For those interested in old cars.

[MJI]

5 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

I wasn't. I was just pointing out that all British run of the mill cars were much of a muchness and that a makes had similar issues. 

 

I know but many do

6 hours ago, Nick C said:

 

Panic buying, Land-Rover style! 

6 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

But if you want to buy a Jaguar it’s accepted wisdom always to buy one post Ford takeover, the money that was poured in was out of all proportion to the return but the US wanted the badge, and wanted quality to go with it, Ford sent in a lot of Ford mid management “big stick wackers” to stir the staid and furrowed ways of the old Jaguar production management.

 

Did the same with AM......but the less said about that the better 

 

Pity about the V6 cranks

 

6 hours ago, Nick C said:

 

Panic buying, Land-Rover style! 

 

They are the most expensive consumables on mine!

[MJI]

I had stuck some very high mileages on older Vauxhalls as well.(2001)

 

German cars, British engines, French Gearboxes

 

170,000miles bores like new.

[Northmoor]

5 hours ago, Kickstart said:

Reliability can mean different things. Which is more reliable, the car that has 5 failures each costing £100, or the one with 1 failure costing £1000?
 

Also seems to be quite a bit of self denial. If your BMW goes wrong then, oh that is unusual, don’t worry, still buy another (despite the fact it is a common but unacknowledged problem on that model). If the same happens on a (say) French car then “what did you expect buying French” even if it is a virtually unknown problem.

 

My experience of German cars reliability has been underwhelming. 

 

All the best

 

Katy

 

 

When it comes to car reliability, there is a saying that goes, "There's no smoke without fire, but a lot of fire without smoke".  People who have an unreliable Toyota probably think their experience is statistically invalid.

The JD power survey used to suggest many stereotypes had a basis in truth, but also that some premium brands were a money pit.

[Nick C]

9 hours ago, MJI said:

I had stuck some very high mileages on older Vauxhalls as well.(2001)

 

German cars, British engines, French Gearboxes

 

170,000miles bores like new.

 

I remember the '90s Vauxhalls as being mechanically reliable too, the problem was that they rusted like anything, wheras the contemporary Peugeots were galvanised, but had dire electronics...

[Enterprisingwestern]

8 minutes ago, Nick C said:

 

I remember the '90s Vauxhalls as being mechanically reliable too, the problem was that they rusted like anything, wheras the contemporary Peugeots were galvanised, but had dire electronics...

 

My first company car I ever had was a G reg, (89?), Cavalier 1.6.

I did 140K in it in just over 12 months, carrying some seriously big and heavy tooling, and towing a 4 wheel trailer with even more seriously big and heavy tooling. Apart from servicing and normal consumables it never missed a beat, I was impressed.

Mind you, similarly with my own E reg, 87, Citroen BX 1.7RD which I had previously and concurrently with the Cavalier, that covered stellar mileages between South Humberside and Yorkshire/East Midlands and never missed a beat.

 

Mike.

[boxbrownie]

10 hours ago, MJI said:

 

 

Pity about the V6 cranks

 

You mean the cranks in the Peugeot designed engines? 

[MJI]

55 minutes ago, Nick C said:

 

I remember the '90s Vauxhalls as being mechanically reliable too, the problem was that they rusted like anything, wheras the contemporary Peugeots were galvanised, but had dire electronics...

 

I had various Carltons and Omegas.

 

Ran them for over 15 years.

 

Carlton taken out by age (rust) Omegas by upgrading or RTA ran last one over 8 years until it got bananaed by a head on in front of me!

[MJI]

42 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

My first company car I ever had was a G reg, (89?), Cavalier 1.6.

I did 140K in it in just over 12 months, carrying some seriously big and heavy tooling, and towing a 4 wheel trailer with even more seriously big and heavy tooling. Apart from servicing and normal consumables it never missed a beat, I was impressed.

Mind you, similarly with my own E reg, 87, Citroen BX 1.7RD which I had previously and concurrently with the Cavalier, that covered stellar mileages between South Humberside and Yorkshire/East Midlands and never missed a beat.

 

Mike.

 

I think most people have a good experience with their cars.

[Hobby]

Maybe nowadays, though I had a really bad experience with a late 90s Vectra, though my other Vauxhalls were fine, as were all my later (mid 80s onwards) AR cars...

 

But the thread is about "old cars" and pre early 80s they were nowhere near as reliable as they are now. Certainly my early cars, bought in the late 70s/early 80s on a very tight budget they were a very different experience to today. Fine if you knew about cars and could sort the wheat from the chaff but for most car buyers at the lower end of the market we couldn't and our experiences reflected that!

