|
Post by fruitcake on Sept 16, 2017 12:44:33 GMT
Interesting, it seems 15% isn't a lot. My bus is a stock Type 4 2 litre but I'll still take it for a test even if it's a mock unrecorded one for peace of mind.
|
|
|
Post by chad on Sept 16, 2017 13:14:43 GMT
I wrote this on Ch5 but some might find it helpful to see many will have potentially been shafted under the new rules. Or do you interpret differently to me. I reckon yours might be OK, but there again you might not, depends on the mods to the engine or whether there has been a change from Type 1 to Type 4, I see this as having some complexity read on. Type 4 If you assume 1700 was 65 hp and 2000 was 69hp then the power to weight ratio (assuming 1,800 KG) will 0.036 and 0.038 respectively, which if my maths is correct is an increase in power to weight ratio of 5.6%. The issue comes when you start adding twin carbs etc that each give you a number of gains in horse power. If you have a larger Type 1 than 1,600 or a trick Type 4 then you might find yourself caught by this, that is how I would read this - its about the change in power to weight ratio. Clearly going from a 1,700 type 4 to a Subaru EJ20 is as I see it at the moment going to put me in the substantially changed bracket. This of course assumes that your bus didn't originally run a gutless Type 1 engine. Type 1 Just taking a look at anyone with a Type 1 engine an old Keeping your bus alive magazine shows the BHP for a stock 1600 twin port at 30 bhp then they added in the following order performance exhaust added 1 bhp twin webber 34ICT added 11 bhp Scat pro street rockers added 8 bhp electronic ignition 0 bhp So if you have a 1600cc bus which came with a single carburettor and it now runs twin weber 34 ICTs then based on a weight of 1,800 kg you have increased the power to weight ratio by 35%. You are probably not feeling quite so smug now. Obviously if you are running a 1776 then your clearly way above the 15%. My understanding is a stock SP 1600 is 47hp, TP is 50hp at the flywheel. I think 30hp relates to a lot earlier version unless they're measuring at the wheels but even then the transmission losses seem high at 40%. I'm no type 4 expert but the HP you quote strikes me as flywheel not at the wheels, which means the TP type 1 is about 25% less powerful than the 1700 type 4.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 14:30:50 GMT
The type 1 figures came from the magazine and they picture it on a rolling road so probably at the wheels.
as for the other numbers I took them from the internet where they are measured from don't know.
|
|
|
Post by volkswombat on Sept 16, 2017 18:12:32 GMT
If I'd stuck with my 2 cylinder engine I'd of had a decrease in. Power to weight ration, so would I be due some sort of rebate or subsidy? You know , like a lazy farmer.
|
|
|
Post by Woody on Sept 16, 2017 18:29:27 GMT
Having your bus looked at every year is obviously a good thing if you don't know your onions but I reckon 90% of MOT testers don't really know their bus onions either, take it to someone who does if you need reassurance
|
|
|
Post by Baz on Sept 16, 2017 21:19:57 GMT
Having your bus looked at every year is obviously a good thing if you don't know your onions but I reckon 90% of MOT testers don't really know their bus onions either, take it to someone who does if you need reassurance i think this is a big let out for the mot ,ministry of transport , obviously their aren't computers or in many cases the knowledge to confirm that old vehicles are road worthy in today's times , obviously braking efficiency is a big thing when power is increased, also strength ,lack of safety equipment etc etc. So they are passing the buck ,,,i.e. They were not allowed to carry on making even new danburys etc because ................ the ownus is now on who ? Not them It would now seem?? How will you be able to get an mot which has some sort of qualification if they say ,you don't need one . Surely it's more a they can't give you one with the regs and that , that will be required in the fourth coming years so ........................? Maybe? Its true most people who have old vehicles look after them ,better than some people with newer ones but .....................? Maybe their is more to this than meets the eye? And loop holes need to be their for some ? . Also a stricter test will be needed soon on who should be allowed to drive vehicles maybe ??. WOw who knows huh!!!🤷🏻‍♂️ I blame brexit .
|
|
|
Post by rickyrooo1 on Sept 16, 2017 22:28:06 GMT
I've said it for years, free tax and no mot will soon be limited use (weekend or 50 miles etc) mark my words.
|
|
|
Post by Dicky on Sept 17, 2017 0:07:33 GMT
I've said it for years, free tax and no mot will soon be limited use (weekend or 50 miles etc) mark my words. Youve been sayin that for years Rick! And still life goes on....... its an interesting subject and it will just take the edge off the mot time stress for me. And no issues with timescales for any repairs or having dodgy welding done just to get it through the test which would be better spent as planned expenditure. Some have sensible testers that know the owner and know he will sort it as its his investment or pride and joy. Ive had some awful work done on mine for mots thats lasted a few years and then become a much larger job than doing it properly in the first place. Be more tempted to do stuff myself now and take my time.
|
|
|
Post by Baz on Sept 17, 2017 8:30:12 GMT
I've said it for years, free tax and no mot will soon be limited use (weekend or 50 miles etc) mark my words. I've said it for more years than ye , dun wan it n in it . And my best mate was called mark . We are all doomed so it dunt matter ,not my words but his who knows .
|
|
|
Post by VW Toast on Sept 17, 2017 10:15:45 GMT
That's one up te the man, fuck em look oot were a cummin a doon
|
|
|
Post by sANDYbAY on Sept 17, 2017 12:26:39 GMT
Personally I don't think I'll be taking mine for any type of annual test. I just drive our daily car without thinking about it and if I don't have to lift the bonnet from one decade to the next that's fine by me. The MOT tester will alert me to anything that might need doing to it. My bus, however, I drive very differently and as I've done such a lot of work on it over the years I know it's little quirks and weak spots. I'm much more involved in the driving experience and reckon I'd notice any difference in things like steering and brakes long before they became dangerous. Also I've got a lot more invested in the bus emotionally which means that fixing anything isn't something I'd HAVE to do but rather something which I'd WANT to do.
|
|
|
Post by Woody on Sept 17, 2017 12:33:09 GMT
Personally I don't think I'll be taking mine for any type of annual test. I just drive our daily car without thinking about it and if I don't have to lift the bonnet from one decade to the next that's fine by me. The MOT tester will alert me to anything that might need doing to it. My bus, however, I drive very differently and as I've done such a lot of work on it over the years I know it's little quirks and weak spots. I'm much more involved in the driving experience and reckon I'd notice any difference in things like steering and brakes long before they became dangerous. Also I've got a lot more invested in the bus emotionally which means that fixing anything isn't something I'd HAVE to do but rather something which I'd WANT to do. Plus him near me where you and I go would pass a rusty wheelbarrow with no wheels
|
|