RE: Ford Capri Perana: You Know You Want To
Discussion
Pat H said:
Don't think I've ever owned a car with such inadequate brakes.
Tried anti dive coil springs and grooved discs, but the brakes were still lamentable.
But it was a hoot to drive and sounded great.
I sold it about six years ago. 40,000 miles, never painted, never welded. It was immaculate and I let it go for £6000. Dammit.
Wow, you're very tall. Must have been a little cramped whilst driving. Tried anti dive coil springs and grooved discs, but the brakes were still lamentable.
But it was a hoot to drive and sounded great.
I sold it about six years ago. 40,000 miles, never painted, never welded. It was immaculate and I let it go for £6000. Dammit.
nsm3 said:
I had a 1300 Mk1 with a 3.0L "power bulge" bonnet, back around 1980. Couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding, but I'd love one of these beasties!
My brother had one in that spec too. In yellow. It did look good.I remember following a Perana on to the motorway in SA in my GTV. It made a glorious noise and left me standing. I believe they do actually handle rather well, too. Basil Green was known nationally for building cars that worked well on the track, they weren't just hotrods with oversized engines. And the Capri Perana was built for circuit racing.
I've read only a handful of road tests of the cars, I don't recall anyone describing them as unruly, but then again that woukd be measuring them against '70s standards I guess.
Edited by kiseca on Saturday 25th October 09:19
Mr2Mike said:
PH said:
The 3000XL it was based on made 130hp; the Capri Perana produced 285hp thanks to a 5.0-litre Mustang V8. Weight was unchanged at 1,050kg.
That tells you everything you need to know about the Ford V6; underpowered and ludicrously heavy.By 1971 and in it's final but still fairly lazy road tune it now produced 138 bhp with 173 lb ft @ 3000 rpm.
That amount of torque in something so light creates immense fun and the ability to travel sideways on demand.
This was over forty years ago and at that time a 3.0 Capri was virtually untouchable in a straight line by anything domestic.
cologne2792 said:
We are talking about a stock engine from the late sixties here !
By 1971 and in it's final but still fairly lazy road tune it now produced 138 bhp with 173 lb ft @ 3000 rpm.
That amount of torque in something so light creates immense fun and the ability to travel sideways on demand.
This was over forty years ago and at that time a 3.0 Capri was virtually untouchable in a straight line by anything domestic.
By 1971 and in it's final but still fairly lazy road tune it now produced 138 bhp with 173 lb ft @ 3000 rpm.
That amount of torque in something so light creates immense fun and the ability to travel sideways on demand.
This was over forty years ago and at that time a 3.0 Capri was virtually untouchable in a straight line by anything domestic.
I would never consider the Capri V6 models underpowered either 
its all relative to that era when I was in my late teens nothing else would do, its only when those pesky hot hatches started appearing did we question the cars ability 
but by that stage the car was getting on anyway and most had been badly modified i.e skirts spoilers and engine mods that didn't work ..... Swaymar Holley conversion anyone? 
cologne2792 said:
Mr2Mike said:
PH said:
The 3000XL it was based on made 130hp; the Capri Perana produced 285hp thanks to a 5.0-litre Mustang V8. Weight was unchanged at 1,050kg.
That tells you everything you need to know about the Ford V6; underpowered and ludicrously heavy.By 1971 and in it's final but still fairly lazy road tune it now produced 138 bhp with 173 lb ft @ 3000 rpm.
That amount of torque in something so light creates immense fun and the ability to travel sideways on demand.
This was over forty years ago and at that time a 3.0 Capri was virtually untouchable in a straight line by anything domestic.
If it was so bad why did tvr, scimitar etc use it ?
Pat H said:
OllieC said:
Pat H said:
I once had a 2.8 Capri.
The brakes and handling struggled with what, maybe 150bhp?
Still, it looks fab and will sound great.
isn't that part of the fun The brakes and handling struggled with what, maybe 150bhp?
Still, it looks fab and will sound great.
Agree with you regarding the brakes though !
Tried anti dive coil springs and grooved discs, but the brakes were still lamentable.
But it was a hoot to drive and sounded great.
I sold it about six years ago. 40,000 miles, never painted, never welded. It was immaculate and I let it go for £6000. Dammit.
cologne2792 said:
Mr2Mike said:
PH said:
The 3000XL it was based on made 130hp; the Capri Perana produced 285hp thanks to a 5.0-litre Mustang V8. Weight was unchanged at 1,050kg.
That tells you everything you need to know about the Ford V6; underpowered and ludicrously heavy.By 1971 and in it's final but still fairly lazy road tune it now produced 138 bhp with 173 lb ft @ 3000 rpm.
That amount of torque in something so light creates immense fun and the ability to travel sideways on demand.
This was over forty years ago and at that time a 3.0 Capri was virtually untouchable in a straight line by anything domestic.
StuntmanMike said:
Agree, the Essex V6 was so heavey because it was initially designed to be both Petrol and Diesel.
