LJK Setright

[Markus Berzborn]

Originally Posted by Bellerophon

Following on from the last email which suggested that fuel consumption was
not much better because the weight of cars had increased, I can tell you
that it has.

Fuel consumption has certainly improved a lot over the last years.
You just have to compare cars which are really comparable - such as different generations of a model line of the same company.
Take the Mercedes E class, for example, which I am quite familiar with.
A modern E class diesel is much more efficient than it predecessors from the seventies or even eighties and at the same time vastly superior in terms of performance, speed etc.

On the other hand, fuel consumption has in fact developped into a kind of fetish for some people that really puts me off. Just as this CO2 nonsense.

Kind regards,
Markus

[Markus Berzborn]

Originally Posted by UK6

I believe that most physiology books point out that humans have a quicker hand reaction time vs foot reaction time. If so, then why don't we build modern cars with motorcycle type brake actuation or indeed take up Mr Setright's suggestion of a side mounted control column (joystick) which could be used for steering and braking?

You can get such systems installed, if you wish.
They have been offered for handicapped persons for many years now, and they work.

Kind regards,
Markus

[Rubbond]

Pleased to hear about your overdrive conversion. All cars in fact should
have that!
My point was just weight increase over the years.
21 km per litre on diesel by the way sounds marvellous for a (relatively
heavy) Saab. Are you sure?
My wife has a petrol engined Saab 900, but I don't think gets better than 8
km per litre.
With best regards,
Andrew.

[Bellerophon]

Andrew, I have had SAAB's for over 30 years up until now all petrol so yes
the fuel consumption was not marvelous and the further you go back with a
SAAB the thicker the gauge of metal they used. However, the new one has a
large amount of plastic parts including an under pan to help it slide through
the air better, this the old models did not have.
The consumption figures are accurate as I have the mpg permanently
displayed on the dash, which is interesting when you go up or down a hill to see
the changes, (the diesel is twice as good as the petrol) also tends to make
you less heavy with ones right foot.
My regards,
Bellerophon

[Hydroglen]

My Dear Chap surely you were thinking of as Alfa Romeo!
Dorien

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted by Markus Berzborn

...On the other hand, fuel consumption has in fact developped into a kind of fetish for some people that really puts me off.

It seems to be very prevalent in the UK, but then if I had to pay what the Brits pay for petrol and spend all that time sitting in traffic jams I would probably be more concerned about fuel consumption

That said, I was in the UK last week and hired a 2.0L VW Jetta diesel. I was astonished how little fuel it used and how much torque it had from about 1700 rpm. Made me wonder what the V10 Toerag must be like...

Back to LJKS - has anyone ever read the book he wrote about wheels and tyres (or was it just about tyres?)

PS. wearing my Admin hat - when replying by email, please take care to type your reply between the dashed lines as the original email requests and also do not edit the beginning or ending dashed lines in any way. I have just edited about half a dozen posts in this thread to remove the messy email artefacts which results when the second set of dashed lines are inadvertently edited. Thanks

[Markus Berzborn]

Well, fuel is more expensive in Germany than it is in the UK.

I just found the discussion a bit strange, given the subject of this forum.
In the sense that people who are seriously concerned about fuel consumption would probably never even consider large capacity petrol engines as offered by Bristol.

Kind regards,
Markus

[Nick Challacombe]

I find the fact that my 47 year old Bristol 407 still gets better fuel
consumption 19mpg than
my friends Range Rover.
Nothing seems to have progressed in V8s for 47 years.
My diesel 270 Eclass though is very good, 42mpg or more on long runs.
Fantastic I think, though I still love my Bristol, just wafts along at
60/70mph with the same comfort as my Merc,
but no P/S,ABS,Aircon,decent ventilation and a little wind noise.

Nick

[Ashley James]

I have to say that for me the most remarkable classic of all time is a good MKVI Bentley. They are absolutely silent at between 70-80, they are amongst the most comfortable cars of all time, the ride can be caught out, but is as good as today's best most of the time, the steering is light and very precise and they do 19 mpg at 75mph. I've owned over fifty cars including E Types, DB5s and just about anything else you can think of, but nothing quite matches R-R's best effort after the Ghost IMO. At 55 it does 22mpg.

My 400 is a little faster, a lot noisier and rather crude by comparison, though it does handle very well for such an old car. I had to fit a Brake Servo, an MGB clutch, a modern pre-engaged starter, an anti-roll
bar, substantially re-jet the carburettors and ladle in several tons of insulation material to get noise levels low enough to stave of the divorce for a bit longer too.

As I've said before LJKS was a very good, non technical writer who wasn't terribly concerned with the accuracy of his work. I have his "History of the World's Motorcycles" and a another book of re-gurgitated old wives tales about prominent Classics, I used to read his efforts in car magazine, I didn't care for his bias in Hi Fi World and I always used to blow mu stack at the mistakes.

