It's quite alright... this has made for some interesting reading. I agree about the 800's suspension. I remember being younger driven in the Mk1, and to me the ride was choppy at speed like you say. On a less than smooth road the ride felt poor (no exaggeration there) but get it on a very smooth stretch of road and the ride was almost sublime, like quite a different vehicle.scoobyh123 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 09, 2018 11:47 amSorry for the threadjack Charles - hopefully you're enjoying this slight diversion though!
It certainly would have been nice if Rover was given more free affairs to work with the suspension. I was watching an old video on the SD1 and alot of early computer aided design development went into this. It's just a pity the SD1s weren't built as well as BL professed.
Just a few years before the all new Mercedes SL was launched (1974 maybe) and I watched a video by an amateur mechanic and enthusiast who was talking about how the SL was nearly the price of two Ferraris and how much of a game changer the car was. Lavish use of chrome, tank like build quality (thick steel), ribbed body work, fantastic brakes. (though just missed out on ABS). The SL of that era was intended to have ABS but it was not quite perfected. And obviously with all the old Mercedes of that era went through probably millions of testing miles (more so than the Rover SD1).
I think the irony today, is that BMW are using double wishbone front suspension on the 5 series (I think or 4 series?) and back in the late 80's, it was unquestionable to use anything other than proven Macpherson coils and dampers on a large executive car. BMW would have laughed at the very idea of double wishbone suspension on a 5 series sized car. Though I'm sure either wishbones or standard coils are cheaper to put together than the complicated/costly multi-link affair on the Z1/3 series/Rover 75, etc.
) but probably as close as i'll get without major modifications.
