For those interested in old cars.

[PhilJ W]

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

Hence the devotion of UK manufacturers to sluggish long-stroke engine design, which minimised piston area for any given capacity.

The French had a similar system with the same result. Hence the Citroen 2CV and the Renault 5CV. CV=Cheval Vapeur.

[alastairq]

4 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

Hence the devotion of UK manufacturers to sluggish long-stroke engine design, which minimised piston area for any given capacity.

In deed. Not just the YuK either...many other countries taxed according to various HP rules as well.

Nowt wrong with sidevalve engines...really when it comes down to it...

However, whilst the RAC HP tax prevailed, the UK [for the more general end of the market] relied on torque rather than bhp.

 

Similar today, where newer cars that qualify for zero VED have compromises  regarding engine size, power output, etc.

 

Interestingly [or not, depending on bent?]....whilst Ford stuck with the sidevalve concept long after other [lesser?] makers had gone over to OHV, Ford had little incentive to alter their small engines to OHV [especially whilst manufacturing costs were so low?]....whilst other makers struggled to get their little OHV engines to make decent power outputs [1950's, for example]...since the Ford 100 E sidevalve engine produced as much, if not more, than any of its OHV direct competitors.

 

The problem with the long stroke sidevalve engines of the pre & immediate post war era was one of piston speeds.

Luckily, the sidevalve layout naturally restricted breathing abilities, so it was difficult to get a small sidevalve to rev much beyond the 4000 rpm mark...built-in governor, if you like.

Ford had a system for their customers of exchange engines....done cheaply...so the expected 20,000 mile or so life span of an over -revved ford sidevalve didn't matter to the new owners.

In fact, albeit for very different faults, much the same attitude prevails today with new cars?

The driving technique really had to be, drop it into top gear ASAP & let the engine slog....

 

The fact of being able to 'get about' mattered more than being able to overtake lorries.

Better than walking, cycling, or riding a motorbike everywhere, I suppose?

Mind, bus service were better in those days.....a ''service'' rather than a commercial undertaking.

 

Seems we are in need of going full circle again, methinks?

[alastairq]

deleted due to my systems errors

Edited October 17, 2023 by alastairq

[alastairq]

Deleted as above....it's those silly videos in the bottom right hand corner messing my system about...

Edited October 17, 2023 by alastairq

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, alastairq said:

Similar today, where newer cars that qualify for zero VED have compromises  regarding engine size, power output, etc.

 

Think it was more about getting creative for the testing process.

The only zero VED petrol car I've had was a Smart and its 71bhp 1.0l engine didn't feel compromised in any way.

Economy was only on a par with the Jazz which made > 120gm of emissions albeit at a more believable test.

 

[alastairq]

17 minutes ago, 30801 said:

 

Think it was more about getting creative for the testing process.

The only zero VED petrol car I've had was a Smart and its 71bhp 1.0l engine didn't feel compromised in any way.

Economy was only on a par with the Jazz which made > 120gm of emissions albeit at a more believable test.

 

 Just bought a 2016 Suzuki Celerio for my ex...[they stopped doing them a year later..coincided with recent Govt changes to VED for  previous low emissions cars...my advice, avoid buying post 2017 cars, if intending to drive on a shoestring?]

  Zero rated VED, and almost 70 mpgs to boot.

Dearest daughter [I don't have a less expensive daughter!] has also just got herself a zero-rated VED Hyundry  Eye-dirty....a diseasel, as it happens, courtesy of another driver's no claims bonus.

Cheaper to drive the  15 miles cross country each way commute than to go by train [not quite door-to-door at her end, either]..and quicker than using the bus too...[and less smelly!]

Around the 60 bhp mark, from the Suzuki...Double that of the Ford 100E, with over twice the frugality in fuel. Sloggz a bit , 4 up with loads of luggage, however...but marched up Garrowby Hill at 50 mph regardless.

[I've been up Garrowby Hill at 4 mph flat out, 2000 rpms.....modern overtakers are a ruddy nuisance, as cannot afford to let anyone get in our way, in case we have to stop, and cannot re-start....Modern  drivers forget this important principle.]

They did hate it when I got to the top, and belted off at 50 mph or more once more.  Modern drivers have had life far to easy because of modern technology, I concluded.

Edited October 17, 2023 by alastairq

[johnlambert]

@alastairq

 

I suppose it depends upon the requirements of the design as to whether or not there is anything wrong with sidevalve engines. 

 

Just for fun I found the specs for various small, four-cylinder engines from the 1950s; the 803cc A-series, the 1172 Ford sidevalve, the 803cc Standard 8 and the 1192cc Volkswagen. The most interesting comparison is the Ford and VW, one a sidevalve, long-stroke and one an overhead valve, short stroke. One develops 30bhp at 4,000rpm and 46lb.ft at 2,400rpm on a 6.2:1 compression; the other develops 30bhp at 3,700rpm and 56lb.ft at 2,000rpm on a 6.0:1 compression. Oddly, given what conventional wisdom might have you believe, it's the VW that is the low-revving slogger. However, a crucial difference is unearthed when you look at the maximum recommended cruising speed for a Ford Popular vs the Volkswagen De Luxe saloon; the Ford is recommended to cruise at 45mph (just over 2/3 of its 60mph maximum) where the VW is claimed to be able to cruise at its 68mph maximum speed. Nor did the buyer of the German car lose out at the petrol pumps, fuel consumption being quoted as 38mpg for the Beetle, compared with 35 for the Anglia.

 

I've attached the data below (I hope it comes out OK).

1950s car specs.xlsx

[Jol Wilkinson]

I recall reading a book on tuning engines in the early sixties which said the 50 bhp per litre was a good result for a " tuned" engine and 100 bhp for a racing engine.

 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

I recall reading a book on tuning engines in the early sixties which said the 50 bhp per litre was a good result for a " tuned" engine and 100 bhp for a racing engine.

 

These days we're up to 150bhp (last I looked) from a one litre three cylinder in entirely mundane cars.

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, 30801 said:

 

These days we're up to 150bhp (last I looked) from a one litre three cylinder in entirely mundane cars.

Thirty years ago, 500cc two-stroke GP motorbikes were putting out 180bhp.  The litre four-strokes now in MotoGP are around the 300bhp mark.  Even the manufacturers' road-legal versions are around 200bhp (utterly unusable on public roads).

[Dunsignalling]

11 hours ago, johnlambert said:

@alastairq

 

I suppose it depends upon the requirements of the design as to whether or not there is anything wrong with sidevalve engines. 

 

Just for fun I found the specs for various small, four-cylinder engines from the 1950s; the 803cc A-series, the 1172 Ford sidevalve, the 803cc Standard 8 and the 1192cc Volkswagen. The most interesting comparison is the Ford and VW, one a sidevalve, long-stroke and one an overhead valve, short stroke. One develops 30bhp at 4,000rpm and 46lb.ft at 2,400rpm on a 6.2:1 compression; the other develops 30bhp at 3,700rpm and 56lb.ft at 2,000rpm on a 6.0:1 compression. Oddly, given what conventional wisdom might have you believe, it's the VW that is the low-revving slogger. However, a crucial difference is unearthed when you look at the maximum recommended cruising speed for a Ford Popular vs the Volkswagen De Luxe saloon; the Ford is recommended to cruise at 45mph (just over 2/3 of its 60mph maximum) where the VW is claimed to be able to cruise at its 68mph maximum speed. Nor did the buyer of the German car lose out at the petrol pumps, fuel consumption being quoted as 38mpg for the Beetle, compared with 35 for the Anglia.

 

I've attached the data below (I hope it comes out OK).

1950s car specs.xlsx 9.47 kB · 0 downloads

 

Having had a Ford Pop and driven a few Beetles, I can testify that it would be very exceptional to actually get significantly above 30mpg out of either of them! 

 

Maybe the official figures might be attained on then-deserted roads in the flatlands of East Anglia, which probably replicated the test conditions, but certainly nowhere near those numbers in hilly East Devon.

 

Dad's 1500cc Hillman Minx (57bhp IIRC) did no worse, and he reckoned it was no thirstier than the 100E Squire it replaced. 

 

John 

Edited October 18, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

10 hours ago, 30801 said:

 

These days we're up to 150bhp (last I looked) from a one litre three cylinder in entirely mundane cars.

True, but the bottom end will look more like that from (at least) a 2-litre car from 1960, and nowadays, we have turbochargers....

