For those interested in old cars.

[MJI]

1 hour ago, BernardTPM said:

I'd go for the Hillman estate; pretty good layout carrier and an unusual classic.

 

The Avenger (if larger engine)

[MrWolf]

3 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

That would be a V4, probably the worst engine ever made by Fords.

 

Yet Saab built it and stuck it in the 95 & 96 where it worked fine, Ford Germany put their version in the Taunus, where it also performed well.

I still believe that the Essex V6 was a better lump than the Cologne though.

That Transit probably has the Dagenham version of the V4, add that to the thousand rust traps, you can pretty much guarantee that it's long gone.

[MrWolf]

The HA Viva, because it's the oldest car there, or the SAAB, because I'm an artist you know....

[PhilJ W]

1 minute ago, MrWolf said:

 

Yet Saab built it and stuck it in the 95 & 96 where it worked fine, Ford Germany put their version in the Taunus, where it also performed well.

I still believe that the Essex V6 was a better lump than the Cologne though.

That Transit probably has the Dagenham version of the V4, add that to the thousand rust traps, you can pretty much guarantee that it's long gone.

The German and British V4's were two entirely different engines. Saab used the German V4 which was the better of the two engines. 

[MrWolf]

1 minute ago, PhilJ W said:

The German and British V4's were two entirely different engines. Saab used the German V4 which was the better of the two engines. 

 

Exactly. It makes no sense to have done that. The inline engines used in the Escort were used universally. Until the V4, the only really duff small engine they had built was the 1340 I was glad that the Consul Classic I once owned was a 1500.

I'm of course ignoring Ford's persistence in using a sidevalve engine right up to 1962 when rivals had ditched them by 1948.

[alastairq]

1 hour ago, MrWolf said:

I'm of course ignoring Ford's persistence in using a sidevalve engine right up to 1962 when rivals had ditched them by 1948.

 In practice, the Ford sidevalve engine compared very well with the rival OHV motors.

There are one or two direct comparison articles around, I cannot lay my mouse on them as yet.

We have to remember that the Austin & Morris equivalents of the early 1950's were not as well developed as they became in the late 1950's. Same with Standards and others. When compared to the 1200cc VW aircooled motor, the Ford won hands down in the output stakes.

But, as with everything Ford, the production costs won over all the others. Plus, the sidevalve wasn't just used in cars, either.

The engine itself was quite a light motor, which helped. Even today, whereas I can just about lift by hand a Ford sidevalve motor, I have no chance with my BMC OHV engine.

Plus, the sidevalve [both 10HP and 100E] motors were very well respected for being 'strong' engines. hence their popularity with the less-well-heeled end of every form of motorsport.

What is ignored today by those who are in love with bhp figures [did they used to scan the back pages of WhatCar when they were small?]...is that the Ford engine wasn't about bhp..it was all about torque.

Since in normal use [none of the bruhahhah] bhp really is meaningless, unless it can all be used on a regular basis [the first lorry one comes across see's an end to that?}  Whereas torque gets used and felt, all the time.

The one thing that let the Ford small car range down was the 3 speed gearbox. I suspect the US part of the company had a lot to say about that? Seeing as 3 speed gearboxes were as common as muck in the US? Again, a production cost thing...a 3 speed box being a lot cheaper [and smaller] to make than a 4 [or 8, or 10, or however many gears modern gearboxes have? How does one drive on normal roads with such a choice? Eeeny Meeny Miney Moe, etc???}

 

Thinking of torque, does anyone remember how good the Mini was at overtaking in 3rd or top gear? Yet useless if trying to emulate Carlos Fandango, and scream the engine's head off?

Or the 997{?} cc 105E Ford OHV engines, with steel bottom ends? Screaming steelies? The 1200cc version never quite had the 105E's strength...

[MrWolf]

Admittedly, Ford had good reason for continuing the sidevalve for purely economic reasons, having created the first £100 car around the sidevalve engine. I've driven both the Model Y and the 100E Prefect and they will just slog along without complaint, even up the steepest hill. The 107E is a little more refined with its ohv motor, but quite a heavy car compared to the 105E. 

There was such a confusion of seemingly competing models at Ford's in the late 50s and early 60s that it ended up costing them. I can understand the 100E taking sales from the microcar market, but once the Mini came out, creating the 100E Popular replacing the upright model seems to have been a stopgap.

 

The gearbox as you say was something of a weak point. I had to remind myself constantly that where you will normally find first gear is actually reverse. Not much fun.

I'm also firmly in the torque camp, you can have all the revs you want, but if you can't put them onto the road, it's just noise. My old Buick had 445 ft/lb of torque, or two Range Rover's worth, it would just pull and pull until you ran out of revs and the ribbon speedometer was bouncing on the end stop, something over 125mph.

[steve1]

1 hour ago, MrWolf said:

The HA Viva, because it's the oldest car there, or the SAAB, because I'm an artist you know....

 

And the relevance of that remark abut Saabs is what?

 

steve

[boxbrownie]

2 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

That would be a V4, probably the worst engine ever made by Fords.

Errr…..by the Germans please 

 

Well designed at first and then abandoned and left to us, then they had their own……

Edited July 22, 2021 by boxbrownie

[BernardTPM]

3 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

That would be a V4, probably the worst engine ever made by Fords.

Not necesarily. It might have the 2.5 V6 (note the V6 badge). I photographed one like that back in 1987. They were already very rare* by then.

 

* apart from hearses, etc.

[PhilJ W]

The line up was,  Zephyr no grill, 2 litre V4. Zephyr with grill and single headlamps 2.5 litre V6 and Zodiac with grill and double headlamps with the 3 litre V6.

