Engine capacity of bus on ebay item 310075278377

You'd think so - that sounds like the unit still used by London taxis up until quite recently. But I suppose with low enough gearing it might just work?

Adrian wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net:

It is quite small at only 12 seats not much more than a minibus so mabe the engine size isn't so small but it is lovely

Probably a typical British long-stroke lump that could pull a fiver from a Yorkshireman's wallet.

Remember that when the thing was made 'That Monarch Of The Road - The London Omnibus' was propelled around the streets by a mere 97bhp - yes, Flanders and Swan were right - so for something this size around 45bhp or so would have been par for the course.

Ron Robinson

For this sort of use the power output is fairly irrelevant - it's the torque that matters. So although you'd expect a modern 2.2 litre petrol engine to have about three times the max BHP the peak torque won't be anything like so much greater.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Rob saying something like:

That's about right for that size bus of that age. They were all horribly underpowered slugs then.

You'll see it popping up on 'Heartbeat' I've no doubt.

Quite. For example, by comparing two engines of different ereas. A 2.2 DOHC Injection Vauxhall engine produces around 135bhp, 149 ft.lb. A 1961 Rover 2.3 OHV Carb engine produces 70bhp and 124 ft.lb. That's a 93% increase in power but only a 9% increase in torque.

Alex

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Alex saying something like:

Now compare fuel consumption.

There won't be that much difference when warmed up and running at a steady load which needs maximum torque.

Round town,near t the same.....

Both fitted to heavy 4x4's so there's not a lot to choose between them. 18-20 with the rover, 20-22 with the VX. On the motorway it's a different story. Still 18-20 with the rover but nearer 30 with the VX

Alex

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Alex saying something like:

That's about right for the Landy 2.25, which I assume is the one you're referring to - towing a heavy horse box seemed to make not much difference to it - a characteristic it shared with the six-pot at 15mpg everywhere it went and no matter what it did. The reduction in fuel consumption on the modern engine is much more in line with expectations - better breathing, materials, oils, lower friction internals, etc.

I'm glad of the steady progress of fuel efficiency in research and design - nowadays it really makes a difference that can felt in the pocket. If I still had an old Landy I'd be howking out the lump and fitting something newer.

Not to mention aerodynamics. The drag coefficient for a Land-Rover must be on a par with a medium sized house.

Or as someone once said about the original short-tail Porsche 917 - "all the aerodynamics of a grand piano with the lid open".

Alex gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Why not just gas it?

Yes, I had a 6-pot 2.6 IOE Landrover too, lovely acelleration, delightfully smooth long-stroke engine, ran out of oomph at 65mph (even with an overdrive) and did 16mpg regardless of usage.

Yes, well the 2.25 is adequate for the Series which I probably use once a month. However, I am currently ripping a beautiful 3.5 V8 EFI with sports exhaust out of a Range Rover and putting a 2.5 Diesel in, because despite my love for the V8, I can no longer put up with 12mpg in a vehicle I drive every day.

Alex

Can't afford the conversion. I already have the 200Tdi from my last range rover whcih I smashed up. The budget for the rebuild is nil, and the V8 RR cost me £150....

Alex

It's not underpowered for its brakes!

I had a K9 with a huge engine - wouldn't stop worth a damn though. The thought of an A90 flat out scares me.

Having driven the A90 many years a go I would also agree.

I can't comment on a Landy, but I had the 6-pot 3 litre saloon. The most memorable thing about driving that was how seldom it was necessary to change gear. It would pull smoothly in direct top from 10mph and slog up a 1 in 9 hill in that gear at 30mph. Overdrive top went from

But I was getting between 15 and 20mpg commuting to work depending on traffic conditions and 24mpg on a gentle motorway cruise. Barely affordable then (in fact when mortgage interest rates went up I had to sell it) and definitely not good for anybody doing a normal mileage at today's petrol prices.

Of all the cars I have owned in 40 years of motoring, it was one of my favourite drives though. If I had been rich enough to keep it, I would still have it.

Jim

No no no no no. Torque is irrelevant - you can increase it or decrease it at will with gears. Of course that changes the speed, too, so what matters is having enough torque x speed.

Or as we call it ... power.

Ian