What classic for tall fat driver?
Martin
I'm looking to buy a car in the next couple of months, and being
completely bored with the moderns my meagre money can afford (have had
assorted vw golfs, audi 80s etc) I want to get something a bit more
interesting, with a bit more character, in short - a classic.
Problem is I'm about six foot three and a bit overweight, so I need a
car thats reasonably roomy.
I love cars like the Jaguar XJC, XJ6 (sIII), Alfa Romeo GTA, Volvo
Amazon, Triumph Spitfire, etc etc but have never had a chance to sit
in one or drive one.
So, the question goes out - what are the experiences out there? I know
I can't be the only big bloke into classic cars!!
Let me know about any of the above cars - or any other
reccomendations!
Oh, it also needs to be relatively practical (low running cost), and
not too dear to buy...
cheers!
Martin
Rob
Martin wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I love cars like the Jaguar XJC, XJ6 (sIII), Alfa Romeo GTA, Volvo
> Amazon, Triumph Spitfire, etc etc but have never had a chance to sit
> in one or drive one.
>
> So, the question goes out - what are the experiences out there? I know
> I can't be the only big bloke into classic cars!!
>
> Let me know about any of the above cars - or any other
> reccomendations!
>
> Oh, it also needs to be relatively practical (low running cost), and
> not too dear to buy...
>
> cheers!
>
> Martin
Only one I've driven is a Volvo 120 (Amazon). And I've done more than
100,000
miles in mine. I'm 6'4" and fit very easily inside. The seats are very
good
for a car of it's age. Lots of support, even adjustable lumbar.
Of the cars you mention IMO it's going to be more reliable, and rust
much less
than the others you mention. Some people seem to think they're heavy to
steer, and if you're used to parking a modern hatchback with power
steering they probably are, but there's plenty of leverage with the big
steering wheel. I get between 28-30mpg with a 2 litre twin carb engine,
mostly just pottering up and down the motorway at 70mph. Nothing like
as luxurious inside as a Jag, but other than that I can't think of any
downsides.
Contrast with my Triumph Herald where I can't get my legs under the
steering
wheel and have to drive bow legged, and then get back ache after an hour
because the seat backs are so low.
Keith
"Martin" <b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:de92abfa.02082...@posting.google.com...
The Rover P 4 is a very good buy at the moment.
Keith
PJML
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm looking to buy a car in the next couple of months, and being
> completely bored with the moderns my meagre money can afford (have had
> assorted vw golfs, audi 80s etc) I want to get something a bit more
> interesting, with a bit more character, in short - a classic.
>
> Problem is I'm about six foot three and a bit overweight, so I need a
> car thats reasonably roomy.
>
> I love cars like the Jaguar XJC, XJ6 (sIII), Alfa Romeo GTA, Volvo
> Amazon, Triumph Spitfire, etc etc but have never had a chance to sit
> in one or drive one.
>
> So, the question goes out - what are the experiences out there? I know
> I can't be the only big bloke into classic cars!!
>
> Let me know about any of the above cars - or any other
> reccomendations!
Not sure about the fatness issue (I'm a svelte 170
pounds myself) but I find my Scimitar to be good
from the legroom perspective [I'm about 6-foot, but
with the body-type generally known as 'ectomprphic' -
long arms and legs!].
With the seat right back like I usually have it,
there's no leg-space in the corresponding rear-passenger seat though...
What sort of use will you be putting your classic to?
I'd hate to have to do any long/fast motorway-type
trips in a Spitfire, whereas such trips are just fine
in an overdrive-equipped Scimitar.
David S
Big & roomy with lots of leg room
Fast too ;-)
"Martin" <b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:de92abfa.02082...@posting.google.com...
R. N. Robinson
This might sound silly, but have you thought of a Mini? I know the driving
position has kept a lot of chiropractors in business, but I knew a chap who
was 6' 6" at least and reckoned the Mini was one of the few cars he could
drive without doing special things to the seat runners etc.
Ron Robinson
James Foulds
Geoff Mackenzie
A few years ago I collected a client from the airport in my Series 3 XJ6
Sovereign. He was 6'8" and admitted to 23 stones. I would say his stomach
was pretty close to the dashboard, but he made it and presumably could have
driven if I'd let him.
Rather doubt a Spitfire would be an option....
Geoff MacK
Samuel Clements
have a look at the Humber range.
If you're doing low mileages (so the fuel isn't too much of a factor with a
3ltr) you'll fit with ease into a Super Snipe (and mid to good ones come in
under £2k)
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/2002
Ashley
> I love cars like the Jaguar XJC, XJ6 (sIII), Alfa Romeo GTA, Volvo
> Amazon, Triumph Spitfire, etc etc but have never had a chance to sit
> in one or drive one.
Has anybody in here ever seen Mark field from Jigsaw racing? To say the
least he is a very big fellow!
He used to race a spitfire MKIV complete with the hartop fitted and from
what I can remember he fitted okay. Give it a try, there is heaps of leg
room and with the top folded down plenty of headroom!!
Andrew Wheeldon
"Samuel Clements" <miwat...@madasafish.com> wrote in message
news:um7qm3k...@corp.supernews.com...
> Something different, though I suggest them in most questions of this type,
> have a look at the Humber range.
>
> If you're doing low mileages (so the fuel isn't too much of a factor with
a
> 3ltr) you'll fit with ease into a Super Snipe (and mid to good ones come
in
> under £2k)
run my p4 on it and it's great. 9.6p per mile.
By the way If my p4 is typical (and I think it is) you may have problems
with the clearance between the steering wheel and seat squab if you have
really chucky thighs, Otherwise there is loads of room in um!
