A sight rarely seen, and there's a reason why

"Cé hé sin" (michael-m-mouse) 07/18/2016 at 14:49 • Filed to: Morris, Oxford, Diesel, Wolseley, Borg Warner 35

1

18

A Morris Oxford is a thing you quite often see at classic car events (well, I do. You, maybe not so much), but there’s something unusual about this one.

The clue is above the number plate.

Yes, it’s a diesel.

I thought it might be a conversion with something like a Perkins 4.108 but no, it had a BMC 1.5 B series diesel with 40 bhp. Yes, forty. This was a fairly heavy car for the early 1960s so performance was not just slow, it would hardly stir the speedometer. Vmax of 66 mph, 0 to 60 in 39 sec and if you felt that a spot of drag racing was in order, quarter mile in 26 sec. You didn’t need even this much go? You could, I’m told, get it with a BW 35 automatic which would have looked like this:

Yes, it’s basically the same car but with posh Wolseley name and posh reversing lights.

MultiplaOrgasms > Cé hé sin 07/18/2016 at 15:08

0

Is there really such a thing as a car slower than a 1960s Benz 190D?

BvdV - The Dutch Engineer > Cé hé sin 07/18/2016 at 15:10

1

Would one with the diesel and automatic be overtaken by growing grass?

. . > Cé hé sin 07/18/2016 at 15:31

0

Still faster than my Fiat. :D

jimz > Cé hé sin 07/18/2016 at 15:44

1

0 to 60 in 39 sec

O_O

and some people have the nerve to call a 1.0 Ecoboost Fiesta “slow.”

Cé hé sin > . . 07/18/2016 at 15:48

0

Surprisingly, this is true. The 126 is claimed to do o to 100 kmh in about 46s.

Cé hé sin > jimz 07/18/2016 at 15:58

0

Indeed.

My local Ford dealer would sell me a 65 bhp non-turbo Ecoboost if I felt so inclined.

. . > Cé hé sin 07/18/2016 at 16:08

1

Yup. And for the 600cc the claimed figure is 54s.

jimz > Cé hé sin 07/18/2016 at 16:34

0

I drove one in a Figo. it was... leisurely.

samssun > Cé hé sin 07/18/2016 at 16:39

0

Please explain “non-turbo” “Ecoboost”.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > Cé hé sin 07/18/2016 at 17:22

0

If I ever lived over there, I’d want to get an old Wolseley and then as a joke, act like I’m some kind of baller... and I would say “but are the reversing lights on your car posh ?”

Cé hé sin > samssun 07/18/2016 at 17:26

0

Actually, looking at the e-brochure, it’s just called a 1.0. Same engine, less turbo.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > Cé hé sin 07/18/2016 at 17:27

0

I think that’s still faster than a pre-1970 Citroen 2cv... which has a 0-60 time of... infinite...

Cé hé sin > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 07/18/2016 at 17:27

0

Actually, the posh thing was having reversing lights at all! Compare the rear light clusters.

Cé hé sin > MultiplaOrgasms 07/18/2016 at 17:28

0

Fiat 126?

2CV?

Cé hé sin > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 07/18/2016 at 17:30

1

As does this, or any other truck if used in the EU!

MultiplaOrgasms > Cé hé sin 07/18/2016 at 18:05

1

You’re thinking the wrong way. It’s easy to name something powered by wind and cheese. How many compareable cars of the same era are slower is the interesting question.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > Cé hé sin 07/18/2016 at 18:55

1

The other one has a reversing light too... just tacked on down below.

I’m already imagining how Posh I would feel with Integrated Reverse Lights with the extra reflector... would probably celebrate by getting myself a velvet tux...

jimz > samssun 07/18/2016 at 20:46

0

the Fox 1.0 3-banger is available worldwide as a turbocharged Ecoboost, and outside of north america as a normally aspirated engine. same engine, just one doesn’t have the whistling snail.