The Essex V6 lived on into the 1990s in South Africa. After the Capri, it powered gens 3, 4 and 5 Cortina (in which it powered another SA special, the Cortina XR6 Interceptor), the Granadas, Sierras and the last of line Essex V6s, with fuel injection and around 160bhp, were found in Sierras and Sapphires. The Cologne engine was never released here.I read somewhere that it wasn't very easy to get much more power out of an Essex V6, something to do with the head design limiting breathing. I don't know how true that is but I also don't recall coming actoss many highly modified Ford V6s there, either. Possibly I just wasn't paying attention to them.
OllieC said:
Actually it tells u more about the ford smallblock engine, which was a very good design, the Essex v6 being average, it could very easily be tuned to produce the same hp\litre as the v8 quoted and remain a useable road engine however. No denying the weight however
If it was so bad why did tvr, scimitar etc use it ?
I suspect there wasn't a lot of choice for large capacity, cheap engines in the UK at the time. 130bhp from 3.0L wasn't very impressive, even back then. Even the wheezing, asthmatic Rover V8 managed better.If it was so bad why did tvr, scimitar etc use it ?
kiseca said:
StuntmanMike said:
Agree, the Essex V6 was so heavey because it was initially designed to be both Petrol and Diesel.
The Essex V6 lived on into the 1990s in South Africa. After the Capri, it powered gens 3, 4 and 5 Cortina (in which it powered another SA special, the Cortina XR6 Interceptor), the Granadas, Sierras and the last of line Essex V6s, with fuel injection and around 160bhp, were found in Sierras and Sapphires. The Cologne engine was never released here.I read somewhere that it wasn't very easy to get much more power out of an Essex V6, something to do with the head design limiting breathing. I don't know how true that is but I also don't recall coming actoss many highly modified Ford V6s there, either. Possibly I just wasn't paying attention to them.
Mr2Mike said:
OllieC said:
Actually it tells u more about the ford smallblock engine, which was a very good design, the Essex v6 being average, it could very easily be tuned to produce the same hp\litre as the v8 quoted and remain a useable road engine however. No denying the weight however
If it was so bad why did tvr, scimitar etc use it ?
I suspect there wasn't a lot of choice for large capacity, cheap engines in the UK at the time. 130bhp from 3.0L wasn't very impressive, even back then. Even the wheezing, asthmatic Rover V8 managed better.If it was so bad why did tvr, scimitar etc use it ?
standard output from the revised engine was 138 hp, not great, but this engine was in a low state of tune from the factory, you could order fully warrantied 'Xpack' capri from your Ford dealer with over 170 hp for example.
that said, rover produced the vitesse which was 190hp from the 3.5 from memory ? hardly a bad figure for the time.
a lot of these old engines were produced at well below their potential, perhaps as a safeguard against tolerances in the factory being poor perhaps?
I believe that the bottom half of the old Essex V6 (and V4) was originally designed with a view to both petrol and diesel applications, hence the very strong bottom end.
For years it was the default choice for small manufacturers such as TVR, Marcos or Gilbern. This was partly because Ford was happy to sell the lump to anyone who wanted to buy it.
But it was also partly because Morgan had some form of exclusive deal with BL with regards to the RV8, which meant that the Rover engine just wasn't available to anyone else during the 1970s.
Whilst a meagre 130bhp and vast weight hardly commend the Essex V6, it is a durable old lump.
And, let us not forget, the RV8 was hardly putting out vast power in the 1970s. I once had a 1976 MGB GT V8, which produced a miserable 135bhp in standard Land Rover tune.
And the RV8 was not without its problems. It was a bit more complex, having an extra couple of cylinders, needed careful use of anti freeze and many seemed to suffer from clattery hydraulic tappets.
I have a couple of old Essex V6s cluttering up the garage. I am quite partial to them, but Jeez they are damn heavy.
For years it was the default choice for small manufacturers such as TVR, Marcos or Gilbern. This was partly because Ford was happy to sell the lump to anyone who wanted to buy it.
But it was also partly because Morgan had some form of exclusive deal with BL with regards to the RV8, which meant that the Rover engine just wasn't available to anyone else during the 1970s.
Whilst a meagre 130bhp and vast weight hardly commend the Essex V6, it is a durable old lump.
And, let us not forget, the RV8 was hardly putting out vast power in the 1970s. I once had a 1976 MGB GT V8, which produced a miserable 135bhp in standard Land Rover tune.
And the RV8 was not without its problems. It was a bit more complex, having an extra couple of cylinders, needed careful use of anti freeze and many seemed to suffer from clattery hydraulic tappets.
I have a couple of old Essex V6s cluttering up the garage. I am quite partial to them, but Jeez they are damn heavy.
nsm3 said:
I had a 1300 Mk1 with a 3.0L "power bulge" bonnet, back around 1980. Couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding, but I'd love one of these beasties!
A few years later than that, the future Mrs Lowtimer was smoking around in an 1100 Mark III. It had been a tatty old 1300, and she had no money so when the engine blew up the cheapest deal she could get on the streets of Norf Lahndahn was a swap for an 1100 out of a scrapped Escort.This was before I know her but she assures me she drove it around for a couple of years like that. Apparently fourth gear was completely redundant.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff