The Visioneering Car

[Farrar]

James at the DeLorean Museum recently posted a slew of photos of the Visioneering car, and while looking at the photos it occurred to me that the front wheels point in toward the bottom and the rear wheels point out toward the bottom. It's quite noticeable. Can anyone explain this and how it would affect the car's handling and tire wear? I am quite curious.

Thanks,
Farrar

[sean]

http://www.jackit.com/bushings/images/Camber_Explanation.jpg
4961
http://theserviceadvisor.com/camber-wear.JPG
4962

Some other reading:
http://www.familycar.com/Alignment.htm

[Farrar]

Thanks, Sean ... but I meant the DMC-12 in particular. ;)

I see from the photos of the car that the stance is lower than the factory-built cars. I was wondering if perhaps those who drove the Visioneering car felt something lacking with that setup, and thus changes were made.

Farrar

[sean]

... how it would affect the car's handling and tire wear? ...


but I meant the DMC-12 in particular. ;)


Im pretty sure it would have effected tire wear on a DMC-12 like it would any other car.

[Farrar]

Im pretty sure it would have effected tire wear on a DMC-12 like it would any other car.

But was it a concern from an engineering standpoint? Did anyone at DMC say "Well, we don't want folks to go through tires quite this quick," or was there another reason?

I just thought the Visioneering car needed its own thread, and thought this would be a good way to start the conversation. Guess not. *shrug*

Farrar

[sean]

and thought this would be a good way to start the conversation. Guess not. *shrug*

So what have we been having? You asked about camber and tire wear, I provided some input. Im sure others will jump in too, its only been 50 minutes since you posted. I apologize if you didn't want my input. I genuinely didn't think you knew how excessive camber effected tire wear.

[Chris Burns]

Here's a picture of the Visioneering Delorean from the Facebook page. It's a very interesting read. The rims aren't the production rims, but make do's with hubcaps to look like the production wheels.

[Farrar]

Oh, I'm not offended; I'm just wishing I could have started a broader conversation -- but I genuinely had no other topic off the top of my head except how weird the wheels looked. :lol:

But I finally thought of another Visioneering-car-related topic --

Has anyone replicated the storage area in the center console? Any pics of this area?

Actually, more pics of the interior of the Visioneering car would be appreciated, anyway... the carpet and the seats are different and I like little nuanced stuff like that.

Farrar

[tjd]

Actually, more pics of the interior of the Visioneering car would be appreciated, anyway... the carpet and the seats are different and I like little nuanced stuff like that.

Farrar

These pics are of the interior of Pilot 20, very similar to the Visioneering interior, noteable differences are Visioneering car has the handbrake on the right of the driver seat and uses a renault steering wheel with embosed DMC Logo. Pilot 20 has a similar (nearly identical) center counsole, dash, seats, and rear storage area to the Visioneering car.

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x179/tjdufresne/2063752032_a84f9516cd_o.jpg

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x179/tjdufresne/2062963629_4541f348f5_o.jpg

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x179/tjdufresne/2062957613_88a602ba63_o.jpg

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x179/tjdufresne/2063769888_26d0daac56_o.jpg

[Farrar]

Wow, thanks for those pics of Pilot 20's interior! I really like the center console and glove box lid. Also interesting how the cubby hole door is hinged -- makes me wonder if it also had a pull strap to open, or if it locked as in production vehicles. Those are fantastic to see. Thanks again!

Farrar

[PlutonimicX]

From what I read Pilot 20 was supposed to have the same steering wheel as the Visioneering car and those steering wheels came from Leyland trucks. I could be wrong. If I'm right though it does give you an idea of where the Visioneering/Pilot car's steering wheels come from.

[tjd]

Yeah I had my doubts that the obvious recovered production wheel was original to Pilot 20. Leyland trucks huh? I'll have to look into that, I'd like to source one of those wheels.

[Farrar]

Leyland trucks huh?

Makes sense; Jim Prentice said the steering column was from a Rover.

Edit: Found a photo of a Leyland bus steering wheel which looks about right! Obviously it's been recovered, though.

http://www.pearlcraft.com.au/images/Trucks/restorations/Leyland%20Bus-%20Deep%20Turquoise-White%20Pearl%20Combination.jpg

Farrar

[uhhair]

Anyone have the link to the slew of pictures mentioned? I can't seem to find them with google.

