What I want vs. what the reality could support
 

"AD" > wrote in message
...
On 20 ???, 01:50, Dean Dark > wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2011 18:30:16 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >"Dean Dark" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:44:44 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>>A 2.0L V8? Is there such a thing?
>
> >> Ferrari made one.
>
> >Didn't that one explode a lot?
>
> I don't know. It was back in the late 70s and I think it was built
> for the Italian market that at that time had some really nutty
> cc-related taxation laws.
>
> I had a '66 Triumph Vitesse with a 1600 cc straight six. The
> cylinders weren't *that* much bigger than 250 cc. Sweet little
> engine, it was.

Hmm, 940kg-2072 lbs, about mazda 2 territory.
How much fuel did it gulp then?

1600 27-32mpg
2000 28-32mpg

Imperial gallons from Parkers guide.

IIRC the Vitesse had a lethal flaw, whereby in hard cornering the outside
rear wheel would fold under the car.

Most Triumphs only had fatal (for the car) flaws, such as rust (all models),
clogging injection (2500PI), boiling over (Stag), faulty steering (Toledo),
poor build (TR7) etc. etc.

What I want vs. what the reality could support
 

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:54:39 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
> wrote:

>
>"AD" > wrote in message
...
>On 20 ???, 01:50, Dean Dark > wrote:
>> On 19 Jan 2011 18:30:16 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>> >"Dean Dark" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:44:44 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >>>A 2.0L V8? Is there such a thing?
>>
>> >> Ferrari made one.
>>
>> >Didn't that one explode a lot?
>>
>> I don't know. It was back in the late 70s and I think it was built
>> for the Italian market that at that time had some really nutty
>> cc-related taxation laws.
>>
>> I had a '66 Triumph Vitesse with a 1600 cc straight six. The
>> cylinders weren't *that* much bigger than 250 cc. Sweet little
>> engine, it was.
>
>Hmm, 940kg-2072 lbs, about mazda 2 territory.
>How much fuel did it gulp then?
>
>1600 27-32mpg
>2000 28-32mpg
>
>Imperial gallons from Parkers guide.
>
>IIRC the Vitesse had a lethal flaw, whereby in hard cornering the outside
>rear wheel would fold under the car.

That would only happen if you snapped off the throttle in mid-corner,
which no capable driver would do. It's the same kind of thinking as
the people who believe that the Porsche 911 has a "fatal flaw" because
it will spin out if you do the same thing.

What I want vs. what the reality could support
 

On Jan 24, 10:05*pm, Dean Dark > wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:54:39 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >"AD" > wrote in message
> ....
> >On 20 ???, 01:50, Dean Dark > wrote:
> >> On 19 Jan 2011 18:30:16 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >> >"Dean Dark" > wrote in message
> >> .. .
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:44:44 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> >> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >>>A 2.0L V8? Is there such a thing?
>
> >> >> Ferrari made one.
>
> >> >Didn't that one explode a lot?
>
> >> I don't know. It was back in the late 70s and I think it was built
> >> for the Italian market that at that time had some really nutty
> >> cc-related taxation laws.
>
> >> I had a '66 Triumph Vitesse with a 1600 cc straight six. The
> >> cylinders weren't *that* much bigger than 250 cc. Sweet little
> >> engine, it was.
>
> >Hmm, 940kg-2072 lbs, about mazda 2 territory.
> >How much fuel did it gulp then?
>
> >1600 27-32mpg
> >2000 28-32mpg
>
> >Imperial gallons from Parkers guide.
>
> >IIRC the Vitesse had a lethal flaw, whereby in hard cornering the outside
> >rear wheel would fold under the car.
>
> That would only happen if you snapped off the throttle in mid-corner,
> which no capable driver would do. *It's the same kind of thinking as
> the people who believe that the Porsche 911 has a "fatal flaw" because
> it will spin out if you do the same thing.

In the best Homer Simpson voice: "Umm, the rear engine layout + RWD...
massive weight resting on the rear axle. I love oversteer"

What I want vs. what the reality could support
 

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 04:07:44 -0800 (PST), AD > wrote:

>> >IIRC the Vitesse had a lethal flaw, whereby in hard cornering the outside
>> >rear wheel would fold under the car.
>>
>> That would only happen if you snapped off the throttle in mid-corner,
>> which no capable driver would do. *It's the same kind of thinking as
>> the people who believe that the Porsche 911 has a "fatal flaw" because
>> it will spin out if you do the same thing.
>
>In the best Homer Simpson voice: "Umm, the rear engine layout + RWD...
>massive weight resting on the rear axle. I love oversteer"

.... and that is *exactly* the kind of misguided 'Homer Simpson' type
of thinking that I was talking about. Believe it or not, there are
many people out there who think that understeer is A Good Thing.

