Disrespecting the 803

[JOWETTJAVELIN]

You're wrong there Audrey. It was the Americans who were technologically behind in the 1950s. Sidevalve engines were common and 6 volt electrics widespread. Radios were not standard equipment, just as they weren't on British cars. They also continued to use a separate body and chassis for many years after monocoque construction was introduced in Europe.

[Matt Tomkins]

Dave Vizard describes the crank as 'like a bent piece of wire'!

[Audrey1955]

You're wrong there Audrey. It was the Americans who were technologically behind in the 1950s. Sidevalve engines were common and 6 volt electrics widespread. Radios were not standard equipment, just as they weren't on British cars. They also continued to use a separate body and chassis for many years after monocoque construction was introduced in Europe.

Actually im not, and hopefully other people here will agree. Look at the interior and spec of a ford thunderbird for example, then compare it to a luxury car in Britain. The thunderbird offered more tech and gadget than a rolls! Theres a huge difference. Many cars had radios in the states, but many cars over here didnt even have them as an option.
No electric windows, no air conditioning, and were slow in comparison to American cars. It doesnt mattter if then had side valve whatever engines, its irrelevent. American engines were much more powerful and more useful to the everyday driver.

I ask you to look at any Ford, Chevy, Caddy from the 50s, and you cant deny that they offered far more than the sluggish British cars at the time. They had propper interiors with many gagets, not just the spartan interior of the minors.

As for the monoque body, how did this actually make a difference to the customer? It didnt, it was just another way of construction. People didnt buy a car because it had a monoque body!

In fact, the whole demise of the British auto industry was because it wouldnt move with the times. In the 70s, 80s, Japanese cars came with radios that came standard, and much better reliability, whihc saw the death of British cars.

[moggiethouable]

In fact, the whole demise of the British auto industry was because it wouldnt move with the times. In the 70s, 80s, Japanese cars came with radios that came standard, and much better reliability, whihc saw the death of British cars.[/quote]


Not entirely true, now wheres that soap box......ah here it is.
The Japanese could afford to export cars much more cheaply with all the goodies fitted, thanks to Huge Government support.
To my constant embarassment I worked for the Japs for 6 years.
I witnessed personally instructions to make a loss, or the Japanese government export subsidies would stop.
Simultaneously, Britains manufacturing plants were being berated by the press and government for not being competitive.
With a government here that would not support financially to anywhere near the extent the Japanese did, we stood no chance.

[JOWETTJAVELIN]

Actually you are. We'll see what people here have to say. I have done extensive research on both the British and U.S auto industries, the factors influencing their specification, styling and engineering, the markets they were designed for, politics and so on.

I suggest you read some Vance Packard before you go pronouncing on things you cannot back up. The U.S. market became saturated and the only way they could sell new consumer goods was by planned obsolescence. Hence the styling change every year and increased horsepower and car size. Alloys were made to rust instead of last. The yearly style change meant cars were never tested properly and to afford the cost of the changes the mechanics remained decidedly old hat. There's an old saying about American cars: 'all show and nothing under the bonnet'.

The flashy interiors look nice but examine them closely and you'll find the same basic instrumentation.

Look at the interior and spec of a ford thunderbird for example, then compare it to a luxury car in Britain.

I'm comparing it to a Bristol 401 and can only see one winner...

British cars of the time were sluggish.

Well if all you have is an 803 Minor then yes, I agree. Otherwise the cars performed perfectly well with good power-to-weight ratios, unlike the U.S. cars where a lot of the power was needed just to shift the bulk and power all those gadgets.

The Jap car industry first began making Austin designs under licence, and BMW's first car was an Austin 7, so that should tell you a thing or two.

Both U.S. and British cars have their good and bad points, and varied wildly over the decades, but in terms of fit and finish, quality and engineering, 1950s and 60s UK cars win.

Why, you're like a King raving at his subjects!

[Audrey1955]

Actually you are. We'll see what people here have to say. I have done extensive research on both the British and U.S auto industries, the factors influencing their specification, styling and engineering, the markets they were designed for, politics and so on.

I suggest you read some Vance Packard before you go pronouncing on things you cannot back up. The U.S. market became saturated and the only way they could sell new consumer goods was by planned obsolescence. Hence the styling change every year and increased horsepower and car size. Alloys were made to rust instead of last. The yearly style change meant cars were never tested properly and to afford the cost of the changes the mechanics remained decidedly old hat. There's an old saying about American cars: 'all show and nothing under the bonnet'.

The flashy interiors look nice but examine them closely and you'll find the same basic instrumentation.

Look at the interior and spec of a ford thunderbird for example, then compare it to a luxury car in Britain.

I'm comparing it to a Bristol 401 and can only see one winner...

British cars of the time were sluggish.

