Advertising Last completed movie pages
1971 Rolls-Royce Corniche Two-Door Saloon Series I Class: Cars, Coupé — Model origin: 
![[*]](/res/star.png){kind=small}
Background vehicle
Comments about this vehicle| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
◊ 2015-11-24 12:50 |
SCL 6 now on a MB CLK 200 Elegance |
|
◊ 2015-11-24 13:33 |
Rolls Royce (or Bentley) Corniche |
|
◊ 2015-11-24 14:54 |
Looks like RR plaque on bumper. Never noticed before, but are the rear lights same as BMC 1100/1300 Mk2 (and therefore also late 60s FX4 taxi)?? |
|
◊ 2015-11-25 10:21 |
If one have a look in spare part catalogues (books...) from subcontractors, one can see that there're a vast array of things that is not rarely looking the same. The slight problem is that they're usually not the same. When I repaired the brakes to my Zephyr, I noticed that the brake master cylinder was leaking. No problem, I thought, as it looked the same (Girling 3/4") as the one used on the clutch master cylinder on the Volvo Amazon, a common car in Sweden. However, the mounting was not the same, and hence mine used an additional moulded rubber thing. And that took ages to find... In this case I believe it's most likely Lucas that have made the rear lights, and that indeed was a huge company. If not, it should be Butlers. |
|
◊ 2015-11-25 11:44 |
Its true that most of the smaller car companies (including RR and Bentley) would use the mass manufacturer's parts where possible to save tooling costs. In this case however the rear lights in question do appear to be different the RR/Bentley part is more rounded at the top but the Austin/Morris part is sharper at the top to match the 1100/1300 rear wing 'fin' shape. RR and Bentley Austin/Morris 1100/1300 Austin FX4 -- Last edit: 2015-11-25 11:45:13 |
|
◊ 2015-11-30 14:44 |
@sunbar: It's a common thought that only small companies are using subcontractors, while the big companies are making everything themselves. The truth is that (as far as I know) only one car company has ever tried to have absolute control over all production branches, and that is Ford during the Model T production. Ford owned farms where cows were bred to provide hides for the upholstery, forrests where they got timber for the frames to the body, glass works which provided windscreens, mines which provided steel and I also believe they onced owned some oil company, but almost went burst when they tried to grow rubber trees in Brazil. Other companies buy much from subcontractors, like lamps from Hella and Cibie, brakes from Ate or Brembo, instuments (for the facia) from VDO or Yazaki, tires from Continental or Michelin and stuff for the fuel injection comes from Bosch, Delphi or (Nippon) Denso. When owning an older car it's not possible to go to the dealer and ask for spare parts. Instead one have to understand what subcontractor that made what parts, or (if possible) investigate if there were more than one company that made parts for the aftermarket. If so, the chance increases rapidly. -- Last edit: 2015-11-30 14:46:28 |
|
◊ 2015-11-30 15:43 |
Don't I know it! |
|
◊ 2015-11-30 20:01 |
@zodiac: I worked for manufacturers of original equipment parts for decades over a lot of major components, and yes it makes sense for the big component suppliers like Bosch, Delphi etc. to make as many common parts as possible and change the detail design to suit each car manufacturer as far as possible. GM did have a lot of its own in-house suppliers (AC, Delco, Delco-Remy etc) and Ford also to a lessor extent, but increasing competition for lower prices has finished all that. The supplier-manufacturer relationship varies a lot over the industry and specialisation has only made things more and more complex from about the 1990s. Originally it was the components supplier that owned the tooling and the design and the parts were sold on to the car manufacturers, but more commonly now the car manufacturers will pay for and own the tooling and it will not be possible for sharing parts with other competing car companies. |
|
◊ 2015-12-01 19:09 |
Having also worked for a "tier 1" supplier tooling was always the area where careful negotiation was required. It was our policy to retain control over the tooling wherever possible, and to retain it in the hope of further enquiries from the customer. These would usually arrive about a week after we had scrapped the tooling to save space! The tools to press a chassis member for an eight wheeled truck took up some space. |
Add a comment Advertising Advertising
