It has been known in the last couple of weeks for me to go round several roundabouts sideways

When your not expecting it hough its not much fun.

Chop

 

Like all interesting handling traits

Steve

 

I had a 2 Litre Capri too. It was a good old car and I used to enjoy it round corners on cross ply tyres. They were more progressive than radials but they did seem to wear out more quickly.

It once broke its cambelt and naturally came to a dead stop. I walked back to the local Ford garage and bought a new belt. When I got back to the car I fitted the new cambelt and the car started up and ran perfectly!

Not many cars would do that without bending the valves and damaging the pistons and even chucking a rod out of the block!

Les

 

Hi Les

My Capri snapped it's cambelt too .... the 2.0 litre engine was non-interference, the 1.6 would smack the valves.

And, yes, there was a Ford Garage on every corner .... and they stocked all the parts!

How times have changed.

 

That isn't true. The 1.6Ltr engine was the same at the top end.

 

Well, well .... that's news to me - we are talking the Pinto Engines, aren't we?

 

Just goes to show how driving quality has declined in 40 odd years. You can drive, safely, with any configuration, if you know how. FWD seems to fare better, obvioulsy. And 4X4 is the best in my expereince, part-time and full-time 4X4 systems. But again, it's the nut behind the streering wheel that is important.

 

*sigh* Did you mention "Pinto" engines previously? No. Then your post would be correct, otherwise it's false.

 

Most Capri's were fitted with Pinto's - I assumed that's what you meant, you didn't - so, I'm right then? Good

 

Most? Errrmm, that's not right.

 

It's an interesting discussion and I might search for the figures ..... but we are taking this off topic.

It was you who pointed me to my old Cortina GT MK3 on E-Bay, wasn't it?

 

The "Pinto" was not "liberally" deployed in the 1.6L fleet, yes, it appeared in the "Capri", but not all Capri 1.6L, after all, it was a "performance" engine. Yes, the Pinto would slap valves, but the standard 1.6L was just a "small" 2.0L block fitted to Escorts, Cortinas, Capri's etc.

Second question, no.

 

at least 50% of Range Rovers manage to stay on the road in icy conditions

 

Crossplies ?

They were only ever on the earliest and poxiest ones in the first year and usually only ever the first set, still a liability on Radials !

 

I wouldn't venture out in my old rear-wheel drive Supra in the snow. In fact, rain seemed to be a challenge sometimes. The traction control was just a little light that came on to warn you that you were just about to crash.

I have a Focus ST now and that is slightly better but far too heavy and it struggles up/down hills in the snow.

Steve

 

oh dear, although there are still 3 wheels on the ground so he should get out lol.

 

tbh I think it has stopped for a waz

 

Classic example of someone who believes a 4X4 helps in snowy/icy conditions. Well, it does, but only if you know how to use the technology in those conditions. 4X4, and power, can get you out of many situations, but it can get you into trouble very quickly. Shame about the tyres tho.

Nice picture!

 

I was told that the 1600 engine would clout the valves while the 2L one would not as Pete said. Must have been the Pinto engine after all I suppose but cannot say for sure.

Best Ford I ever had was the Mk1 Lotus Cortina in which I fitted Cossie CPL2 cams and ported the head as well as modding the rear axle to avoid putting torque along the axle casings but retaining the A bracket. This maintained the oustanding handling but stopped the diff casing from cracking and leaking.

With a limited slip diff it was like a roller skate in the wet, you had to really work at it to spin it!

Les

 

The 1.6L and 2.0L standard engines were identical top end, pistons with cutouts for the valves. The difference in displacement was bore/stroke related. It's like the 3.5l engine in the new Range Rovers. It's a "stoked" and "bored" 3.5l in the 4.0l SE, and even more stroked in the 4.6l SE, making the engine "under square" (Meaning the stroke is bigger than the bore. Good for tourque, not good for revs). The "Pinto" engine was a "perfromance" engine, and that "perfromance" was achieved, largely, by compression. The pistons didn't have "cut outs" so that at TDC, with inlet valve open (The largest valve) they would not clear.

There seems to be a trend away from timing belts to chains....and I like that.

 

Are belts not better though? Less weight, less noise, cheaper, easy to change etc

 

Belts were introduced to reduce noise, primary reason (Environmentalists again), but also consumed less fuel (Drag). And they are good, compared to what they replaced. Modern, metal, chain belts, last and are as quiet and consume no more fuel (As they are almost like rubber belts anyway).

A lot of people got miffed at having to change belts when, really, it was not necessary. Or when it failed, prematurely (Faily common). Metal all the way IMO.

 

They had pinto engines and very good ones

 

FFS. I wish people would read a thread. I never said the "Pinto" wasn't a good engine. I am saying, and as pointed out, that the 2.0l engine is the *SAME* as the 1.6l engine at the top. Meaning, if the cam belt fails you will not lose your top end to valve or piston damage. The "Pinto" engine you will because of the "prefromance" differences namely, higher compression and "flat top" pistions (Higher compression).

But, as pointed out, not all 1.6l Capris had the "Pinto" engine installed.

It's not rocket science!

 

Earlier crapis - the MK 1 had the ohv 1.6 engine and the 2.0 ohc Pinto engine along as well as the V6 3.0l engine - from memory

 

There was a 1.3 too!!

 

I agree with you about cam belts and timing chains. I never was that happy with a cambelt, particularly with my racing engines which were BDA's with high compression of course and full race cams with a lot of overlap. Out of interest I was getting 185 BHP out of a 1300cc at 11500 RPM normally aspirated. The exhaust had to be heard to be believed Not a lot of room between the pistons and the valves under normal circumstances for certain!

My BMW Mini Cooper has a proper timing chain and I am much happier about that.

Les

 

That's is impressive, but the BDA was a great engine, although I never reved it that much, got similar power at the flywheel however. Sadly, I've long since been disinterested with engine building etc, too expensive even back then, and I don't have the time anymore.

If I had time and money, I'd like to convert a Land Rover 90 to V8 4 Sp auto, again. Maybe one day.

 

Yes, the horrible Essex V6 with horrid hydralic tappets, fibre on steel wheel timing gear and an oil pump drive shaft that regularly failed. The 2.8l Cologne engine was better.

 

..but regardless who the OP is, the MX-5 is a great little drivers car. Just to apply a little bit of sense to proceedings.

My Smart (yip, bring it on.. it's a cabriolet as well.. ) was surprisingly good in the snow, on packed ice it would get a little twitchy but nothing uncontrollable. Unlike all the FWD hatches that just continued in the direction of momentum!