Manntis

The Bricklin hydraulic system was hugely heavy and prone to leaking. Like most of the Bricklin, the door mechanisms wre grossly underengineered.

cosmicbang

"Grossly underengineered," LOL. Not all the problems were due to under-engineering, and compared to other cars of day, it wasn't so bad. After 30 years of engineering since they were built, most of those problems have been worked out by now.

Note that I said "air doors" not hydraulic. The air doors were planned for the next year model, and benefitting from ~30 years of development, are more reliable. The mechanisms are not that heavy and a vacuum air compressor is only a pound or two, although an electric compressor is heavier. Air doors only need a screwdriver to adjust the doors, unlike a DeLorean which requires two people to pre-tension the torsion bars to adjust twice a year.

Manntis

twice a year? news to me. A buddy of mine in Vancouver owned a DeLorean for 5 years and the doors never required adjusting.

I recall an automotive journalist (I think it was John Lamm) who had driven a press-loaner Bricklin in the rain to a dinner party. When he arrived, the jacket behind his seat was soaked. He discovered the feactory had forgot to install weatherstripping.

Malcolm Bricklin was the first to admit he knew nothing about cars, and rushed the Bricklin through critical phases of design.

cosmicbang

How much did he drive it and was it driven year-round? Some people adjust them twice a year or more, to account for effects of temperature variations on the assist cylinders. Five years seems like a long time for there not to be any aging effects in the assist cylinders or torsion bars, but it's definitely possible.And you think no DeLorean owner has ever gotten wet? LOL. Bricklin water leaks are notorious and there are many causes including the original hydraulic system bending the doors resulting in incomplete sealing and leaks. But they can be fixed, and the car "waterproofed." Forgetting to install weatherstripping is not necessarily "under-engineering" which illustrates my earlier point: there were also shortcomings in the production, assembly, quality-control, etc.Although Malcolm did not know anything about making cars, he did hire some very good engineers, who were then hampered by the constraints of his business decisions. Under the circumstances, it was a miracle any cars were built at all. Starting a car company is not for the faint of heart. It's interesting that John Z., for all his experience and expertise only lasted a little longer and built a few more cars. If the two of them had been able to work together (J.Z.D. had a non-compete clause that prevented it) things might have been different.

Manntis

JZD chose to build a company offering one model, in one colour, just as a recession hit and underpowered GTs weren't selling well.

The Bricklin has a great frame - but is missing certain things like a centre console, cigarette lighter, etc. The off-the-shelf components purchased from AMC, Dodge, and Ford were so-so even in their day, and the fibreglass tended to warp and crack quite easily.

XLR8

iTrader: (52)

Might as well give my comment on this ....

Personally I would spend the 1k or $1600 or whatever on making my car perform better.....Not to mention all the added weight this worthless mod of super bling is going to ad......... I guess I like the simple things.

One of the greatest saysings in automotive design is "form through function". And personally I think lambo doors would be pointless.

Again....just my .02

YnOhTnANaYrB

if its not broke dont fix it...what the heck is wrong with our doors...

cosmicbang

The absence of a lighter was intentional. (Smoking is bad for your health ) Later models would have had storage in the centre console and there is room in the dash for a glovebox. (Aftermarket consoles do have a storage compartment) Those should have been there from the beginning but as you say things were too rushed. The suspension components were very adequate in their day, coming from the Javelin/AMX. They delivered better handling than the Corvette, or other GM or Ford cars. The engines were American V-8's, for better or worse. On the other hand, the hornet shifter **** looked cheesy, (but speaking of cheesy, look in any RX-7 interior, ). They would have preferred using better components and designs, but costs and sourcing the components was always a roadblock. Malcolm had some conflicting objectives: he wanted a car to compete with Ferrari and Maserati, but he also wanted to sell it for $3,000. Very interesting,

In retrospect the bonded fibreglass/acrylic panels were a huge mistake because no one had ever before attempted to make such a thing. The production process had a high reject rate and was hampered by many things even for example the factory's loading dock doors being opened. The acrylic itself is very strong. It looks a lot better and has a shine and lustre that painted metal or fibreglass cannot match. Plus, same as with the stainless steel DeLorean, you don't have to worry about paint. JZD avoided many of Bricklin's problems, but encountered a few of his own and ultimately didn't do much better.

I'm not sure the profile of a 78-85 RX-7 would be right for gullwing doors, and as the Lamborghini scissors doors conversions become more common, there is less reason for installing them simply to be "different." IMHO it's better to put the effort into the engine or suspension.

mar3

iTrader: (8)

The hinges are all the weight you are adding....the doors are relatively the same....Manntis, the dash is not affected by the Decah kit...let's see, what else? Oh yes, the same argument could be made about a $1200 paint job that would also be worthless as far as performance goes...the VDC is for style points just like any wing on the rear of a 1st gen RX-7 that never sees 100 mph on a curve on a regular basis and that includes the 3 piece IMSA stuff...

Like I implied before, having finally seen the mod in person on an RX-7, albeit an almighty FD, it is sehr kuhl....

yeppers...

XLR8

iTrader: (52)

I'm not saying I don't want my car to look good...Looks definatly matter to a point. However, ALL areas of the suspension, brakes, engine, and drivetrain would be modified exactly the way I wanted before I would consider such a mod......Even then..I just don't like the idea.

I have a friend with a 330hp TII FB. The thing is amazing. It looks like crap.. Needs bodywork and paint...I guess the best thing about the exterior is his wheels. But I'll tell ya, most people sing a different tune about his car after they ride in it. It's not finished of course. He is starting on the body and paint this winter.

I guess its all about what matters to you as a car owner. Not everyone is that concernedwith having tons of power and not everyone cares about body kits and looks. I do beleive we all would have the ultimate all around package of looks and performance. But for many of us, that kind of funds in a car is not realistic...So ya do what you want with what ya got.

rotary emotions

Personally, I think looks are important. But the question is: what look do you want? If you decide to have a 100% stock, but therefor 100% perfect first gen, then looks are important to you aswell. I'm not using my car for shows, but neither for track use. So a gullwing door is as pointless as a huge wing or 400hp engine.
My goal is to have a car that is right as a package. It has to be nice enough to make people ask me what kind of car that is (RX-7's are VERY rare in Belgium, esp. Mariah ones) but it must also perform to give me thrill if the need is there. Yet I also use it for long distance trips once or twice a year.
Lambo doors just don't fit into such a package. I don't need them, and don't think they are right on a first gen.
Gullwing doors are just the same thing: I can't see the need of them.