1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. uk.rec.cars.maintenance

  • 1934 Talbot why this performance?

    From john west@mail.invalid456@mail.invalid to uk.rec.cars.maintenance on Mon Apr 4 12:08:08 2022
    From Newsgroup: uk.rec.cars.maintenance


    Looking at this 1934 Talbot which was the Bees Knees at the time:

    https://nationalmotormuseum.org.uk/vehicle-collection/talbot-105/

    it says 2,969 cc 100hp @ 4.500 rpm. Over head valves.

    top speed 85mph and 0 to 50 in 16 seconds.

    With that engine capacity and HP, why was it so much slower than todays'
    cars.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Tim+@tim.downie@gmail.com to uk.rec.cars.maintenance on Mon Apr 4 11:54:38 2022
    From Newsgroup: uk.rec.cars.maintenance

    john west <mail.invalid456@mail.invalid> wrote:

    Looking at this 1934 Talbot which was the Bees Knees at the time:

    https://nationalmotormuseum.org.uk/vehicle-collection/talbot-105/

    it says 2,969 cc 100hp @ 4.500 rpm. Over head valves.

    top speed 85mph and 0 to 50 in 16 seconds.

    With that engine capacity and HP, why was it so much slower than todays' cars.


    At a guess, weight (and they lied about the power output). Aerodynamics of
    a brick wonrCOt help the top speed.

    Tim
    --
    Please don't feed the trolls
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Abandoned_Trolley@fred@fred-smith.co.uk to uk.rec.cars.maintenance on Mon Apr 4 14:44:37 2022
    From Newsgroup: uk.rec.cars.maintenance



    At a guess, weight (and they lied about the power output). Aerodynamics of
    a brick wonrCOt help the top speed.

    Tim


    Along with some insanely wide spaced gear ratios - probably on a 3 speed
    box ?


    And on the subject of aerodynamcs ... I would say that with those
    extended front wings it was probably a good thing that it maxxed out at
    85mph
    --
    random signature text inserted here
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Nick Finnigan@Nix@genie.co.uk to uk.rec.cars.maintenance on Tue Apr 5 00:10:53 2022
    From Newsgroup: uk.rec.cars.maintenance

    On 04/04/2022 14:44, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:


    At a guess, weight (and they lied about the power output). Aerodynamics of >> a brick wonrCOt help the top speed.

    Tim


    Kerb weight allegedly 1395 kg.

    Along with some insanely wide spaced gear ratios - probably on a 3 speed box ?

    4 speed, manual pre-engaged.


    And on the subject of aerodynamcs ... I would say that with those extended front wings it was probably a good thing that it maxxed out at 85mph


    But even a Landrover 90 brick with 83 hp was 0-50 in much less then 16s.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Abandoned_Trolley@fred@fred-smith.co.uk to uk.rec.cars.maintenance on Tue Apr 5 12:33:25 2022
    From Newsgroup: uk.rec.cars.maintenance



    -aBut even a Landrover 90 brick with 83 hp was 0-50 in much less then 16s.

    I was suggesting that the front wings might provide a degree of unwanted
    lift at high speed, regardless of the overall drag coefficient -
    assuming that enough power was available to get there.

    Some of these discussions seem to compare hp and bhp as if they are interchangeable.

    Also ..the car under discussion is the "Talbot 105" - but its not clear
    if the "105" refers to the wheelbase or the horsepower rating (or
    something else ...)
    --
    random signature text inserted here
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2