Bristol alternatives.
 

I don't own a Bristol but I've been tempted by them for a long time. I think I have the will power to wait until I find one in the condition I would want, rather than buy one requiring improvement. Along the way, I've been considering alternatives which have some of the Bristol qualities and I'd welcome opinions from this group on their suitability;

• A Mercedes W107 450 SLC seems understated, comfortable and well screwed together.
• A Lancia Flavia 1800 coupé has the engineering detail which drove Lancia to bankruptcy.
• A Rover P5 3L has the traditional interior and build quality which the Leyland era 3.5L didn't continue.
• A Reliant Scimitar SE4 coupé has the around town style and rorty V-engine.

Any good contenders I've missed?

Bristol alternatives.
 

Mr Potential,

It is all a matter of money and taste, as well as risk assessment based on
availability of parts and expertise. Apart from bodywork and some
suspension bits, the Bristol (V8 ones anyway) shares lots of common cheap,
mass produced, easy to obtain new bits with relatively simple design -
effective, low stress items mostly. Even electrics are simple. In fact the
Bristol is probably the easiest of your list to own as a going concern due
to its simplicity although the Reliant will be more so when factoring in the
suspension. Bristol front and rear suspension (especially rear) can be
expensive (a couple of grand) to rebuild to like new.

Your 450 SL Merc will be terrific to own but much more costly to rebuild and
will need more expertise than a Bristol. It is also much more common (!) on
the roads but is appreciating well. There is a huge support network of
parts suppliers, body shops and dealers - but they will charge good money.
It is only a two seater unless you includethe SLC - barely a 4 seater.

The Rover is solid but of a different nature and style to either of the
first two - more old-fogey than swift understated sports (2 or 4 seater).
Parts should not be a problem considering the owner's club and numbers
produced. The Bristol is still simpler (rear suspension aside).

The Reliant is very simple and no where near the quality and style of the
Merc or the Bristol. Not my cup-of-tea.

All boils down to cost of running and owning plus what you expect / prefer.
The Bristol (V8) is pretty quick and can be made to be very fast (easily
extract 350-450bhp), is somewhat thirsty if used a lot and is not flashy or
complicated - read as inexpensive to maintain. You can upgrade a Bristol V8
with more modern stuff - like a more efficient engine and gearbox combo as
well as other "factory" or third party bits. The underlying philosophy
remains even with improved cost of ownership and driving appeal.

The best bet is to meet several people with reasonably decent cars and ask
for a poke about and test drive. As long as the suspension is in good
fettle (the only expensive bit of the mechanicals), the most costly part of
the Bristol is repairing the underlying chassis and alloy panels if
corrosion is rife.

Clyde (of V8 Buyer's guide)

Out of the 4 the 450SLC would attract me most. Even really good ones rarely go past £15k.

What about the Jensen Interceptor though???? I wouldnt go for the FF for complexities sake but a late S3 is very tempting if you can afford the juice.

The problem with owning these kind of classics is that you cant run them on a shoestring budget and it helps to have mechanical knowledge and a garage. People own these cars reasonably reliably for years buying them cheap and spending very little on them and they one day end up as sheds on fleabay. Reliant Scimitars are a good example of this although Bristols account for a fair number as well. The very few running on the roads are not just because of the low numbers originally produced - there are probably just as many languishing in garages on under covers in peoples driveways. It's a shame. I dont like giving advice which isn't asked for, but get the best you can afford. It will save you sleepless nights in the long term!

Mr Potential,

I wouldn't consider the Reliant Scimitar comparable with a Bristol. Not that there is anything wrong with Scimitar, but it's a very different car. To be honest nothing is quite like a Bristol!

The Mercedes 450 SLC has certainly stood the test of time. Probably has better build quality than a V8 Bristol. But it's much smaller than a V8 Bristol and I can't imagine it would carry four adults in the same comfort as a Bristol. Cons: Common as muck, ex pimp car.

I quite like the Rover and have toyed with the idea of buying one myself, but I would want a P5B Coupe. I don't believe they had any build quality issues. It was good enough for the Prime Minister!

Lancia Flavia coupe is a great looking car, but I don't know much about it.

Other suggestions,

BMW 2800 CS
Bentley T1
Jaguar XJ6 Coupe

There was a time you could have got a good Gordon Keeble for that money, or an Aston DBS, but not any more...

