Hey Menace & ford fans. Want a laugh!

[Bruce CurtisMember]

KTM Bull wrote:

Quote:

Im pretty sure that Bently and RR made some supercharged motors that would eat any USA made boatanchor
RR merlin started out at the start of ww2 @ 980hp by the end it was over 2600hp hydralic throttle was fitted if you gunned a fighter plane the prop would stay at the same speed but would start to rotate whole plane not good close to the ground thats a real pomy motor not some toy car also ever herd of a Lotus mr blue put a Lotus 7 Vs GTHO the 7 would drive rings around them :huh:

Quote

A Seven’s top speed greatly depends upon the body configuration, engine power and gearing. Early models with low-powered engines had difficulty exceeding 90 mph (140 km/h), although a race-prepared Seven was clocked at 127 mph (204 km/h) by Brausch Niemann through a speed-trap at the 1962 Natal Grand Prix.[7] In addition, clamshell style wings tend to create drag and generate lift at higher speeds. Cycle guards help alleviate this tendency, and low height Brookland aeroscreens that replace the windscreen help improve top end speed.
Engines
After the English Ford flathead (L head or side valve) with 49 hp (37 kW), a BMC series A was used, then push rod overhead valve (OHV) Fords of 1,340 cc and 1,500 cc with the intake and exhaust on the same side of the head. These were often Cosworth modified; the Cosworth 1,340 cc “Super Seven” delivered 85 bhp (63 kW; 86 PS) and the 1,500 cc “Super Seven 1500” 105 bhp (78 kW; 106 PS) . These were later replaced by the Ford Kent engine, better known as the Ford crossflow, in 1,600 cc and 1,700 cc models designated SuperSprints; in their 1,700 cc guise, a crossflow delivers up to 135 bhp (101 kW; 137 PS) . The acceleration finally caught up to the handling when the Cosworth/Ford Twin Cam 1,600, as in the Lotus Elan, was used. There was also a model, sold in the US with a Coventry Climax engine and independent rear suspension.

end Quote

Even a gtr XU1 Torana would have completely had the Lotus’ number,in these terms and the GT40 and Cobras from the states would have swallowed the lotus 7 alive, wrong example to use sorry Mr Rat.

[drewMember]

KTM Bull wrote:

Quote:

also ever herd of a Lotus mr blue put a Lotus 7 Vs GTHO the 7 would drive rings around them :huh:

put a towbar on it and let’s see it pull a 6×4!

[Bruce CurtisMember]

xy-transit wrote:

Quote:

KTM Bull wrote:

Quote:

also ever herd of a Lotus mr blue put a Lotus 7 Vs GTHO the 7 would drive rings around them :huh:

put a towbar on it and let’s see it pull a 6×4!

Masses of torque from the tweaked pommie cortina motors, we replaced them in the cortinas here with locally built 200Ci, 229Ci and 250 crossflows.:unsure: was too much engne for the pommie chassis though

BC

[drewMember]

Mr Blue wrote:

Quote:

.

What else did the brits have like that then Mr Myoto? Cortina Gts, Vauxhall viva S, Consul V6?

Bc

if they were lucky to score a gt capri fitted out as a piranha they’d have been in heaven!

but yet again they were a special build/fit out in south africa. so not a production car.

[Anonymous]

Ford Escort, especially the Cosworth prepped rally versions. And even to a lesser extent the Cortina I guess. I’m not debating which is faster than an equivalent Australian car. I’m merely pointing out that at no time was the Mini Cooper S considered by the poms as a ‘firebreathing ball tearing mans car’ when the likes of a Escort tuned by Coswoth and Mexico’s were around.

They dominated the rally in the 60’s and 70’s

[Anonymous]

Not that I really want to get into the baove debate about which is faster, but you Mr. Blue of all people would know that power is one element that helps a car to go quick. More importantly there is traction (chassis/tyre/suspension/4WD?) and weight. Stating one car is faster than another based on quoted power outputs in speculative at best

A Lotus or certainly a Caterham 7 probably (in the absence of factual information) weighs about 600Kg and is sat low to the ground. In terms of sheer acceleration there are still few cars that will beat them. Most only have a 2 litre engine.

The newer JPG tuned version hit 100Km/h in under 3 seconds :ohmy:

[Bruce CurtisMember]

But was still a speciality vehicle hand built by a small team. The closest the poms came to a GT in terms of was probably the Cortina or escort, but they also raced at Bathhurst at the JH500 and while commendable performances, was not even in the same league.

Didn’t mean the Mini Cooper S was a firebreather, just they took an everyday car and made it more, the GTHO was what I referred to as the firebreather.