[PhilJ W]

I usedto do most of my maintainence before cars were fitted with computers. Most of  what I knew I learned from my dad who had been a driver/mechanic in the army. I have stripped down and rebuilt a few engines but I couldn't do it now.

[boxbrownie]

1 minute ago, PhilJ W said:

I usedto do most of my maintainence before cars were fitted with computers. Most of  what I knew I learned from my dad who had been a driver/mechanic in the army. I have stripped down and rebuilt a few engines but I couldn't do it now.

Or wouldn’t want to? 

[MJI]

I have completely stripped a Rootes 1600 more than once, last one was rebuilt and thrashed for another 50,000 miles with Kent AVFR3 cam.

 

I still do not understand why reps got annoyed when I over took them on the motorway hills.

 

But the friendly wave from a Police car on the M4 was great.

 

It was doing 60 with a long queue scared to pass, I passed at 70, they saw me smiled and waved.

[MJI]

Last engine I stripped was a GM V6 not that bad not a 30 minute head removal, day and half to replace heads with pre prepared ported and new valve sealed ones.

 

Only failures of those I have ever heard about were due to lack of maintenance.

[PhilJ W]

One engine I rebuilt was a Ford 100E, a very simple side valve engine and therefore few if any problems. The only tricky bit IIRC was once the valves had been ground in was setting the tappets, this involved grinding the ends of the valve stems. I found out later that it was not strictly neccessary but my dad being army trained done it as a matter of course. My favourite engine to work on was the BMC B series, it seemed to be designed for the DIY mechanic.

[spamcan61]

10 hours ago, MJI said:

 

I had various Carltons and Omegas.

 

Ran them for over 15 years.

 

Carlton taken out by age (rust) Omegas by upgrading or RTA ran last one over 8 years until it got bananaed by a head on in front of me!

I had a 3 litre 12v Carlton CDX estate, manual box, followed by a V6 omega then two 2 litre Omegas, all bought at about 100K and run 'til they weren't worth fixing, apart from the Carlton, which I drove into the back of a Heineken lorry :-( at 194000 miles. Pity as it was a lovely car to drive.

[Kickstart]

23 hours ago, Northmoor said:

When it comes to car reliability, there is a saying that goes, "There's no smoke without fire, but a lot of fire without smoke".  People who have an unreliable Toyota probably think their experience is statistically invalid.

The JD power survey used to suggest many stereotypes had a basis in truth, but also that some premium brands were a money pit.

Yep. Same seems to happen for premium brands where people think a failure isn’t statistically relevant.

 

JD Power counts the number of failures. Not sure if that equate a failed bulb with a failed con rod?

 

All the best

 

Katy

[alastairq]

13 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

One engine I rebuilt was a Ford 100E, a very simple side valve engine and therefore few if any problems. The only tricky bit IIRC was once the valves had been ground in was setting the tappets, this involved grinding the ends of the valve stems. I found out later that it was not strictly necessary but my dad being army trained done it as a matter of course. My favourite engine to work on was the BMC B series, it seemed to be designed for the DIY mechanic.

 Except 100E had adjustable tappets.....[all mine have!!]

Ford 8 & 10 HP side valves needed their valve stems trimming, however...[preceded 100E, still made in 1959 as was the upright Pop..]

Very strong bottom ends, those sidevalve Fords...and had outputs in the same ball park as their major competitors  [803cc BMC A-series, for example...as well as the 948cc....One assume being sidevalve meant pisspoor power, but that wasn't actually the case....ask anyone who used them in motorsport?

 

 

[boxbrownie]

Last engine I rebuilt, or actually not so much rebuilt as adapted and fettled....was a 2.9 V6 Cosworth, I slipped it into our Sierra Wagon along with an auto gearbox and complete Cossy Sierra running gear, went rather well and a real Q car as outside apart from it being very slightly lower (in them days lower meant maybe 10 mm not 50 mm like today’s tuners ) it was plain old rep mobile......great fun  

[PhilJ W]

34 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 Except 100E had adjustable tappets.....[all mine have!!]

Ford 8 & 10 HP side valves needed their valve stems trimming, however...[preceded 100E, still made in 1959 as was the upright Pop..]

Very strong bottom ends, those sidevalve Fords...and had outputs in the same ball park as their major competitors  [803cc BMC A-series, for example...as well as the 948cc....One assume being sidevalve meant pisspoor power, but that wasn't actually the case....ask anyone who used them in motorsport?