With the V8 Bristol you are paying for exclusivity and a bit of mystique. Having helped pull one apart, I personally don't think the engineering or build quality is superior to most of the other cars here. You can definitely tell they were hand made. But, if you start with a good one it would be one of the easiest to maintain.

eeerrrhhhh Kevin, what size are the 4 adults which you are carrying in comfort in a Bristol? I am on my third Bristol, but none have managed to accommodate 4 normal sized adults in comfort. 2 yes, but 4, never.

Bristol alternatives.
 

The Jensen CV8 MKIII has the 6.75 Litre engine, is beautifully made,
looks astonishing and is a hoot to drive. It's my favourite of all
the US engined Europeans, although the Facel Vega is a pretty
amazing coachbuilt car too. The detail work in stainless steel is
very clever indeed.

Ashley

As for the SLC, on longer journeys the back seats are only suitable for children really.
Anyway, I would recommend the 500 SLC with the aluminium 5 litre engine rather than the 450 SLC.
And people needing more spaciness should consider the succeeding SEC line. Although this is an entirely different car in character - more comfort-oriented.

Regards,
Markus

Actually even better for rarity would be the 450SLC 5.0 - I think they only made a few hundred before it became the more obviously named 500SLC.

Ah, you got me there Richard, I guess I was quoting the old marketing hype!

My 411 has been off the road for the last eight years and only ever once carried adults in the back that I can remember. Not that there were any complaints, but the passengers were female and it was a short trip. I guess it depends on the height of the driver and front passenger as well.

It's all relative though. Of the cars mentioned none of them would have any more leg room that a V8 Bristol, and several would have considerably less.

The only cars I can think of with really generous room in the back have been long wheelbase versions of more modern cars.

Bristol alternatives.
 

I had a Scimiter. Prefer the look of the earlier GTE over the later
Cologne engined model. Handles well. Enough grunt. Seats 4 at a bit of a
pinch. Downsides are that they leak around the back window. Unless fixed,
all of them overheat (there is a simple cure) I remember going to a
meeting and noticing that everybody arriving popped the bonnet for a bit
of extra ventilation as soon as they stopped! I became adept at changing
warped cylinder heads. Fibreglass body is difficult to maintain to
concours standard. I think they get tired. Last time I asked, parts were
not a problem.
Lancia Flavia: beautiful car. But the flat 4 is a bit slow. The bodies rust
terribly and electric are a nightmare. I guess that spares would be a
problem particularly in England where so few were sold. (Colin Dexter told
me that he knows absolutely nothing about cars and it was a friend who told
him that an eccentric like Morse should have a Lancia Flavia ... and that is
the car that features in the early Morse novels. The Jag which appears in
the films was purely the inspiration of the film producers.)
Rover: agree with Kevin that the coupe looks fine. Used to have an early
six cylinder which was dreadfully slow and thirsty. The V8 much better
from that point of view but it's still a big old car. Awful rust around
the wings. Handling? If you've ever been on a canal barge you'll know the
feeling!
Mercedes: I know nothing.
Other suggestions: keep with Lancia. The Gamma was a fantastic car, whether
in Berlinetta or Coupe mode. Either look great. Fantastic handling, more
than adequate performance from the 2.5 flat 4. Early ones shed cam belts but
I think the design was put right with the fuel injected models. It's the
last true Lancia. Those that followed were Fiats. Wouldn't cost a lot
either. Peter

I agree with your sentiment and I certainly wouldn't stint on maintenance or go for a poor car to save money. The cost of improving one exceeds the cost of buying a good one, with few exceptions. I have in the past bought good but not excellent old cars as daily drivers and those can be great fun so long as I ignore the urge to perfect them. I think the thing is to sell them on to someone who enjoys restoring more than driving at that point and redirect the proceeds to a better car.

I currently use a Daimler Double Six of the last generation in the long wheelbase version. This is what I call generous legroom in the back.
But still, it's problematic for people of more than 1.90 m because of the classic Jaguar roofline. I guess this is why the current XJ is considerably higher - but has lost this special appeal.

The optimum for rear seat passengers would probably be a RR Phantom (old or new) or something like that.