[sean]

Anyone have the link to the slew of pictures mentioned? I can't seem to find them with google.

http://www.facebook.com/deloreanmuseum
From this discussion:
http://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?1511-Last-Photograph-taken-at-the-DeLorean-plant-in-Dunmurry

[Sidaries]

I found something I do not understand. How that can be, that by the Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.254870127879250.66936.166957630003834&type=1):

Using a completed prototype chassis supplied by Lotus in late 1979, Visioneering completed the assembly of this car

By dmctalk (http://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?1511-Last-Photograph-taken-at-the-DeLorean-plant-in-Dunmurry&p=18806&viewfull=1#post18806):

Attaching a 3/4 rear view of what may be Pilot 22 (D22 on the PJ Grady UK website)
or just another view of the Visoneering Car,

and by PJGrady (http://www.pjgrady.co.uk//GenericContent.aspx?PageType=Pilot_Chronology&ShowContent=Pilot_Cars.html):

It is our belief that D22 was the very first DMC Built in Ireland.

So where this car was built?

[tjd]

Not to speak for Rich W. who posted the image in the other thread. I think he was saying it could either be Pilot 22 or the Visioneering car.

Chris N. from P.J. Grady U.K. identifies it as D22, my opinion is the car pictured is actually the Visioneering car. To answer your question the Visioneering car was built in Fraser, Michigan a suburb of Detroit. D22 or Pilot 22 would have been built in Dunmurry N. Ireland.

[content22207]

I found something I do not understand....

The Visioneering car was a hand built one off show prop, just as Proto 1 was. Neither of them was ever intended to work out technical or production details. Their only job was to look like a DeLorean.

Pilot cars are built for technical and production line testing. Many/most of DMC's were not publicly presentable. Pilot cars are typically destroyed, either during testing or after production starts.

Bill Robertson
#5939

[Sidaries]

The Visioneering car was a hand built one off show prop, just as Proto 1 was. Neither of them was ever intended to work out technical or production details. Their only job was to look like a DeLorean.

Pilot cars are built for technical and production line testing. Many/most of DMC's were not publicly presentable. Pilot cars are typically destroyed, either during testing or after production starts.

Bill Robertson
#5939

Thanks, this helps a lot. One more question: Was this car driveable? I don't think so, but maybe...

[content22207]

According to the Detroit Free Press it was:

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s720x720/307687_254874404545489_166957630003834_801485_2057 173053_n.jpg

Bill Robertson
#5939

[Reaper1]

I think the camber differences between the front and rear on the car pictures is due to an optical illusion. The car is on a hill and articulation of the suspension will also cause a camber change.

Also of note, from what I know of DMC history, the height of the front suspension WAS supposed to be lower than what you see on stock production cars. It was raised to meet "upcoming" safety standards that never went into effect.

[content22207]

Also of note, from what I know of DMC history, the height of the front suspension WAS supposed to be lower than what you see on stock production cars. It was raised to meet "upcoming" safety standards that never went into effect.

Nonsense. The 1982 bumper changes (passenger cars only) dealt with impact resistance (they lowered impact resistance from 5 MPH to 2.5 MPH). That standard has not changed since. Look it up.

Federal front passenger car bumper heights were established in 1972, and have never changed since: 16-20 inches. Look it up. Lotus drawings in the Workshop Manual show the front bumper slightly more than 19" above the pavement -- clearly within federal requirements.

I think the front suspension height change is just more DMC mythology, like the sunshade and gas flap hood, that is only recently being challenged and proven incorrect.

My theory is that the front end was raised to facilitate distribution of the cars on American autoracks. If you've ever watched an autorack loaded/unloaded, that makes more sense than blaming it on federal requirements that did not exist then, and have never existed since.

Bill Robertson
#5939

[louielouie2000]

My theory is that the front end was raised to facilitate distribution of the cars on American autoracks. If you've ever watched an autorack loaded/unloaded, that makes more sense than blaming it on federal requirements that did not exist then, and have never existed since.