Well if all you have is an 803 Minor then yes, I agree. Otherwise the cars performed perfectly well with good power-to-weight ratios, unlike the U.S. cars where a lot of the power was needed just to shift the bulk and power all those gadgets.

The Jap car industry first began making Austin designs under licence, and BMW's first car was an Austin 7, so that should tell you a thing or two.

Both U.S. and British cars have their good and bad points, and varied wildly over the decades, but in terms of fit and finish, quality and engineering, 1950s and 60s UK cars win.

Why, you're like a King raving at his subjects!

Well we obviously have different opinions, because I prefer the thunderbird to that bristol. The styling of the Bristol is from the 40s, and its interior looks dated with all that wood.

I remember having a similar debate with a freind of mine, that was determined that just because something was made in Britain it IS better, and it was that attitude as to why our home grown car maufacturers failed.

How can the american cars be all show and nothing under the bonnet? The american cars may have had old engine designs, but they worked, and they offered much more power than the British cars, despite being heavier. The heavy american cars still reached much higher speeds, and were much quicker off the mark than the British cars despite of weight.

They had a lot more to offer. You cant deny though that things like electric windows and air conditioning were things unheard of in a car at that time in Britain.
It wasnt even cars that were more advanced. Many homes in mid century America had the likes of dishwashers, while we were still using the old scrubbing board!

As for rusting, there were some horrendous British cars that would rust, and this wasnt just a problem specific to American cars.

50s American cars were also much safer, mainly due to their size. The Morris Minor MM had to change its design to satisfy American safety. Things like padded dashboards etc in American cars were examples of progressive american design.

Yes, American cars did change their appearence to sell, but at least they progressed. The Minor was outdated by the time the minor 1000 was introduced. Its styling was based on early 40s American design. The Minor was seriously outdated by the late 60s.

We'll probably never agree, but I do love my Minor and am a Minor fan despite my views on British cars at this time
Its just I have always admired the American progressive designs, in days before computers deisgned cars like today.

[faversham999]

the was a tax of £12 7s 11d per horse power on cars in the fiftys so that mucked up the cheap home market

[1098]

I have an 803 engine and box in my Postal van. Once it's rolling it can plod on about 50mph, without screaming it's head off.
I don't push it to hard,and it does the bussiness. A big gap between 3rd and 4th gear though. It's nice to drive what was on offer all those years ago. I have the choice of taking UXH to Cornbury park, or a later van, with a 1098 engine and box. Not quite made my mind up yet. The 803 engine, is an important part of British motoring heritage. [frame][/frame]

[brucek]

PLEASE take UXH - it's a star and there won't be too many mail vans there either! It deserves a day or two being appreciated by others

[bmcecosse]

The demise of the British car industry was entirely down to Red Robbo and his mad Union pals....... Completely ruined it with their restrictive practices and greed.......

[daveyl]

My daily commute, requires me to be able to accelerate up to 60mph, in 3rd, on a slight incline, to join a dual-carriageway. I don't think that I'm macho enough to handle an 803. I'd be too scared of getting squashed.

[minor65]

60 mph in 3rd gear in a minor

[bmcecosse]

Mine does 50 in 2nd, over 70 in 3rd and then into 4th......

[1098]

PLEASE take UXH - it's a star and there won't be too many mail vans there either! It deserves a day or two being appreciated by others

Ok, I was kind of bordering on taking the beast, Must plan a route that avoids motorways. Hoping to be there on the Friday, not too sure when we can get on site yet.

[PaulTubby]

803 engines have there place in original cars, its nice to see them still fitted in some still and theres still some original vehicles out there. I do admit that i prefer a bit more horse power in my minor then a 803, but a 803 engine vehicle gives you a more relaxed style of driving... would be a shame to see all the 803 engines gone for a 948 or 1098 or even 1275 transplant which so many have over the years..... everyone to there own id say

[gtt1951]

As I have mentioned in another thread, my plan is to put an 803 (and gearbox) back into my 1956 SII Traveller - it is currently fitted with a 1098.
I have the engine and a gearbox (with gear lever and correct tunnel). Whilst tinkering away at the wheeled platform that holds the engine, gearbox and spare 1098 gearbox, I noticed, to my surprise, under the dirt and oil, that the 803 is a Gold Seal unit ! It is missing the two support struts for the oil-bath air filter (the 2 that then bolt down on the rocker cover) - where would one get these from?
The 803 project will not be completed in time for any shows this year - I'll have to get there with the 1098.

[Old_Robin]

Wow! I have a '55 803 and I feel "happy" at 45 in top on the flat and about 52 and a half mph downhill with the wind behind. I have chased down a 4.2 diff and was looking to up to a 948 or 1098. Is it me or is there nitro kit for 803 I do not know about!
Cheers Old_Robin