Regards,
Markus

Any of the LWB S-classes had very good rear legroom and they are still 'cheap as chips' for a relatively good one unless you go for the 6.9 or 6.3 variants

Well sure, the S class is fine. And relatively easy to maintain, at least over here in Germany. Spare parts are also readily available and not very expensive.
If I lived in Britain, I probably would have an S class. But I just don't like seeing the same car at every corner. They are just too common here. I think in England, it's probably the other way round - the XJ is common and the S class exclusive.
One of my neighbours has a 6.9 in very good condition with all options. But it seems he is not really able or willing to afford the maintenance. He only registered it again last year when it achieved "vintage status" (in Germany you can apply for that for cars older than 30 years, it means taxes are significantly lower then) and even so rarely uses it. Fuel consumption is really high for today's standards. Anyway, I personally prefer the 6.3 because of its classic body shape. The 6.9 is a bit too ostentatious for my taste.

Regards,
Markus

Bristol alternatives.
 

Markus, i live in Manchester in England and the Mercedes S-class, as well
as other models is a very common car in Manchester. The Jaguar XJ is a
rarer car here as it has a bad image, too much of an old mans car i hear
and lacks sophistication. I do like the S-class though.

Andrew

Lacks sophistication?
That's funny. I think the ride in an XJ series X300 is still excellent, concerning the comfort aspect. Certainly better than in an S class up to and including the W126 series.
For me, the Double Six was not planned as an everyday transport but then it turned out that it is so much more fun to drive than the E class (current model) that I use it very often, regardless of the fuel consumption which is twice the E class. Although the comparison is a bit unfair, as it is only the E 220.

By the way, what is the image of Bristol in Britain, i.e. for people who even heared about the marque?

Regards,
Markus

Bristol alternatives.
 

When i say sophistication i mean more about the statement the car makes,
rather than the technological capabilities of the car. Sorry, i should have
been clearer. I can understand the older man view of the car over here, but
i don't agree with the sheep like views to so called style in this country.
Jaguars are fine cars and like any other cars, you buy what you prefer. I
think many of our nation need to take the image views of a car a little less
seriously and just enjoy cars.

Andrew

Bristol alternatives.
 

Hi all -

My next project is likely to be a Maserati Quattroporte, series
III. Much more common than the Bristol in the US (what isn't?) and
"good value", in some semi-insane sense. I'll need to sell my '66
Imperial LeBaron to make room for it, so if anyone would like a
decent example of the "best" postwar Imperial, see it at
http://teamchicago.com/imperial/ . Full details provided on request,
of course.

Bob

Bristol alternatives - Alfa?
 

Interesting that Alfa doesn't seem to have featured in this thread? I
have only recently investigated with a cheapie 155 V6, seems to have
some grunt, handling, comfort and quiet, but maybe be a bit lacking in style?

Stuart

That's a nice one and still quite cheap.
I almost bought one two years ago.
I would recommend the (rarer) version with manual transmission, it's much quicker.
Or the Royale, the ultimate luxury Quattroporte (only available with automatic transmission). It even has Daimler/RR-style wooden fold-out tables in the rear.

Gruß,
Markus

But would you get a good one of either of those for GBP15k ?

Given the initial post I thought we were only considering cars in the 1960s and 70s that were comparable to a V8 Bristol. Did Alfa make anything that fitted that criteria?

I can't think of anything from Alfa that's a direct competitor, the Montreal appeals but I'd have to be completely mad to buy one :)

I do love the external shape of the Gamma Coupé but I'm not sure I'd enjoy staring at that dash board every day.

Speaking of Fiats, the 130 Coupé looks like a lovely car.

Bristol alternatives.
 

Dear all of you,
Love your website, Think you're all great albeit a bit/ bit very quirky.
When I was a boy I used to fly from Hurn airport in Hampshire to Cherbourg
in France, in a Bristol aeroplane that I thought was called a Bristol City,
but that could be a mistake I made (after nearly 50 years) remembering the
term Bristol "Cities".
On the plane there were just 12 passenger seats, leather to boot, and I
think there were also still parachutes on board.
Below there was space for 3 cars. I can remember one Aston Martin amongst
them when I flew in 1962. Probably a DB4.
Only the rich could afford to fly then, with or without their car.
Those were the days, my friend. (this is not a McCain quote).
On the other subjects, my goodness. Who really could care a sh*t about
electric rear windows?
Or am I mad?
Andrew Knox.

