|
|
Post by stuart6 on Oct 1, 2017 21:00:15 GMT
Hi,
I have a Wolseley Six with a shell that is almost beyond repair. I have the chance of an Austin 1800 shell that I would be looking to use as a basis and swap all the running gear, interior etc from the six.
Does anyone know any major stumbling blocks with this? I appreciate there will be some modifications in the engine bay for brackets etc and also the engine mounts. The front mounts look easy enough to re-position; however I am not too sure on the rear mounts and how easy it will be to create the correct mounts on the bulkhead?
The radiator cowl looks as if it is removable to leave the clear grill on th nearside.
Any help/ info is appreciated.
Stuart.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1800heap on Oct 2, 2017 0:56:17 GMT
Hi Again Stuart
There is a 2200 crab which is basically a Wolseley 6 with an 1800 front. I would say it is possible if you have both cars because you will already have the engine mounts etc.
I used to have a Wolseley 6 and would comment, probably at the risk of upsetting 6 owners, I prefer the 1800. I found the six a bit heavy in the front end. It used to understeer a fair bit compaired to the 1800 and was no quicker in my opinion! I will qualify this though by saying my 1800 was an S spec and the W6 was standard!
If it were me I would swap the interior, PAS, brakes (bigger disks 3 pot callipers) keep the spare suspension gear, leave the 1800 engine and invest my time in twin carbs and light engine mods to the 1800. ie take it to 1800S spec. Also you will probably be better off insurance wise as you haven't done an engine swap!
Nick
|
|
|
|
Post by bent8rover on Oct 2, 2017 12:38:23 GMT
I've also thought of this method, if only to re-create a (much rarer today) Morris 2200 with the plusher Wolseley interior and oomph. After living with a Wolseley, the Morris dash 'formica' covering isn't particularly nice. Normally I'd assume the suspension was uprated to handle the significant extra weight. Were the displacer units always the same across the range? By that I include Australian production All the fabrication to fit the 2200 though, might be just as much hassle as the fitting of a Rover T-series engine to make that missing-link MG Magnette... if only to confuse arena 'experts' at shows!  |
|
|
|
Post by Penguin45 on Oct 2, 2017 16:56:42 GMT
The E6 engine is slightly lighter than the B!
Chris.
|
|
|
|
Post by bent8rover on Oct 2, 2017 17:30:40 GMT
Well I never... yet many articles I read speak of the E6 cars being a bad choice over the B due to being such a heavy lump! Wolseley 18/85 Weight 2,576 lb (1,168 kg) Wolseley Six Weight 2,617 lb (1,187 kg) |
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Oct 2, 2017 23:25:35 GMT
Yes, but the radiator being ahead of the front wheels in the Wolseley Six adds to the understeer. David Well I never... yet many articles I read speak of the E6 cars being a bad choice over the B due to being such a heavy lump! Wolseley 18/85 Weight 2,576 lb (1,168 kg) Wolseley Six Weight 2,617 lb (1,187 kg) |
|
|
|
Post by 1800heap on Oct 3, 2017 0:49:58 GMT
The E6 engine is slightly lighter than the B! Chris. Thats interesting Chris! I wonder if its all the extra metal up front. Funny I recycled the W6 wings and put them on my 1800. They are very similar apart from that extra metal and can be modified to fit the 1800. If you look at the picture of my 1800 I posted a while back you will notice it has W6 lights! The W6 weights only 20kg more. Dosen't seem like alot. I suppose my 1800 didn't have bumpers which would also have helped somewhat! I would like to compare the 2200 handling but have never driven one! Nick |
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Oct 3, 2017 3:07:52 GMT
One of the motoring magazines I recall compared the 1800, 1800S and a W6 or 2200 and commented on the effect on the handling of moving the radiator from the side. I drove a W6 and a Morris 2200 (no PAS) around 1973/4 and they definitely felt more nose heavy; there again all my 1800 engined crabs handled differently. I was considering buying a 2200 crab at the time but decided against it despite that beautifully smooth in-line six engine.
David
|
|
|
|
Post by 1800heap on Oct 3, 2017 5:49:36 GMT
I wonder if that is part of the feeling I had David. The E6 engine was quite and smooth in comparison. Maybe because the 1800 sounded angrier with the long center branch and straight through exhaust I had on it, the brisker feel was an illusion! I never did a drag race between the two it was just the feeling I had! Unfortunately the 1800 was off the road while the W6 was in use. I eventually scrapped the W6 for the parts to fix the 1800. I will try to find the picture I have of the W6 when we took it to Austria skiing. It was good in the snow!
Nick
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Oct 3, 2017 12:40:34 GMT
Hi Nick
It's strange, the 2200 0-60 time was faster than the 1800 as was the top speed - actually very similar to the 1800S if I recall. However the 1800 seemed to have a better torque curve with more punch down low than the 6 cylinder engine which made it more lively and reponsive at lower speeds in real world driving.
David
|
|
|
|
Post by snoopy11 on Oct 3, 2017 18:49:37 GMT
My understanding is that the 1800 has a higher compression ration making it lively. The S even more.
The 2200 was a low compression more suited to long distance motoring.
I may very well be wrong though.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Oct 3, 2017 23:46:05 GMT
Due to financial constraints post WW2, the B series engine block was designed for both petrol and diesel use which probably accounts for its rigidity and weight. The 2200 engine was designed to be as short as possible to install transversely, as a result essential water cooling between cylinders was compromised. In the end it didn't need to be so short as the radiator was moved to the front with an electric fan. David Well I never... yet many articles I read speak of the E6 cars being a bad choice over the B due to being such a heavy lump! Wolseley 18/85 Weight 2,576 lb (1,168 kg) Wolseley Six Weight 2,617 lb (1,187 kg) |
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Oct 5, 2017 3:33:43 GMT
I recall when I bought a Saab 99 in late 1975 I eagerly waited for the snow to arrive. A few weeks later there was a heavy fall and my friends and I jumped in to try it out. I soon realised that the 1800 was more capable, with better traction partly due to that heavy lump up front and also more positive steering. David It was good in the snow! Nick |
|
|
|
Post by bent8rover on Oct 9, 2017 13:37:35 GMT
The 2200 engine was designed to be as short as possible to install transversely, as a result essential water cooling between cylinders was compromised. In the end it didn't need to be so short as the radiator was moved to the front with an electric fan. True, although all E-series had similar water jacket compromise, it wasn't just the six:  Perhaps ? also taken into account was the intended use of the E-series as the new OHC 'big six' fitted inline for the other Leyland products which became Marina, P76 and Rover SDX (all at 2.6 Litres)  |
|
|
|
Post by bent8rover on Oct 9, 2017 13:57:36 GMT
My understanding is that the 1800 has a higher compression ration making it lively. The S even more. The 2200 was a low compression more suited to long distance motoring. Thought I'd have a look into this, if only for my interest as well. Yes, the uprating to S-spec was significant, however the 2200 was higher compression than I expected 1800: 8.2:1 2200: 9:1 1800S: 9.5:1 The E-Series 2200 also has a squarer bore to stroke ratio, so should rev better. Of course that would be relative, what with the longer crank and two more pistons. So I wondered about the four cylinder, i.e. a comparison to the E-Series 'four' that was intended to replace the B-series: 1500: 9:1 1750: 8.75:1 1750HL: 9.1 The 1750 has a much taller stroke when compared to either of the Landcrab engines. This goes some way to explain why my Maxi 1750 felt such a breathless plodder, especially as I have been more used to Japanese and Italian over-square 'rev-happy' motors. |
|