[RGSchmitt]

A few years ago I had a Lincoln Town car as a rental (large) that
gave 27 mpg in moderate driving. EPA ratings for the similar Ford
Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis are 15 city and 23 highway
(mpg).. Pretty good for a 4061 lb car.

[Sam410]

Originally Posted by RGSchmitt

A few years ago I had a Lincoln Town car as a rental (large) that
gave 27 mpg in moderate driving. EPA ratings for the similar Ford
Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis are 15 city and 23 highway
(mpg).. Pretty good for a 4061 lb car.

I had a fairly new (about 4000 miles on the clock) rental Town Car earlier this year and the trip computer said 24mpg (US gallons of course) when I collected it, and I'd managed to get it down to 19mpg 2500 miles later when I returned it. I had of course been driving it at European speeds, shall we say! It is, I think, a 4.6 V8, that struggled to haul its 4061 lb up freeway inclines, and handled like a boat. Corners on freeways were alarming if you were going too fast (over 80mph or so) as the weight shifted and the air suspension lurched. I loved it as a honeymoon car, but wouldn't want one of my own.

[Markus Berzborn]

By the way, are we talking about US or UK gallons?

Regards,
Markus

[Rubbond]

I find it a little worrying that people are able to remember the fuel
consumption of rental cars, and then several years ago.
Last week I rented a Peugeot 107 (at least that was what I was told it was)
on Malta. Small island, so small car.
Having spent 2 days folding down the front seats up and down to get things
into it (it had no boot to speak of), I only realised when filling up with
petrol just before turning it in, that it actually had four doors (!), the
rear doors closing right up against the rear windscreen
Thankfully they do full service at Maltese filling stations, or likely I
would never have found the filler cap, even in daylight.
Another car I won't be buying.
It had 5 gears but I didn't get out of 3rd.
Oh and the fuel consumption - no idea.

[Sam410]

I only remember it because it I had a discussion with the hire car guy about it, there was a display telling me consumption that I spent three weeks watching slowly fall, and it was only a few months ago. It may be thirsty by UK standards, but it gas was still very cheap in California compared to here!

[Ashley James]

I completely rebuild my cars with meticulous attention to their
workings. This includes adjusting carburettors and ignition timing
etc to perfection and applying modifications to achieve better
temperature control and economy. Therefore fuel consumption for me
is one indicator of my success or failure.
Modern cars are different and my wife and I have just endured a long
weekend in Picardy in the back of a six cylinder Subaru Outback with a
small TV screen. This began by advertising the company and, because
no one could fathom the satnav, went on to provide overall and
instananeous fuel consumption. This being the least iritating display
available unless we wanted to drive from Sturminster Newton to
Portsmouth via Dover whilst located somewhere near Rheims. I have a
friend with a BMW who's been unable to persuade his car that he's no
longer on holiday in Spain!
I hope this clarifies the situation, though I should add that any rear
wheel steering in the Subaru was more advisory than mechanical.
Ash

[UK6]

Dear Forum,
My 1939 Jag burns 1 gallon of 92 octane petrol every 20 miles at a constant 2000 rpm (52 mph). Further, the vehicle produces a lot of NOX and a plethora of unburnt hydrocarbons - especially in the form of fuel vapour from the tank breather and atop the old Skinner's float bowls during a hot Aussie summer. Apart from the vehicle's inherent driving pleasure, I am not about to trade the clunker in on a newer/cleaner burning car or indeed, fit a catalystic converter or apply similar mods. The greenies reading this ramble will no doubt be in a mild state of apoplexy at this point, however, in my defence ,I make two important points:
1. The vehicle in question is lucky to travel over 5000mls in one year, and
2. Most of the car is over 70 years old and therefore the energy required to build the car initially has, I believe, been well and truly put to good use.

In closing, I think that the next time I receive my registration bill, I should ask for a rebate given that my vehicle embodies a significant carbon sink ie the car has a wooden body frame!

Brett

[Blenheim Boy]

My cars are autos and I am learning to use my left foot to brake. My work involves driving ambulances, which have manual transmissions; I have no problems in 'switching' between the two mediums.

I also employ a method, apparently championed by Setright, of traversing speed ramps with greater smoothness. By applying the brakes with a quick stab of the pedal, just as the front wheels meet the sleeper, causes the suspension to be compressed from above and below, cancelling out the thump.

[Rubbond]

Don't!
If you need to brake, your right foot will already have lifted off the
accelerator, and you will know exactly where the brake pedal is using the
same foot.
Especially important if you need to brake hard in an emergency!
Amazed ambulances by the way don't have automatic gearboxes!
Andrew.

[Ashley James]

When I first started driving automatics I had to keep my left foot
well clear of the pedals to avoid putting both feet on the brake
pedal to stop.
I believe that some modern cars not only have ABS but also Emergency
Brake Assist, which realises you're anxious to stop quickly and
increases pedal pressure to emergency to stop levels. This is because
experiments have been to show that we don't brake hard enough or fast
enough in emergencies.

[Markus Berzborn]

I don't think it's a good idea getting used to using the left foot for braking.

Regards,
Markus