Bristol alternatives.
 

It did occur to me that the number of times the rear windows are ever opened
on a Bristol probably number on the fingers of one hand, unless of course
you carry fresh air fanatical passengers. Otherwise they probably never get
touched, so why give a S**t as “rubbond” suggests.

Making the rear windows electric would simply make the car more complex and
not that more practical. I think a better design would have the rear
windows wind down into the rear cavity (electrically or manually). Further,
if the front doors were frameless, then the whole affair could be pillarless
and that would look stunning – but a much more expensive and structurally
demanding challenge.

Now give me electric solenoid activated (or sprung cable operated) petrol
filler cap or rear boot lid any time. These changes represent more
convenience and are practical. My 406 is getting electric with back up
cable control of boot lid and fuel filler cap. The rear windows will remain
manual, although I am toying with electric front operation. My front seats
(from a BMW 3 series convertible) will be electric as well. Apart from
these few modern conveniences, I am trying to keep it as simple and easy to
maintain as possible. About that fact I do give a S**t.

Bristol alternatives.
 

Basically, if you have front electric windows, you should have the rear ones
electric also. It also helps older and more infirm passengers in the rear
to open the window when they find it difficult to reach and open the manual
mechanism. Also, in a prestige car you should open the window in a more
gentlemanly manner by pressing a switch by slight of hand rather than if you
were in a £7000 car. I don't agree with excuses of unreliability. When you
make cars costing £150,000 and above, you find a reliable mechanism and you
fit it. Excuses smacks of laziness to develop and progress and to make the
car a better and more passenger friendly car. I also believe this has some
truth with the lack of safety features which have been proven,
overwhelmingly to save many lives.

Having said that, i am a fan of the current models from Bristol and would
recommend them.

Andrew

______________________
PREVIOUS MESSAGE FROM: potential


---Quote (Originally by Kevin Howard)---
Did Alfa make anything that fitted that criteria?
---End Quote---
I can't think of anything from Alfa that's a direct competitor, the
Montreal appeals but I'd have to be completely mad to buy one :)


---Quote (Originally by Peter.Kent)---
Other suggestions: keep with Lancia. The Gamma was a fantastic car,
whether in Berlinetta or Coupe mode. Either look great. Fantastic
handling, more than adequate performance from the 2.5 flat 4. Early ones
shed cam belts but I think the design was put right with the fuel injected
models. It's the last true Lancia. Those that followed were Fiats.
Wouldn't cost a lot either. Peter
---End Quote---
I do love the external shape of the Gamma Coupé but I'm not sure I'd enjoy
staring at that dash board every day.

Speaking of Fiats, the 130 Coupé looks like a lovely car.

______________________
This thread is located at:
http://www.bristolcars.info/forums/showthread.php?t=135

To unsubscribe from this forum, please visit this page:
http://www.bristolcars.info/forums/s...bscription&f=7

You may reply to this email to post a reply to the forum.
You can also begin a new thread by sending an email to

Isn't there a separate thread discussing the rear windows? Personally I'd prefer hydraulic operation, or perhaps pneumatic...

Bristol alternatives.
 

True the rear side windows even in a Blenheim, cannot be opened without
either being sat in the back seat or stopping the car and climbing past a
tilted-forward front seat to unclip the window fastener. (Same again to
close.) Not ideal, but if modern conveniences are essential then a Bristol
would not be on one's short-list.


How many more postings on this subject can everyone else take? I'm near
exhausted with it!!

Can we please end it now?

Back to mainstream "Bristolling"........ People often ask me why I
choose to drive a Bristol? What is it about Bristols that attracts me? I
reply that they are made by a team of craftsmen trained in aircraft
manufacturing skills. I point to the dash and especially the instrument pod,
housing all the dials and I ask of them "Can you not picture Biggles sat
behind this wheel?" Those of them over 50 understand immediately!

What about everyone else? How do you explain to friends and family the love
of a marque that doesn't conform?

Richard

Hi Andrew
That would have probably been a Bristol Freighter(short nose) or Super Freighter(long nose) operated by Silver City Airways.

Here is a link for a photo complete with an Aerodyne on it's way in.

http://www.aviationarchive.org.uk/st...&pnum=0&maxp=1

Bristol alternatives.
 

