WI - Jeep powered by Austin instead of Willys engine

Would find it difficult seeing the ATL Austin Gipsy (aka Austin-built Jeep) being built in the UK during and after WW2 and doubt fiberglass would be an option.

It was both cost constraints and time pressures which prevented the MGB from being fitted with independent rear suspension (with a better capitalized BMC via pre-merger wanks of both Austin and Morris likely to help matters), though MG seriously wanted to utilize all-independent suspension on their sportscars as was the case with the EX234 and ADO21 projects who both used Hydrolastic suspension.
 
Would find it difficult seeing the ATL Austin Gipsy (aka Austin-built Jeep) being built in the UK during and after WW2 and doubt fiberglass would be an option.
I'm thinking this is all postwar.

I do wonder why you think 'glass parts (if not whole bodies) aren't an option. I can picture a 'glass hardtop replacing the OTL canvas, 'glass fenders & hood, & 'glass seats & dash, pretty easily. Would it replace every steel part? No. Would it help Austin live within a steel quota? Yes. (Would quality control issues need to be worked out? Obviously.)

If Austin can do this, it can also be applied to later products, not least the Mini Cooper.... I dream of a stock 1275 Cooper with an all-'glass body, like those repops used by some Mini racers.:cool::cool:
 
I do wonder why you think 'glass parts (if not whole bodies) aren't an option. I can picture a 'glass hardtop replacing the OTL canvas, 'glass fenders & hood, & 'glass seats & dash, pretty easily. Would it replace every steel part? No. Would it help Austin live within a steel quota? Yes. (Would quality control issues need to be worked out? Obviously.)

Duraplast body, like on the Trabant
244751-1000-0.jpg
 
And? Not being built in East Germany. Or do you think the '53 or so 'vettes were also junk, for being 'glass-bodied?

Duraplast is Cotton and other natural fiber with Phenolic resin.
Is cheaper and able to be produced faster than fiberglass using epoxy or polyester resin. Phenolic is a far faster endothermic cure vs the exothermic fiberglass resins.
You don't need to layout Duraplast, you just inject the goop into the mold and pop it far faster.
Next point is it was easier on the tooling to cut openings and to do trimming,than glass. I imagine its easier on the wrkers lungs as well than fiberglaas.

Downside, its really strong cardboard, but doesn't shatter like fiberglass
 
Duraplast is Cotton and other natural fiber with Phenolic resin.
Is cheaper and able to be produced faster than fiberglass using epoxy or polyester resin. Phenolic is a far faster endothermic cure vs the exothermic fiberglass resins.
You don't need to layout Duraplast, you just inject the goop into the mold and pop it far faster.
Next point is it was easier on the tooling to cut openings and to do trimming,than glass. I imagine its easier on the wrkers lungs as well than fiberglaas.
I learned something new again. Thx.
Downside, its really strong cardboard
That sounds like a really good argument against it...

If the base material can be changed to get around that, it might be ideal for postwar carmakers.
 
I learned something new again. Thx.

That sounds like a really good argument against it...

If the base material can be changed to get around that, it might be ideal for postwar carmakers.

They make some amount of sense for Brit automakers during the early postwar period. It's cheap, help keep prices down, frees up steel for structural bits, and doesn't rust, helpful as some of the factories moved bodies in open air from factory area to other areas for completion. Many weren't continuous assembly areas like in the US, or the rebuilt/new factories in Germany, Japan, and France. So stuff got rained on before paint.
Yeah, not ideal.

This stuff won't rust or rot out. Did I mention it was cheap? That's the big thing. It's a bit stronger than the structural reaction injection molding panels that got their start in the late '60s using polyurethane resin. It's big claim was being thinner and flexibility
 
Duraplast is cheap but there is a heavy capital investment in the moulds which need to be heatable and stiff. Hence hand layup fibreglass was the product of choice for low volume production.
 
Austin would be unlikely to use fiberglass let alone duraplast for the ATL Austin Jeep, they would soon follow Land Rover's example by adopting aluminum.

Fiberglass was later considered in certain countries in South America under BMC in OTL, though Austin or Morris prior to becoming BMC would have needed to establish a presence in a suitable country like Volkswagen did with Brazil and Mexico.
 
Duraplast is cheap but there is a heavy capital investment in the moulds which need to be heatable and stiff. Hence hand layup fibreglass was the product of choice for low volume production.

But while low volume works for sportscars, you need high production.

The earlier Duramold process done by Fairchild that used very thin wood veneers and similar phenolic resin used rubber sheet, inflatable bags and even wood or concrete.

East Germans used large presses of similar size to stamping presses, but they had no shortage of steel of heavy industry, and much of it was more similar to a textile factory than auto factory

Cotton and resin is still cheaper than aluminum
 
I like the idea of Duraplast for cost reasons, but the knock against it ("cardboard") seems to make it a non-starer, which is why I prefer 'glass.

If there's a way around that (& IDK what it is...), it'd be the obvious better choice.

If we were talking about a postwar VW or something, maybe it works, & even adds some kitsch value. Not for a Brit product. Aluminum seems less likely fr a comparatively high-volume vehicle than 'glass, & I'd guess (without careful examination...) is more costly.
 
Not arguing that. I'm saying, would you buy a car bodied in cardboard? Even strong, stiff, fancy-named cardboard? I wouldn't. I daresay most people wouldn't. DDR offered far fewer options...

When you have steel shortages, fancy named cardboard mean you have body panels of adequate strength on a very low cost car you could buy right then. And they would never rust;)

How long did the average UK car last in the '50s, discounting the built-in mosquito fogger,rust control via oil leaks and Prince of Darkness electrical gear?

Over in the US at that time, getting a couple years out of a Plymouth was challenging. IIRC, 3 months or 4000 mile Warranty, Ford was first with a 12 Month, 12,000 mile Warranty in 1960, and getting the 5 digit odometer to roll over 99999
was a challenge few cars could meet
 
When you have steel shortages, fancy named cardboard mean you have body panels of adequate strength on a very low cost car you could buy right then. And they would never rust;)

How long did the average UK car last in the '50s, discounting the built-in mosquito fogger,rust control via oil leaks and Prince of Darkness electrical gear?

Over in the US at that time, getting a couple years out of a Plymouth was challenging. IIRC, 3 months or 4000 mile Warranty, Ford was first with a 12 Month, 12,000 mile Warranty in 1960, and getting the 5 digit odometer to roll over 99999
was a challenge few cars could meet
You're right on all counts. Who said car buying decisions were entirely rational?;) If they were, everybody would drive a K-car or a Chevette.:eek:
 
How long did the average UK car last in the '50s, discounting the built-in mosquito fogger,rust control via oil leaks and Prince of Darkness electrical gear?

Actually 50s British cars werent too bad. It was the 60s when the British car Industry developed and refined the technique of building cars with pre-installed rust, engines missing useful components like oil seals and panels gaps you could post a parcel through.
 
Top