[boxbrownie]

5 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

The line up was,  Zephyr no grill, 2 litre V4. Zephyr with grill and single headlamps 2.5 litre V6 and Zodiac with grill and double headlamps with the 3 litre V6.

We always called the Zodiacs* the aircraft carriers….for obvious reasons 

 

*they were the only ones ever in the MR car park 

[BernardTPM]

11 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

The line up was,  Zephyr no grill, 2 litre V4. Zephyr with grill and single headlamps 2.5 litre V6 and Zodiac with grill and double headlamps with the 3 litre V6.

No, that's a common misconception. The grille was a later de luxe version added to the 1968 range. The 'no grille' version was available in both V4 and V6 versions. The V6 is shown in this road test. Apart from the small badge on the RH front of the bonnet the two would look much the same.

[Rugd1022]

9 hours ago, Kickstart said:

No sign of anything in the loom to connect that random switch to.

Hopefully the hunting idle is just the idle control valve being a bit dirty.

All the best

 

Katy

 

Some of the switches and relays found in the parts stash which I'll be cleaning up, I'm not sure exactly what the relays are yet but I'll probably keep them just in case....

 

 

These two Magnetti Marelli parts are a bit dusty but came in a box, unused, not sure what they're for yet....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MJI]

2 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

No, that's a common misconception. The grille was a later de luxe version added to the 1968 range. The 'no grille' version was available in both V4 and V6 versions. The V6 is shown in this road test. Apart from the small badge on the RH front of the bonnet the two would look much the same.

My dad bought one to tow a boat and it was very unreliable.

 

Less power than my old Rootes1600 and less torque and power than my current 2.5l Diesel.

 

My last petrol was 100cc bigger. 80bhp more and just reliable.

[Dunsignalling]

20 minutes ago, MJI said:

My dad bought one to tow a boat and it was very unreliable.

 

Less power than my old Rootes1600 and less torque and power than my current 2.5l Diesel.

 

My last petrol was 100cc bigger. 80bhp more and just reliable.

Highly unwise to take a Mk.IV Zephyr/Zodiac anywhere near a salt-laden atmosphere, they rotted quite quickly enough without such encouragement.

 

I even remember the mechanic who lived next door reporting with some relish (he wasn't a Ford fan) that he'd had to do a bit of welding on an Executive to get it through its first MoT test.  

 

John

[Oldddudders]

ISTR the Mk IV Z-car turning circle was something of an embarrassment in multi-storey car parks. 

[PhilJ W]

The successors to the Mk. IV's were far better. I hankered after the Consul GT, no frills and a breathed on 3 litre V6.

[MJI]

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Highly unwise to take a Mk.IV Zephyr/Zodiac anywhere near a salt-laden atmosphere, they rotted quite quickly enough without such encouragement.

 

I even remember the mechanic who lived next door reporting with some relish (he wasn't a Ford fan) that he'd had to do a bit of welding on an Executive to get it through its first MoT test.  

 

John

 

It was big engined and cheap.

 

Engine kept blowing head gaskets.

 

Rear calipers were poor. this was around 76 or 77.

 

I have driven newer Fords and found them not as good as similar GM cars, like my old Carlton or Omegas.

 

My last Omega was about 13 years old, no rust, bores like new, got written off by a car in front having a wheel explode.

 

I took heads off as ported.

[MrWolf]

10 hours ago, steve1 said:

 

And the relevance of that remark abut Saabs is what?

 

steve

 

They always seemed to be driven by artists, designers and architects. A good friend of mine had two when we were at art college,. Nearly killed himself in the first one, roped me in to do a leadsled conversion on the second. I really liked how they were made. A proper old school car with proper engineering at a time when cars had become just plain boring.

 

[Kickstart]

4 hours ago, Rugd1022 said:

 

Some of the switches and relays found in the parts stash which I'll be cleaning up, I'm not sure exactly what the relays are yet but I'll probably keep them just in case....

 

 

These two Magnetti Marelli parts are a bit dusty but came in a box, unused, not sure what they're for yet....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Presume the 2 units are MAP sensors.

 

Switches look normal for the Biturbo series, but a bit dirty.

 

Relays look like generic ones rather than specific ones. But be careful. The relays used on the Maserati had a different pin out (pins 30 and 86 reversed) to the common relays

 

All the best

 

Katy

[alastairq]

I'd like a SAAB 96, please. Don't care if it's a 2 stroke or a V4....First came to my enthusiastic attention in the 1960's, Glossy adverts in Road & Track magazine...Lovely!

Also, don't care that they're FWD either...

[MrWolf]

I remember there being quite a few around when I was at junior school, as I said, they were an interesting design and despite some only being a few years old, they stood out. It wasn't until I found a 1959 Castrol yearbook that I realised what a successful rally car they had been, one picture in particular stuck in my mind of one leaping a hump in a dirt road.

[Rugd1022]

Something a bit different - I'm told it's a 1930 / 31 Crossley-Burney Streamliner....

 

 

 

[boxbrownie]

14 hours ago, Rugd1022 said:

 

Some of the switches and relays found in the parts stash which I'll be cleaning up, I'm not sure exactly what the relays are yet but I'll probably keep them just in case....

 

 

These two Magnetti Marelli parts are a bit dusty but came in a box, unused, not sure what they're for yet....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look like vacuum or pressure switches….they have kindly stamped the 250kpa limit on them for you.

 

Being Italian they could either suck or blow 

 

 

Edited July 23, 2021 by boxbrownie