For those interested in old cars.

[Coppercap]

27 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Are you sure?  That looks like it would have been Filton in the first flight, shadowed by the jet fighter for observation.

 

Concorde 002 took off from Filton, but landed at Fairford (see Metr0Land's previous post). The photo's definitely not Filton, or anywhere near either end of the Filton runway.  

Edited February 7, 2020 by Coppercap

[Coppercap]

On 04/02/2020 at 15:46, alastairq said:

 I also note what appears to be an electric lead running from the top of the lamp post, to that first floor window?  Free lecky, perhaps??   

 

TV aerial cable. you can see a kink in it where it goes over the front of the wall.

 

[boxbrownie]

12 minutes ago, Coppercap said:

 

Concorde 002 took off from Filton, but landed at Fairford (see Metr0Land's previous post). The photo's definitely not Filton, or anywhere near either end of the Filton runway.  

Quite correct, my mistake......landing......but not near London 

[Joseph_Pestell]

I wonder if we have enough owners of old cars here on RMweb to have a meet?

 

I would be happy to host in the field adjacent to my pub (near Hereford).

[Kingzance]

Just now, Joseph_Pestell said:

I wonder if we have enough owners of old cars here on RMweb to have a meet?

 

I would be happy to host in the field adjacent to my pub (near Hereford).

Son owns and runs a '78 MG Midget 1600cc, my m/cycle is 2000 vintage but all other wheeled transport is certainly of this millennium.

[Joseph_Pestell]

6 minutes ago, Kingzance said:

Son owns and runs a '78 MG Midget 1600cc, my m/cycle is 2000 vintage but all other wheeled transport is certainly of this millennium.

 

It's amazing how much cars have changed since 2000. Most car club events seem to use 1980 as a rough criterion of "old".

[stewartingram]

19 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

It's amazing how much cars have changed for the worse since 2000. Most car club events seem to use 1980 as a rough criterion of "old".

There I've corrected it for you.

 

Stewart

[Joseph_Pestell]

3 hours ago, stewartingram said:

There I've corrected it for you.

 

Stewart

 

Not everything worse. One can't complain about using so much less fuel.

 

But I could certainly do without all the senseless gadgets that we managed without for about 100 years.

[alastairq]

Hereford is a very long way in an open car with no heater or roof......this time of year...

[royaloak]

13 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Not everything worse. One can't complain about using so much less fuel.

 

But I could certainly do without all the senseless gadgets that we managed without for about 100 years.

Do modern cars use less fuel though?

 

While I will concede the exhaust emissions are better (depending how you measure them) I think modern cars use more fuel than similar cars did 20 years ago.

 

Highlighted similar before all the pedants start comparing apples with pears.

[Fat Controller]

13 minutes ago, royaloak said:

Do modern cars use less fuel though?

 

While I will concede the exhaust emissions are better (depending how you measure them) I think modern cars use more fuel than similar cars did 20 years ago.

 

Highlighted similar before all the pedants start comparing apples with pears.

Our 1967 vintage Vauxhall Viva HB 5-seater used to struggle to attain 30 mpg. Our last two, a Citroen Picasso, replaced by a Citroen Cactus, use nearly half that (averaging 50+ MPG). Since my very early days of driving, I have meticuously (some would say obsessively) recorded the MPG when filling the tank. Both Citroens are/were a damn sight more comfortable, as well.

[Joseph_Pestell]

33 minutes ago, royaloak said:

Do modern cars use less fuel though?

 

While I will concede the exhaust emissions are better (depending how you measure them) I think modern cars use more fuel than similar cars did 20 years ago.

 

Highlighted similar before all the pedants start comparing apples with pears.

 

OK. I will compare apples with apples. Or more exactly Qashqai with Qashqai.

 

My wife's first Qashqai (first generation 57 reg) would give around 53mpg with a 2.0L diesel.

 

Her current one (second generation 17 reg) will give around 62mpg. It's only got a 1.5 diesel now block but has better performance than the 2L. Our first trip with it, I was getting 65mpg while hacking down the autoroute last September at slightly more than the 130kph/80mph limit.

 

 

[royaloak]

41 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

Our 1967 vintage Vauxhall Viva HB 5-seater used to struggle to attain 30 mpg. Our last two, a Citroen Picasso, replaced by a Citroen Cactus, use nearly half that (averaging 50+ MPG). Since my very early days of driving, I have meticuously (some would say obsessively) recorded the MPG when filling the tank. Both Citroens are/were a damn sight more comfortable, as well.

Uh since when was 1967 20 years ago?

Edited February 7, 2020 by royaloak

[Fat Controller]

3 minutes ago, royaloak said:

Uh since when was 1967 so years ago?

40+ years ago. That was our first vehicle, acquired in 1979; subsequently, we've run several old Austins/ BMC, and Peugeot, continuing to record fuel consumption, repairs. services etc. The cars we have owned in the last 20 years have used half the fuel for a given distance, required less than half the time for servicing (gone are the days of 5000 mile/annual services), and are a lot more comfortable.

[royaloak]

8 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

OK. I will compare apples with apples. Or more exactly Qashqai with Qashqai.

 

My wife's first Qashqai (first generation 57 reg) would give around 53mpg with a 2.0L diesel.

