Letters From Readers, February 1954

Sir,
I enjoyed your excellent “Gran Turismo” article as much as the previous one on open sports cars. It seems to me, however, that it emphasises yet again the difficulty of splitting up cars into definite types. “It is amusing to note,” you say, “that Frazer-Nash claim more power from it (their Le Mans coupé engine) than is developed by the Bristol 404 version.” Surely this merely proves that the Le Mans coupé, as its name and triumphs imply, was conceived in the first place as a competition car, the successor in fact to the ultra-stark Le Mans replica, although obviously more suitable for touring than most of the open sports/racing cars.

The Frazer-Nash seems to fall somewhere between a Gran Turismo car and the “rather specialised sports/racing car in closed form,” including the Bristol 450 which appeared at Le Mans last year. The main difference being that the slightly less specialised Fraser-Nash worked, whereas they did not.

The Bristol 404, on the other hand, is not a competition car. In fact it is probably more useful to think of it as a short-chassis “souped” version of 403 sports saloon than as a road version of the exotic Type 450, even if it is closely akin to the latter mechanically (and in spite of the retention of “stabilising” fins!).

Incidentally, I do not doubt that the Frazer-Nash can be obtained with an engine in any of the recognised stages of tune from 100-150 b.h.p., and also that 404s will soon begin to appear fitted with the more potent versions.

In view of the inclusion of covered-in two-seater sports/racing cars like the Frazer-Nash and the Fiat 8V, which, as you yourself state, seem to have little use outside competitions (although the latter appears to employ push-rods to achieve cheapness of production rather than maximum performance). I would suggest that it seems harsh to exclude sports cars which have grown hard-tops merely because they may have only 2/3 seats while being over 2 litres. The obvious example is the XK120 fixed-head coupé. With or without the many modifications available, it is just such a car as your Continental correspondent describes. Its performance needs no praising and a modified version would come very high among the cars which you list. It is a car which has been proved equally successful in many roles: racing, touring or shopping. Its hard-top provides closed-car comfort for two or sometimes three persons, and its bargain price more than outweighs the value of a fourth seat.

Is there not an Italian-bodied Cunningham production coupé which would qualify as Gran Turismo? It would make an interesting comparison with the European Machines.
I am, Yours, etc.,
M. S. R. Napier,
Brockenhurst.
[it is difficult to sub-divide cars for purposes of writing about them, as our correspondent says. We gave careful consideration to the Cunningham and Jaguar XK120 coupés but excluded them because their performance in relation to their engine size is not particularly impressive, the other Gran Turismo cars being under 2 1/2 litres with the exception of the Jensen 541, which offers more accommodation. An essential of the class of car was that it should be compact as well as fast. Moreover, it must be comfortable for long runs and personal experience is that the XK120 coupé’s pedal positions and driving seat tend not to conform. — Ed.]

More Praise Fro The Renault 750

Sir,
In your December issue there appeared a very interesting article on “Motoring Variety in Australia.” by Mr. G. Sandford-Morgan. Although the story as a whole is of absorbing interest to the motorcar enthusiast, I beg to disagree with him most emphatically on his opinion of the little Renault 750, or Renault Four as it is known on the Continent.

In saying that he has never been able to understand the wide enthusiasm for this car he admits that the enthusiasm is there. Surely it is hardly admissible that thousands of people should get enthusiastic over a car as bad as the writer paints the Renault he drove, and of which he forgot to tell us whether it was old or new and, if the former, how old. From my own experience and from that of others I can state as a pertinent fact that the Renault Four is definitely a very good car indeed. I bought mine in October, 1952. after the Paris Show and thus a 1953 model; therefore it has now been in my possession 15 months, in which time I drove it 27,000 Miles. Right at-the start I fitted Dutch shock-absorbers and, apart from greasing, oil renewal and normal care and maintenance, that was the only time I had the car worked on. Suspension, steering, wheels and axles are in excellent shape. There is no trace of harshness anywhere and the little motor has that healthy, sporty snarl so beloved by sports-car drivers. There is no question of the rear wheels trying to take over, roadholding onthe straight and in curves could not be better with an M.G., and road bumps are either absorbed or become ripples. I drive the little car very hard. Maximum speed being about 65 m.p.h., I drive it continuously at 60 or over and it seems to revel in this treatment. I think Rotterdam-Nice in 23 1/2 hours as I did last July with two up and luggage for one month is as much as anyone could -ask from a little car like this or even a bigger one. Compression on all pistons is still the same as when new, oil consumption is negligible and petrol 46 miles to the gallon. The tyres should give me 30,000 miles or a little over; they are two-ply and I Intend upon renewal to mount four-ply.

When I see that friends of mine have driven their Renaults 45,000 miles and 52,000 miles respectively and still are not ready for overhaul I have no doubt that Mr. S.-M. has either driven one of the old Renaults of 1947 or 1948 vintage, which indeed did have a lot of teething troubles, or a very badly misused one.

Under the usual disclaimer, purely as an enthusiastic owner who wants to see justice done to the make of his choice, I wish it to go on record that in my opinion there is no better car at the price as far as speed, stamina, roadholding, economy and, yes, comfort and completeness of Standard equipment is concerned.

The little Fiat 500C is indeed a very excellent little car, too, and as good value for money as the Renault, but it is for those who are satisfied with a minimum of room and motor.

As for the Renault not being able to stay with the Fiat at any time or speed, I consider that as one of the best jokes of 1953.

Indeed, as Mr. J. Dick-Cleland says in your January issue, the Renault Type 1062 is fast enough as it is, but let the Type 1063 get on the road in greater numbers once the manufacturers have decided to release it in quantity and many proud owners of the smaller and not so very small sports cars will have occasion to be amazed, to put it mildly.
I am, Yours, etc.,
John M. Vermeys (Lt.-Col., R.N.A.)
Rotterdam.

Rear-Engined Cars

Sir,
I am at some loss as a humble motorist to know how to make up my mind whether or not to seriously consider purchasing one of the rear-engined Continental motor vehicles, and in this connection would like to refer to your article in the January issue on page 11

This states: “We must confess to keen enjoyment of the VW’s excellent handling qualities, unsullied by its rear-engine location.” In the same article a further statement is made by Tom McCahill as follows: “Before going 25 miles we found cars stalled and other’s skidding hopelessly as they tried to assault the simple rises of a dual super-highway. The Volkswagen weaved through these churning iron hulks like a broken-field runner.” And: “As soon as I found clear spots where no other cars were fighting for traction, I deliberately threw this car into skids several times to see how it would act.”

Compare this with the statement in the Automobile Engineer of November, 1953, that “Experience with all the Continental rear-engined vehicles indicates that the advantages of this lay-out are outweighed by its serious disadvantages, the main ones being the tendency towards oversteering and instability.”

Again, referring to the Autocar for November 6th, 1953, reference is made, when describing the rear-engined Porsche, as follows: “… the soft torsion-bar springing allowing it to hurry round main-road corners without roll, while the rather direct steering gives the driver exact control over the front wheels … There is pronounced oversteer, as with all rear-engined cars, and, as with a racehorse which might bolt unless a firm hand is on the reins, so must one be in control here, as it is possible to bring the tail round very quickly if the driver is too enterprising on wet surfaces.”

In view of this apparently rather conflicting information in your sister journals I wonder it you would care to comment please.
I am, Yours, etc.,
F. R. Nichols,
Upton St. Leonards.

[It is true that if the VW is hurled into corners queer things happen at the rear end, but it must be remembered that it is intended as an economical family car and that is how we regarded it when we wrote of it. Under normal driving conditions it handles safely and is immeasurably superior to the majority of other family-type saloons. We try to be unbiased when reporting On the cars we test. — Ed.]

Steering Gear

Sir,
Without wishing to add further fuel to the flames of controversy that from time to time rage over the “vintage versus modern” argument, may I be allowed to comment on “A. B. C.’s” summing up of the qualities of steering in his interesting “Historical Notes.” He suggests that “… the best of the old are at least as good as the worst of the new.”

Speaking as one whose motoring is almost equally divided between a very good vintage car and a medium-priced modern, which has been kindly treated by the technical Press, I have no hesitation in saying that I prefer the vintage steering. Although it possesses a powerful degree of understeer when fast cornering is attempted (partly because of a “solid” rear axle in hot pursuit), it is light, completely accurate, and an infallible guide to the happenings “up front.”

The steering of the modern is literally indescribable. By this, I do not necessarily mean that it is bad. One turns the wheel and the car turns the corner, but the apparatus between the king-pins and the steering wheel seems to be completely anaesthetised, for it conveys to the driver nothing at all.

