1950 Austin K8 Threeway Coach

This is up on ebay

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1950-Austin-K8-Threeway-Coach-Only-1-on-the-Road_W0QQitemZ310075278377

hope I have whats needed

My question, surely the engine is bigger than a 2200cc for that size bus.

Looks a nice unit tho.

r

In article <48ad247b$1_2@news.peopletelecom.com.au>,
   Rob  wrote:

> 	
> 1950 Austin K8 Threeway Coach

> This is up on ebay

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1950-Austin-K8-Threeway-Coach-Only-1-on-the-Road_W0QQitemZ310075278377

> hope I have whats needed

> My question, surely the engine is bigger than a 2200cc for that size bus.

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?

> Looks a nice unit tho.

> r

-- 
*Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Rob  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

> My question, surely the engine is bigger than a 2200cc for that size
> bus.

Nope. A quick google suggests it's the same engine as the Austin Hereford 
cars.

http://wakefield-files.freehostia.com/austins.htm

But you're right - it's gorgeous.

Adrian wrote:

> http://wakefield-files.freehostia.com/austins.htm
> 
> But you're right - it's gorgeous.

"It could be fitted with either ambulance or passenger coach built body"
An ambulance version caused a stir in the public carpark overlooked by a 
colleague's office a couple of years ago. Some eedjits had towed it in 
on a rope behind a Discovery which then did a U-turn. As anyone could 
have figured out, the turning circle of the Disco was a lot tighter than 
that of the ambulance. The ambulance's brakes, if it had any, clearly 
weren't a match for the Disco's power so it swiped the fronts of three 
cars before coming to a stop.

Adrian  wrote in
news:6h4ovtFj78hhU1@mid.individual.net: 

> Rob  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying: 
> 
>> My question, surely the engine is bigger than a 2200cc for that size
>> bus.
> 
>

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

In article , 
news@selwynsmith.co.uk says...
> Adrian  wrote in
> news:6h4ovtFj78hhU1@mid.individual.net: 
> 
> > Rob  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> > saying: 
> > 
> >> My question, surely the engine is bigger than a 2200cc for that size
> >> bus.
> > 
> >
> 
> 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.

-- 
Halmyre

That's you that is.

"Halmyre" <no.spam@this.address> wrote in message 
news:MPG.2317db1db8abe9bd989956@news.tesco.net...
> In article ,
> news@selwynsmith.co.uk says...
>> Adrian  wrote in
>> news:6h4ovtFj78hhU1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>> > Rob  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> > saying:
>> >
>> >> My question, surely the engine is bigger than a 2200cc for that size
>> >> bus.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> 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

In article <g8n0pu$h7l$1@aioe.org>,
   R N Robinson  wrote:
> > 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.

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.

-- 
*I don't have a license to kill, but I do have a learner's permit.  

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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

>
>	
>1950 Austin K8 Threeway Coach
>
>This is up on ebay
>
>http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1950-Austin-K8-Threeway-Coach-Only-1-on-the-Road_W0QQitemZ310075278377
>
>hope I have whats needed
>
>My question, surely the engine is bigger than a 2200cc for that size bus.

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

>Looks a nice unit tho.

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

Dave
SE6a

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:48:24 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
 wrote:

>In article <g8n0pu$h7l$1@aioe.org>,
>   R N Robinson  wrote:
>> > 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.
>
>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.

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:

>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. 

Now compare fuel consumption.
-- 

Dave
SE6a

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:52:10 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
 wrote:

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

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

In article <g8ukfa$hfe$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
   Grimly Curmudgeon  wrote:
> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember Alex 
> saying something like:

> >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. 

> Now compare fuel consumption.

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

-- 
*There are two sides to every divorce: Yours and shit head's*

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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

>>>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. 
>>
>>Now compare fuel consumption.
>
>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

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.
-- 

Dave
SE6a

In article <g91bfv$rb9$1@registered.motzarella.org>, 
grimly4REMOVE@REMOVEgmail.com says...
> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember Alex 
> saying something like:
> 
> >>>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. 
> >>
> >>Now compare fuel consumption.
> >
> >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
> 
> 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.
> 

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".

-- 
Halmyre

That's you that is.

>>>>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. 
>>>
>>>Now compare fuel consumption.
>>
>>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
>
>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.

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.

>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.

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

Alex  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

> 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.

Why not just gas it?

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:34:03 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
 wrote:

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

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.

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:34:03 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
>  wrote:
> 
>> That's about right for that size bus of that age. They were all horribly
>> underpowered slugs then.
> 
> 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.

r

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

> 
> 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.

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 
15mph to 115mph.

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

On 23 Aug, 00:48, "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote:

> For this sort of use the power output is fairly irrelevant - it's the
> torque that matters.

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

Alex wrote:

>> 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.

