Not the "Prince of Darkness"?

I’m sure that most of us have heard the late Mr. Lucas described as The Prince of Darkness because his electrical/electronic components were allegedly so prone to failure. Well, I had a nice conversation this afternoon with a man and woman who parked their 1974 MG next to my car, and–based on what the man said–that old meme just might be wrong.

He went through all of the repairs that they’ve done over the years, including more exhaust systems than he could count, fixing the rotted-out rocker panels, repainting it, installing a Weber carb and a Pertronix ignition, and replacing the shocks and the head gasket, but he said nothing about anything of an electrical nature. So, I asked him about the Lucas electrics, and he claimed that he’s never had to replace anything except the headlights.

So, perhaps that old meme is an exaggeration.

2 Likes

Local land rover restoration shop says the Lucas jokes are outdated, better than the cheap replicas coming from China.

Three position switches. On, off, and flicker. Have to admit I never had electrical issues, just all mechanical. Had I known in 1966 what I know now, thenpoo4 car might have had a chance.

1 Like

Dim, Flicker, -Off is how some owners described the lights.Looked good.though.

Lucas provided a CD ignition system for a Brit formula1 car in the early 60s. Reliability and speed brought Graham Hill a driver’s championship. So Lucas knew HOW to build reliability.

But if you had a Mini, the Lucas distributor was behind an open grill. When the cars were built, they had a rubber sleeve over it. It was hard to deal with and tended to tear so most people tossed it. And then their Minis quit running when it rained!

I think another part of the problem was positive grounds. Not a normal thing for Americans.

1 Like

No idea where the Morris dist was. No idea about SU carbs and they needed oil and a bolt in the top. Like I said, had I known the minimum or if we had internet then, it might have at least started most of the time.

Chrysler products had positive ground electrical systems into the early 50’s.

2 Likes

Brit cars had ‘em til the death!

Which leads me on a tangent:

For long-term storage of a vehicle (an Accord to be precise), over 4 months, which battery cable should I disconnect and lash away from the posts?

For that short a time I’d just use a maintainer if you have an outlet. Otherwise the negative will disconnect everything but will lose all memory.

1 Like

In the past I’d disconnect the positive lead, and just have to enter the security code on the car in my Honda’s owners manual portfolio.

On most (all?) modern vehicles, unhook the negative 1st and connect the negative last, less chance of a spark and or damage to the electrical system…

Plus if your wrench slips while turning the neg bolt/nut and hits metal or whatever, no harm no foul, but if turning the pos bolt/nut with the neg still attached and you hit metal etc, then you can spark, short out or blow a fuse etc etc etc…

3 Likes

Always disconnect the negative cable first. But it is the only one you need to disconnect.

But the battery will still discharge over 4 months. It is just what lead acid batteries do.

2 Likes

Ozzy Osbourne (RIP) was probably more commonly known as the Prince of Darkness, from his start with Black Sabbath… :laughing:

1 Like

It is a generational thing… Lucas came before Ozzy… But they were both British… Coincidence? I think not! :rofl:

3 Likes

Just in the case my car’s horn decides to sound repeatedly at random while stowed at my friends place while I’m away.

The electrical system was tampered with, unbeknownst to the dealer I bought it from. I found a mysterious blue lego block sized switch hanging down behind the trim in front of the drivers(mine) left knee.

Two mechs I took it to said they weren’t sure, but it looked to be from an after-market alarm kit.

Also, besides the horns, no setting for the door locks prevents me from rudely locking out passengers trying to get into the front passenger seat or back row.

Yeah, issues!

Hi, Mustang guy. I have a question for my favorite suspension engineer. I was watching an old ad on you tube for 1950’s Chrysler products. The ad attributed Chrysler’s superior handling partially to their use of “oriflow” shock absorbers. I’ve done quite a bit of research, and I can’t find a definitive explanation of what made oriflow shocks different from others. Can you supply one? Thanks.

Yup… Some basics.. a shock absorber is filled with oil and a piston is pushed and pulled through that oil with the bounce of the car. The oil must pass through the piston to do this so you need a hole. That hole typically has little coil spring loaded valves or flat round spring steel disks to restrict the oil flow to build pressure which builds force which dampens out the body float and the wheel dribble when you hit a pothole.

The Oriflow shock did not have those spring parts. They had precision drilled orifices chosen to provide the proper “control”. Oil flow through an orifice produces very little pressure drop (low dampening force) at low flows and a very high pressure drop (high dampening force) at high flows. This makes the car very floaty for a soft ride but when a tire hits a pothole, the much greater oil restriction provides more pressure drop and more load to dampen the tire bounce. So the result is; the car is floaty and hard at the same time. It made a cheaper shock and Chrysler sold it as a feature.

Modern shocks create damping loads exactly opposite of a simple orifice. They create lots of body motion dampening loads while not creating as high a load as a simple orifice. That takes more parts but it gives modern cars a stable body without the harsh pound through potholes.

Thank you. You’ve answered the burning question of the day!

1 Like

Either one or just hook up a battery maintenance charger.