Here’s the thing; The one thing I personally loved about the small BL cars up to the death of the Rover 114 was the amazing Hydragas suspension. Sure it was not without it’s faults, but most of these were quality control issues. I personally think it is what gave all BMC and it’s successor’s cars their soul.
So, why then have SAIC not taken this legendary system and utilised it in the MGs? The new MG5 or even the new 3 could be real stunner on proper Hydragas and it would offer something that no-one else has in this segment.
Probably a number of reasons. 1) SAIC and MG Rover before it have no special claim to the Hydragas technology – I think it’s owned by Dunlop. 2) The units are no longer being produced and therefore a large amount of capital would be needed to get this back into production. 3) What can be achieved with traditional springs at a fraction of the cost probably outweigh’s using Hydragas purely for sake of historical nostalgia.
Aside from this I agree they were great, I have had Austin and Rover Metros and appreciate how signicifant having Hydragas units in such a small car made a world of difference but cars are bigger now, they don’t really need such engineering because standard fayre is more than adequate. There are some cracking small cars in the market today that ride and handle exceptionally well. Maybe they don’t have soul but SAIC’s accountants have no soul either..
It’s comparatively expensive compared to steel coils and the general public fuelled by the trade have a ‘phobia’ of unconventional suspension systems. I mean look at Citroen’s Hydropneumatic suspension, that works well and is actually no less reliable than coil springs, yet it’s generally unpopular.
I agree though, Hydrolastic was very much underrated.
Agreed and disagreed James. Sure, Hydragas is dearer than steel, but Dunlop could produce it in China where the setup and unit cost would be lower than anywhere else. If SAIC were serious about the MG / Roewe brand they could work on producing a premium brand with this system to give them an edge over the competition.
Larger cars work with the system too – I owned an Austin Princess with it in and it was great fun. It felt like a giant morris 1300 to drive.
Here in the West, a well built Chinese car that actually had something to offer that was different to the rest of the cheap brands would make buyers stand up and take note. In business we call it the ‘Point of difference’ i.e why would a buyer look to your brand over someone elses, and Hydragas would be a good place to start.
Even Moulton reckons that modern variable rate shock absorbers are a more effective method of doing the same job as Hydragas. When he invited me to his home last year I asked specifically if he saw Hydragas as still viable and he said he did not.
That didn’t stop Toyota discussing the concept with him; uuntil the recession hit they were considering the use of Hydragas on the IQ
@Sam, how fascinating a Toyota with Hydragas, that would have been an interesting car indeed.
It is funny and sad at the time that Moulton would say that about his own invention. But then, Hydragas has had absolutely no development for what, over 20 years now? Steel springs have never stopped evolving. I am sure it could be developed further, it’s just that no-one has ever bothered.
Nice one
