COOL CLASSIC CAR SPOTTERS POST! (Vol 3)
Discussion
k.
Doofus said:
Damp Logs said:
I really can't get on board with the love for P6s. They give me the creeps. There's something "institutional" about them which is probably buried deep in suppressed memories from my childhhod or something.rolando said:
I can only conclude you’ve never experienced driving a P6.
I think I must go along with this. Although, the four-pots could feel a bit agricultural. Neighbours of mine in Nottingham in around 79/80 had them at the same time I had my first Triumph 2000 Mk2. The Triumph was way nicer to drive IMO.
I mention this because they were contemporary competitors.
The 3.5 V8 was a different kettle of fish. Sublime.
I never drove a manual P6B and I'm not even sure if there was such a thing but for me the auto box was the only fly in the ointment.
Even so the Triumph had the edge for me. I loved them and still do.
Looks wise? For me the P6B is gorgeous in a totally and unmistakably British way.
rolando said:
Doofus said:
Damp Logs said:
I really can't get on board with the love for P6s. They give me the creeps. There's something "institutional" about them which is probably buried deep in suppressed memories from my childhhod or something.Error_404_Username_not_found said:
rolando said:
I can only conclude you’ve never experienced driving a P6.
I think I must go along with this. Although, the four-pots could feel a bit agricultural. Neighbours of mine in Nottingham in around 79/80 had them at the same time I had my first Triumph 2000 Mk2. The Triumph was way nicer to drive IMO.
I mention this because they were contemporary competitors.
The 3.5 V8 was a different kettle of fish. Sublime.
I never drove a manual P6B and I'm not even sure if there was such a thing but for me the auto box was the only fly in the ointment.
Even so the Triumph had the edge for me. I loved them and still do.
Looks wise? For me the P6B is gorgeous in a totally and unmistakably British way.
Doofus said:
It's not about how they drive, and I didn't suggest they were bad cars.
Fair enough Doof, I get that. Eye of the beholder and all that.
For example I detested the A series engine, in whatever clothing it wore. It always depressed me having to work on the wretched contraptions.
But there are people still who love them.
I wouldn't have it any other way.
Error_404_Username_not_found said:
I think I must go along with this.
Although, the four-pots could feel a bit agricultural. Neighbours of mine in Nottingham in around 79/80 had them at the same time I had my first Triumph 2000 Mk2. The Triumph was way nicer to drive IMO.
I mention this because they were contemporary competitors.
The 3.5 V8 was a different kettle of fish. Sublime.
I never drove a manual P6B and I'm not even sure if there was such a thing but for me the auto box was the only fly in the ointment.
Even so the Triumph had the edge for me. I loved them and still do.
Looks wise? For me the P6B is gorgeous in a totally and unmistakably British way.
The 3500S was the manual.Although, the four-pots could feel a bit agricultural. Neighbours of mine in Nottingham in around 79/80 had them at the same time I had my first Triumph 2000 Mk2. The Triumph was way nicer to drive IMO.
I mention this because they were contemporary competitors.
The 3.5 V8 was a different kettle of fish. Sublime.
I never drove a manual P6B and I'm not even sure if there was such a thing but for me the auto box was the only fly in the ointment.
Even so the Triumph had the edge for me. I loved them and still do.
Looks wise? For me the P6B is gorgeous in a totally and unmistakably British way.
Boys would ooh and aah when they spotted one.
One of the directors at a place I worked (1970 iirc) had one as a company car. Another had a Triumph 2.5PI. One day they had to swap. I overheard the Rover man returning the Triumph keys, saying the Triumph was too fast.
Edited by DickyC on Wednesday 26th June 06:22
DickyC said:
One of the directors at a place I worked (1970 iirc) had one as a company car. Another had a Triumph 2.5PI. One day they had to swap. I overheard the Rover man returning the Triumph keys, saying the Triumph was too fast.
Having been around both types back in the day, a manual 2.5Pi was a better car than a manual 3500S, but the the auto 3500 was a better car than an auto 2.5Pi.aeropilot said:
DickyC said:
One of the directors at a place I worked (1970 iirc) had one as a company car. Another had a Triumph 2.5PI. One day they had to swap. I overheard the Rover man returning the Triumph keys, saying the Triumph was too fast.
Having been around both types back in the day, a manual 2.5Pi was a better car than a manual 3500S, but the the auto 3500 was a better car than an auto 2.5Pi.I had a 2.5 which had been converted by a PO from injection to carbs. It was lovely, except for the colour.
The Triumph sixes had a couple of glaring design weaknesses, which were shared by the 1500 four pot (as found in my late Midget). Namely that the crank bearings are too narrow and the middle cylinders have a rather compromised oil supply arrangement where they shared an oil feed the same size as the ones to the cylinders at the ends, which had individual feeds all to themselves.
Also the half-moon crank thrust washer bearings were rather prone to rapid wear and were not well located. They could drop out into the sump resulting in massive damage. Basically completely writing off the engine.
If you ever contemplate buying a big 6, or a Midget or Spitfire for that matter, it's a good idea to check the crank end-float. It's not a difficult task to replace worn thrust bearings if you find the problem in time. It can be done with the engine in the car, but if neglected it will get expensive very quickly.
Yes, the PI was a quick car. Probably why Old Bill liked them so much, but Old Bill had the taxpayer to pay for the petrol!
Before that job I worked as a pump hand. A regular customer had a 2.5PI that didn't want to restart after filling. Winter or summer just sitting there churning over on the starter. It felt like minutes. Because it was on the pumps it caused a delay for everyone so he always had an audience. It would fire eventually. The battery must have been quite something for those days. Vapour lock? No idea. It wasn't a good advert for the car.
Rumdoodle said:
Stick Legs said:
Smiley would have been MI6. International business.
Actually the business of catching a mole & the whole Connie Sachs counterintelligence role is firmly MI5 territory as is the relationship with Special Branch (Mendle’s character).
However the character George Smiley was very much in an MI6 role in the early books, The Spy Who Came In From The Cold being the best example of MI6 type activity.
The interview with Karla in India is also the kind of gig MI6 would have undertaken.
So there is much blurring of lines in fiction between departments of SIS and no one who isn’t actually inside really knows how it works (and yes I have read Chris Andrew’s books).
LeCarré himself worked in both departments and I suspect the blurs are deliberate as the SIS was still officially denied at the time of his writings.
I stand by my MI5 comment on the basis that what Smiley is doing is more of a counterintelligence defensive affair.
Am also very aware that nothing is more naff than middle aged men nerding about spy fiction.
So I’ll end it there.
Yertis said:
When I see those types of car now, in real life, rather than get excited I just think "That looks just a bit toooooo claustrophobic – no thanks". Must be age.
The vendor of a car I was buying had a Ferrari 365 and a Safir GT40. Me: I'd like a ride in your GT40.
Him: You wouldn't.
While I appreciate there were different ways to interpret his response, as he was an amiable bloke I've always preferred to think he meant I wouldn't like the claustrophobic interior, the uncomfortable ride and the noise. Amiable? Well, he sent me tickets for the Silverstone Classic for years afterwards. So I believe he thought he was doing me a favour.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff