For those interested in old cars.

[alastairq]

Obviously not 'work-experience' slaves in the Lucas advert.....They're not wearing short trousers!

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, doilum said:

It was of course obligatory for Escort owners to fit a pair of each mounted two up, two down like the works cars.

About forty years ago we had a new senior manager start  at work at it didn't take long for us to deduct that he was a right pillock. Not long after he started he passed the driving test and then went out and purchased a second hand 1100cc Mk.III Escort. He then proceeded to tart up the Escort with alloy wheels, wide arches and all the other boy racer paraphernalia. He then came into the office and complained that he couldn't get the back wheels to spin. As quick as a flash (and keeping as straight a face as possible) I suggested he take it back to the dealer and complain. Once he left the office my colleagues were rolled up with laughter. He did take it back as well and the dealer had the car in for a day and said that they could find nothing wrong with it but charged him £20 and put thirty miles on the clock.

[Dunsignalling]

Just met an original Mini in sporty trim coming up out of Honiton at a spirited lick as I was coming in from the Smeatharpe end, and similarly enjoying the near absence of traffic this afternoon myself.  

 

It was going quickly enough to create that "glued down" impression as it negotiated the irregular road surface. 

 

Nothing these days seems quite to do that....

[Rugd1022]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

Just met an original Mini in sporty trim coming up out of Honiton at a spirited lick as I was coming in from the Smeatharpe end, and similarly enjoying the near absence of traffic this afternoon myself.  

 

It was going quickly enough to create that "glued down" impression as it negotiated the irregular road surface. 

 

Nothing these days seems quite to do that....

 

My Cooper definitely rides and handles better with the 'hi-lo' kit fitted, I should have done it ages ago.

 

More Mini froth...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sidecar Racer]

 No info on when or where . neither the Rover or Jag show up on DVLA site

before you all rush off to look .  😎

 

 

[Rugd1022]

11 hours ago, Sidecar Racer said:

 No info on when or where . neither the Rover or Jag show up on DVLA site

before you all rush off to look .  😎

 

 

 

The P5B Coupe has a Central London issued reg' number so very likely came from Henlys, and judging by the b&w tones of the image it'll be Silver Birch over Admiralty Blue, Silver Birch over Burnt Grey, Silver Birch over Bourdeaux Red or Silver Birch over Arden Green. I dare say the first owner was probably a retired colonel type or one of the local villains...!

[Kickstart]

On 10/08/2024 at 19:45, GrumpyPenguin said:

Love the Mini.

 

However, a really pedantic tester could possibly have failed it (unless lighting regs' are not retrospective.)

 

Not sure, but I was told the only retrospective requirement that was put in place was a rear view mirror

 

All the best

 

Katy

[alastairq]

2 hours ago, Kickstart said:

 

Not sure, but I was told the only retrospective requirement that was put in place was a rear view mirror

 

All the best

 

Katy

Don't forget, screenwash?

 

That became retrospective,  if one had, or rather, required, windscreen wipers.

 

[If one had a folding or opening windscreen, neither were a lawful requirement.]

 

When I drove London Traaansport buses, which were mainly RT deckers, because of their date of making, they only were required to have one brake light, which was in the same panel as the rear number plate [on the offside.....{By Lieu, if one has brake lights both sides, and one fails, make sure the working one is the off side one].

 

When I drove 'em [1972-74] LT had condescended to fit two tail marker lamps.....but kept only the one brake light.

Still, one only had the one dipped headlight [working]...on the near side......One only got the two headlights lit, on full beam.

 

Not surprising really, when one considers that the 'default' headlight system, in Lieu,  was what we know as 'full' or 'main' beam headlights....which, in Lieu, must be capable of being 'dipped' so as not to dazzle oncoming road users. Not, the other way around!! [If one cares to look?}

 

I do wish folk today would cease to 'thank' me by flashing their main beam headlights, ten feet in front of my eyeballs!

A simple wave would do, or better still, do nothing.....I don't mind, honest...it isn't as if I'm looking for 'thanks,', or 'likes,' or whatever.

[GrumpyPenguin]

1 hour ago, alastairq said:

Still, one only had the one dipped headlight [working]...on the near side......One only got the two headlights lit, on full beam.

My first car (a Morris 8 Series E) had a similar system, full beam - both headlamps on, dipped beam - offside off & the nearside stayed on & mechanically dipped using a solenoid.

 

It also had an openimng windscreen & one brakelight on the offside.

[Dunsignalling]

My first car, a Ford Pop, I made up from two I paid a fiver each for in 1968.

 

One was from 1952, the other, one of the last, from 1959.

 

Both came with wipers, or rather, one each, but neither had washers, and I don't remember needing to fit one (!) to get an MoT.

Edited August 12 by Dunsignalling

[Rugd1022]

Whilst looking at classic Minis for sale this afternoon I came across this Austin A35 van in 'BR livery'...

