"tapzz" (tapzz)
04/28/2014 at 13:52 • Filed to: pathe, bmc, hindustan ambassador
3
12|
"tapzz" (tapzz)
04/28/2014 at 13:52 • Filed to: pathe, bmc, hindustan ambassador | 3
| 12 |
Why, you flog it for 20000 miles straight down the German Autobahn at Vmax, of course.
The Pathé commentary speaks excitedly of testing until destruction, but... well, just see:
It must have worked, though: you can still get that Morris Oxford as a brand spanking new Hindustan Ambassador (if not with a BMC 'A' series mill)
V8Demon - Prefers Autos for drag racing. Fite me!
> tapzz
04/28/2014 at 14:34 |
|
84 octane. 40 MPG's for the smaller engined cars. 28 for the larger. Why have we not progressed further in 60 years?!?!
BaconSandwich is tasty.
> V8Demon - Prefers Autos for drag racing. Fite me!
04/28/2014 at 15:12 |
|
There's likely a few reasons for that. From what I understand the Imperial gallon is different from the U.S. gallon 40 MPG (Imperial gallons) is only about 33 MPG (US gallons). Also, regulations for safety equipment, increasing car size, air conditioning, crumple zones, etc. results in a much heavier car. Curb weight of a 1948 Morris Minor was only ~1,700 lbs. A modern Ford Fiesta comes in almost 600 lbs heavier.
|
tapzz
> BaconSandwich is tasty.
04/28/2014 at 16:00 |
|
Yup, 40 mpg imperial is about 33 mpg (US). Maybe, as a species, we should have a global standard for this kind of stuff (*cough* 7l/100km *cough*)
But, yes, safety and creature comforts took their toll. Also, while those lads were happy on the Autobahn back then, modern Americans would probably not be happy with the raging speed and mind bending acceleration of an Austin A40 or Morris Minor.
Still, Ford sells a Fiesta here with an ecoboost triple that does 4.2l/100km (54 mpg US), does 0-100 km (0-60 miles) in less than 10 sec, and is petrol engined as well...
|
BaconSandwich is tasty.
> tapzz
04/28/2014 at 16:56 |
|
I'm a huge fan of that 3-cylinder ecoboost. I wish Ford offered it as a crate engine. Go ahead and call me sick/twisted, but I want to put one into a classic Mustang. It has a similar amount of power to the V6 that was offered in the original Mustang.
jdrgoat - Ponticrack?
> V8Demon - Prefers Autos for drag racing. Fite me!
04/29/2014 at 02:36 |
|
In addition to the reasons listed above, there's emissions requirements now that weren't there 60 years ago. Compared to those little British cars (or any car of that era), a modern car puts out relatively zero emissions.
If permitted to be lazy on emissions and safety requirements, we could have lighter cars, with smaller leaner burning engines, no infotainment or luxury (luxury in this case includes power windows and locks, power steering, heck even ABS) and "cozy" interior volume, that would probably break 60 mpg, especially with modern transmissions.
|
jdrgoat - Ponticrack?
> tapzz
04/29/2014 at 02:36 |
|
Oh look! a 53-55 Corvette!
|
tapzz
> jdrgoat - Ponticrack?
04/29/2014 at 06:18 |
|
Well spotted! After seeing what looked like three bazillion beetles, the occasional 'ponton' Mercedes, and a single BMW Isetta, I didn't think it'd be worth trying to look out for others...
|
tapzz
> jdrgoat - Ponticrack?
04/29/2014 at 06:28 |
|
It's not going to happen, but I wish someone would try and see exactly how simple and light you can make a car and meet modern requirements. For one, I'd happily lose all those infotainment and luxury features, and see whether you can meet safety requirements by well designed seats, safety cages and multi-point seatbelts- like a rally car. Maybe emissions could be a matter of lean burn, and just having very small engines- though you probably won't be able to escape fuel injection and a 3 way catalytic converter...
|
jdrgoat - Ponticrack?
> tapzz
04/29/2014 at 18:36 |
|
I also agree that I would love to see it, and it would be awesome to see a car built with safety implemented like a modern race car. Foregoing the luxuries is also something that would be cool to see.
Fuel injection and catalytic converters are all good and no drawbacks, in my book. Wider usable power band due to fuel injection, which is helped even more by variable valve timing, and the next step is variable valve lift and then completely doing away with camshafts. Modern cats only do two things, finsh burning the unburnt fuel in the exhaust, and adding a little bit of cost. Neither of those things are negative for power or fuel economy unless you count the few pounds that they add. Modern cats are good.
Lean burn actually increases NOx output, and thus hurts emissions. It can make for better fuel economy when used properly, but it isn't used because of the higher combustion temps that result and the NOx that results from that.
The VW XL-1 is the only modern example of a car that shows what can be done for fuel economy that I can think of. And it's awesome, and I love the compromises and engineered solutions to everything. But it's not ready for the masses because too many people would complain about it being tiny, slow, having crank windows...
|
jdrgoat - Ponticrack?
> tapzz
04/29/2014 at 18:37 |
|
For some reason that one just popped out at me. I wasn't even looking for anything I would recognize in the background, haha.
|
tapzz
> jdrgoat - Ponticrack?
04/29/2014 at 19:12 |
|
Yup- the XL-1 is indeed the closest thing to what I had in mind- except it'd be great if something like that were aimed at the lowest price/running costs. Like a modern 2CV or a better Tata Nano.
|
jdrgoat - Ponticrack?
> tapzz
04/29/2014 at 20:33 |
|
I remember rumors from not that long ago of the XL-1 drivetrain in the VW Up!, and that would be fantastic.