 

I'm quite impressed at getting 170bhp out of my 10-year-old 2-litre turbo diesel, plenty for me (I've never had it anywhere near flat out for more than a few seconds, honestly officer), but I gather there could be another 50 ponies to be had by remapping it! 

 

John

Edited October 18, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Jol Wilkinson]

9 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Thirty years ago, 500cc two-stroke GP motorbikes were putting out 180bhp.  The litre four-strokes now in MotoGP are around the 300bhp mark.  Even the manufacturers' road-legal versions are around 200bhp (utterly unusable on public roads).

The motor bike riders around here seem to be more interested in the decibels their machinery can produce, especially those who suffer from that seemingly involuntary regular twitching of their right wrist when stopped at a junction.

[Oldddudders]

11 hours ago, 30801 said:

 

These days we're up to 150bhp (last I looked) from a one litre three cylinder in entirely mundane cars.

Sherry's 1-litre, 100 bhp three-cylinder Fiesta, with 6-speed auto, is very, very driveable. It will run away with you at motorway speeds. [Her version lacks cruise-control, which I relish on my 0.9 litre, 90 bhp three-cylinder Clio, and even use it often on 90 kph/56 mph roads if not in traffic.] At a time that electric and hybrid cars are becoming the future, and indeed the present for many, IC engines have been nearly perfected apart from the unavoidable emissions.  

[alastairq]

The Ford Popular being compared would be the very pre-war designed, 103E Pop. [the upright] with it's very simple [cheap to produce] pre-war suspension.

.Plus, they had 17 inch diameter wheels and 5.5 to 1 rear axle ratios, which meant the engine would be revving quite high at cruising speeds.....not good for engine wear.

 

The VW Beetle having independant suspension with torsion bars...and a much more amenable final drive ratio.

 

HArdly a comparison, really? The roadholding abilities would limit  the reasonable cruising speed, methinks?

 

However, had the comparator from Ford been the 100E  sidevalve  cars, things may have been a bit different, perhaps?  

 

Confusing is the fact Ford continued production of the upright Popular until around the time the Mini was being introduced [1959?]

Plus, they sold ....well enough.

 

The beetle's torque curve was quite flat, hence the 'high' cruising speed, timed to match the torque curve. Also, Germany had the autobahn system, whilst the UK was just getting rid of cobbled main roads....Horses for courses, again?

The sidevalve Fords could have been adjusted to cruise at similar speeds [if the motorway system had been 20 years earlier in inception?]....if final drive ratios, gearboxes and engine power characteristics had been played around with.

But we didn't have motorways [to any extent] so there wasn't the need for a high cruising speed.....too many corners, for one thing.

 

The Beetle's reputation for longevity grew out of the fact the engine was very low stressed for its size.

Start tuning them, and reliability was the first thing that went out of the window.

 

Easiest way to tune a sidevalve Ford is to supercharge it.   Overcomes the engines inherent breathing issues. Probably more effective than doing similar with a similar size OHV engine as well. But Ford sidevalves did have an immensely strong bottom end....which was one reason why they were so popular with the specials brigade in the 40's and 50's? [Lotus, Ginetta, etc etc etc]

That, and being cheap and easy to find helped a lot too...

 

[johnlambert]

47 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

Having had a Ford Pop and driven a few Beetles, I can testify that it would be very exceptional to actually get significantly above 30mpg out of either of them! 

 

Maybe the official figures might be attained on then-deserted roads in the flatlands of East Anglia, which probably replicated the test conditions, but certainly nowhere near those numbers in hilly East Devon.

 

Dad's 1500cc Hillman Minx (57bhp IIRC) did no worse, and he reckoned it was no thirstier than the 100E Squire it replaced. 

 

John 

Yes, I agree that the figures seemed implausible to me, but they all came from the same source of a reprint of a motor show catalogue. Therefore, I regard them as being measured to the same standard. That's probably a steady 30 or 40mph under ideal conditions, not really realistic driving conditions.

[johnlambert]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

True, but the bottom end will look more like that from (at least) a 2-litre car from 1960, and nowadays, we have turbochargers....

