For those interested in old cars.

[chriswright03]

12 hours ago, steve1 said:

 

It's funny in a way. 50 years ago I would have thought "What a great idea." Now I'm more inclined to think "Why mess about with a car like that?"

 

How we change with age...

 

steve

I agree with you Steve.  These days I would prefer something to be kept as original as is practicable without being stupid like insisting on cross ply tyres of course.  I suspect because I took lessons in an imp (I actually learnt to drive in my own Ford Anglia Estate that my Mum run until I passed my test) that I have a soft spot for one. 

 

SIL is 'far; younger than you or I Steve and loves doing stuff that others would find difficult nay impossible.  I guess he just loves the challenge.

 

In fact while you are about saw this yesterday which I sort of think you would like.  https://www.itv.com/hub/the-car-years/2a6359a0006  Show is well cheesy but I am sure you will love the Saab 99 Turbo.

[boxbrownie]

16 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

I was offered an Imp Husky several years ago. The problem was the engine was shot. At the time I had a Bedford Rascal and I thought that the engine from that would fit a treat. The problem was with such a high reving engine a extra gear would be useful. The Rascal was basically a re-badged Suzuki Carry, indeed some of them left the Luton assembly plant badged as Suzuki's.

One of our suppliers was based in London and the “delivery girl” used to whizz all over the place in a Rascal, we lost count of the number of times she put it on its side in London, the suspension really did not like whizzing and sharp corners, luckily in London there were always willing chaps happy to right the little thing onto its wheels for her, and off she’d whizz again.......I swear she loved trying too hard 

[runs as required]

I thought you were talking of the Multiplia when you mentioned "aerodynamics of a brick".

I used to enjoy renting them when I had a job that took me to Tuscany/Lazio a lot. I admit to my legs aways feeling vulnerable, the Abarth bolt on looks like the crash protection on a 91 being driven backwards.

[alastairq]

I think it's a radiator & oily cooler?

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, runs as required said:

I thought you were talking of the Multiplia when you mentioned "aerodynamics of a brick".

I used to enjoy renting them when I had a job that took me to Tuscany/Lazio a lot. I admit to my legs aways feeling vulnerable, the Abarth bolt on looks like the crash protection on a 91 being driven backwards.

Much the same as the Rascal/Carry, you arrive at the accident first. The Multipla is quite streamlined compared to the SJ10 which is very much brick shaped. Talking of Multiplas, pictures have appeared on Farcebook of van and pick-up versions. It appears that these were home market only though.

Edited October 8, 2019 by PhilJ W

[APOLLO]

23 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

I was offered an Imp Husky several years ago. The problem was the engine was shot. At the time I had a Bedford Rascal and I thought that the engine from that would fit a treat. The problem was with such a high reving engine a extra gear would be useful. The Rascal was basically a re-badged Suzuki Carry, indeed some of them left the Luton assembly plant badged as Suzuki's.

 

 I remember British Gas bought Rascal Vans for the gas fitters quite a few years ago. Several brand new ones had been delivered to Warrington depot and the big bosses and fitters were looking around them as I walked past. One lad was a very rotund fellow. "You'll need two of those vans Bob, one for each buttock" I quipped - I duly got a mouth full back and some angry stares from the bosses.

 

Happy days !!!!

 

Brit15

[alastairq]

Nowt wrong with the Supercarry [or rather , the one I had]...I'm by no means short or skinny....and I found them remarkably comfortable to drive.

I also found them remarkably stable as far as roadholding was concerned...and I didn't plod along with the traffic, either...

One just had to remember it was rear wheel drive, and adapt accordingly.

They certainly weren't top heavy [unless loaded incorrectly]...especially with their quite heavy, full chassis.....

[peanuts]

On 07/10/2019 at 18:00, PhilJ W said:

IIRC the Suzuki Whizzkid was a 'Kie' car limited to 360 cc, also it was only two cylinders. The engine from the Carry/Rascal was 970 cc and was configured in much the same way as the Imp engine, canted over to the right and of similar external dimensions. 

always wondered if one of the small PSA slant fours would drop onto the imp transaxle  being from the same stable 

[alastairq]

Nice idea...but the Imp pre-dates PSA's involvement by some years.....

However [lightness of engine being key to handling and roadholding]....there is little to prevent adapters being made? [Aside from the fact that transverse FWD engines tend not to have sufficient in the way of spigots for gearbox input shafts....a problem when fitting the Skoda 136 motors into rear engined Estelles & Rapids....[being later engines...all the way up to Fabia range].....crank ends have to be bored a bit...[Or, one could keep the rear engine 136 gubbins,ie short engine....and fit Felicia , etc heads , ign, and fueling.].

Strange [but predictable] how VAG [VW, Audi, SEAT] had nothing like the 136 engine in their corporate range, for lightness of weight.....and how VAG engineers ignored Skoda [proper] engineers' warnings of not to bother enlarging cubic capacity of the 136....whereupon , as a result [1.4 Fabia] they had to design & fit a  crankcase brace inside......massive alloy casting , it is..useful though, for tuning the 1300cc 136 engine, as it braces up the main bearings nicely, ta!

[PhilJ W]

When Fords introduced the Kent engine (105E onwards) it had three crankshaft bearings but when it was developed into the Crossflow version it became five bearings. This meant making a longer engine with wider cylinder spacing. However when they introduced the Fiesta, a shorter engine was needed so they reverted to three bearings. They retained the same 80mm bore throughout.

