Discussion
I've recently got hold of a 1967 copy of the Motor magazine which has a road test of the Tuscan SE. There were a few points in it that really surprised me.
I'd always thought the old V8s were fairly low revving engines - but that's not the case here.
"We used between 6,500 and 6,800 rpm, during acceleration tests."
I thought these cars could be a real hadfull with all that torque and power but it seems not.
"We had to practice our getaways before we were satisfied; with SP41s gripping well, a high bottom gear and a limited slip differential it was impossible to get any wheelspin."
Also
"It is difficult to provoke the tail on a dry road unless the corner is very tight and it is surprisingly hard in the wet; one's initial natural caution soon fades into a feeling of confidence in the car's ability."
I thought the early V8 engined cars would be very front heavy - wrong again - 50.5% front and 49.5% rear. This is better than the S2 Vixen at 48.3% front and 51.7% rear - Autocar 26 June 1969.
No particular point to this post except it may be of interest and it's chucking it down here in Swansea.
The car tested was 500 ML by the way.
"Brute force easily tamed"
Chris
I'd always thought the old V8s were fairly low revving engines - but that's not the case here.
"We used between 6,500 and 6,800 rpm, during acceleration tests."
I thought these cars could be a real hadfull with all that torque and power but it seems not.
"We had to practice our getaways before we were satisfied; with SP41s gripping well, a high bottom gear and a limited slip differential it was impossible to get any wheelspin."
Also
"It is difficult to provoke the tail on a dry road unless the corner is very tight and it is surprisingly hard in the wet; one's initial natural caution soon fades into a feeling of confidence in the car's ability."
I thought the early V8 engined cars would be very front heavy - wrong again - 50.5% front and 49.5% rear. This is better than the S2 Vixen at 48.3% front and 51.7% rear - Autocar 26 June 1969.
No particular point to this post except it may be of interest and it's chucking it down here in Swansea.
The car tested was 500 ML by the way.
"Brute force easily tamed"
Chris
Mr Tiger said:
I've recently got hold of a 1967 copy of the Motor magazine which has a road test of the Tuscan SE. There were a few points in it that really surprised me.
I'd always thought the old V8s were fairly low revving engines - but that's not the case here.
"We used between 6,500 and 6,800 rpm, during acceleration tests."
I thought these cars could be a real hadfull with all that torque and power but it seems not.
"We had to practice our getaways before we were satisfied; with SP41s gripping well, a high bottom gear and a limited slip differential it was impossible to get any wheelspin."
Also
"It is difficult to provoke the tail on a dry road unless the corner is very tight and it is surprisingly hard in the wet; one's initial natural caution soon fades into a feeling of confidence in the car's ability."
I thought the early V8 engined cars would be very front heavy - wrong again - 50.5% front and 49.5% rear. This is better than the S2 Vixen at 48.3% front and 51.7% rear - Autocar 26 June 1969.
No particular point to this post except it may be of interest and it's chucking it down here in Swansea.
The car tested was 500 ML by the way.
"Brute force easily tamed"
Chris
Chris,I'd always thought the old V8s were fairly low revving engines - but that's not the case here.
"We used between 6,500 and 6,800 rpm, during acceleration tests."
I thought these cars could be a real hadfull with all that torque and power but it seems not.
"We had to practice our getaways before we were satisfied; with SP41s gripping well, a high bottom gear and a limited slip differential it was impossible to get any wheelspin."
Also
"It is difficult to provoke the tail on a dry road unless the corner is very tight and it is surprisingly hard in the wet; one's initial natural caution soon fades into a feeling of confidence in the car's ability."
I thought the early V8 engined cars would be very front heavy - wrong again - 50.5% front and 49.5% rear. This is better than the S2 Vixen at 48.3% front and 51.7% rear - Autocar 26 June 1969.
No particular point to this post except it may be of interest and it's chucking it down here in Swansea.
The car tested was 500 ML by the way.
"Brute force easily tamed"
Chris
The solid lifter 289 is quite happy getting towards 7K, however, I would take much of the rest of what is quoted with a pinch of salt. 500ML was a SWB car with a solid lifter engine (probably realsitically retricted by manifolds to circa 225 BHP) but would still have been a handfull and easy to get the tail hanging where not wanted - especially in the wet
TVRMs said:
Mr Tiger said:
I've recently got hold of a 1967 copy of the Motor magazine which has a road test of the Tuscan SE. There were a few points in it that really surprised me.
I'd always thought the old V8s were fairly low revving engines - but that's not the case here.
"We used between 6,500 and 6,800 rpm, during acceleration tests."
I thought these cars could be a real hadfull with all that torque and power but it seems not.
"We had to practice our getaways before we were satisfied; with SP41s gripping well, a high bottom gear and a limited slip differential it was impossible to get any wheelspin."
Also
"It is difficult to provoke the tail on a dry road unless the corner is very tight and it is surprisingly hard in the wet; one's initial natural caution soon fades into a feeling of confidence in the car's ability."
I thought the early V8 engined cars would be very front heavy - wrong again - 50.5% front and 49.5% rear. This is better than the S2 Vixen at 48.3% front and 51.7% rear - Autocar 26 June 1969.
No particular point to this post except it may be of interest and it's chucking it down here in Swansea.
The car tested was 500 ML by the way.
"Brute force easily tamed"
Chris
Chris,I'd always thought the old V8s were fairly low revving engines - but that's not the case here.
"We used between 6,500 and 6,800 rpm, during acceleration tests."
I thought these cars could be a real hadfull with all that torque and power but it seems not.
"We had to practice our getaways before we were satisfied; with SP41s gripping well, a high bottom gear and a limited slip differential it was impossible to get any wheelspin."
Also
"It is difficult to provoke the tail on a dry road unless the corner is very tight and it is surprisingly hard in the wet; one's initial natural caution soon fades into a feeling of confidence in the car's ability."
I thought the early V8 engined cars would be very front heavy - wrong again - 50.5% front and 49.5% rear. This is better than the S2 Vixen at 48.3% front and 51.7% rear - Autocar 26 June 1969.
No particular point to this post except it may be of interest and it's chucking it down here in Swansea.
The car tested was 500 ML by the way.
"Brute force easily tamed"
Chris
The solid lifter 289 is quite happy getting towards 7K, however, I would take much of the rest of what is quoted with a pinch of salt. 500ML was a SWB car with a solid lifter engine (probably realsitically retricted by manifolds to circa 225 BHP) but would still have been a handfull and easy to get the tail hanging where not wanted - especially in the wet
A
Gassing Station | TVR Classics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff