me is the relationship between the Nash, and the Austin A30/Farina A40 and the Sprite.
It's said that the Metropolitan used A30/Sprite front suspension but a little net research into that has shown me that the Metropolitan did not employ the lever-arm damper/upper link arrangement so mystifyingly popular with BMC - a company that kept faith with leaky, ineffective lever arm shocks for no earthly reason.
It seems that the Metro had a proper upper wishbone with the coil spring and telescopic damper atop that. Does that mean the Nash only used the A30/Sprite bottom wishbone?
The very fact that the Metropolitan was at one point the second best selling import in the US behind the Beetle makes me wonder why BMC could not have adopted if the Nash's upper wishbone/telescopic damper arrangement for the Sprite? (Too tall for the low-slung roadster? If so, could the Metro's upper wishbone have suppanted the Sprite's lever arm damper with the coil spring kept in the usual position and a telescopic damper mounted within the spring?)
A similar thought occurred to me with the MGB. Back in 1952 MG launched the handsome, Italiante MG ZA sedan, featuring rack and pinion steering and a coil spring independent front suspension, but one that unlike the A and B did without the lever arm damper. I cannot think why this effective set up designed by Gerald Palmer wasn't adopted for the A and the B - or the awful 1958 Austin A55 sedan which needed all the help it could get.
This sort of component sharing and rationalization could only have helped BMC's bottom-line, not to mention improved its cars, so why didn't it happen?
Makes me think of that line Andy Griffith said in "A Face in the Crowd."
"Those limeys. They act like they're a real first-class outfit, but the truth is the shop's closing all over the world."
And never was a truer word spoken. All a bit scary if you're on this side of the pond.
What perplexes me is the relationship between the Nash, and the Austin A30/Farina A40 and the Sprite.
It's said that the Metropolitan used A30/Sprite front suspension but a little net research into that has shown me that the Metropolitan did not employ the lever-arm damper/upper link arrangement so mystifyingly popular with BMC - a company that kept faith with leaky, ineffective lever arm shocks for no earthly reason.
It seems that the Metro had a proper upper wishbone with the coil spring and telescopic damper atop that. Does that mean the Nash only used the A30/Sprite bottom wishbone?
The very fact that the Metropolitan was at one point the second best selling import in the US behind the Beetle makes me wonder why BMC could not have adopted if the Nash's upper wishbone/telescopic damper arrangement for the Sprite? (Too tall for the low-slung roadster? If so, could the Metro's upper wishbone have suppanted the Sprite's lever arm damper with the coil spring kept in the usual position and a telescopic damper mounted within the spring?)
A similar thought occurred to me with the MGB. Back in 1952 MG launched the handsome, Italiante MG ZA sedan, featuring rack and pinion steering and a coil spring independent front suspension, but one that unlike the A and B did without the lever arm damper. I cannot think why this effective set up designed by Gerald Palmer wasn't adopted for the A and the B - or the awful 1958 Austin A55 sedan which needed all the help it could get.
This sort of component sharing and rationalization could only have helped BMC's bottom-line, not to mention improved its cars, so why didn't it happen?
Makes me think of that line Andy Griffith said in "A Face in the Crowd."
"Those limeys. They act like they're a real first-class outfit, but the truth is the shop's closing all over the world."
And never was a truer word spoken. All a bit scary if you're on this side of the pond.