Radio2 Triumph Herald 50mpg
Discussion
My Austin A40 Mk II had the 1098cc A-series engine and that was thrashed mercilessly and never turned in less than 34. Driving it faster than it should ever have gone, it did 42mpg. It would certainly struggle to achieve 50mpg but driven properly would probably manage it though my style of driving never really leant itself to economy. I think the best I managed was 45mpg. The SU carb was amazingly frugal though ( a bell-shaped vacuum chamber affair that raised and lowered a long tapered brass needle within the main jet), far more so than the fixed jet carbs most cars used. I think only Stromberg used a similar set-up.
As for the A40 - it had a cruising speed of 60-70 but on the M6 I had the needle bouncing off 90 trying to keep up with a Triumph 2.5PI. Those were the days...
As for the A40 - it had a cruising speed of 60-70 but on the M6 I had the needle bouncing off 90 trying to keep up with a Triumph 2.5PI. Those were the days...
Coincidentally I am reading an old copy of Motor Sport from Feb 1965 (Clark wins in South Africa!) and they talk about (stiff upper lip ready)
"The economy car situation & Road test of the new Fat 850"
Their road test results showed the best officially tested was the 1959 NSU Prinz at 48.8mpg, then the Morris Minor at 44.4mpg. Nothing could beat 60mpg. Unofficially (byt their standards) tjhe 1958 Unicar (???) with a 328cc engine did 53mpg, and the Citroen 2CV did 59.9mpg.
Oh, by the way. For the same price as an Alfa Giulia Sprint GT (£1849 new) you could have bought a second hand Frazer-Nash Targe Florio (one of less the 20, £250K now??) AND a Jaguar XK140 coupe, AND an Aston Martin DB2/4 AND a Frazer nash-BMW 328. Oh to be buying cars in 1965...
"The economy car situation & Road test of the new Fat 850"
Their road test results showed the best officially tested was the 1959 NSU Prinz at 48.8mpg, then the Morris Minor at 44.4mpg. Nothing could beat 60mpg. Unofficially (byt their standards) tjhe 1958 Unicar (???) with a 328cc engine did 53mpg, and the Citroen 2CV did 59.9mpg.
Oh, by the way. For the same price as an Alfa Giulia Sprint GT (£1849 new) you could have bought a second hand Frazer-Nash Targe Florio (one of less the 20, £250K now??) AND a Jaguar XK140 coupe, AND an Aston Martin DB2/4 AND a Frazer nash-BMW 328. Oh to be buying cars in 1965...
Not impossible I'm sure, but it would take some real effort to actually achieve. Some of the claims in Triumph's advertising are at odds with reality - for instance, they advertised "driving seat adjusts in 72 ways" (well, I count about five) also "the seats can be adjusted to 32 positions" (again, no they can't and make your mind up) and that it was 'the safest family car in the world' which even in 1959 was obviously BS.
Incidentally when Autocar tested the Herald 1200 in 1961 they recorded an overall consumption of almost 32mpg. When Motor tested the 13/60 in 1967 their overall figure was a pathetic 25.5mpg, which is pretty much what mine does about town (although it is very poorly set up!)
Incidentally when Autocar tested the Herald 1200 in 1961 they recorded an overall consumption of almost 32mpg. When Motor tested the 13/60 in 1967 their overall figure was a pathetic 25.5mpg, which is pretty much what mine does about town (although it is very poorly set up!)
williamp said:
Coincidentally I am reading an old copy of Motor Sport from Feb 1965 (Clark wins in South Africa!) and they talk about (stiff upper lip ready)
"The economy car situation & Road test of the new Fat 850"
Their road test results showed the best officially tested was the 1959 NSU Prinz at 48.8mpg, then the Morris Minor at 44.4mpg. Nothing could beat 60mpg. Unofficially (byt their standards) tjhe 1958 Unicar (???) with a 328cc engine did 53mpg, and the Citroen 2CV did 59.9mpg.
Oh, by the way. For the same price as an Alfa Giulia Sprint GT (£1849 new) you could have bought a second hand Frazer-Nash Targe Florio (one of less the 20, £250K now??) AND a Jaguar XK140 coupe, AND an Aston Martin DB2/4 AND a Frazer nash-BMW 328. Oh to be buying cars in 1965...
The same programme had some chap who took home £7 a week and had to give his mum £2 10 shillings (£2.50). Not sure what a house cost in 1965 (though most people still rented I'm sure) but in 1970 my parents bought a new 3 bed semi for £5100 and my father bought a used 3 year old Cortina Mk II GT for £600."The economy car situation & Road test of the new Fat 850"
Their road test results showed the best officially tested was the 1959 NSU Prinz at 48.8mpg, then the Morris Minor at 44.4mpg. Nothing could beat 60mpg. Unofficially (byt their standards) tjhe 1958 Unicar (???) with a 328cc engine did 53mpg, and the Citroen 2CV did 59.9mpg.
Oh, by the way. For the same price as an Alfa Giulia Sprint GT (£1849 new) you could have bought a second hand Frazer-Nash Targe Florio (one of less the 20, £250K now??) AND a Jaguar XK140 coupe, AND an Aston Martin DB2/4 AND a Frazer nash-BMW 328. Oh to be buying cars in 1965...
Hitler Hadrump said:
Some of the claims in Triumph's advertising are at odds with reality - for instance, they advertised "driving seat adjusts in 72 ways"
that's easy 
The front of the seats had two height settings by changing a bolt, The rear had a swivel rubber blocks giving 4 settings. So that leaves 9 positions for the seat runners
Owned several Heralds at the time never got 50 MPG.
TBH the classic Minis I had then rarely gave over 40 even the 850 models.
Modern cars are vastly better on MPG.
