Holden - how long before the end?

So that is the story in my opinion

It's a bad time for Aussie manufacturing industry because of the mining boom and associated "Dutch disease" plus a government that does nothing.

On the other hands, Holden has been an absolutely arsehole

Norway i think decided to limit how much LPG or whatever natural resources they sell and put all the profit into a future fund.

Sounds like thinking at least two steps ahead of Oz.

[Does Gina have Gigolo's?]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoClax

Not going to get into an argument over this but the same team worked on both chassis.

---

No worries - you got any references for this?

Cheers

Garry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rammypluge

Norway i think decided to limit how much LPG or whatever natural resources they sell and put all the profit into a future fund.

Sounds like thinking at least two steps ahead of Oz.

[Does Gina have Gigolo's?]

---

Sovereign wealth fund. Singapore also has a government investment arm.
We have the Future Fund, which is only to cover government obligations, and superannuation funds. Our super reserves are one of the world's biggest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garrycol

No worries - you got any references for this?

Cheers

Garry

---

No dramas, but not sure what the question is. The source of my information I quoted in that post. The original proto chassis was essentially identical, and then LR and Ford each worked on their own versions of it, but with LR 'constrained' as to the changes they could make to the design and content. The rest is history and LRs solution was both novel and effective (if not overly weight-efficient)...

Ok thanks - i looked back and cannot find any references, links or official documentation.

Anyway not all that relevant to a Holden tread.

Garry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoClax

No dramas, but not sure what the question is. The source of my information I quoted in that post. The original proto chassis was essentially identical, and then LR and Ford each worked on their own versions of it, but with LR 'constrained' as to the changes they could make to the design and content. The rest is history and LRs solution was both novel and effective (if not overly weight-efficient)...

---

If say they made the body twice as stiff, i wonder how much that would translate to the chassis, given that the body mount bushes would flex more?

Its still a nice idea but yeah, turned out heavy. Its clear Ford were heavily at play here, given how different the D3 is to the L322.

I notice that high strength steels in monocoques seems to be worsening NVH. I imagine an alloy monocoque should be better than a mild steel monocoque?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rammypluge

............

I notice that high strength steels in monocoques seems to be worsening NVH. I imagine an alloy monocoque should be better than a mild steel monocoque?

---

Logically, if you use high strength steel to replace mild steel, the only reason to use it is to reduce weight. This means thinner sheets of steel. But although the high strength steel is stronger, its elastic modulus is the same, so panels in particular will vibrate more easily.

Going to alloy, there are two factors at work - the alloy is weaker, but also more elastic. Both of these will require thicker material, and the rigidity added by the thicker material will, I think, lead to a stiffer structure despite the lower modulus, simply as a result of having to use the thicker material to be strong enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Logically, if you use high strength steel to replace mild steel, the only reason to use it is to reduce weight. This means thinner sheets of steel. But although the high strength steel is stronger, its elastic modulus is the same, so panels in particular will vibrate more easily.

Going to alloy, there are two factors at work - the alloy is weaker, but also more elastic. Both of these will require thicker material, and the rigidity added by the thicker material will, I think, lead to a stiffer structure despite the lower modulus, simply as a result of having to use the thicker material to be strong enough.

---

Thats exactly what i was surmising. Although i was also thinking of the high tensile as being a bit like a tuning fork or a piano wire, transmitting noise more readily.

Rolls Royce used to have a separate chassis for NVH, but now they are doing alloy monocoque. They are pretty particular i believe.

Will be interesting to get feedback from offroaders going from D3/4 to D5.

Were any of the guys in this thread involved in the development of the Crewman?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Logically, if you use high strength steel to replace mild steel, the only reason to use it is to reduce weight. This means thinner sheets of steel. But although the high strength steel is stronger, its elastic modulus is the same, so panels in particular will vibrate more easily.

Going to alloy, there are two factors at work - the alloy is weaker, but also more elastic. Both of these will require thicker material, and the rigidity added by the thicker material will, I think, lead to a stiffer structure despite the lower modulus, simply as a result of having to use the thicker material to be strong enough.

---

Let’s get pedantic and specific...

HS Steel = Alloy
Mild Steel = Alloy
Aluminium = Element
Aluminium Alloy = Alloy

And they now have an Aluminium Alloy that is as strong as steel at same dimensions/thickness.