The collapse of Norton Motorcycles

Raphi said:
My engines MKI and MKII worked respectively work very well with cat and Lambda sensors. It’s in my opinion just a question of the correct mapping! If the “good” mapping is meeting MOT-standards is another question. I doubt it otherwise the bikes would not have been delivered by the factory with the “bad” mappings...
Click to expand...

Never had any problem with MOTs on my late 2012 Mk1 961 - no emissions / noise level tests ever conducted. Fitted the louder look-alike pipes at 500 miles and bike continues to run well with 4,000 miles on the clock. As far as I know it was re-mapped during its last factory service at 1,500 miles.
 
BritTwit said:
Article also mentions John Menard, owner of MCT.
I remember after SG bought the rights to Dreer's prototypes, he tasked Menard's company to redesign the engine into an easier to assemble unit, including the conversion to fuel injection from carbs.
I didn't know that the engines were supplied assembled to Norton.
MCT had a two page FAX agreement with SG.
If true, that is Hilarious!
I wonder when Menard actually realized who/what he was dealing with?
Incredible.
Click to expand...

I remember reading that the MCT work collapsed.
I met someone a couple of years back who was visiting several Midlands engineering companies to get quotes for parts for a new very low production bike. In most, he said they had to take the first 30/60 minutes explaining they were NOT from Norton, as many had not been paid for previous work. I hope they have all put in claims now.
 
Arrogant and egotistical were my words for the entire Norton factory within months after receiving mine.
800 bikes?? Is that fact? If so, I am elated and giddy to own mine. These bikes are now a long term investment. Still living mine for the moment.
 
MCT did not develop the engine, they productionised an existing design as the article outlines.

The engine for the 961SE was already specified when Norton approached MCT. ‘This is a retro motorcycle, so it wasn’t a clean-sheet design. It’s an engine that Norton started in its history but never finished,’ Lee said. ‘So in this case, our job is to apply best practice to the details of each component as it was originally designed; in other words, refine the prototype into something that can be mass produced at a price.
 
Well with the known assembly flaws of the 961 engine. This is a embarrassment to MCT. While all along Norton employees were getting the blame / credit.
 
kommando said:
MCT did not develop the engine, they productionised an existing design as the article outlines.

The engine for the 961SE was already specified when Norton approached MCT. ‘This is a retro motorcycle, so it wasn’t a clean-sheet design. It’s an engine that Norton started in its history but never finished,’ Lee said. ‘So in this case, our job is to apply best practice to the details of each component as it was originally designed; in other words, refine the prototype into something that can be mass produced at a price.
Click to expand...

I think SG had in the past stated that MCT helped Norton to redesign some components to make the engine easier to assemble.
I assume MCT did the FCR to EFI conversion as well.

I'm still curious:
Why the decision to use Jenvey throttle bodies instead of a Keihin, Bosch fuel injection system?
Was this an MCT "refinement" decision or strictly based on British content, or cost?
 
Voodooo said:
Well with the known assembly flaws of the 961 engine. This is a embarrassment to MCT. While all along Norton employees were getting the blame / credit.
Click to expand...

Also the imprecise synchronization between the crankshaft and balancer shaft that Richard Coote and Bushman found.
I wonder if this was a supplier QC problem.
Also, was MCT responsible for finding suppliers for the components that went into the assembled motors, or did Norton handle those contracts.
If MCT was responsible for the suppliers, didn't they think to check the Crank/Balance synchronization before assembling them into motors?
 
BritTwit said:
Also the imprecise synchronization between the crankshaft and balancer shaft that Richard Coote and Bushman found.
I wonder if this was a supplier QC problem.
Also, was MCT responsible for finding suppliers for the components that went into the assembled motors, or did Norton handle those contracts.
If MCT was responsible for the suppliers, didn't they think to check the Crank/Balance synchronization before assembling them into motors?
Click to expand...
Exactly. This in my opinion is a bad mark to MCT creditably.
 
I think MCT are more than capable. My guess is that they had their hands tied with regards to parts suppliers and price per unit and not even being paid for units they had made, etc, etc.

I also thought they only assembled them early on as Norton brought engine assembly in house. Anyone remember when this was?
 
I think
Fast Eddie said:
I think MCT are more than capable. My guess is that they had their hands tied with regards to parts suppliers and price per unit and not even being paid for units they had made, etc, etc.

I also thought they only assembled them early on as Norton brought engine assembly in house. Anyone remember when this was?
Click to expand...
I think the first 200 SEs were with MCT built engines. I visited the Donnington Park site in March 2012 and partly assembled bikes with engines were awaiting final assembly then.
 
What MCT did was limited by what Norton firstly asked them to do and then by how much of their invoices they got paid.

SG would have not agreed to get them to do much, so limited exactly what they could do, and invoice paying was not much of a strong point either :eek:.

That the arrangement was limited to a single page contract was in SG's favour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top