It's all been completely beyond me as I have a 400! I chose it
because it looked stunning and a friend went to school with the last
Sir George, so had seen the cars around for years. I normally run a
MKVI Bentley that I've rebuilt over the years and altered to suit
slightly to suit long distance touring. It's silent, exceptionally
smooth, extremely comfortable with a ride that compares favourably
with the best moderns and it's performance is similar to the 400.
Therefore the raucous, bumpy, noisy and partly developed Bristol has
been a culture shock. After a 2 year rebuild, I'm nearly finished
doing the development work that Bristol didn't!

Work has included Alfin brake drums, an anti-roll bar, a Delco Remy
distributor, more or less a 405 engine and soon an MGB clutch and
close ratio box, a brake servo and finally, correctly jetted
carburettors. Not to mention huge amounts of additional sound
deadening, new felt seals and screws to hold down all the floors etc
and the best Motor Wilton. It's no Bentley but with it's overdrive,
it'll cruise all day at 80+, it corners exceptionally well, it's heavy
to drive and it's still noisy, but pretty astonishing for a '49 car.

Modern Bristols with Chrysler engines I'm less sure about, most are a
bit aesthetically challenged to my antique tastes, but the 410 is
really quite nice, I like Sam Frost's Royal Blue one with what R-R
call St James red hide, probably Conollys Vaumol. That's the one I'd
modernise if buy another.

Ashley

Bristol alternatives.
 

''Bristolling''

Richard, I'm with you 100% on this one - it's in the blood!
As for explanations, it is sometimes difficult to explain the
inexplicable feeling we get for this marque.

This photo is already on this site, along with some other nice period photos in this album

I agree with you 100% Andrew.

For another example of laziness you only have to look at the air conditioning in the V8 Bristols. I don't know what they are doing today but even as late as the Blenheim 2 they were still using those ugly, inefficient "cassette" type air conditioners slung under the dash, which date back to the early 1970s. That's just a joke in a car in that price bracket.

The lack of development in the V8 Bristols is even more obvious when you look at the chassis, suspension and the power train.

However, rather than laziness this may have been down to economics. My guess is that the company was in terminal decline by the time Mr Silverton came along.

As for whether things like air con and electric rear windows matter, it all depends upon on how you use the car. If you keep your car under wraps in a dehumidified garage and drive it only on sunny Sundays then of course it doesn't matter and you should probably strive for originality. But if you want to use a classic car as a daily driver then a few niceties become more important.

I'm all for subtle/sympathetic modernisation of classic cars if they are to be used as a daily driver. The thread about electric rear windows is here .

Bristol alternatives.
 

The 3 litre Rover suggested already, I found to make an excellent substitute
for at least the 2 litre Brizzers.
I've recently been overhauling one, to keep me occupied while I give up the
fags, and it's the first time I've been really up close to one, and many
things have surprisingly impressed me, (I'm surpressed) reminded me of my first
intimate moments with Bristols.
Set the tappets today, were left loose while running in, a right old inlet
over exhaust clusterfeck, but now the thing emulates a sewing machine, a very,
very quiet one, the distributor can actually be heard running. Now it occurs
to me that there's nothing I would want to change or modify about the Rover,
I can't say the same about the Bristol.

Best rear window opener setup I've ever seen would be late 80's 2 door
Nissan Sunny, 2 levers just behind handbrake, accessible by front or rear
occupant, operated hinged glass via cables, brilliantly simple.

Bristol Rear windows.
 

In the 403 the heater is not much use unless a window is open. It is hard
to believe that the cabin is that airtight, but letting air out
considerably improves the flow coming in. This is particularly important
when the demister is needed. Perhaps, like Ashley, I have been too
effective in closing gaps in an effort to reduce noise. It is also
difficult to close a door if all windows are closed. The rear side windows
provide the best escape route for air, as this allows the warm air to pass
through the cabin. Opening these is a struggle from the driving seat, and
that is why I rarely open them.
Has anyone devised a "throughflow" system like modern cars have, which would
not involve visible bodywork changes?

Mike Davies.

Now that really is a worthless mod, given that you have to get out of the car to put the petrol in anyway. Although I admit my V8 Aston Volante had exactly that feature (solenoid operated) and it was rather neat when you hit the switch and the two filler flaps popped open. Funny thing is, when I first bought the car, I went to put petrol in it and I couldn't find the release switch - it was in the glove box!