Bill Robertson
#5939

You're probably right. Most automotive production changes are to facilitate easier/cheaper production & delivery of vehicles. This is why some cars are so tough to work on in regards to access: cars are designed to be easy to assemble... not necessarily easy to repair afterwards. If you watch the youtube videos of the first DeLorean shipment, they have to put boards down to keep even the nose-high production DeLoreans from scraping their front spoilers on the loading ramps for the semi carriers:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUZfzZNbizs

We may have finally found the reason why production DeLoreans are so much more nose high than their prototype & preproduction counterparts!

[content22207]

Those British autoracks are *SO* different from American autoracks. Loading and unloading an American autorack is very different:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT7--Q2sy2E

Remember also that no other cars in this country had plastic front ends in 1981 -- metal front bumpers were still the industry standard. If you accidentally impact a metal bumper you aren't going to destroy the radiator, or even worse damage the underbody itself.

At some point in its early life #2508 was transported on a sling lift wrecker (that's all we had in the early 80's). The rock screen and radiator shroud were totally destroyed in the process (I found their remains under the hood). I suspect that also was the occasion for its metal channel radiator upgrade.

I grow wearing of the "bumper height" dogma being endlessly repeated as gospel, especially since a simple online search of the federal code itself reveals it to be false. Hopefully Nick Sutton, or someone else who was actually there, can give a definitive answer, as was recently done with the gas flap hoods. I will ask the POG's at DCS'12.

Bill Robertson
#5939

In another thread the possibility of headlight height was offered as a reason to raise the front end. This also does not stand up to online research. According the the NHTSA, "... the range of headlamp mounting height has been relatively consistent for decades. In adopting the industry consensus standard, NHTSA set the initial mounting height as required to be within the range of 24 to 54 inches measured to the center of the headlamp...." (http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/glare.html). Dimensional drawing on Page A:04:01 of the Workshop Manual shows the original Lotus headlight centerline height to be 24.5".

Bill Robertson
#5939


Federal front passenger car bumper heights were established in 1972, and have never changed since: 16-20 inches. Look it up. Lotus drawings in the Workshop Manual show the front bumper slightly more than 19" above the pavement -- clearly within federal requirements.

I incorrectly remembered 19" from an earlier measurement -- apologies.

I just enlarged the dimensional drawing on Page A:04:01 of the workshop manual 400%: lowest edge of the front bumper measures 16.75" above the lowest edge of the tires, which have flat spots drawn on them from the pavement -- still above NHTSA minimum.

Bill Robertson
#5939

[delornut]

Nonsense. The 1982 bumper changes (passenger cars only) dealt with impact resistance (they lowered impact resistance from 5 MPH to 2.5 MPH). That standard has not changed since. Look it up.

Federal front passenger car bumper heights were established in 1972, and have never changed since: 16-20 inches. Look it up. Lotus drawings in the Workshop Manual show the front bumper slightly more than 19" above the pavement -- clearly within federal requirements.

I think the front suspension height change is just more DMC mythology, like the sunshade and gas flap hood, that is only recently being challenged and proven incorrect.

My theory is that the front end was raised to facilitate distribution of the cars on American autoracks. If you've ever watched an autorack loaded/unloaded, that makes more sense than blaming it on federal requirements that did not exist then, and have never existed since.

Bill Robertson
#5939

You're right regarding the change from 5mph bumpers to 2.5 mph bumpers but this change took place for model year 1983 which was after DeLorean production ended. The 5 mph rule emcompassed more than just the bumper. It included reducing to minimal any damage to headlights, radiator and suspension in a 5mph frontal impact as well as 3mph corner impact. Simply saying as long as the bumper is between 16 and 20 inches in height the rule was met is naive. To say they raised the front suspension and disrupted the styling and handling of the car simply to make loading onto car carriers easier is also a bit naive. If the door handles came too close to the sides of the carrier do you think they'd have moved them to the roof? It's been 30 years and I wasn't involved in the government regulations affecting our Ford assembly plant but I remember that in the late 1970's we installed a couple of perfectly level floor areas where a percentage of our production was measured for bumper and headlight heights prior to shipment. It was a short lived thing but it took place around the time DeLoreans were being produced and about the time British Leyland raised the front suspension on the MG.