What I want vs. what the reality could support
 

"Dean Dark" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:54:39 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
> > wrote:
>
SNIP
>>>
>>> I had a '66 Triumph Vitesse with a 1600 cc straight six. The
>>> cylinders weren't *that* much bigger than 250 cc. Sweet little
>>> engine, it was.
>>
>>Hmm, 940kg-2072 lbs, about mazda 2 territory.
>>How much fuel did it gulp then?
>>
>>1600 27-32mpg
>>2000 28-32mpg
>>
>>Imperial gallons from Parkers guide.
>>
>>IIRC the Vitesse had a lethal flaw, whereby in hard cornering the outside
>>rear wheel would fold under the car.
>
> That would only happen if you snapped off the throttle in mid-corner,
> which no capable driver would do. It's the same kind of thinking as
> the people who believe that the Porsche 911 has a "fatal flaw" because
> it will spin out if you do the same thing.

For a start not all cars (especially middle market cars in the 1960's) come
with capable drivers.

More seriously you assume a smooth level surface on the road (even less
common in the 1960's) - slide into a bump and the wheel will fold under the
car.

The fault was relatively easily induced. You did NOT want to be in the car
(or near it) when it was.

Some 1960's rear engine RWD cars had nightmare handling - my dad used to put
a bag of sand in his Renault 8 back in the 60's to counter this. The
Hillman Imp was another tricky one. Whilst Porsche have long since sorted
the 911 line's "nervous" or "challenging" handling for normal driving, if
they do let go then you are in big trouble.

What I want vs. what the reality could support
 

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 20:33:57 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
> wrote:

>>>> I had a '66 Triumph Vitesse

>>>IIRC the Vitesse had a lethal flaw, whereby in hard cornering the outside
>>>rear wheel would fold under the car.
>>
>> That would only happen if you snapped off the throttle in mid-corner,
>> which no capable driver would do. It's the same kind of thinking as
>> the people who believe that the Porsche 911 has a "fatal flaw" because
>> it will spin out if you do the same thing.
>
>For a start not all cars (especially middle market cars in the 1960's) come
>with capable drivers.
>
>More seriously you assume a smooth level surface on the road (even less
>common in the 1960's) - slide into a bump and the wheel will fold under the
>car.

I never had that happen with my Vitesse, and mine was one of the early
ones that were much more prone to it than the better sorted later
ones. When it did happen, the wheel did not "fold under the car."
There simply wasn't that much travel in the rear suspension. It would
ride up onto the edge of the tire, hiking the rear of the car up, and
then settle back down.

>The fault was relatively easily induced. You did NOT want to be in the car
>(or near it) when it was.

Why not?

>Some 1960's rear engine RWD cars had nightmare handling - my dad used to put
>a bag of sand in his Renault 8 back in the 60's to counter this. The
>Hillman Imp was another tricky one. Whilst Porsche have long since sorted
>the 911 line's "nervous" or "challenging" handling for normal driving, if
>they do let go then you are in big trouble.

Actually, I always thought that the stock Imp handled pretty well. I
think that people used to put bags of sand in the front because there
was a perceived, but not real, benefit in reducing the positive camber
in the front. Ill informed intuition is often seriously wrong.

What I want vs. what the reality could support
 

On 25 �нв, 14:58, Dean Dark > wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 04:07:44 -0800 (PST), AD > wrote:
> >> >IIRC the Vitesse had a lethal flaw, whereby in hard cornering the outside
> >> >rear wheel would fold under the car.
>
> >> That would only happen if you snapped off the throttle in mid-corner,
> >> which no capable driver would do. Â*It's the same kind of thinking as
> >> the people who believe that the Porsche 911 has a "fatal flaw" because
> >> it will spin out if you do the same thing.
>
> >In the best Homer Simpson voice: "Umm, the rear engine layout + RWD...
> >massive weight resting on the rear axle. I love oversteer"
>
> ... and that is *exactly* the kind of misguided 'Homer Simpson' type
> of thinking that I was talking about. Â*Believe it or not, there are
> many people out there who think that understeer is A Good Thing.

Yes, I believe you, judging by the fact that there are few affordable
rear wheel drivers
these days and most of the surviving ones have the engine in front.

What I want vs. what the reality could support
 

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 05:48:11 -0800 (PST), AD > wrote:

>On 25 ???, 14:58, Dean Dark > wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 04:07:44 -0800 (PST), AD > wrote:
>> >> >IIRC the Vitesse had a lethal flaw, whereby in hard cornering the outside
>> >> >rear wheel would fold under the car.
>>
>> >> That would only happen if you snapped off the throttle in mid-corner,
>> >> which no capable driver would do. *It's the same kind of thinking as
>> >> the people who believe that the Porsche 911 has a "fatal flaw" because
>> >> it will spin out if you do the same thing.
>>
>> >In the best Homer Simpson voice: "Umm, the rear engine layout + RWD...
>> >massive weight resting on the rear axle. I love oversteer"
>>
>> ... and that is *exactly* the kind of misguided 'Homer Simpson' type
>> of thinking that I was talking about. *Believe it or not, there are
>> many people out there who think that understeer is A Good Thing.
>
>Yes, I believe you, judging by the fact that there are few affordable
>rear wheel drivers
>these days and most of the surviving ones have the engine in front.

Or in the middle.