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?]
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?]
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)...
DiscoClax
'94 D1 3dr Aegean Blue - 300ci stroker RV8, 4HP24 & Compushift, usual bar-work, various APT gear, 235/85 M/Ts, 3deg arms, Detroit lockers, $$$$, etc.
'08 RRS TDV8 Rimini Red - 285/60R18 Falken AT3Ws, Rock slider-steps, APT full under-protection, Mitch Hitch, Tradesman rack, Traxide DBS, Gap IID
Ok thanks - i looked back and cannot find any references, links or official documentation.
Anyway not all that relevant to a Holden tread.
Garry
REMLR 243
2007 Range Rover Sport TDV6
1977 FC 101
1976 Jaguar XJ12C
1973 Haflinger AP700
1971 Jaguar V12 E-Type Series 3 Roadster
1957 Series 1 88"
1957 Series 1 88" Station Wagon
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?
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.
John
JDNSW
1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol
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?
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
|---|
|
|
|
Bookmarks