 

I'm quite impressed at getting 170bhp out of my 10-year-old 2-litre turbo diesel, plenty for me (I've never had it anywhere near flat out for more than a few seconds, honestly officer), but I gather there could be another 50 ponies to be had by remapping it! 

 

John

We also have way better fuel and lubrication, not to mention engine management that's way better than anything that could have been imagined in the 1940s.

[Dunsignalling]

23 minutes ago, alastairq said:

The Ford Popular being compared would be the very pre-war designed, 103E Pop. [the upright] with it's very simple [cheap to produce] pre-war suspension.

.Plus, they had 17 inch diameter wheels and 5.5 to 1 rear axle ratios, which meant the engine would be revving quite high at cruising speeds.....not good for engine wear.

 

The VW Beetle having independant suspension with torsion bars...and a much more amenable final drive ratio.

 

HArdly a comparison, really? The roadholding abilities would limit  the reasonable cruising speed, methinks?

 

However, had the comparator from Ford been the 100E  sidevalve  cars, things may have been a bit different, perhaps?  

 

Confusing is the fact Ford continued production of the upright Popular until around the time the Mini was being introduced [1959?]

Plus, they sold ....well enough.

 

The beetle's torque curve was quite flat, hence the 'high' cruising speed, timed to match the torque curve. Also, Germany had the autobahn system, whilst the UK was just getting rid of cobbled main roads....Horses for courses, again?

The sidevalve Fords could have been adjusted to cruise at similar speeds [if the motorway system had been 20 years earlier in inception?]....if final drive ratios, gearboxes and engine power characteristics had been played around with.

But we didn't have motorways [to any extent] so there wasn't the need for a high cruising speed.....too many corners, for one thing.

 

The Beetle's reputation for longevity grew out of the fact the engine was very low stressed for its size.

Start tuning them, and reliability was the first thing that went out of the window.

 

Easiest way to tune a sidevalve Ford is to supercharge it.   Overcomes the engines inherent breathing issues. Probably more effective than doing similar with a similar size OHV engine as well. But Ford sidevalves did have an immensely strong bottom end....which was one reason why they were so popular with the specials brigade in the 40's and 50's? [Lotus, Ginetta, etc etc etc]

That, and being cheap and easy to find helped a lot too...

 

The claimed "flat-out" cruising speed of the Beetle was rooted in it being air-cooled, and therefore (supposedly) immune from overheating, though that only really holds so long as lubricant doesn't break down!

 

With later, more powerful versions or tuned up earlier ones, it was prudent to have an oil cooler on the shopping list.

 

FWIW my Pop was a 1959 model, though some knave had fitted a knackered 8hp motor in it. That was rectified by cannibalising a mechanically excellent but rusty 1953 example that came with a 12v conversion, 'King of the Road' headlamps, and a Land Rover wiper motor. I paid just a fiver for each of them, both had good tyres all round and I recovered half my outlay when we towed the remains to the local scrappy. A nice project for my final long school summer holiday!

 

John

[russ p]

With regard to 3 cylinder engines I had a corsa hire car with one last week , absolutely hateful thing.. It was a smooth as a four pot with a lead off and wasn't particularly fast or economical 

The controls and instruments appeared to be designed by a 15 year old

Everything was done on the radio or whatever its called now. To adjust the bloody heating required going into it and taking your eyes off the road.

On real cars you can do it all by feel with a slider or a dial.

The DAB radio was rubbish and I never found FM

 

Edited October 18, 2023 by russ p

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

The motorbike riders around here seem to be more interested in the decibels their machinery can produce, especially those who suffer from that seemingly involuntary regular twitching of their right wrist when stopped at a junction.

They must be running up and down the A12, we get the same here in Basildon.

[Hobby]

35 minutes ago, russ p said:

On real cars you can do it all by feel with a slider or a dial.

 

"Real" cars surely didn't have heaters! (As I'm sure Alastair will tell you!) ;)

 

Our Octavia has a three cylinder 1.0l turbo engine, power 110PS, top speed 120mph (nearly got there on the Autobahn this year!) and is economical as well, near 50mpg measuring using Fuelly (not inaccurate brim to brim methods) over the two years we've had it. More than happy with it.