 

 

Sorry it wasn't a 100E it was the preceding 10hp, a 1948 Anglia (E93A?) that had at some time been fitted with the 10hp engine.

[PhilJ W]

52 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 Except 100E had adjustable tappets.....[all mine have!!]

Ford 8 & 10 HP side valves needed their valve stems trimming, however...[preceded 100E, still made in 1959 as was the upright Pop..]

Very strong bottom ends, those sidevalve Fords...and had outputs in the same ball park as their major competitors  [803cc BMC A-series, for example...as well as the 948cc....One assume being sidevalve meant pisspoor power, but that wasn't actually the case....ask anyone who used them in motorsport?

 

 

In standard form they all developed about 30 bhp. The biggest problem with the BMC engines was their breathing, they were always gasping for air. 

[jcredfer]

49 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

In standard form they all developed about 30 bhp. The biggest problem with the BMC engines was their breathing, they were always gasping for air. 

 

I can't speak for other marques, but MGBs weren't gasping for air, they were dry at the top end, sounded it, too.  I replaced the SU Carb needles with a pair which were slightly narrower in the end quarter, to let more fuel in.  I bought two slightly different pairs and tried them both, leaving the marginally better ones in.  Problem solved and romped past standard Bs as if they were stood still.

 

Those were the days, when Cars & Car Conversions produced a book, which had tables at the back, with all the SU needles listed and dimensions drawn.

 

Julian

 

[rockershovel]

A car which I never actually owned, but was a real ground-breaker for its day - the Ford Anglia 105E. Very loosely styled on the Ford Thunderbird and with a decent ohv engine driving through s four-Speed gearbox. Proper cars! 

[russ p]

I altered the boost on my metro a few years back and replaced the needle and spring in the carb , what a difference according to vizzards book it should be around 115-120bhp and certainly feels that way. Just have to careful not to wheel spin as that power is borderline on what the box can take hence Leyland electronically limiting it to 93bhp for warranty purposes 

[alastairq]

2 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

In standard form they all developed about 30 bhp. The biggest problem with the BMC engines was their breathing, they were always gasping for air. 

 

 

The 100E was rated around 36-38 bhp, on a single carb. The 10HP [it's predecessor] was rated around 32 bhp, on a single carb.

Twin carburettor versions of both the10HP and 100E engines would make around 50-55 bhp. Much the same as similarly tuned 948cc A series engines.

The sidevalve Ford engines did suffer from breathing difficulties above around 3500-4000 rpm....the compression ratio could not be taken too high either, as that restricted the space for the transfer passage between valve and piston top.

BMC engines, being OHV, had better 'breathing' ability, therefore could rev a lot higher, more easily....[although racing 100E sidevalve engines could rev well beyond 6000 rpm].  

Standard's own 948cc engine [Ten & Pennant] was rated at around 37 bhp too....again on a single carb.  [  https://www.standardmotorclub.org.uk/8-10specifications.html]

So Ford's sticking with the [pre-wawer] sidevalve layout wasn't so far adrift, from what others were doing, power-wise?

Mind, the sidevalve's forte was the bottom end torque, enabling Ford to stick with the 3 speed gearbox, for so long. [Their small car lineup right up to when the Mini was first produced had sidevalve engines, and 3 speed gearboxes.....and much lower productions costs than BMC's?]

 

The Ford sidevalve 10HP & 100E engines really respond well to supercharging.  Better than their competitors did, at any rate.  But, supercharging only gives the same sort of BHP as twin carbs....but much better bottom end torque, as it effectively increases the compression ratio, without the downsides, so to speak, in a sidevalve.

[Difference between Ford  10HP [RAC tax rating, not BHP]...and 100E, were that the 100E came with a built in water pump, and bigger inlet ports , plus, the dynamo was stuck on the side, not on top.

Also had adjustable tappets [but no pushrods to bend, ]  and, later on, shell big end bearings [instead of white metal/babbitt].....but few if any parts were interchangeable... 

 

The 100E engine was quite a lightweight compact unit as well....hence it's sporting popularity? {That, and cheapness to buy & repair?]

 

Sorry for waffling..I happen to like the sidevalve Ford engines [if not really in love with the cars?]

 

 

[boxbrownie]

2 hours ago, jcredfer said:

 

 

 

Those were the days, when Cars & Car Conversions produced a book, which had tables at the back, with all the SU needles listed and dimensions drawn.

 

Julian

 

Oh yes, still have my copies of Clive Trickeys Mini tuning for road and racing and one for Fast Crossflow Ford tuning.....brilliant reading and taught me an awful lot back then.