Looking at this 1934 Talbot which was the Bees Knees at the time:
top speed 85mph and 0 to 50 in 16 seconds.
With that engine capacity and HP, why was it so much slower than todays' cars.
At a guess, weight (and they lied about the power output). Aerodynamics of a brick won?t help the top speed.
Tim
Along with some insanely wide spaced gear ratios - probably on a 3 speed box ?
And on the subject of aerodynamcs ... I would say that with those extended front wings it was probably a good thing that it maxxed out at
85mph
Kerb weight allegedly 1395 kg.
4 speed, manual pre-engaged.But even a Landrover 90 brick with 83 hp was 0-50 in much less then 16s.
I was suggesting that the front wings might provide a degree of unwanted lift at high speed, regardless of the overall drag coefficient - assuming that enough power was available to get there.
Some of these discussions seem to compare hp and bhp as if they are interchangeable.
Also ..the car under discussion is the "Talbot 105" - but its not clear if the "105" refers to the wheelbase or the horsepower rating (or something else ...)
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.