BUT, I wouldn't dream of retrofitting such a feature.

Yes, Bristol did on the 411, with barely noticeable bodywork changes. That's what those two vents are for on the rear wings. There are lightly spring loaded flaps behind those. That's also why there are two wire mesh grilles in the rear parcel shelf. The holes beneath them are not, as this picture shows, for the seat belt to pass through!

Edit: Photo added to show where the seat belt should go. Also photo of vent on inside of rear wing.

In reference to this it is interesting to note that although Bristols historically have always been an aquired choice they were at least a competitive choice in the 50's and 60's and compared well to potential opposition such as Jensen, Facel Vega, Jaguar, Maserati, ISO, Rolls (maybe even some Ferraris) etc. I suppose they used to have access to BAC finance for a time, and Tony Crook, when he sold his successful consessionaries and bought into the company in the 1960's was probably the Toby Sliverton of the day so the cars were still being pretty well developed for a time during the 60's and early 70's.
You're right about the a/c system. I know it allows drivers to simultaniously cook their feet and freeze their eyeballs, but surely a bought-in smaller and more efficient dual zone climate system from the likes of Behr would be 'quite easy' to engineer into the car?

Bristol Rear windows.
 

I love my Rovers as much as anyone and I've had many over the years,
mostly P4s, but P6's, Land Rovers and now a 75 with less than 40,000
miles on the clock. Rovers and Lord Hives friendship with the Wilkes
brothers was the main reason for the MKVI Bentley being the best car
R-R ever made after the Ghost. He understood how well they were made
and how profitable. R-R only profited from Government re-armament
contracts then!

The only thing my 400 has in common with a Rover is that it's a car,
albeit and eccentric one. It's heavy and old fashioned to drive, but
corners and handles like a modern, makes blood curdling noises and it
looks a bit like the some of the Pre-War streamliners. And it's
anything but airtight! I've secreted draught excluders where I can,
the heater does work, but if I want to see through the windscreen I
have open a side window as one always did with old cars. The opening
rear window is a blessing in the summer.

I'll do my tour of France in it next year when the 80+ cruising speed
will be useful and then I'll make up my mind about it. Therefore if
you're over there end May early June, or if you'd like to join us
(there are a few beds left see www.kda132.com for shortly to appear
details), keep an eye open for a Cambridge Grey (Apple Green metallic)
400 with occupants wearing bright yellow ear defenders!

Ashley

What is it with you boys - you claim to love the cars then all you do is run them down. If so much is wrong with them why have one???

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Fighter have a specially developed air conditioning system, designed for the car at great cost?

It would have presumably been much easier, as other "supercars" do, to pinch theirs from cheap mass produced cars but Bristol didn't do that. They wanted to make their car smaller and lighter so they designed their own!

How can you possibly call that lazy???

When I win the lottery I am straight off to Kensington to order my new Bristol!

Philippa
p.s. Also am I not right that despite other comments on the lack of "proven safety features" Bristol has an exceptional safety record despite being a high performance car.

[quote=Kevin Howard;490]I agree with you 100% Andrew.

For another example of laziness you only have to look at the air conditioning in the V8 Bristols. I don't know what they are doing today but even as late as the Blenheim 2 they were still using those ugly, inefficient "cassette" type air conditioners slung under the dash, which date back to the early 1970s. That's just a joke in a car in that price bracket.
quote]

Bristol alternatives.
 

Quote
Yes, Bristol did on the 411, with barely noticeable bodywork changes.
That's what those two vents are for on the rear wings. There are lightly
spring loaded flaps behind those. That's also why there are two wire mesh
grilles in the rear parcel shelf. The holes beneath them are not, as this
picture
(http://www.bristolcars.info/forums/a...pictureid=233)
shows, for the seat belt to pass through!
End quot

I guess this follows on from the first Cortina, which had vents on the C
pillar. A lot of current cars have vents in the boot which exit behind the
rear bumper and are therefor not visible.These have a rubber flap to act as
a one-way valve. The 403 already has airflow into the boot via the rear
window blind slot, but no way out from there. I would not like to cut vents
into the rear wings, but the areas to the side of the boot floor, behind the
rear wheel arches is a possibility.