Re:nothing to flap about

My 135 doesnt have the flaps on the engine cover grille. As it's a 2003 car Im assuming this is normal as it also only has one horn rather than a pair. I wouldnt have thought twice about it if it wasnt for the flaps being present on my 2002 115.

Though being able to top up the oil and water is easier without having to hold the right hand flap out of the way Im conscious the absence of a cover on the left leaves the ECU looking quite exposed.

Has anyone been concerned enough to make a cover for the top of the ECU or perhaps to retro fit a pair of original flaps ?

They were deleted as a cost save (horn and rear covers) "project drive" they ate not required imho.

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

You intend to sell off the 115, don’t you? Why not just snaffle the flaps from that for your 135?

When I had the tf I retrofitted the flaps, horn, those black plastic things which perch on the door jamb just above the door lock striking plate & other items pusillanimously removed parts. As Steve says non of these are imperatives buy in my opinion (that again!) they gave the car a completeness of the f, which it still retains.
When I had the tf my favourite scrappy was glad to get cash for scratty bits of plastic, he saw little value in them, things have changed a bit. He & others within his discipline are now seeing interest increase in our cars & are determined to have their pound of flash*
"Nearly new only 34k miles"
M
*intentional.

Cobber wrote:

You intend to sell off the 115, don’t you? Why not just snaffle the flaps from that for your 135?

The trouble with having two is difficult to part with one; I know that feeling. it's a bit like taking nice trainers of one of your children to give them to the other. I realise the 115 has been earmarked for disposal but if a buyer knows their cars, the removal of the flaps is obvious.
Thinks "I wonder if he's borrowed a piston as well"!

I have the flaps on my 02 TF but the lift up one was in my opinion designed by an idiot, when open it obstructs your view and if you inadvertently shut the boot with it open CRUNCH. I have seen a thread (and checked) that there are mountings to swap it around to open the other way, one day I will get around to doing it and then waste 20m the following week trying to lift the wrong side!

I changed mine over to open in the more logical manner some while ago yet found myself dragging it the old way the other day, even though I have label written in red to remind me.

deepfat wrote:

I have the flaps on my 02 TF but the lift up one was in my opinion designed by an idiot, when open it obstructs your view and if you inadvertently shut the boot with it open CRUNCH. I have seen a thread (and checked) that there are mountings to swap it around to open the other way, one day I will get around to doing it and then waste 20m the following week trying to lift the wrong side!

Nothing idiotic about the original design………quite cunning really……….by mounting it the way they did, ensures damage and therefore it stimulates spare part sales!

I have a 2004 TF 135. I have retrofitted the dual horns as well as the plastic covers over the engine. The cover on the right hand side sort of contacts with the boot lid bolt and cracks a bit over time. Maybe they are not strictly necessary, but I like them.

In regard to the door post finishers, what exactly is their purpose? Also, if you retrofit them, do you need to drill holes in the post for the rivets that fix them into place? I have seen these types of finishers on other convertibles, so I think they must be more than just cosmetic.

Other 'deleted' items from Project Drive include the front bonnet light, rear boot mesh pocket, wheel arch finishers and owners manual case. There are probably a few more small items as well. I think they also cut some corners when it came to painting / rustproofing, what what I have read.

You are correct. "Project Drive" was a last ditch effort to keep manufacturing costs down, as far a rust proofing, etc, at a lot of processes were dropped due to cost, I saw this first hand, I was a Control Engineer for Rover for 16 years covering the 3 paintshops, in 2000 I was told O was a BMW employee and I had to move to Cowley, I refused the offer and went to work for a systems integrator retuning to "MGR" then ran by the phoenix 4 and was horrified the way that corners were being cut to make maximum profits from each vehicle, the dropping of hydrogas spheres was a commercial not an engineering decision Dunlop would not drop their costs, it was shame I watched decline first hand.

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

I never realised that why the hydrogas was dropped. Presumably then if it had continued into the TF there would have been a choice of standard hydrogas or the uprated system from the 160 Trophy.
I guess thats also why all TFs at first got the same springs and shocks across the range, as it would have been more expensive carrying 2 sets of parts.

If they needed to cut costs they would’ve been better off giving the bean counters the arse than cheapscating the product.
A race to the bottom is never a race you want to win………everyone but bastard bean counters understands that!