Bruce Benson

[content22207]

The original design height satisfied all regulations in effect, not only in 1981, but also in 1983 (and to the present day -- current headlight minimum is 22 inches to the centerline).

With all due respect, my theory has more merit than yours.

DeLorean owners cling hard to their dogma (witness the hue and cry when the ornamental origin of the louvers was finally verified), but there is absolutely no evidence to support raising the front end to satisfy regulatory minimums.

NHTSA links that disprove your theory:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/problems/studies/Bumper/Index.html
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/glare.html

Bill Robertson
#5939

[Ron]

It may be worth considering if State regulations came into play.
Ohio's regulations call for a 22 inch MAXIMUM bumper height (measured from the ground to bottom of bumper) for passenger cars.

[content22207]

Dimensional drawings on Page A:04:01 of the Workshop Manual put the top of the front bumper just under 21 inches.

Try again.

Bill Robertson
#5939

[Reaper1]

Good gracious! No need to flip a lid over this! The information I gained was from around 2001 or so when I first really started doing research online. There was a spring set being sold at that time to lower the front of the car and the whole regulation thing was their explanation as to why it was so high from the factory.

As far as no car having a plastic nose at that time...Corvette did! The Plymouth Turismo TC3 also did. I'm sure there were a few others.

I can also tell you for fact that there were several other Dodge products in the 80's that were shipped without the ground effects and such installed due to shipping hazards.

The shipping thing may have something to do with the stance, but I think in the end it might be several things that conspired to lift the front.

Now, can't we all just get along and love D's!? :cheers1:

[content22207]

I'm just waiting for someone to produce evidence of regulatory height minimums supposedly violated by the original design. Every regulation proffered thus far was satisfied by Lotus' original design height.

Raising the front end was detrimental to both handling and suspension wear. Obviously something went terribly wrong with initial distribution in the American market for the factory to do it.

Bill Robertson
#5939

Has Houston found anything in its archives to shed light on the reason for the increase?

Bill Robertson
#5939

[Ron]

Dimensional drawings on Page A:04:01 of the Workshop Manual put the top of the front bumper just under 21 inches.

Try again.

Bill Robertson
#5939
Well, I could see you posting that as a counter to my post except for a few things:

1. The drawing on A:01:04 does not put it there -- ?your? estimation does.
2. Your estimation is irrelevant because you estimated to the top instead of the bottom,
3. not to mention, some bumpers are not as tall as others. (A Caddy's comes to mind.)
4. I was contributing something useful by suggesting an angle not mentioned and
5. giving an example calling for a maximum (I even capitalized it for you!),
6. which complements YOUR theory!!!

If I was wanting to "Try", there was already quite a bit posted here -- let's not go there..
Now, can't we all just get along and love D's!? :cheers1:

[content22207]

I sincerely doubt the cause, once revealed, is going to be regulatory.

Every other piece of dogma that has been recently been disproven has had a simple explanation. I suspect front end height will too.

Bill Robertson
#5939

[Farrar]

Are there any photos of the inside of the Visioneering car's luggage area?

Farrar

[content22207]

5261

Bill Robertson
#5939

[Farrar]

Thanks for the photo, Bill. I was just curious to see if they had carpeted the entire area as on the prototype, or had the insert covering the donut spare tire. Looks like the latter.

Farrar

[Canon20DFan]

Certain people live for a discussion like this. They search out, revive, stimulate and provoke the most senseless discussions. They don't grow weary over misconceptions (however small or insignificant), they relish them. Every forum has a person that does this, just sit back and enjoy the show...

Good gracious! No need to flip a lid over this! The information I gained was from around 2001 or so when I first really started doing research online. There was a spring set being sold at that time to lower the front of the car and the whole regulation thing was their explanation as to why it was so high from the factory.

As far as no car having a plastic nose at that time...Corvette did! The Plymouth Turismo TC3 also did. I'm sure there were a few others.

I can also tell you for fact that there were several other Dodge products in the 80's that were shipped without the ground effects and such installed due to shipping hazards.

The shipping thing may have something to do with the stance, but I think in the end it might be several things that conspired to lift the front.