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/156353337481?itmmeta=01J56H5RQ4FB6N1JKJXXZZ68TG&hash=item2467629889:g:vF4AAOSwhu1muc-F&amdata=enc%3AAQAJAAAA4IGlUAWZBx1gbu%2FRwYCIK9w%2BmNbEz5Uj5J6vu6VkqW%2FjDMubwryOUmH%2FTKJGeZ0YwUYvTv84hCzOWA5yiE0qy9pxyLDssaG4rEgJtwvk5yPN9eyaMsif0FOL%2FYCGr9cElAxdCPxwOhwxX6LZ%2FXt02UY9%2FBLtFrnN67e9J1%2F883aqmejbiA3YeBvKUn95YfyxGi4otbFf2d6s%2FFc3%2BXI72oMEc5vupGB8P%2BRDBYquIfmKdnJG2jf0cCpy5z8ywdTrWRuJQZOrKq%2BsMKtvgzPlEK2bC8vzVQV9A0abPcMv%2F56l|tkp%3ABk9SR9SLl9GpZA

[monkeysarefun]

Expats down under.

 

It wasnt  all just Mad Max and Muscle cars!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[KeithMacdonald]

On 11/08/2024 at 22:46, Sidecar Racer said:

 No info on when or where . neither the Rover or Jag show up on DVLA site

before you all rush off to look .  😎

 

 

 

Where's Arfer Daley?

[KeithMacdonald]

But why?

 

[alastairq]

20 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

But why?

 

Warmer than the original to ride in, and keeps the rain off...

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, KeithMacdonald said:

But why?

 

Potholes?

[monkeysarefun]

A couple more - despite our weather we had no homegrown convertibles*, we had to import them from the sunny  UK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Oops, there was the Goggomobile Dart.

 

 

Edited August 14 by monkeysarefun

[Hobby]

9 hours ago, alastairq said:

Warmer than the original to ride in, and keeps the rain off...

 

8 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

Potholes?

 

Nope, more simple than that, so he can see over the top of all those SUVs... ;)

[alastairq]

34 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

 

Nope, more simple than that, so he can see over the top of all those SUVs... ;)

 I think it is high time we auldfahrts campaigned to make it compulsory for all new SUVs to have windows cut into their sides, fronts and rears so that when they pull up alongside one at junctions [because they are too lazy to actually wait slightly behind]....one can still see beyond them, for traffic.

[Oldddudders]

I saw an MGC GT yesterday. ISTR Motor Sport tested the soft-top version when new, with the headline "When is a sports car not a sports car? When it's an MGC!" That 3-litre lump evidently upset the handling significantly, they felt. 

[alastairq]

To be fair...speaking as an inexperienced autobodgah, regarding that mini on NHS steroids.....I see such things as ideal methods of saving the planet!

 

After all, there must be loads of small cars that have failed their annual tests due to summat being wrong with their lower parts?

Yet, nothing 'wrong' with their interiors, or upper bodies?

 

In the same vein, those smaller, ex-Japanese [usually] off road/on road 4x4 capable  vehicles more often than not fail their annual tests due to body corrosion [especially within 30 cm of body mounts]....yet possess proper, stout, capable chassis!

SO, by marrying the two together one gives an new lease of life to what would normally be reduced to scrap [if only to encourage folk to buy new electric polluters]...with all the pollution that 'scrapping' cars brings...?

 

Could get another 25 years of life out of the underpinnings.....Seeing as the kitcar market doesn't seem to have much currently to sit on old Jap 4x4 chassis?  {AFAIK????}

I know a postman who use to re-cycle VW beetle chassis under all sorts of different, but unwanted or potentially, scrap, bodyshells...MGB GT, Reliant Scimitar, etc etc...He would complain abut the flak he received from the so-called aficionados in this regard, but, hey, would they rather see those scrap bodyshells...er...scrapped? Or, put to some good use for a while longer?

 

I know which I'd prefer....Does that make me oblivious to the sensibilities of others?  Or what?

[PatB]

51 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

I saw an MGC GT yesterday. ISTR Motor Sport tested the soft-top version when new, with the headline "When is a sports car not a sports car? When it's an MGC!" That 3-litre lump evidently upset the handling significantly, they felt. 

I've heard an alternative version, which is rather kinder to the C. Allegedly, at the press launch, quite a number of the journos took off as if they were driving Bs, arrived at the first corner going far too fast, and terrified themselves trying to wrestle it round with the power off. As a result the car got a somewhat exaggerated reputation as an understeering blancmange, which then stuck with it forever more.

[alastairq]

I may be wrong, but....[I have little or no experience with Bs] isn't the C's torsion bar front suspension actually a better deal than the original B's front suspension?

 

Wouldn't a B be better off with the C's front suspension setup?

 

Does the C's front suspension weigh a lot less, adn wear a lot less, than the B's?

 

Doesn't a C fall into the C1 licence category for small lorries......?   :)

 

Personally I'm a fan of sixes, in preference to V8's of any description.....Probably due to being a titewad pensioneer who always tries to do owt wi' nowt, automotively speaking.

[Hobby]

1 minute ago, alastairq said:

Doesn't a C fall into the C1 licence category for small lorries......? 

 

Isn't that a description of a 1920s Bentley? ;)

[PatB]

2 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

Isn't that a description of a 1920s Bentley? ;)

Only if you're a rival manufacturer of equally lovely but significantly more fragile machinery.