Copy of Article Text Below
.....These terms belong to the previous quarter century (and the Charlie-AII-Thumbs monthlies). The metal hasn't changed (that much) but the process of manufacture has. Engines are much better built now. They are also better controlled, with superior ignition systems, efficient automatic chokes for cold running, and, most important of all, with high-technology oil in the sump.
The oil's primary job is that of heat dispersal, but it can only do that job if its lubrication film holds up under all conditions, and that's where the oil chemist, with his array of synthetic long-chain polymers, has been of untold benefit in cutting the motorist's costs. That's the long term benefit.
The short term bonus of a lump of 1980s Bridgend iron (or anyone else's) is that it runs with unimpaired efficiency from one service to the next, and for the average 12,000 miles-per-year driver, that can constitute a whole year's motoring. Remember; it isn't that long ago that the average service interval for engines was 3,000 miles (and just 1500 miles in several instances).
You want to play around with your car's engine? By all means, but first of an, please remember that the unit in your car has been properly tailored to its application and the last thing you want to do is to spoil its reliability, or that of the components involved in transmitting power to the driven wheels.
If you have a limited budget and wish to tune for the road then, obviously, opening-up the engine's breathing and increasing its tractability is worth aiming for. A highly tuned engine in an otherwise ordinary saloon car can, however, be quite a wasted effort in overall terms. The engine can't be as reliable and it will impose a greater, cumulative, strain on the transmission. It will also give the vehicle's brakes a harder time and will (marginally) increase tyre wear.
That sort of wasted effort brings to mind the story of a very well known motor racing writer who was interviewing a famous driver after he had experienced total brake failure just before a rather delicate corner. "How on earth did you get round the corner?" he asked. The sweating racing driver replied that he really didn't know, but somehow, miraculously, he got through the bend to pull up safely on the next straight. The interviewer retorted "in that case you've been doing it all wrong. If you can get though without brakes, why on earth were you wasting time on all the previous laps?"
In the same vein, is a rip-roaring tuned engine going to make your driving that much better, or quicker,? (Better need not necessarily mean quicker.) Will the ability to pull 100mph at ninety-nine zillion rpm be of any tangible benefit?
One of the more pleasant facets of filling in the time (before General Haig and his cronies turbocharge the entire planet out of orbit) by working on CCC, is that during the course of our duties, we jump into and drive a great number of other peoples' motor cars. Where these cars often differ from our project vehicles, or test machines, which are (mostly) perfectly set as the maker (or we) decree, is that as often as not, there are glaring deficiencies, largely unnoticed by the vehicle's normal driver.
No matter how wonderful an engine is, and how quickly a car will accelerate, it won't impress one little bit if it won't go around corners more effectively than the cooking product. You'd be better off tearing up ten pound notes in your front room than driving a car which shoots down the straight bits and then flounders on the bends.
All the effort expended in accelerating the mass of the vehicle has to be lost - converted into heat energy by the brakes-before the driver comes to a twiddly bit. A total waste of time, or, to be more precise, a very expensive and wasteful way of saving a very small amount of time-the paltry few seconds that you save on the straights.
Take a hypothetical case: a twisty (typical) British road of 30 miles distance between towns A and B. Two same-model motor cars. The first has standard suspension, wheels, tyres and brakes but an engine tuned to give 100bhp instead of the standard product's 70bhp. Car two has tuned suspension, wheels and tyres, but standard brakes and a cooking 75bhp engine. Assuming other factors, like driving ability, to be equal, which car gets to town B first? The answer should be the 70bhp second car. Engine tuning only works in a straight line. Car one arrives at the first bend, slows, to, say, 60mph to negotiate the corner, then puts power on for the next straight. Car two arrives at the bend and, thanks to 'super tyres' and properly tailored suspension, only slows to 70mph for the corner. It exits the bend and power is applied - not so much power, of course, but the second car already has a bonus of 10mph.
Halfway through that drive, the first car-besides using more fuel - is running into brake problems as a result of constantly heavier applications to knock off more speed.
Take it a stage further (i.e. give Car One even more power) and it will be in even more trouble, more quickly. The second car will reach town B first and it won't have cooked its brakes or guzzled an inordinate amount of fuel.
That's only theory. But it works in practice too. We've 'convoyed' similar cars with differing power outputs and tyre/suspension combinations on many occasions to out-of-the-way photographic locations in Wales or the North. Each driver usually takes a turn at 'leading' the procession and, more often than not, the car which appears to be glued to the rear view mirror is the one with the best rubber and the tightest suspension. Sheer engine power (as long as no vehicle is seriously underpowered) takes a back seat on such trips.
It was demonstrated most clearly when we found ourselves playing with Ford Fiestas in Wales last year. A Janspaed modified 11 DOS proved to be delightfully responsive and smooth, but try as it might, there was no way it could shake-off a Ford X-Pack 1.6 Fiesta with Pirelli P6 tyres, tuned suspension and Ford Rallye Sport alloy wheels. Hardly surprising? Perhaps not, but for such superb drives as Brecon-Builth-Llandrindod, the X-Pack car was never moved out of top gear (except for a roundabout and one open hairpin) - I know that to be true, because I was the lazy beggar behind the X-Pack car's steering wheel.
That to me, represents all that we are calling 'readability'. The money spent on wheels, tyres and suspension was worth every penny. I'm also sure that had the car been equipped with 'only' a 1300S engine, it wouldn't have had any detrimental effects on the X-car's smooth and quick progress.
Constant puffs of exhaust smoke and flashes of brake lights from the tuned 1100S indicated that it was being rowed along with a certain amount of zest. By leaving the 1600 in top, it was quickly apparent that the X car was making all its time in and through the corners.
I think that that demonstrates an altogether more rational, modern, approach to 'tuning'. The retro-fit tyre and wheel has, in many instances, replaced the exchange head as the first thing you should do to improve your car.
The cars included in this table were all, in their time, noted for a slightly better than average performance (with the possible exception of the Austin Seven)
|
YEAR
|
VEHICLE
|
ENGINE SIZE (LITRES)
|
BHP
|
CUBIC CAPACITY
PER 1 BRAKE HORSE POWER
|
|
1922
|
Austin Seven
|
0.75 straight four
|
13
|
57.5cc
|
|
1927
|
Rickenbacker
|
4.4 straight eight
|
107
|
41.1cc
|
|
1937
|
Vauxhall Big Six
|
3.2 straight six
|
80
|
40.0cc
|
|
1948
|
Fiat 1100B
|
1.1 straight four
|
47
|
23.2cc
|
|
1963
|
Ford Cortina GT
|
1.5 straight four
|
83
|
18.0cc
|
|
1964
|
Mini-Cooper 'S'
|
1.3 straight four
|
75
|
17.0cc
|
|
1980
|
Volkswagen Golf GTI
|
1.6 straight four
|
110
|
14.4cc
|
Captions -
Middle - The money spent on wheels, tyres and suspension was worth every penny.
Middle-Right - Ford's new Fiesta XR2 (below), with 83bhp, 105mph top speed and 0-60mph in under 10 seconds, will be on sale in a few weeks. The 'prototype' X-car is shown opposite.
|