Andy
Andy G
news:3D6376B6...@nerc.ac.uk.loopback...
> Martin wrote:
> >
snip
>
> Not sure about the fatness issue (I'm a svelte 170
> pounds myself) but I find my Scimitar to be good
> from the legroom perspective [I'm about 6-foot, but
> with the body-type generally known as 'ectomprphic' -
> long arms and legs!].
>
> With the seat right back like I usually have it,
> there's no leg-space in the corresponding rear-passenger seat though...
>
> What sort of use will you be putting your classic to?
> I'd hate to have to do any long/fast motorway-type
> trips in a Spitfire, whereas such trips are just fine
> in an overdrive-equipped Scimitar.
Also just fine in an overdrive equipped Spit. If you're doing it regularly
though, the noise level with the ragtop would be a bit wearing. However,
even with its low seats, a Spit with the lid on or the ragtop up is likely
to be lacking headroom for a 6ft 3in frame! No problems with space for a
portly midriff...as I can sadly testify!
Cheers,
AndyG
Martin
Thanks for all the feedback!
I went down to Croydon yesterday to see one of my all-time favourite
cars, a 1977 Jaguar XJC. Regrettably I have to say I was doing some
contortionist moves to get in to the car, and then had my knees up my
nose and my head scrunched up against the roof once I was in.
So I guess that one is off the list...
Any more experiences with the Volvo Amazon (120 series)?
Or with the BMW 5 series (E28)?
cheers,
Martin
Willy Eckerslyke
> Only one I've driven is a Volvo 120 (Amazon). And I've done more than
> 100,000
Or a Rover P6. A friend of mine is 6'5" and found his 2.2TC very
comfortable.
> Contrast with my Triumph Herald where I can't get my legs under the
> steering
> wheel and have to drive bow legged, and then get back ache after an hour
> because the seat backs are so low.
I'm 6'2" and drive a Triumph Vitesse with the seat further back than
it's supposed to go. I can't remember what I did with the runners,
but a bit of mild butchery frees it up no end.
Also, I recently fitted a smaller steering wheel (it came with a
S/H column) and am surprised how much more room it gives. If you've
ever gashed a knuckle on the door handle while panic steering out
of a skid, you'll appreciate the difference.
This would no doubt apply to a Spitfire too.
Biggest problem for me is the width. Wide shoulders in a narrow
car can feel a little tight after driving something modern.
--
Regards, Willy.
PTO
Matt
Dolph Ludgren sort of way (hmmmm perhaps not!).
Anyway, 6'4", broad shoulders, long legs and ape like arms and I fit a
spitfire. The only snag that I can mention is the slightly off-centre
driving position. The driver sort of sits towards the centre of the car
and the accelerator is to the far right of the foot well. It's comfy for
journeys of an hour or so but having recently racked up 4K in a month I
can't say that I am overjoyed with the prospect of long journeys
anymore. Probably going to drive to Brussels in a few weeks though so it
can't be that off putting.
I am on the silly side of youth though so stupid ventures seem to be
more capable.
My brother is 6'7" and is an expanse of Homosapien. He looks rather
strange in a spitfire...or should that be the spitfire looks rather
strange on him. Anyway, he's pretty portly, fitted in but it's not the
easiest of cars to get out of when you've shoehorned the door closed.
Hoot to drive, though but I think with age I will revert mine to being a
second car.
hope it helps,
Matt
Geoff Mackenzie
"Willy Eckerslyke" <oss108...@bangor.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3D6525...@bangor.ac.uk...
Just for amusement - Italian cars are always slated for the driving
position. I find it perfect. On a good day I'm five foot five and have to
admit to 13 stone. I have short legs and long arms. Have been told I could
skip without a rope and my knuckles are grazed from dragging along the
ground. So any Alfa, Lancia etc is exactly right for me. And my daily
driver (1966 E-Type Jaguar, at the risk of boring people who already knew
that) works just fine - fits anyone from about five and a half foot to not
more than 5'10" - above that the seat won't go far enough back and your head
is higher than the windshield.
And my daughter's 1964 A40 Farina is perfectly practical as well -
extraordinary visibility (like driving a greenhouse compared with modern
cars with thick pillars), plenty of room, but amazingly small when parking
or overtaking. Agree entirely with Willy's comment - broad shoulders in a
modern car is not a good option. I have no problem in the A40 at all.
As an even more irrelevant aside I recently interviewed a chap for a job. I
realised he was quite a big chap, but only post-interview found he was 6'9"
and built in proportion. As he said, it did limit his choice of cars a bit.
Geoff MacK
Malcolm Ray
<geoff_m...@acsysindia.com> wrote:
>As an even more irrelevant aside I recently interviewed a chap for a job. I
>realised he was quite a big chap, but only post-interview found he was 6'9"
>and built in proportion. As he said, it did limit his choice of cars a bit.
He's not a member of the Austin Ruby owners' club, I'll wager.
I believe the average height has increased in most developed countries since
the birth of the car. It hadn't occurred to me to wonder whether this has
had an effect on car design.
--
Malcolm Ray University of London Computer Centre
R. N. Robinson
"Geoff Mackenzie" <geoff_m...@acsysindia.com> wrote in message
news:ak2p0t$b9n$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Lots of snip
> Just for amusement - Italian cars are always slated for the driving
> position. I find it perfect. On a good day I'm five foot five and have
to
> admit to 13 stone. I have short legs and long arms. Have been told I
could
> skip without a rope and my knuckles are grazed from dragging along the
> ground. So any Alfa, Lancia etc is exactly right for me. And my daily
> driver (1966 E-Type Jaguar, at the risk of boring people who already knew
> that) works just fine - fits anyone from about five and a half foot to not
> more than 5'10" - above that the seat won't go far enough back and your
head
> is higher than the windshield.
