Talk:Vauxhall Wyvern

Chassis

General Motors bought Holdens, a coachbuilder, and Holden continued to make their bodies. GM's American (strictly speaking Canadian - Imperial Preference) vehicles sold in Australia were never identical to to the North American counterpart. (Maybe biggest Buicks and Cadillacs an exception fully imported). I know this because living in a market that took North American ckd packs all 1930s GM cars in Australia look like close relatives, sometimes very distant cousins, but not sibling-twins of ours.

Monocoque construction required massive equipment and special expertise so long after Vauxhall UK had converted to monocoque the Australian cars retained a chassis on which they could build utes and tourers and they could mix North American cars with chassis on the same lines. Anyway those Vauxhalls may look the same but they are not. See the accompanying images.

Please note this is from the top of my head. Am I right? Eddaido (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• 
  1947 Vauxhall 14 (home market car)
• 
  (Model J) 1946
  note Holden's divided windscreen and roof

Wyvern

The British made Wyvern was of monocoque construction and was just a refreshed bulgy version of the all monocoque Ten - Eighteen range from before the war. Eddaido (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Dubonnet suspension?

Any Wyvern suspension experts care to chime in? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I make no claim to expertise on Wyverns or suspension, but I remember entering a couple of lines on it - at least I think it might have been me - in the Opel Kadett entry. But further and better particulars would indeed be welcome. Regards Charles01 (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really interesting. It's the first claim I've seen for pre-war use of Dubonnet (its prime time, after all) for Vauxhall / Opel. I'm presuming here (from de:Dubonnet-Federung / English Google translation) that these are all leading links, but that this is not the reason for classing them as Dubonnet anyway, it's the "synchromous" behaviour (the comparable natural frequencies of front and read) and the springing and damping techniques to achieve it, not the mechanical layout of which way the links point. That's the opposite of the claims on the UK talk page. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)