[peanuts]

3 hours ago, alastairq said:

Nice idea...but the Imp pre-dates PSA's involvement by some years.....

However [lightness of engine being key to handling and roadholding]....there is little to prevent adapters being made? [Aside from the fact that transverse FWD engines tend not to have sufficient in the way of spigots for gearbox input shafts....a problem when fitting the Skoda 136 motors into rear engined Estelles & Rapids....[being later engines...all the way up to Fabia range].....crank ends have to be bored a bit...[Or, one could keep the rear engine 136 gubbins,ie short engine....and fit Felicia , etc heads , ign, and fueling.].

Strange [but predictable] how VAG [VW, Audi, SEAT] had nothing like the 136 engine in their corporate range, for lightness of weight.....and how VAG engineers ignored Skoda [proper] engineers' warnings of not to bother enlarging cubic capacity of the 136....whereupon , as a result [1.4 Fabia] they had to design & fit a  crankcase brace inside......massive alloy casting , it is..useful though, for tuning the 1300cc 136 engine, as it braces up the main bearings nicely, ta!

ah the 136  lots of fun side ways fun with a set of correctly set up pair of twin webbers quite a few of the local hoy hatch guys got a shock as they lost away from the lights 

[alastairq]

Even better with a Bogg Bros manifold and bike carbs!

Edited October 10, 2019 by alastairq
Google thought it knew better

[PatB]

14 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

When Fords introduced the Kent engine (105E onwards) it had three crankshaft bearings but when it was developed into the Crossflow version it became five bearings. This meant making a longer engine with wider cylinder spacing. However when they introduced the Fiesta, a shorter engine was needed so they reverted to three bearings. They retained the same 80mm bore throughout.

Didn't seem to do it any harm. I once wound a Mk2 Fiesta 950 up to 60mph in 2nd, and only backed off because Mr Hertz might have got sniffy if I'd returned his engine in 2 carrier bags. My, what a little revver.

[boxbrownie]

19 hours ago, peanuts said:

always wondered if one of the small PSA slant fours would drop onto the imp transaxle  being from the same stable 

Yes but having a PSA derived engine doesn’t carry the same bragging rights as being from Coventry Climax......we’ll gloss over the fork lift truck connection though 

[peanuts]

2 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

Yes but having a PSA derived engine doesn’t carry the same bragging rights as being from Coventry Climax......we’ll gloss over the fork lift truck connection though 

or fire engine pumps 

[MJI]

22 hours ago, peanuts said:

always wondered if one of the small PSA slant fours would drop onto the imp transaxle  being from the same stable 

 

I think the Rootes engines were better anyway.

 

The Climax was a revving thing, very light, lighter than anything PSA. Last saw one as a fire pump engine.

 

As to medium engines, the Rootes 1600 was a better engine than the nearest equivalent Simca lump.

 

 

[chriswright03]

Been a while since I have posted any oldies found here in the TRNC so found this today.  Well knew it was there as we had seen it before but took the effort to stop and grab a picture today.  Hope my effort was worth it.  Looks like someone has tried to put a sunroof in it and failed miserably.

 

[runs as required]

Any idea why an old Maltese plate in N Cyprus ?

[PhilJ W]

Its not a Maltese plate. All current Maltese plates are three letters and three numbers. The British style plates used in Malta up until the 1970's were number only, no letter M. 

[chriswright03]

Here they only have two letters and three numbers.  So as it is a very old car I suspect in it's day they had one letter.  For each letter combination there can only be 999 vehicles of course so the letters change when they reach that rather than a set date.  Newest I have seen are on RR at the moment.

[runs as required]

15 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

Its not a Maltese plate. All current Maltese plates are three letters and three numbers. The British style plates used in Malta up until the 1970's were number only, no letter M. 

Apologies - I remember now  - in 1964 we owned a new Renault 4  No: 40386 in Malta with an M plate on the left beside it at the rear.  At the front it was merely  number only.

 

The firm rented some decrepit old crocks from a very dodgy Hertz concessionaire. They were lean backwards rear window era Fords Anglias or locally assembled Heralds but clearly not as old to relate to the M 932  'Tudor' Cortina above  

dh

[Bulleidboy100]

My old 1971 Mini Clubman Estate - GYT648J is now on the front cover of Mini Magazine (Nov.2019) - suitably restored.

 

IMG_0475 by Barry Clayton, on Flickr

Edited October 13, 2019 by Bulleidboy100

[runs as required]

Congrats on a fine piece of half timbered conservation.

Being a Bulleidboy you'll have been inspired by his famous 1940s Southern half timbered Buffet car 

 

[Oldddudders]

11 hours ago, runs as required said:

Congrats on a fine piece of half timbered conservation.

Being a Bulleidboy you'll have been inspired by his famous 1940s Southern half timbered Buffet car 

 

Circa 1930s, I see from the caption. Only a full decade out. You can't get much later in the 1940s than Spring 1949!

[runs as required]

1 hour ago, Oldddudders said:

Circa 1930s, I see from the caption. Only a full decade out. You can't get much later in the 1940s than Spring 1949!

Ha! Excellent attention to detail and spotting the printing error.

Those Bulleid Tavern cars described in the link to the Science Museum, like you say, were not actually completed until 1949 so half of the exterior is early BR blood and custard, the other Bulleid's spec. for half timbering , stucco and brickwork!   I confess I never saw/rode them, but I understood the illustration was of the mock Tudor pub interior.

Shall we all vote for one on the the present 00 wish list?