>
Oh, come, come, Geoff. I remember sitting on the car park of the Kings Arms
in Kenilworth and watching Lofty England insinuating himself into the
driving seat of one. He was rather more than 5' 10" and, by that time, not
very flexible.
Ron Robinson (name-dropping again ;-) )
Dr Dip
continent. He is 6'7" and had no headroom problems. He was not overweight
so I can't comment on that.
"Andy G" <a...@sas-ltd.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ak12d2$urt$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Andy G
news:ak3pdq$m1m$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> A local journalist drove a Spitfire, including a writing trip on the
> continent. He is 6'7" and had no headroom problems. He was not
overweight
> so I can't comment on that.
>
>
> "Andy G" <a...@sas-ltd.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ak12d2$urt$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > "PJML" <pj...@nerc.ac.uk.loopback> wrote in message
> > news:3D6376B6...@nerc.ac.uk.loopback...
> > > Martin wrote:
> > > >
snip
Well, it was only a cautionary comment and we're none of us likely to match
the hypothetical "average" driver's dimensions. At 5ft 8in I don't have a
headroom problem, but then I also _sit_ higher than a friend who _stands_ at
6ft 1in. It comes down to the distance from your ass to your crown. Maybe
the journalist you refer to has an inside leg of 40in? (rhetorical!)
Whatever, if the OP finds an opportunity to sit in a Spit then no doubt
he'll find out quick enough whether it suits his frame.
Cheers,
AndyG
Dan Drake
<a...@sas-ltd.fslife.co.uk> wrote:
>Well, it was only a cautionary comment and we're none of us likely to match
>the hypothetical "average" driver's dimensions. At 5ft 8in I don't have a
>headroom problem, but then I also _sit_ higher than a friend who _stands_ at
>6ft 1in. It comes down to the distance from your ass to your crown. Maybe
>the journalist you refer to has an inside leg of 40in? (rhetorical!)
>Whatever, if the OP finds an opportunity to sit in a Spit then no doubt
>he'll find out quick enough whether it suits his frame.
I have a good friend who is 6'4" tall, but his inside leg is only 32".
We did a race driver 3 day school together a while back and he was
easy to spot on the track. His helmet was way up over the top of the
roll bar. Shortly afterwards, when we had to set up an account for
him on a new s/w development system, I created his account and set his
initial password to be 'myneckislongerthanmydick.' Not that it was
based on any kind of personal experience, you understand...
--
Dan Drake
Willy Eckerslyke
> I believe the average height has increased in most developed countries since
> the birth of the car. It hadn't occurred to me to wonder whether this has
> had an effect on car design.
Doubt it. I'm waiting with interest for the first court cases on
claims of height discrimination. Once British Airways et al have
had the pants sued off them, it'll be the turn of car companies.
Back on topic, the height of your average Dutchman would suggest
DAF as a possible contender. Or Spyker...
--
Regards, Willy.
PTO
PJML
"Andy G" <a...@sas-ltd.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ak12d2$urt$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "PJML" <pj...@nerc.ac.uk.loopback> wrote in message
> > pounds myself) but I find my Scimitar to be good
> > from the legroom perspective [I'm about 6-foot, but
> > with the body-type generally known as 'ectomprphic' -
> > long arms and legs!].
> >
> > With the seat right back like I usually have it,
> > there's no leg-space in the corresponding rear-passenger seat though...
> >
> > What sort of use will you be putting your classic to?
> > I'd hate to have to do any long/fast motorway-type
> > trips in a Spitfire, whereas such trips are just fine
> > in an overdrive-equipped Scimitar.
>
> Also just fine in an overdrive equipped Spit. If you're doing it
> regularly
> though, the noise level with the ragtop would be a bit wearing.
What's the terminal velocity of an O/D equipped Spit?
(would it, or you, be happy sitting in the outside lane
of a motorway for an hour a day?) The O/D equipped
Herald Vitesse I dallied with once was still screaming
its nuts off at much above 70 and wouldn't endear
iself to long journeys. At least my Scimitar can
break the 100MPH barrier without even touching
4000 revs.
//PJML//
Silvery
Actually human shape is changing, has done quite alot in the last 100 years
or so, ask anyone who knows about clothing. We are in the first world
getting taller over all, mainly due to better diets and healthcare, whereas
when the car was first designed, the average person could well have had many
environmental factors to stunt their potential growth. It's not a dramatic
leap in height and shape change, something like a couple of inches a century
IIRC.
Then again, at 6 foot tall, I fit easily into a Mini, and used to have the
seat as far forwards as possible, so I don't think there's actually much of
a link between human growth rates and car design problems, more that the
manufacturers will keep building cars to their own specifications and expect
people to keep buying them...
Geoff Mackenzie
"R. N. Robinson" <ron...@grumiousbandersnatch.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:ak3d6d$sk$4...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Er - any possibility that Lofty had something of a vested interest in this
matter...?
Geoff MacK
>
Dr Dip
"PJML" <pj...@nerc.ac.uk.loopback> wrote in message
<snip>
What's the terminal velocity of an O/D equipped Spit?
> (would it, or you, be happy sitting in the outside lane
> of a motorway for an hour a day?) The O/D equipped
> Herald Vitesse I dallied with once was still screaming
> its nuts off at much above 70 and wouldn't endear
> iself to long journeys. At least my Scimitar can
> break the 100MPH barrier without even touching
> 4000 revs.