Now, can't we all just get along and love D's!? :cheers1:

[PlutonimicX]

Are there any photos of the inside of the Visioneering car's luggage area?

Farrar

http://www.pjgrady.co.uk//GenericContent.aspx?PageType=News&ShowContent=Visioneering.html There's a shot in here of the corner of the luggage area completed.

[content22207]

Certain people live for a discussion like this.

I just grow weary of DeLorean owners stating with firm certainty that the front end was raised because the original design violated bumper height standards, yet all evidence proves otherwise.

The sword cuts both ways: if DeLorean owners do not want anyone to state with firm certainty that JZD went to prison, or that these cars were built with drug money, then DeLorean owners must not behave similarly themselves Re: bumper or headlight heights.

Bill Robertson
#5939

[Farrar]

http://www.pjgrady.co.uk//GenericContent.aspx?PageType=News&ShowContent=Visioneering.html There's a shot in here of the corner of the luggage area completed.

Thanks! Fascinating that they would put such a delicate material close to the filler neck.

Farrar

[Sidaries]

I just grow weary of DeLorean owners stating with firm certainty that the front end was raised because the original design violated bumper height standards, yet all evidence proves otherwise.

I heard a little bit different thing.
It is about that the front end was raised because it seemed in 1980, than the actual bumper height standards will be modified and DMC raised the height and ordered the springs to be ok.
Later it came out, than the standard will not be active, but the DMC could not afford to buy 30000 new springs, so the taller ones was used in the cars.

[Canon20DFan]

Tagged and radio collared!

I just grow weary of DeLorean owners stating with firm certainty that the front end was raised because the original design violated bumper height standards, yet all evidence proves otherwise.

The sword cuts both ways: if DeLorean owners do not want anyone to state with firm certainty that JZD went to prison, or that these cars were built with drug money, then DeLorean owners must not behave similarly themselves Re: bumper or headlight heights.

Bill Robertson
#5939

[DMCH James]

Here's the rest of the luggage compartment as it was in 1998 when I photographed the car at Barrett-Jackson...

http://dmcnews.com/Resource/Prototype/luggage1.html

James



http://www.pjgrady.co.uk//GenericContent.aspx?PageType=News&ShowContent=Visioneering.html There's a shot in here of the corner of the luggage area completed.


5261

Bill Robertson
#5939


Thanks for the photo, Bill. I was just curious to see if they had carpeted the entire area as on the prototype, or had the insert covering the donut spare tire. Looks like the latter.

Farrar


Are there any photos of the inside of the Visioneering car's luggage area?

Farrar

[Farrar]

Here's the rest of the luggage compartment as it was in 1998 when I photographed the car at Barrett-Jackson...

Thanks, James! That's most helpful. :-)

Farrar

[vin6635]

Here's a picture of the Visioneering Delorean from the Facebook page. It's a very interesting read. The rims aren't the production rims, but make do's with hubcaps to look like the production wheels.

Here's a google maps street view shot of where this pic was taken. Front of the building hasn't changed much!

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=31985+visioneering&hl=en&ll=42.531184,-82.941134&spn=0.000032,0.022638&fb=1&gl=us&hq=31985+visioneering&cid=0,0,917043281063698861&t=h&z=16&vpsrc=0&layer=c&cbll=42.531115,-82.941196&panoid=0gZ3W5a8PNI6jOdaluF_lQ&cbp=12,312.06,,0,9.98

[cdmc12]

I've got a couple questions about the Visioneering car (and I suppose by extension some of the pilot cars as well)....

First, did those composite doors have fixed pull straps on them? They're there in most pictures I've seen of it, but they're coming from a different spot than where the production fixed pulls were placed, and I don't think I can see them wrapped around the usual door pulls on the bottom of the armrests....

Secondly, were the pre-production sliding windows supposed to be electric had the car gone into production with that design? I've long assumed that they were supposed to just be had operated, but now that I've thought about that, it seems very un-DeLorean like...

Thanks!

[Dangermouse]

Interesting story on the V-car in the Detroit Free Press

http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/mark-phelan/2015/02/26/delorean-auto-history-dmc/23888947/