The trouble with doing that to a Series Landy is that you then feel the 
need to improve the springing, either by fitting parabolics or via a 
major conversion to coils, by which time you may as well buy a Defender.

> Yes, well the 2.25 is adequate for the Series which I probably use
> once a month. 

I'm always amazed by how quiet and car-like the 2.25 petrol engine 
sounds on a Land Rover - until drowned out by the transmission noise, at 
least.

I've finally got my Perkins 4.203 engined 109 on the road and have to 
say the performance is nowhere near as bad as everyone had suggested.

> 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.

Someone on eBay's selling a tatty RR fitted with a Perkins 4.236 + 
Milner conversion plate, currently at around the scrap value. I can't 
remember if that engine is the one with a turbo, but it'd make an 
interesting alternative to a 200tdi. For various values of 'interesting'...

In article ,
   Rob  wrote:
> Andy Dingley wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:34:03 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
> >  wrote:
> > 
> >> That's about right for that size bus of that age. They were all
> >> horribly underpowered slugs then.
> > 
> > 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.

Pretty well no large car of that era stopped well from its maximum speed -
except perhaps Rolls-Royce. Hence the eventual adoption of discs.

-- 
*When did my wild oats turn to prunes and all bran?

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article
,
   Ian  wrote:
> On 23 Aug, 00:48, "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote:

> > For this sort of use the power output is fairly irrelevant - it's the
> > torque that matters.

> 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.

Power is simply the product of torque and RPM. Producing a reasonably flat
torque curve is the important thing - not the actual power output.

As regards increasing torque with the gears - of course this is true. But
without a reasonably flat torque output you'd need far more gears. Exactly
what has happened with modern basic engines.   

> Ian

-- 
*All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:42:20 GMT, Jim Warren
 wrote:

>Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
>
>> 
>> 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.
>
>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 
>15mph to 115mph.
>

Oh, the 2.6 in the Landrover would pull a house up a hill, and it was
lovely footling round town in 4th at 30mph, but the gearing on the
diffs was so low that it used to be turning at 4000rpm to achieve
60mph. Which was not good for the engine, the long-stroke IOE used to
perform best at low rpm.

Alex

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:54:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
 wrote:

>In article
>,
>   Ian  wrote:
>> On 23 Aug, 00:48, "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote:
>
>> > For this sort of use the power output is fairly irrelevant - it's the
>> > torque that matters.
>
>> 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.
>
>Power is simply the product of torque and RPM. Producing a reasonably flat
>torque curve is the important thing - not the actual power output.
>
>As regards increasing torque with the gears - of course this is true. But
>without a reasonably flat torque output you'd need far more gears. Exactly
>what has happened with modern basic engines.   
>

5 gears is enough for anybody. I hate driving the current range of
LCV's with 6-speed boxes. You're forever changing up and down. Even on
the 7.5tonners I drive a 6-speed box is rarely necessary, and often
just increases the amount of clutch work required, that is if I
actually used the clutch for anything other than moving off.

Alex

On 27 Aug, 09:54, "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote:
> In article
> ,
>    Ian  wrote:
>
> > On 23 Aug, 00:48, "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote:
> > > For this sort of use the power output is fairly irrelevant - it's the
> > > torque that matters.
> > 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.
>
> Power is simply the product of torque and RPM. Producing a reasonably flat
> torque curve is the important thing - not the actual power output.

Ah. Now we're talking about shape of the torque-speed curve, not just
maximum value. But even then, torque is of no use whatsoever unless it
has speed with it ... power again.

Ian

On 27 Aug, 09:48, "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote:
> In article ,

> > Having driven the A90 many years a go I would also agree.
>
> Pretty well no large car of that era stopped well from its maximum speed ...

<Looks at DS>

<Smiles>

Ian

In article
,
   Ian  wrote:
> On 27 Aug, 09:48, "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote:
> > In article ,

> > > Having driven the A90 many years a go I would also agree.
> >
> > Pretty well no large car of that era stopped well from its maximum
> > speed ...

> <Looks at DS>

> <Smiles>

Heh heh. Luckily for me the DS wasn't in production by the time the A90
Atlantic ceased. About 3 years out.

> Ian

-- 
*Caution:  I drive like you do.

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 27 Aug, 19:50, "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote:
> In article
> ,
>    Ian  wrote:
>
> > On 27 Aug, 09:48, "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote:
> > > In article ,
> > > > Having driven the A90 many years a go I would also agree.
>
> > > Pretty well no large car of that era stopped well from its maximum
> > > speed ...
> > <Looks at DS>
> > <Smiles>
>
> Heh heh. Luckily for me the DS wasn't in production by the time the A90
> Atlantic ceased. About 3 years out.

True ... but still of the same era. Mind you, even today nothing
brakes like a DS.