>
Spitfire you're driving as the differentials vary. A Mk4 with a 3.89
differential should be sitting at about 3500rpm in OD top which is not
exactly screaming its nuts off. The 1500 Spitfire has a 3.63 differential
and will be sitting at about 3250rpm in OD top. The MK3 Spitfire with a
4.11 differential will be sitting at about 3700rpm in OD top - screaming?
not really.
Your Scimitar may well be only breaking sweat at 100mph but then again it
has a rather larger engine and will drink comensurately larger gulps of
fuel. Also you will find yourself locked in a goldfish bowl instead of
travelling al fresco. In addition 70mph in a Spitfire will feel much more
exhilarating as you're sitting somewhat closer to the road and that creates
the feeling that you're travelling much faster.
Nothing against Scimitars. A fine car in their own right and worth
consideration for the person posing the question. However so too are
Spitfires for a different set of reasons. Horses for courses.
Jon Tilson
"PJML" <pj...@nerc.ac.uk.loopback> wrote in message
> > What's the terminal velocity of an O/D equipped Spit?
> (would it, or you, be happy sitting in the outside lane
> of a motorway for an hour a day?) The O/D equipped
> Herald Vitesse I dallied with once was still screaming
> its nuts off at much above 70 and wouldn't endear
> iself to long journeys. At least my Scimitar can
> break the 100MPH barrier without even touching
> 4000 revs.
>
With the hard top on or hood up mine is fine on motorways...
Hood down its buffety at much over 60
Jonners
> //PJML//
Andy G
>
> "Andy G" <a...@sas-ltd.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ak12d2$urt$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Also just fine in an overdrive equipped Spit. If you're doing it
> > regularly
> > though, the noise level with the ragtop would be a bit wearing.
>
> What's the terminal velocity of an O/D equipped Spit?
> (would it, or you, be happy sitting in the outside lane
> of a motorway for an hour a day?) The O/D equipped
> Herald Vitesse I dallied with once was still screaming
> its nuts off at much above 70 and wouldn't endear
> iself to long journeys. At least my Scimitar can
> break the 100MPH barrier without even touching
> 4000 revs.
>
> //PJML//
Terminal velocity is comfortably above the national speed limit, if you're
that way inclined ;^) and quite capable of keeping with the flow in lane 3.
Would I want to do it? Shit no! I drive a Spit for pleasure - where the
hell is the pleasure in sitting in nose-to-tail traffic cruising at 85-95 in
a straight(ish) line for hours on end? That's what I subject my soul-less
modern box to. Wouldn't dream of wasting driving time in the Spit like
that. Have I done it? Oh yes, and it was fine thanks.
At least I didn't have to worry about a fibreglass shell splintering into
thousands of bits and offering little energy absorption in the event of a
motorway shunt. Once had a vehicle safety testing bod come along to give a
lecture when I was in the sixth form at school in Loughborough. This was in
the early eighties and I don't remember much about it - except the Volvo
_was_ safer than most (at the time) and the fibreglass Scimitar was, let me
get the quote right, "a nice looking car, but don't ever have a crash in
one"...yes, I think that was it. I agree. It's a lovely looking car and
I'm sure it goes like the proverbial shit off a shovel. But I wouldn't
drive one. I've seen the crash test videos.
Cheers,
AndyG
Geoff Mackenzie
"Jon Tilson" <j...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bIA99.43310$DG5....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
down and side windows down it's just fine at anything up to twice the legal
limit (not in the UK, of course!). Hood up it's OK at town speeds and quite
cosy unless it rains hard - I would describe it as damp proof at best - but
at anything over 70 with the hood up the buffeting and noise become very
tiring. At the time Jaguar tried all sorts of solutions including even a
bag of lead shot attached to the middle of the hood, but none worked. I now
understand that hood design is somewhat complicated, involving low and high
pressure areas - none of these were really understood in the fifties and
sixties.
Can't comment on revs as I've never been able to get my speedo to be
accurate, and oh boy have I tried. It is consistently under reading by
about 15%. But can assure you that at 100mph it's not doing an awful lot -
maybe 3,300rpm?
Geoff MacK
Dr Dip
seen the crash test results for a Triumph 2000 MK1 and was most impressed.
I've also seen the result of someone running into the side of a tractor in a
Spitfire 1500 at 50mph approx - the equivalent of 50 - 0 in a very short
distance. He spent 3 months in hospital but the car was fairly undamaged
(supplied many useful body and engine parts for years afterwards). Just
make sure that whatever you're going to hit is softer... ie not something
solid like a dry stone wall and you'll generally be OK.
Andy G
>
> "Andy G" <a...@sas-ltd.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ak6m32$ol9$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > "PJML" <pj...@nerc.ac.uk.loopback> wrote in message
> > news:3D65FBB6...@nerc.ac.uk.loopback...
> > >
> > > "Andy G" <a...@sas-ltd.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:ak12d2$urt$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
snip
> seen the crash test results for a Triumph 2000 MK1 and was most impressed.
> I've also seen the result of someone running into the side of a tractor in
a
> Spitfire 1500 at 50mph approx - the equivalent of 50 - 0 in a very short
> distance. He spent 3 months in hospital but the car was fairly undamaged
> (supplied many useful body and engine parts for years afterwards). Just
> make sure that whatever you're going to hit is softer... ie not something
> solid like a dry stone wall and you'll generally be OK.
Better still: If you're going to hit something, make it soft AND cheap :)
Best: Drive safely and don't hit anything...just keep the eyes peeled for
the other silly sod!
