A forum for Bongo fans and owners
https://igmaynard.co.uk/bongo/forum/
Interesting to know that. Now I realise just how misleading it is when we refer to the Bongo engine as a 'reworked Ford Ranger' engine. In reality of course it matters little what it is called - Ford engine, Mazda engine w.h.y. - as lawyers and legal dodges could make it OK to call it anything that give it market appeal. What matters is who designed and built it, and to what standards and with what quality control, by which workforce etc. In the age of global brands and manufacturing, it is rarely if ever safe to assume a brand name is a guarantee of good design, quality or performance. Hey hoscanner wrote:The Ford Ranger (except for the US market model) is just a rebadged Mazda B2500 made in Thailand, just as the Freda is just a rebadged Bongo made in Japan.
None of the bits used are "Ford" as such, it's just that Ford have a (big) share in Mazda and badge some Mazda as Fords in markets where they think it will sell more metal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_B-Se ... rnational)
Yep - the correct answer is that the Ranger engine is just a reworked Mazda engine.mikeonb4c wrote: On which score, I'm v. curious about Renaults involvement with Nissan........
The worst ever engine fitted to Renault Master vans was the 3 litre - an engine "borrowed" from Nissan as a stop gap until the new 2.5 litre Renault engine was ready.mikeonb4c wrote:Historically, for me:
Nissan = durable, reliable long lasting stuff
Renault = attractive stuff, well priced, not same build/engineering durability
Can I assume any more that Nissan retains its historically legendary durability?
Hmmm. I'm not so sure though that you'd get so many agreeing (at least historically) that:scanner wrote:Nissan reliability is frequently as mythical as "german" reliability.
...at least not amongst the minicab drivers who bought Nissan BluebirdsNissan reliability is no better than Renault reliablility.
mikeonb4c wrote:Nissan reliability is no better than Renault reliablility.
Sorry scanner - it was a 'pretend quote', intended to emphasise where the debate really lay (i.e. that Renault had bought Nissan as opposed to BMW buying them)scanner wrote:mikeonb4c wrote:Nissan reliability is no better than Renault reliablility.
Where does/did that come from?
Trouble is Mike, they haven't made Bluebirds for agesmikeonb4c wrote: ...at least not amongst the minicab drivers who bought Nissan Bluebirds
I also remember 120Y Violets that rusted faster than a Lancia Beta.francophile1947 wrote:Trouble is Mike, they haven't made Bluebirds for agesmikeonb4c wrote: ...at least not amongst the minicab drivers who bought Nissan Bluebirds
It's interesting to note that even Honda are having reliability problems nowadays - something to to with a great design by the engineers, but built down to the accountants budget, using much cheaper components that they would have before the recession
The Arna was however not an economic success, and production ceased after only four years, most likely due to the bizarre fact that the Arna exhibited the worst qualities of each of its parents. While customers would expect an Italian-Japanese vehicle to feature Italian styling and lithe driving dynamics coupled to robust Japanese mechanical and electronic systems, the idiosyncratic Arna was the complete reverse. It carried on some electrical issues[1] and tempestuous mechanicals common to Alfa Romeo married to a Nissan body of questionable build and frumpy styling, with insipid handling common to Japanese cars of the time.[2] This mis-match of technical strengths served to kill the sales of the Arna very rapidly. The Arna is listed as number 26 in the Richard Porter book, "Crap Cars".
Well at least Fiat could blame it on cheap Russian steel - what was Datsun's excuse?scanner wrote:I also remember 120Y Violets that rusted faster than a Lancia Beta.