Ian

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:20:03 -0700 (PDT), Ian
 wrote:

>> > <Looks at DS>
>> > <Smiles>
>>
>> Heh heh. Luckily for me the DS wasn't in production by the time the A90
>> Atlantic ceased. About 3 years out.
>
>True ... but still of the same era. Mind you, even today nothing
>brakes like a DS.

It took me forever to get used to that mushroom thing where the brake
pedal should have been on my DS19.

The car was damned neat theft-proof, too.  Because, yer casual oik had
no idea that the starter was on a biased setting at the end of the
gearshift.  He'd never find it if he didn't know.

Mine had the old hydraulic fluid system, the one before LHM.  I forget
what it was called.  I *do* remember how honking, freaking expensive
the fluid was though, I'd lost a couple of litres from a slow leak
that I'd spotted, but was too slow to getting around to fix.  I forget
how much the fluid cost, but I remember that it knocked a dent in my
paycheck that week.

In article
,
   Ian  wrote:
> > Heh heh. Luckily for me the DS wasn't in production by the time the A90
> > Atlantic ceased. About 3 years out.

> True ... but still of the same era. Mind you, even today nothing
> brakes like a DS.

They certainly were miles ahead of their time. But in terms of sheer
braking efficiency plenty modern cars are better. It's quite possible to
get fade on a hard driven DS.

-- 
*The longest recorded flightof a chicken is thirteen seconds *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Alex wrote:

> 5 gears is enough for anybody. 

Once upon a time, three was enough.

My 1952 Mayflower had a 3-speed all synchromesh box, and while I drove 
it I never felt the need for any more than that.  There was always one 
gear that was right for the conditions.

Jim

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

>> 5 gears is enough for anybody. 
>
>Once upon a time, three was enough.

What are these gear things?

I recall seeing a V8 trike in which the bellhousing was directly coupled
to the axle - the only neutral was by holding the clutch in.

Utter madness.

I did see another one with the same layout, but with a dogbox in the
transmission line, enabling neutral to be selected.
-- 

Dave
SE6a

In article <g9679o$5t6$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
   Grimly Curmudgeon  wrote:
> >> 5 gears is enough for anybody. 
> >
> >Once upon a time, three was enough.

> What are these gear things?

> I recall seeing a V8 trike in which the bellhousing was directly coupled
> to the axle - the only neutral was by holding the clutch in.

> Utter madness.

My old P6 3500S would start in top pretty easily on the level. And run
down to just over walking pace without judder. After I'd removed those
damn poppet valves on the butterflies.

-- 
*If a mute swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap?

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , dave@davenoise.co.uk says...
> In article <g9679o$5t6$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
>    Grimly Curmudgeon  wrote:
> > >> 5 gears is enough for anybody. 
> > >
> > >Once upon a time, three was enough.
> 
> > What are these gear things?
> 
> > I recall seeing a V8 trike in which the bellhousing was directly coupled
> > to the axle - the only neutral was by holding the clutch in.
> 
> > Utter madness.
> 
> My old P6 3500S would start in top pretty easily on the level. And run
> down to just over walking pace without judder. After I'd removed those
> damn poppet valves on the butterflies.
> 
> 

ISTR 'Autocar' used to pull a similar trick with any V12 Jaguars they had on 
test.

-- 
Halmyre

That's you that is.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember Jim Warren
>  saying something like:
>
>   
>>> 5 gears is enough for anybody. 
>>>       
>> Once upon a time, three was enough.
>>     
>
> What are these gear things?
>
> I recall seeing a V8 trike in which the bellhousing was directly coupled
> to the axle - the only neutral was by holding the clutch in.
>
> Utter madness.
>
> I did see another one with the same layout, but with a dogbox in the
> transmission line, enabling neutral to be selected.
>   
A mate said he watched an Rover V8 powered Imp race at Castle Combe in 
his younger days  and that was kept in 4th to protect the box and once 
on the move didn't need gears because of the engine torque.

"David Billington"  wrote in message 
news:48b72845$0$2523$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>> drugs began to take hold. I remember Jim Warren
>>  saying something like:
>>
>>
>>>> 5 gears is enough for anybody.
>>> Once upon a time, three was enough.
>>>
>>
>> What are these gear things?
>>
>> I recall seeing a V8 trike in which the bellhousing was directly coupled
>> to the axle - the only neutral was by holding the clutch in.
>>
>> Utter madness.
>>
>> I did see another one with the same layout, but with a dogbox in the
>> transmission line, enabling neutral to be selected.
>>
> A mate said he watched an Rover V8 powered Imp race at Castle Combe in his 
> younger days  and that was kept in 4th to protect the box and once on the 
> move didn't need gears because of the engine torque.

Almost a hundred years ago a Silver Ghost Rolls-Royce was driven from London 
to Edinburgh using top gear only.  This was the 3 speed model, the factory 
having stopped providing an overdrive 4th gear as they weren't satisfied 
that their customers were capable of using it properly/

Ron Robinson