AndyG
R. N. Robinson
>
> "R. N. Robinson" <ron...@grumiousbandersnatch.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:ak3d6d$sk$4...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Oh, come, come, Geoff. I remember sitting on the car park of the Kings
> Arms
> > in Kenilworth and watching Lofty England insinuating himself into the
> > driving seat of one. He was rather more than 5' 10" and, by that time,
> not
> > very flexible.
> >
> > Ron Robinson (name-dropping again ;-) )
>
> Er - any possibility that Lofty had something of a vested interest in this
> matter...?
>
Not only that, but a fair bit of practice in getting in and out of them as
well. :-)
Ron Robinson
James Warren
Dr Dip <in...@spa-environmental.org.uk> wrote in message
news:ak7u03$iah$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Good old Triumph philosophy of the crumple zone is whatever you hit.
Or hits you... I parked my 2000 at work one day and someone backed into it.
It moved my bumper 3/8 inch, and I fixed it by adjusting the mounting
brackets. It cost his insurance company 1,500 to repair his Mitsubishi!
Dr Dip
failed - modern cars!. Put a little dent in the nose cone of my 2000,
possibly moved an overrider back a little but accounted for the front end of
the Citroen.
"James Warren" <jw007...@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XS_99.45348$DG5....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
R. N. Robinson
But if you have to hit a lorry sideways, make sure you hit a wheel. Don't
try going between them.
Ron Robinson
PJML
> "PJML" <pj...@nerc.ac.uk.loopback> wrote in message
> news:3D65FBB6...@nerc.ac.uk.loopback...
> > > What's the terminal velocity of an O/D equipped Spit?
> > (would it, or you, be happy sitting in the outside lane
> > of a motorway for an hour a day?) The O/D equipped
> > Herald Vitesse I dallied with once was still screaming
> > its nuts off at much above 70 and wouldn't endear
> > iself to long journeys. At least my Scimitar can
> > break the 100MPH barrier without even touching
> > 4000 revs.
> >
> Its 21.5 mph per 1000 rpm IIRC....
That's not too bad I guess. I have some nasty
memories of long journeys in a Mini, which, geared
at a mere 14.7MPH/1000RPM, gets mighty tiring
(and feels like it's not going to last much longer)
above 80MPH.
> With the hard top on or hood up mine is fine on motorways...
Reminds me of the E-type I was associated with for
a while. The hood soon got junked, and from then on
it wore a hardtop, if only because with the hood,
any attempt to make decent progress was accompanied
by hood--drumming that made it sound like it was
auditioning for the soundtrack of "Zulu".
> Hood down its buffety at much over 60
Been there, done that... but a roofless Series-1
Land Rover is somewhat challenged in managing even
50MPH; 60 was why we dreamed of steep downhill
gradients....
I saw a Spit a while back that had a roll-hoop,
and fitted to the hoop behind the driver was a
sheet of transparent plastic to act as a wind-
baffle. I wonder what the effect of this would
be on wind-resistance compared with going hoodless?
//PJML//
PJML
> At least I didn't have to worry about a fibreglass shell splintering into
> thousands of bits and offering little energy absorption in the event of a
> motorway shunt. Once had a vehicle safety testing bod come along to give a
> lecture when I was in the sixth form at school in Loughborough. This was in
> the early eighties and I don't remember much about it - except the Volvo
> _was_ safer than most (at the time) and the fibreglass Scimitar was, let me
> get the quote right, "a nice looking car, but don't ever have a crash in
> one"...yes, I think that was it. I agree. It's a lovely looking car and
> I'm sure it goes like the proverbial shit off a shovel. But I wouldn't
> drive one. I've seen the crash test videos.
I can only relate a recent incident involving my
Scimitar, in which I was rear-ended while stationary
at a set of lights. The O/S rear corner took the
impact - rear bumper/rear light section collapsed
on to the end of the chassis-section, then the
colliding vehicle (a Fiat) slewed and impact was
transferred to the O/S rear wheel/tyre.
The Fiat had the engine pushed well back into the
passenger footwell, and the whole N/S front strut/
wheel/driveshaft assembly sheared off. Neither door
would open. It was subsequently written off.
The Scimitar, OTOH, would have been drivable home if
I had replaced the burst O/S rear tyre. But it was
night-time and the Police advised me not to drive it
'cause all the rear lights were out. It was recovered
to Queensberry Road Garage in Kettering [good people -
they *know* about fibreglass!], who did a full chassis-
alignment check and found it was still within factory
production tolerances. The door-gaps were unchanged.
Repairs were completed and the car is once again
giving sterling service.
So I can vouch for the structural integrity of a
Scimitar over a modern crumple-zone-on-wheels.
I also seem to recall one of the early Scimitars
being involved in a *major* nose-to-tail-style
traffic jam in fog on the M1 back in the mid-
1960s, from which the driver walked away - something
which could not be said for those other involved drivers
in steel-bodied cars.
In many respects, a Scimitar chassis is _more_ robust
than a Land Rover's. [I know - my other car *is*
a Land Rover...]. Anyone who says a Scimitar is fragile
is wrong...
Dave Plowman
Geoff Mackenzie <geoff_m...@acsysindia.com> wrote:
> Can't comment on revs as I've never been able to get my speedo to be
> accurate, and oh boy have I tried. It is consistently under reading by
> about 15%. But can assure you that at 100mph it's not doing an awful
> lot - maybe 3,300rpm?
That's weird. Jaguar were known for their accurate speedos.
--
* I'm really easy to get along with once people learn to worship me
Dave Plowman dave....@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
RIP Acorn
Willy Eckerslyke
> > > iself to long journeys. At least my Scimitar can
> > > break the 100MPH barrier without even touching
> > > 4000 revs.