[PhilJ W]

50 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

FWIW my Pop was a 1959 model, though some knave had fitted a knackered 8hp motor in it. That was rectified by cannibalising a mechanically excellent but rusty 1953 example that came with a 12v conversion, 'King of the Road' headlamps, and a Land Rover wiper motor. I paid just a fiver for each of them, both had good tyres all round and I recovered half my outlay when we towed the remains to the local scrappy. A nice project for my final long school summer holiday!

John

The usual swap was the other way round, a ten in place of an eight. When the horsepower tax was in force and customs and excise suspected an engine swap had taken place they just had to check the engine number. Both numbers started with a different letter for eight and ten horsepower. Someone I know had  a Y model car that needed a new head gasket, so he obtained a gasket for an eight horsepower engine only to find that it didn't fit. It turned out that the engine had been bored out to a ten. Those that had changed the engine rating lost out when petrol rationing was introduced as the ration was based on the horsepower.

[Dunsignalling]

19 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

The usual swap was the other way round, a ten in place of an eight. When the horsepower tax was in force and customs and excise suspected an engine swap had taken place they just had to check the engine number. Both numbers started with a different letter for eight and ten horsepower. Someone I know had  a Y model car that needed a new head gasket, so he obtained a gasket for an eight horsepower engine only to find that it didn't fit. It turned out that the engine had been bored out to a ten. Those that had changed the engine rating lost out when petrol rationing was introduced as the ration was based on the horsepower.

Worked out OK for me, as I swapped the 8hp head onto the 10hp motor, which raised the compression and produced a little more grunt.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Kickstart]

23 hours ago, 30801 said:

 

Think it was more about getting creative for the testing process.

The only zero VED petrol car I've had was a Smart and its 71bhp 1.0l engine didn't feel compromised in any way.

Economy was only on a par with the Jazz which made > 120gm of emissions albeit at a more believable test.

 

 

Hence why the official figures often make automatics appear better on fuel. It is just gaming the system, as automatics control their gear change points, where a manual is controlled by the test.

 

12 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Thirty years ago, 500cc two-stroke GP motorbikes were putting out 180bhp.  The litre four-strokes now in MotoGP are around the 300bhp mark.  Even the manufacturers' road-legal versions are around 200bhp (utterly unusable on public roads).

 

And the 180hp 2 strokes were detuned - they had made more power but the power delivery had become uncontrollable.

 

2 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Sherry's 1-litre, 100 bhp three-cylinder Fiesta, with 6-speed auto, is very, very driveable. It will run away with you at motorway speeds. [Her version lacks cruise-control, which I relish on my 0.9 litre, 90 bhp three-cylinder Clio, and even use it often on 90 kph/56 mph roads if not in traffic.] At a time that electric and hybrid cars are becoming the future, and indeed the present for many, IC engines have been nearly perfected apart from the unavoidable emissions.  

 

Down side of the 1L 3 cylinder Ford engine is engine life. Cam belt is inside the engine so covered in oil, and while it rarely snaps that is more because as the belt ages and starts to lose bits of rubber they block the oil pump strainer, and hence no oil pressure kills the engine first. Seems they can be OK as long as the belt is changed regularly (far more often than they service schedule - and a bit of a pain to do as the belt is internal) and the correct oil religiously used.

 

All the best

 

Katy

[alastairq]

There always seems to be a ''secret'' downside to all these modern high horsepower small [weeny?] engines?

 

Mind, my 21 1/2 YO Suzuki GV [it's got 4wd if I want to use it]...has the venerable Suzuki J20 2 litre petrol engine.

Rumoured to have been able to produce 130-odd bhpeees...at lordy only knows what rpms...

I have to take the rev counter over the 4000 rpm mark to feel any real benefit of all that BHPeee....and that makes me wince.

 

Which I suppose brings me to my point....just how often in our day-to-day driving lives do we actually make full & proper use of all that BHPeee on tap?

 

Do we have to get to a motorway, just to take advantage of all that bhpeeee?

What if I don't happen to be near a motorway?

 

Mostly my injin runs to about 2000 to 2400 rpms, no more. That equates to a bit of acceleration {IE, I'm increasing speed]...and a normal road speed of around 50 mph or so.

 

Probably using about 40 or 50 of those potential bhpeees...or fewer?

 

Soooo, why do we need such high potential BHPeees for normal, day-to-day driving? Is it all an effort to pander to our egos?