Bit of a dragon really.

believe it or not I’m not a big fan of the GTs but was brought up in the car culture bigtime.

BC

[Anonymous]

Just for sh*ts and giggles I just looked at the latest Caterham’s and their best production offering is the ‘CSR’ sporting 260HP from a 2.3 litre engine and weighing in at 550Kg! Holy mumma I bet that’s quick!

Reading the Wiki page they were banned from racing in Europe and the states over the yearsa as they were ‘too fast’ and kept whooping everything in sight.

A bit like the Euro’s at Bathurst until they got banned

[GregMember]

Moto wrote:

Quote:

A bit like the Euro’s at Bathurst until they got banned

Every day you open your mouth and remove any doubt that you maybe be an IDIOT! because you are without a doubt :laugh:

[Bruce CurtisMember]

I thought Godzilla was a Japanese Nissan……….. never knew it was part of Europe now, yet still they are asian?

Moto Please explain?
Oh he must mean the little ford thingys and fully iced Volvos, yeah they had a couple of seasons of glory well deserved to, but they were dead in the water by the early 90s, the rest had overtaken them
Besides Moto you are subjugating the argument by shifting to latterday, we are talking 1971-2 here, not the era of turbos and blowwaves

Bc

[Matt BakerMember]

what about the E 49 Chargers? they had more power than the GTs, and from a six cylinder.

[drewMember]

LC4skin wrote:

Quote:

what about the E 49 Chargers? they had more power than the GTs, and from a six cylinder.

was it more power?

or that they had a quicker 1/4 mile time? and from memory a higher top speed.

when push comes to shove most ford fans will say “year the Charger was faster, BUT the GT is still the fastest factory production 4 door sedan”.

yes the 6pack 265 was a real animal of it’s time! and still a formidable street car to date!

[Anonymous]

Mr Blue wrote:

Quote:

I thought Godzilla was a Japanese Nissan……….. never knew it was part of Europe now, yet still they are asian?

Moto Please explain?
Oh he must mean the little ford thingys and fully iced Volvos, yeah they had a couple of seasons of glory well deserved to, but they were dead in the water by the early 90s, the rest had overtaken them
Besides Moto you are subjugating the argument by shifting to latterday, we are talking 1971-2 here, not the era of turbos and blowwaves

Bc

I admit the error of my ways, I said Euro, I meant the Japanese rice burners (not even close :huh:).

I’m not subjugating anything.

You originally posted:

Mr Blue wrote:

Quote:

The Ford GT series is our equivalent of the pommie Cooper S, in it’s day it was a firebreathing ball-tearing Mans’ car.

And I posted in response saying that your knowledge of history was not quite correct as nobody in the UL regarded a Cooper S in that way. Since you posted later on saying that isn’t what you meant everyone else subjugated and started talking about power and all other kinds of braggery:P

I just further confused things by adding my (incorrect) Bathurst comment :dry: :laugh:

[Anonymous]

My bad, I did mean Skyline’s honest! In my haste to respond before departing for lunch I mistakenly made reference to Euro’s as opposed to rice burners.

I haven’t subjugated anything before anyone else has. I maintain my point where Mr. Blue’s statement is not an accurate representation of how a mini Cooper S was viewed in the UK:

Mr Blue wrote:

Quote:

The Ford GT series is our equivalent of the pommie Cooper S, in it’s day it was a firebreathing ball-tearing Mans’ car.

Since then Mr. Blue has clarified that his statement wasn’t supposed to be applied to the Cooper S (despite reading that way) and subjugations were made regarding power and acceleration of cars in that area. I merely added to the subjugational nature of the thread :laugh:

Moto
subjugation expert

[Bruce CurtisMember]

I Apologise Mr Myoto, what I had in mind and was inscribed across the screen were indeed slightly different, the cooma betwixt the two staements was supposed to indicate this, but alas it failed to clarify the issue, so what I meant the GT was a firebreathing animal, and the closest equivalent English made car I could think of was the Mini Cooper S which was by no means a firebreathing anything, but was a production sedan modified to be “faster” My Bad this time, I tend to get overexcited when talking about this subject.

And the sum of the equation and all that is why the Gt was so special, and to answer the E-49 statement above, I owned an E-49 six pack running geared ’74 Ranger back in the early 80’s, and while very very fast in a straight line off the mark (slightly quicker than the GTHO Phase III) it’s top speed was short of the GTHO, and it would “walk” the front end around past 120ish MPH, and was sownright cranky and a real bitch on the road. which is why the running gear (including Dana diif) ended up in my sedan.

The best mass produced car for production racing to date IMHO was Godzilla.
But the GT’s certainly derserve their place in history

BC

[Author]

Posts