> > >
> > Its 21.5 mph per 1000 rpm IIRC....
>
> That's not too bad I guess. I have some nasty
> memories of long journeys in a Mini, which, geared
> at a mere 14.7MPH/1000RPM, gets mighty tiring
> (and feels like it's not going to last much longer)
> above 80MPH.
The number of cylinders has an effect in all this, though doesn't it?
I've been trying to get my head around it with my Triumph Vitesse, in
which 3000rpm sounds a lot faster revving than in my 4 cylinder Carlton.
One and a half times faster, perhaps...
--
Regards, Willy.
PTO
Silvery
"PJML" <pj...@nerc.ac.uk.loopback> wrote in message
> Jon Tilson wrote:
> > "PJML" <pj...@nerc.ac.uk.loopback> wrote in message
> > news:3D65FBB6...@nerc.ac.uk.loopback...
> > > > What's the terminal velocity of an O/D equipped Spit?
> > > (would it, or you, be happy sitting in the outside lane
> > > of a motorway for an hour a day?) The O/D equipped
> > > Herald Vitesse I dallied with once was still screaming
> > > its nuts off at much above 70 and wouldn't endear
> > > iself to long journeys. At least my Scimitar can
> > > break the 100MPH barrier without even touching
> > > 4000 revs.
> > >
> > Its 21.5 mph per 1000 rpm IIRC....
>
> That's not too bad I guess. I have some nasty
> memories of long journeys in a Mini, which, geared
> at a mere 14.7MPH/1000RPM, gets mighty tiring
> (and feels like it's not going to last much longer)
> above 80MPH.
The later Minis had a 3.1 diff IIRC, could even have been 2.9 - This was
seen on the City E and HLE (renamed Mayfair). The 3.4 diff gave 16.9mph per
1000, can't do the maths to figure the 3.1 an 2.9 while typing this post,
but basically, allowed for a comfortable cruise at about 60 - 65, a little
rough at 75, and bloody awful at 100...
I did manage a 1500 mile round trip in three days in a Mini City E a few
years ago, even slept in the car, no problem other than the usual water in
the dizzy.
Dave Plowman
PJML <pj...@nerc.ac.uk.loopback> wrote:
> That's not too bad I guess. I have some nasty
> memories of long journeys in a Mini, which, geared
> at a mere 14.7MPH/1000RPM, gets mighty tiring
> (and feels like it's not going to last much longer)
> above 80MPH.
The original Mini couldn't do 80 - on the level at least. But IMHO they
were near unburstable. I drove London to Aberdeen (and back) with pedal to
the metal all the way several times in a 25 quid van.
--
*Pride is what we have. Vanity is what others have.
William Davies
> PJML wrote:
>
> The number of cylinders has an effect in all this, though doesn't it?
> I've been trying to get my head around it with my Triumph Vitesse, in
> which 3000rpm sounds a lot faster revving than in my 4 cylinder Carlton.
> One and a half times faster, perhaps...
Doubtless down to piston velocity - in a long stroke engine the pistons will
be moving up and down faster than in a short stroke unit for any given RPM.
Cheers,
Bill.
--
Rarebits4classics
.......just what you've been looking for
PO Box 1232
Calne
Wiltshire
SN11 8WA
United Kingdom
http://www.rarebits4classics.co.uk
Geoff Mackenzie
"Dave Plowman" <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4b6d099ad4...@argonet.co.uk...
What? I don't think Jaguar were ever known for anything accurate. Cheap,
well designed, but accurate? I don't think so!
Geoff MacK
Andy G
...snip...
> I can only relate a recent incident involving my
> Scimitar, in which I was rear-ended while stationary
> at a set of lights. The O/S rear corner took the
> impact - rear bumper/rear light section collapsed
> on to the end of the chassis-section, then the
> colliding vehicle (a Fiat) slewed and impact was
> transferred to the O/S rear wheel/tyre.
>
> The Fiat had the engine pushed well back into the
> passenger footwell, and the whole N/S front strut/
> wheel/driveshaft assembly sheared off. Neither door
> would open. It was subsequently written off.
>
> The Scimitar, OTOH, would have been drivable home if
> I had replaced the burst O/S rear tyre. But it was
> night-time and the Police advised me not to drive it
> 'cause all the rear lights were out. It was recovered
> to Queensberry Road Garage in Kettering [good people -
> they *know* about fibreglass!], who did a full chassis-
> alignment check and found it was still within factory
> production tolerances. The door-gaps were unchanged.
> Repairs were completed and the car is once again
> giving sterling service.
>
> So I can vouch for the structural integrity of a
> Scimitar over a modern crumple-zone-on-wheels.
From this, we must assume that the Fiat in question was of the "modern
crumple-zone" variety. In which case, your experience (in which I am
genuinely happy that you and your car escaped with so little damage) does
little other than reinforce the suggestion that we should try to hit
something soft. May I suggest the following experiment?
Take your favourite crystal whisky tumbler and push it violently against a
pillow. What happens? Answer: the pillow is badly deformed and, if no
longer safe or fit for purpose, must be written off. Happily, the tumbler
escapes relatively unharmed. Now repeat the experiment, but replace the
pillow with another whisky tumbler. What happens now? Answer: the damage
(which arises in an attempt to absorb the energy at impact) is now more
evenly shared between the two colliding objects...and you should seek
medical attention for those nasty cuts to your palm(s). :)
Obviously a simplistic representation! All I'm trying to suggest is that it
doesn't follow logically from your experience that the Scimitar is
inherently as safe in a collision accident as a steel-bodied car. The same
experience may just as easily be interpreted to suggest that if we have an
accident, we should pray that we get hit by a Fiat.
My comment (with no insult intended to your cherished car) regarding the
Scimitar's ability to protect the human occupants from potentially fatal
injury was taken from advice given by a MIRA lecturer. Basically, in a high
energy collision with an equivalent (remember the time frame - early 80's)
car or other semi-rigid object, the Scimitar's body panels are unable to
deform in a ductile manner, unlike steel panels. The advantage of ductile
deformation, such as you observed in the Fiat who drove into you, is that it
significantly extends the duration of the impact, thereby greatly reducing
the acceleration/deceleration imposed on the soft-bodied occupants. Having
soft-tissue injuries resulting from deformation of the box we sit in may be
painful and take months to recover from, but subjecting the brain to
bouncing off the inside of the skull as a result of excessive acceleration
is much more likely to kill you.
Putting all the strength into the chassis is all well and good. Just make
sure that whatever hits you knows that it should hit you low down in the
body! Oh, and wear a stretchy seatbelt.
> I also seem to recall one of the early Scimitars
> being involved in a *major* nose-to-tail-style
> traffic jam in fog on the M1 back in the mid-
> 1960s, from which the driver walked away - something
> which could not be said for those other involved drivers
> in steel-bodied cars.
>
> In many respects, a Scimitar chassis is _more_ robust
> than a Land Rover's. [I know - my other car *is*
> a Land Rover...]. Anyone who says a Scimitar is fragile
> is wrong...
I am happy that you're secure in your confidence that your car's fibreglass
body will protect you. Opinions may differ. God knows, what we don't need
on these congested roads are stressed out drivers! :) I hope that your
confidence is never tested in a high energy impact.
Cheers,
AndyG
Dave Plowman
Geoff Mackenzie <geoff_m...@acsysindia.com> wrote:
> > That's weird. Jaguar were known for their accurate speedos.
> What? I don't think Jaguar were ever known for anything accurate.
> Cheap, well designed, but accurate? I don't think so!
Try finding some period road tests from Motor or Autocar - I think you'll
find I'm correct. Think Brooklands Books do one giving most of the old
road tests. Perhaps Bill Lyons had a bee in his bonnet about it. Other
makes known for their accuracy were Rover and Rolls Royce.
I read a US BMW group and many there complain about modern BMWs being 10%
fast overall. Mine doesn't appear to be. Perhaps it's just one of their
strange laws over there.
--
* Gravity is a myth, the earth sucks *
Willy Eckerslyke
> > The number of cylinders has an effect in all this, though doesn't it?
> > I've been trying to get my head around it with my Triumph Vitesse, in
> > which 3000rpm sounds a lot faster revving than in my 4 cylinder Carlton.
> > One and a half times faster, perhaps...
>
> Doubtless down to piston velocity - in a long stroke engine the pistons will
> be moving up and down faster than in a short stroke unit for any given RPM.
Makes sense. But don't you think that the extra bangs per revolution
have an effect too?
--
Regards, Willy.
PTO
Geoff Mackenzie
Dave - sorry, no confidence in the road tests of the time. They all claimed
top whack of 150, which no production version ever achieved. Don't recall
any of them commenting on the accuracy of the speedo, though.
Geoff MacK
Dan Buchan
> I read a US BMW group and many there complain about modern BMWs being 10%
> fast overall. Mine doesn't appear to be. Perhaps it's just one of their
> strange laws over there.
I've noticed them moaning about that as well. I reckon American cars must
have more accurate speedos than ours, because the scale of over-reading
they were going on about sounded pretty much like what I take for granted
in any car. That's just a guess. Surely all speedos are *at least* 10%
fast; that's only 3mph at 30, after all. The way to find out is to drive
at a constant 20mph over in front of a traffic car.
Dan Buchan
> The number of cylinders has an effect in all this, though doesn't it?
> I've been trying to get my head around it with my Triumph Vitesse, in
> which 3000rpm sounds a lot faster revving than in my 4 cylinder Carlton.
> One and a half times faster, perhaps...
They don't really sound faster to me, just different. And a 6+ cyl at 6000
sounds like it's meant to be doing that, whereas most 4 cyls just sound
loud and rather unhappy (even if they're not).
The brother of one of my friends got himself a Honda Civic 1.8 vti (IIRC)
and the clock goes to about 7-8k before the red, although he only took it
to about 4k which was quite frustrating. I would like to hear how that
sounds when you set it away, since it was obviously built for it.
Dave Plowman
Geoff Mackenzie <geoff_m...@acsysindia.com> wrote:
> Dave - sorry, no confidence in the road tests of the time. They all
> claimed top whack of 150, which no production version ever achieved.
> Don't recall any of them commenting on the accuracy of the speedo,
> though.
As I recall, pretty well non of them achieved 150 mph apart from John
Bolster in Autosport. And he had a notorious stopwatch..
Of course not all magazines had the opportunity to test for top speed so
relied on the Jaguar figures, which as we all know were a little
optimistic.
--
*See no evil, Hear no evil, Date no evil.
Dan Buchan
> Any more experiences with the Volvo Amazon (120 series)?
> Or with the BMW 5 series (E28)?
Plenty of (front) room in the BMW. Cheap, too, but not a particular
favourite of mine - I don't like the looks that much, although it's not
exactly ugly. But from the inside comfy, tough, drives well, goes fast and
makes a good noise. Have you considered the 7 series? An XJ6 would also
be a good choice but I would be unhappy buying one without someone who
knows the cars well. And they are thirstier. Same goes for the BMW
6-series, only more so, but the interior space and seating are fantastic
for a coupe; and what a /gorgeous/ car.
Dave Plowman
Heh heh - or use the mile posts on a clear stretch of motorway -
preferably with the cruise in use on a level bit of road - if you can find
both of those at once.
I did this with the SD1 which also has a stop watch on the computer, and
over several miles. It seemed to be only 1 mph over at 70.
Most of the Merkins tend to complain that their speedo doesn't match their
GPS. Haven't got one of those.
+10% -0% is the spec for UK speedos at 30, IIRC. Don't think there's any
spec for other speeds.
--
* If tennis elbow is painful, imagine suffering with tennis balls *
Emanuel Brown
wrote:
Not strange laws, strange law enforcers. My only ticket in the
Porsche was for doing 47 in a 45-mph zone (I was passing someone to
change lanes).
Road and Track tested road cars for speedo accuracy, and the
following chart is from the first road test for the '66 Shadow, which
seems pretty darn accurate:
Reading - Actual
30 mph - 29 mph
50 mph - 50 mph
60 mph - 60 mph
70 mph - 70 mph
80 mph - 78 mph
Odometer 10.0 miles - 10.0
Emanuel Brown
"Everybody wants a normal life and a cool car;
most people settle for the car." Chris Titus
http://home.att.net/~epbrown01/1966-rolls.jpg
http://home.att.net/~epbrown01/1983-porsche.jpg
Dave Plowman
Emanuel Brown <epbr...@att.net> wrote:
> Road and Track tested road cars for speedo accuracy, and the
> following chart is from the first road test for the '66 Shadow, which
> seems pretty darn accurate:
IIRC, Rolls, Rover and Jaguar all had pretty accurate speedos in the '60s
and '70s.
--
*It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.
Geoff Mackenzie
A quick look at the drivers' handbook where it shows revs/mph makes it
pretty clear that to achieve 150 requires revs rather above that point at
which it goes bang.
IIRC, and we are going back a bit here, the original test car which did the
famous 150 had a gently improved engine - not much apart from general
"blueprinting". However, it was running Dunlop Green Spot tyres which
deform at speed. The rolling radius increases, effectively uprating the
axle ratio.
A realistic figure for a decent E is about 135mph. Mind you, that's still
not bad for the early sixties.
Optimism on figures was pertty normal at that time. Look at the bhp for
most American cars!
Geoff MacK
Jim Warren
PJML <pj...@nerc.ac.uk.loopback> wrote in message
news:3D6C968C...@nerc.ac.uk.loopback...
>
> being involved in a *major* nose-to-tail-style
> traffic jam in fog on the M1 back in the mid-
> 1960s, from which the driver walked away - something
> which could not be said for those other involved drivers
> in steel-bodied cars.
I can't comment on the Scimitar, having never driven one or seen one in an
accident.
But I did once see a Reliant Kitten that was the meat in a low speed
accident sandwich.
A young kid nipped across a main road, completely misjudging (or perhaps not
looking at) the traffic. The lorry he was in front of did an emergency stop
(in time!).
A Reliant Kitten behind the lorry also managed to stop in time, but the
lorry behind the Kitten didn't *quite* do the same. By the time he had
stopped, he had shunted the Kitten into the stationary lorry and then
shortened it by nearly a foot. The driver of the Kitten was virtually
unscathed with just mild whiplash. The bodywork of the Kitten was not so
lucky. "Burst asunder" is perhaps the best description....
If nothing else, it reinforces the advice to hit something soft.
Geoff Mackenzie
"Jim Warren" <jimw...@OMITfreeuk.com> wrote in message
news:103103342...@iapetus.uk.clara.net...
Marcos (original wooden chassis version) for some magazine. The bodywork
was scattered to the four winds, and Mr Hill was observed sliding down Park
Lane in the seat, still strapped in.
Geoff MacK
R. N. Robinson
"Jim Warren" <jimw...@OMITfreeuk.com> wrote in message
news:103103342...@iapetus.uk.clara.net...
> But I did once see a Reliant Kitten that was the meat in a low speed
> accident sandwich.
> A young kid nipped across a main road, completely misjudging (or perhaps
not
> looking at) the traffic. The lorry he was in front of did an emergency
stop
> (in time!).
> A Reliant Kitten behind the lorry also managed to stop in time, but the
> lorry behind the Kitten didn't *quite* do the same. By the time he had
> stopped, he had shunted the Kitten into the stationary lorry and then
> shortened it by nearly a foot. The driver of the Kitten was virtually
> unscathed with just mild whiplash. The bodywork of the Kitten was not so
> lucky. "Burst asunder" is perhaps the best description....
>
We used to call it "Shredded Wheat" , though it was probably closer to
unconstituted Weetabix ;-)
Ron Robinson
Willy Eckerslyke
> > A Reliant Kitten behind the lorry also managed to stop in time, but the
> > lorry behind the Kitten didn't *quite* do the same. By the time he had
> > stopped, he had shunted the Kitten into the stationary lorry and then
> > shortened it by nearly a foot. The driver of the Kitten was virtually
> > unscathed with just mild whiplash. The bodywork of the Kitten was not so
> > lucky. "Burst asunder" is perhaps the best description....
> >
>
> We used to call it "Shredded Wheat" , though it was probably closer to
> unconstituted Weetabix ;-)
Someone's going to mention Trabant sooner or later.
Oh.
There's a nice Yugoslavian film in which an abandoned Trabant is shown
at regular intervals as more and more of it is consumed by a large pig.
(Might well be "Black Cat White Cat")
--
Regards, Willy.
PTO