Most undeserving / overrated classic?

In article , Geoff Mackenzie writes

Slip of the fingers, as explained elsewhere. Sorry. Of course, it should have read Daimler, not Jaguar, and 1910, not 1930. That's what comes of posting in a hurry.

Turner was definitely Triumph. I'll have the info about the BSA/Daimler setup *somewhere* but finding it would be a problem - too many magazines :-) I think Val Page (BSA and Ariel among others) was involved somewhere at sometime. I don't think Turner was directly involved in detail design by then, but he would be in overall charge.

I'd also like to discover the relationship between the Daimler engines and the Dodge Hemi. There's too much similarity for it to be concidence.

In article , Geoff Mackenzie writes

He was a designer with Triumph before WW II, and you are correct, he did design the Speed Twin engine. Triumph was purchased by BSA in 1951, and Turner became MD of BSA Automotive, which already included Daimler. When BSA sold Daimler to Jaguar (I've got it the right way round this time), Turner's engine was part of the package

Oh, no. The Xantia is vastly better than a BX. I've owned both, and the Xantia is bigger, stronger, almost as economical, considerably better made, feels like a higher-quality product all-round.

Richard

From considerable hacking about in a 2600 years back - it was fairly smooth (not front-rank, but better than the essex or cologne v6 and about as good as the Opel in-line 6), revved tolerable well if you were willing to boot it. Suffered from comparison with the V8, but otherwise OK, especially by British standards. Kicked hard, the

I can believe it - a surprising number of these still exist so they must have *something* going for them. Personally I can't see past them being ugly, dull and a really hideous end for another British car company.

My bad. The Essex was the 3-litre and the Cologne the 2.8 then?

What *would* be a good engine for a Scimitar? As much as I hated the actual GTC example I owned, the general idea was quite good - a plastic pseudo-Stag for people who don't want Stags. 4 proper seats, big engine, proper boot, rarity value - just a shame about the interior, the incurable overheating, and the disastrous electricals.

It must have been 1965 or earlier, then. Maybe 10 years earlier than you recalled? Don't worry, it happens to all of us old farts sooner or later.

The TR7 was a much inferior car to the TR6 IMHO. More comfortable certainly, but ~100 BHP and 4 cylinders versus 150 and 6 in the car it replaced....Jeez. If they'd only gone straight for the V8 version. In fact, if they'd sorted the Stag, they could have put the Stag V8 in there instead of just the left-hand half of it. Would have got them round the shortgae of Rover V8 engines at least.

If you had a Series III Sovereign, which would have been current with the Vitesse, it would have been eaten for breakfast by the Vitesse in both performance and fuel consumption. You'll get high '30s cruising at the speed limit. Not as comfortable, though, but much better handling.

TRs went downhill when they put the the IRS on the TR4 -- every update after slipped the marque further downhill especially the 2.5pi engine. I

Yep.

I still reckon they got it right in the pre-production cars with 289ci/4.6L Mustang V8 - around the same weight as the Essex, tough, masses of lazy grunt. The person I've spoken to who has driven one of the two pre-prod cars reckons it to be very tasty indeed. You do see the occasional conversion around as well (there was a 289-engined SE5a advertised in the owner's club magazine a year or so ago). Failing that, best bet would probably be a Ford 2.9L Cologne (the Scorpio engine) - probably not the 24V version as that would be a bit tight width- wise. I dare say Denpart would be happy to do the conversion if you crossed Paul's palm with the appropriate amount of silver.

interestingly my experience was the complete opposite to yours on all other counts.

Geoff MacK

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote

Not the easiest engine to source in the UK, unfortunately.

The 2.6 I had direct experience of seized its camshaft because an oil-flow-restrictor became displaced [not blocked] and the oil-flow to the camshaft became zero.

The 6-cyl engines were actually detuned from their original design power- output too - for marketing reasons. A 150BHP 2.6 and a 155BHP V8 wouldn't sit together very well in the sales brochures if the V8 came with a healthy price-premium over its more humble sidekick.

I thought it was fairly authoritive that SS stood for Swallow Sidecars....Lyons original business. The name change reasons are of course correct.

Jonners

Move this in to the other thread Geoff and we'll all join in in the same place... Dont agree with the Xantia BTW....far nicer than the BX. but good cars both.

Jonners

I could provide contemporary road test figures for the Vitesse - say from Autocar - but not for the Jag. I did have a carburettor 4.2 XJ6 auto and that could be out accelerated by an Ital. ;-)

The problem with the XJ6 is its weight - it weighs at least 1/3rd more than an SDI which must have a drastic effect on the overall fuel consumption. It would also have more friction in the drive train due to the IRS.

In article , Jon Tilson writes

According to "Jaguar: a tradition of sports cars" by Bernard Viart and Michel Cognet, when Lyons was negotiating with John Black over the supply of Standard components for the first SS1s, Black asked what the cars would be called.

"Swallow Sport" replied Lyons.

"Nonsense," said Black. "It'll be the Standard Special"

Apparently the two men agreed on SS as a compromise, since that way both could interpret the name as they wished. Lyons himself apparently never shed any light on the true meaning of the name.