My modern car is apparently quite safe but, having been brought up on vintage cars, I appreciate the value and pleasure of “feel”: the car should have response and, indeed, personality.

It occurs to me that good vintage steering can be likened to the feel of a precision-made micrometer. On this basis, the steering of my modern car would compare with those outsize wooden compasses that maths, masters use to draw circles on blackboards!

Perhaps “A. B. C.” is nearest to the truth when he says: “Most modern cars seem to be far too ‘dead’ in the steering to enable the driver to develop his art properly.”
I am, Yours, etc.,
R. M. Russell,

Maidenhead.

An Alvis In Sweden

Sir,
On page 101 of the April, 1948, issue, Vol. XXIV, No. 4, of Motor Sport there is a picture, which I once sent you, of a Bertelli-bodied 4.3-litre Alvis once owned by Henken Widengren. It may perhaps amuse you to hear that at last I succeeded in acquiring this car in April of last year. It was in a shockingly bad state having passed into unsympathetic hands and been completely neglected for many years. Love is blind, however, and, having carried a photograph of this car in my wallet for some twelve years, I had solemnly sworn to become the owner of it sooner or later and to restore it if possible to original condition. I had once owned a 1933 Speed Twenty tourer and since then no other make exists for me.

The rebuilding process proved a gruelling and ruinous but intensely stimulating work and has just been completed (if such work ever is). The car was dismantled down to the proverbial “last nut and bolt.” During this process it was ascertained beyond doubt that this particular chassis had started life as a show object as nuts, bolts and little pipe-lines in the most inaccessible places were found to be chromed when excavated from under layers of mud and grease, and the frame to have been heavily enamelled. The whole of the front-end assembly and brake drums are highly polished and chromed.

All the time Alvis Ltd. proved most co-operative, most spares being readily procurable and speedily dispatched, and lots of them were needed, as for instance new cylinder block, pistons, valves, clutch assembly, all bushes and lots of bearings and gears, etc., as also a set of Andre telecontrols.

The all-aluminium panelled Bertelli body provided the worst headache, taking a skilled craftsman the best part of two months to get straight as it was corrugated and cracked all over. Additionally the car was completely rewired, rechromed, re-upholstered and re-finished in a pleasing combination of black and grey. It naturally cost about four times as much as I had anticipated but the result is thoroughly gratifying.

I have driven the car for some 3,000 miles without trouble, including a trip to Denmark. For me it is the car to end all cars and I think it successfully combines an up-to-date specification with that delightful hand-built vintage feeling so completely lacking in the post-war product.

As to activities here in Sweden, I must boast a little about the Stockholm M.G. Club (to which I happen to be the newly appointed secretary). It was founded about a year ago and caters for the small band of sports-car purists in the Stockholm area. It is not, as might be assumed from its title, confined to M.G. owners only, but this happens to be the most common sports-car marque in Sweden. Any proven dyed-in-the-wool sports-car enthusiasts may be admitted. Membership is, however, not too easy to attain as the maximum number of members is put at 30 in order to try to maintain the character of a closely-knit fraternity where everybody knows each other. We have so far run two trials (only sports cars admitted) and competed with teams in two others. We meet once every fortnight in a little cottage near Stockholm rented by the club. We are very proud of our own club magazine, the M.G. Gazette, which is published four times a year. We are planning an organised tour to Le Mans this summer and hope to visit England en route.
I am, Yours, etc.,
Tom Brahmer,
Estuna, Sweden.

Good Show!

Sir.
One hears so much these days of the shabby treatment and poor service provided by the average Service station that I should like to place on record through the medium of your columns an incident which happened to me recently.

I discovered by accident that a stub-axle on my pre-war Riley had been sheared off at some time and botched up “temporarily” by the drilling of two holes into the fractured ends and the insertion of a cotter pin into the open wound.

A local garage was unable to find a stub axle and was not disposed to make any effort to do so, and since the discovery was made on the afternoon of Christmas Eve I was somewhat despondent.

With the aid of Motor Sport I found a suitable advertisement and explained my predicament by telephone. In response, two complete stub-axles were placed on a train and delivered to me 30 miles away within two hours of the request.

This service, I might add, was provided by a firm (Arthur Bryden of Leeds) with whom I had had no previous transaction and to whom. I was completely unknown.

