I know the Ford V4 and York engines weren't the best designed units but are they really this bad?...
Peter Evans from the Highways Agency said: "Drivers are advised that some of the vans may be travelling slowly as some of them date back as far as 1965."
From the BBC news web site;
' Transit's 40th birthday journey.' Forty years of 'white van man' are being celebrated on Sunday by a convoy of vehicles travelling from Essex, via Kent, to Southampton.
Think every petrol Transit ever made can cruise at 70.
Did anyone see Top Gear where the German test driver took a Deisel Transit around the Nurburg ring? Apparently, it literally wasnt that far off the pace of a Jaguar Xtype they used on another show. Cant remember the figures, but it averaged something like 95mph?
Jono
11 seconds faster IIRC. 9.59secs for the Jag, 10.8 for the Transit with all unnecessary weight removed, but the transit was being driven by Sabine, one of the circuit 'taxi' drivers, and the Jag, a diesel BTW, was driven by Jeremy Clarkson. I seem to recall that Sabine knocked about half a minute off JC's time, when she drove the Jag. Mike.
Test driver? Nope, you misheard that Sabine Schmitz is a TAXI driver.
S-type diesel.
Target was 10min which would be about 75mph.
Wasn't bothered about speed at Nürburgring, it's lap time that counts. JC had taken the Diesel S-Type over, set a target of 10min and did lots of laps to get a 9min 59sec lap. Sabine took it out without having driven the car before and went round in 9min 12sec. Then bragged she could drive a van round quicker than JC had driven the X-type!
Robert
No, they're _much_ worse.
There just aren't the words to describe how appallingly bad either of those engines was.
units
But neither were so slow that they needed yellow flashing lights protecting them....
If its the same unit that's fitted to Saab 96 v4s (the german built v4), then it seems a fine powerplant and sounds great. Maybe its down to the application?
"K.Shilcock" wrote in news:dbih2i$re9$1@sun- cc204.lut.ac.uk:
Just seems a little small for use in a van the size of a Transit.
I agree it was a fine powerplant (also used in Corsair). Inherant imbalance of a V4 meant they had to fit balancer shafts so it was very smooth.
Rich
Richard Polhill ( snipped-for-privacy@polhill.vispa.invalid) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
I don't think it was the same engine.
The Saab/Corsair lump was 1.7, the Tranny/Capri lump was 2.0.
Not in itself damning proof, but IIRC they were different. This would tend to agree :-
It's not the same engine. The Transit (and, IIRC, the Corsair) had the 4-cyl derivative of the Essex V6, which was fit only for use as an anchor weight. The SAAB used the entirely different Cologne V4, as fitted to the Taunus of the day.
It's not.
I think the two engines are the same, just minor differances, obviously one being capacity.
my saab 96 v4 has a 1.5 lump.. it doesnt hang about (for a 30 year old car) but i can imagine that even with an extra few cc, the aerodynamics and weight would make response very sluggish in comparison in a transit.
Which two engines?
"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@office.ajlelectronics.co.uk:
Probably the ones mentioned in the post he quoted.
But it would have been better to post below the quote.
Rich
Well, all engines are the same apart from minor differences.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required