 

Her current one (second generation 17 reg) will give around 62mpg. It's only got a 1.5 diesel now block but has better performance than the 2L. Our first trip with it, I was getting 65mpg while hacking down the autoroute last September at slightly more than the 130kph/80mph limit.

 

 

Too late, somebody beat you with the apples and pears.

 

And yet my 2003 BMW E46 Touring 2.0L diesel will also give a real world 62mpg on a run (when it gets the chance which isnt very often), my 1993 Peugeot 106 1.4 diesel would give a real world combined of 58mpg (was 64 when I was doing mostly motorway miles with it), although it wouldnt go up hills very well having a meagre 50hp when built, several had escaped or died in the intervening 27 years.

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, alastairq said:

Hereford is a very long way in an open car with no heater or roof......this time of year...

 

Well, I was not thinking of doing it right now! Late spring or summer was more in my mind. Not, of course, that it guarantees suitable weather for open top motoring.

[PhilJ W]

I have to concur the 'mistery car' is a Mk. II Cortina. What made it look odd was the shadow of the Greenline Routemaster falling across the front wing. 

Edited February 7, 2020 by PhilJ W

[RANGERS]

On the fuel consumption question, my 2002 Golf GTI diesel (the diesel version was still a GTI in those days, before the GTD badge appeared) had 150bhp and with 125k miles on the clock would regularly turn in 60-65mpg. My sons 2012 Audi A3 with only slightly less miles could barely muster 55 on a good day. He could get it down to under 40 with some over enthusiastic use of the right foot mind!

[alastairq]

I'm not sure old school diesels were as ecumenical as modern common rail diesels?

 

I can make a more or less direct comparison between old technology petrol, and the same, but modernised.

I used to have a rear engined Skoda Rapid. It had Skoda's 136 engine, running on a carburetor, and points ignition.

It regularly returned 30 - 33 mpgs. 

I also had a newer Skoda Felicia.  Although fwd, it, too, had the 136 engine. But it had electronic fuel injection, electronic ignition, and an ecu to control things. It regularly returned 50+ mpgs.

Car weights were similar.

The Rapid had the same cylinder head fitted, by me, as the Felicia, to take advantage of the later head improvements. 

 Better fuel consumption mainly down to the finer fuel and ignition control exercised by modern electronics.

 

Just wish I could do the same, cheaply, to my side valve Fords.....

 

[PhilJ W]

27 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 

 

Just wish I could do the same, cheaply, to my side valve Fords.....

 

There is a Ford Pop running around with Aquaplane head, electronic ignition, alternator and a turbocharger.

[alastairq]

8 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

There is a Ford Pop running around with Aquaplane head, electronic ignition, alternator and a turbocharger.

 

Mine has Aquaplane head, hall sensor ignition...and used to have a supercharger [twin carbs, AQ head, give same sort of power output as a supercharger...just differently.]

 

I have a supercharger for it [have two, actually]....and the engine still boasts the toothed bottom pulley fitted to it in the 1980's....one day, however...one day....

Fuelling is the side valves' biggest headache..hence why a supercharger [better than a turbo] works so darned well on them.

Multipoint EFI would mean almost ideal fueling at each point in the rev range...something no carburettor can manage.

 

An alternator really isn't an absolute essential.....my dynamo works just fine.....

[PhilJ W]

The one I mentioned used the turbocharger and alternator from a Harley-Davidson. It was in the USA though the car was RHD. Another mod it had was late model VW Beetle front wings incorporating the headlights. Despite being converted to 12V it still had the 6V starter motor. 

[Hobby]

9 hours ago, alastairq said:

I'm not sure old school diesels were as ecumenical as modern common rail diesels?

 

Once Direct Injection diesels came along the indirect iones day's were numbered as Di was definitely more economical than IDI. All this talk about economy and comparing different models and makes is accademic, often the difference between two similar engined models/makes is down to gearing rather than the engine.

 

My current Golf is a 2.0l diesel and according to Fuelly (much more accurate than "brim to brim" which is hit and miss) is doing 52.7mpg (over 25k miles), the car it replaced, also a Mk7 Golf but with the 1.6l diesel did 53.4mpg (over 39k miles). Both have done the same commute, same long distance holidays and same trips out and both have stop/start.. The difference is the gearing, both have 7 speed DSG 'boxes but the gearing in the 2.0l is much higher with the result that on long distance motorway work the 2.0l is much more economical, making up for it's shortcomings on the commute, though even then it gets pretty close...

[Rugd1022]

Another dose of Mini nostalgia - I posted a cropped version of this a while ago... a band called Ministry Of Sound (one of whom is Steve Priest who was in Sweet later on) with what is almost certainly a genuine Stewart & Ardern Morris Minisprint, taken sometime in '67...

 

 

Edited February 9, 2020 by Rugd1022

[russ p]

My maestro Efi has gone away to be restored not as bad i first thought. The drivers door has a hole on the inside at the back of it but my mate who is doing it says he can repair it using a bit from a dented one I have 

The bumper has a slot for a towbar which he can fill using plastic welding. 

It's scarey how little parts are now available not helped by a mass exodus of the owners club due to politics 

Mine needs the engine replacing which was the reason it came off the road in 2011,luckily I got two brand new ones off ebay for the unreliable price of thirty quid in 2013