Any further comment would be superfluous.
I am, Yours, etc.,
J. E. Midgley
Driffield.

Comment

Isn’t it time Alfred Owen had the B.R.M.s entered for a “Soap-box Derby,” with all other entrants handicapped, of course?
I am, Yours. etc.,
D. Worrall,
Nottingham.

The Great Oil Controversy

Sir,
It is rather surprising to hear from two of your correspondents, Mr. J. E. Hands and Mr. A. J. Firth. that they should have had such unfortunate experience of modern additive oils as to consider them detrimental.

Apart from the enormous amount of research, there is a wealth of field experience which would indicate that suitable additive treatment not only reduces bore and ring wear, but provides other benefits such as reducing the rate of inevitable deterioration of oil in an engine.

Mr. Hands is rather late in discovering that additives are being incorporated in commonly supplied engine oils, as a large number of brands have had additive treatment since before the war, and oils with varying degrees of detergency have been available since the war. The absence of a hydraulic valve mechanism would not be a factor to consider in deciding whether additive treated oils are beneficial or not. The modern additive oil is usually designed to have a number of functions. These may include some or all of the following:

Anti-oxidant to reduce the rate at which the oil deteriorates in use.

Anti-corrosion to prevent the corrosive wear of bore, rings and bearings.

Anti-wear to increase the life of the engine components. Detergent dispersant to keep, primarily, the pistons free from lacquers and deposits which might restrict the action of the rings, and to prevent the clotting together of carbon particles to form sludge.

The degree of detergency may vary between brands, from very mild to a level comparable to that used in oil engines, and known as Heavy Duty. The benefit conferred by the level of detergency depends, to a large extent, on the operating conditions of the engine. An engine which is inclined to get dirty, due to dilution and condensation brought about by cold running, will perhaps demonstrate the advantages of detergency better than an engine which is mostly operated on long runs.

Unfortunately, Mr. Firth did not give any reason why he thought that his cylinder bore and ring wear had increased since the introduction of additive treated oils. It would be very interesting if he would publish the facts and figures on which his diagnosis is based.

As suppliers of branded motor oil which has contained a multifunctional additive (with only mild detergent properties) since 1946, we are more than satisfied with the results obtained in both test and Service conditions. We are satisfied that such additive treatment has definite benefits, and we know that we are not alone in this view.
I am, Yours, etc.,
P. D. George,
Technical Information Department,
Sternol, Ltd.
London, E.C.2.

Sir,
I think Mr. Hands’ letter on oil calls for comment.

Whereas I have only been a motorist for ten years. I have had eight motor-cycles and two cars to date, and my present 1927 Humber 14/40 is the only vehicle I have ever had rebored. The fact that all these vehicles performed well on “straight” oil does not alter the fact that great technical strides have been made in the matter of lubrication since 1939.

You will recall that less than a year ago I sounded a note of warning in a letter wherein I mentioned my garage’s advice not to use detergent oil in a car in which other oils had been used. My letter being in the form of an enquiry, one or two readers wrote in confirming the soundness of the advice of my garage.

If, however, one is prepared to strip the engine right down and clean it internally very thoroughly, rebore or otherwise take up excessive cylinder wear and fit a fabric filter in lieu of a wire gauze one, then there is so far as I can see nothing but good to be obtained from using a detergent oil. I am at the moment in course of doing all these things.

Now it is a fairly well-established fact that many vintage Humbers will do up to 150,000 miles before they need a rebore, and this on a “straight” oil. Therefore, why go to all this bother to use a detergent? The answer to this is too long to give in full. In brief, with suitable chemical treatment a thin oil can be made to give as much wear resistance as an untreated thick oil, and adequate viscosity can be maintained over a wider temperature range without the oil becoming too viscous at low temperatures for easy starting. For instance, these claims are made for a particular detergent oil as compared with “straight” S.A.E. 30 and S.A.E. 10:

It follows, therefore, that easier starting in winter, less “drag” on starting, more miles per gallon, less engine wear and a cleaner engine all result from using one of the better modern oils.

This does not however mean that it is safe to suddenly change an unprepared engine over to a detergent oil — far from it; I personally feel the oil companies would have done far better to warn the public of the dangers of detergent oils when introducing them instead of leaving us to find out.
I am, Yours, etc.,
H. Howell Thomas
Bromley.