The twin cam breathing/oils/tyres/injection/lower power losses/lower frontal area/better fuel etc etc all contribute to modern petrol MPG for small cars well over 50 MPG.
But a Herald, even a 950 base model, I really doubt 50 MPG unless you employed the old Mobil economy run driving coasting out of gear etc, and even then I doubt it.
One area the car companies have successfully addressed is MPG. It is markedly better my 4X4 Freelander regularly return 33 to the gallon compare that to the 4X4 vehicles thirty years ago!
Shame they cannot get the initial price of cars down in the same way!!
TBH the classic Minis I had then rarely gave over 40 even the 850 models.
Modern cars are vastly better on MPG.
The twin cam breathing/oils/tyres/injection/lower power losses/lower frontal area/better fuel etc etc all contribute to modern petrol MPG for small cars well over 50 MPG.
But a Herald, even a 950 base model, I really doubt 50 MPG unless you employed the old Mobil economy run driving coasting out of gear etc, and even then I doubt it.
One area the car companies have successfully addressed is MPG. It is markedly better my 4X4 Freelander regularly return 33 to the gallon compare that to the 4X4 vehicles thirty years ago!
Shame they cannot get the initial price of cars down in the same way!!
My 1275 Mini gets 45mpg quite effortlessly on a run, could probably get more with careful driving.
The front of the seats had two height settings by changing a bolt, The rear had a swivel rubber blocks giving 4 settings. So that leaves 9 positions for the seat runnersOh yes, how could I forget the rubber blocks! You can raise the seat a bit with those for a few hundred yards driving before they slide out of position/fall apart.
saaby93 said:
Hitler Hadrump said:
Some of the claims in Triumph's advertising are at odds with reality - for instance, they advertised "driving seat adjusts in 72 ways"
that's easy The front of the seats had two height settings by changing a bolt, The rear had a swivel rubber blocks giving 4 settings. So that leaves 9 positions for the seat runners
Dogwatch said:
Surely the Standard Triumph engines were descended from a pre-war ancestor? Getting a bit long in the tooth by the Sixties.
The BMC 'A' series were slightly newer being a wartime designed, postwar developed engine for the Moggie Minor.
The engine in the Herald was about the same age as the A series. And they were really rather similar. The BMC 'A' series were slightly newer being a wartime designed, postwar developed engine for the Moggie Minor.
I haven't got the road test for the earliest model but i have the one for the 1200 model from 1961 if it help.
Triumph Herald 1200 Road Test 1961 (4) by Trigger's Retro Road Tests!, on Flickr
Triumph Herald 1200 Road Test 1961 (4) by Trigger's Retro Road Tests!, on Flickr
Hitler Hadrump said:
Not impossible I'm sure, but it would take some real effort to actually achieve. Some of the claims in Triumph's advertising are at odds with reality - for instance, they advertised "driving seat adjusts in 72 ways" (well, I count about five) also "the seats can be adjusted to 32 positions" (again, no they can't and make your mind up) and that it was 'the safest family car in the world' which even in 1959 was obviously BS.
Incidentally when Autocar tested the Herald 1200 in 1961 they recorded an overall consumption of almost 32mpg. When Motor tested the 13/60 in 1967 their overall figure was a pathetic 25.5mpg, which is pretty much what mine does about town (although it is very poorly set up!)
My father bought a brand new Herald 1200 in 1962 (registeration plate 1815 MG) and he was so in love with the thing that he tried to reproduce the 'Autocar' ad that showed one rear wheel standing on a brick. Thanks to the Herald's independent rear suspension the body was supposed to remain totally level. A glass of wine on the roof in the ad was untilted. We did this on level ground and proved that the ad was totally misleading and the car tilted as much as my '55 Standard Ten (the Herald's predecessor) did in the same test with its live rear axle. No advertising standards law in the sixties - "Guinness is good for you" etc.Incidentally when Autocar tested the Herald 1200 in 1961 they recorded an overall consumption of almost 32mpg. When Motor tested the 13/60 in 1967 their overall figure was a pathetic 25.5mpg, which is pretty much what mine does about town (although it is very poorly set up!)
ETA: the seat blocks used to turn spontaneously and finding the seat dropping a couple of inches on one side while you're driving was a safety feature: no falling asleep at the wheel!
Edited by motco on Saturday 4th June 07:38
The Herald was advanced for its day as it had a cardboard dashboard (no sliced heads) and a collapsible steering column - however it was built on a separate chassis and all other mass produced cars were monocoque. Great for DIY rebuilds, straightforward to convert from saloon to convertible to estate in an afternoon.
Late eighties I picked up a 1960 948 Herald saloon for forty quid, only done 30,000 miles. I changed the diff ratio from 13.5mph/1000 rpm to 16mph/1000 - and yes it would do about 45 mpg on a run - the rest of the car was original. (Did one trip from Coventry to Norwich with crossplies on the front and radials on the back, all legal - never driven on crossplies since).
One Round Britain Run in a lightweight 1500 Herald fitted with twin fuel tanks (15-16 gallons total), we managed the 678 miles from London to John O'Groats without filling up and with quite a bit to spare - again something around 45mpg.
Late eighties I picked up a 1960 948 Herald saloon for forty quid, only done 30,000 miles. I changed the diff ratio from 13.5mph/1000 rpm to 16mph/1000 - and yes it would do about 45 mpg on a run - the rest of the car was original. (Did one trip from Coventry to Norwich with crossplies on the front and radials on the back, all legal - never driven on crossplies since).
One Round Britain Run in a lightweight 1500 Herald fitted with twin fuel tanks (15-16 gallons total), we managed the 678 miles from London to John O'Groats without filling up and with quite a bit to spare - again something around 45mpg.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff