|
|
Post by indianajones on Jan 19, 2012 9:42:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Keef on Jan 19, 2012 13:56:27 GMT
Thought it might be of interest to some here. Thanks for sharing.  |
|
|
|
Post by indianajones on Jan 19, 2012 20:31:13 GMT
No problem. I love finding these things on the net so figured I'd do my bit. Just makes sense as these old mags are very easy to break, and once it's online it's hopefully there forvever for everyone to enjoy.
-Andrew
|
|
|
|
Post by Penguin45 on Jan 19, 2012 21:15:46 GMT
Good stuff, Andrew.
I wonder how they managed to get the fuel consuption so bad?
Chris.
|
|
|
|
Post by indianajones on Jan 19, 2012 22:56:58 GMT
Hmmm not sure, it is an S model keep in mind so the town MPG will be fairly poor correct? As for touring, I can't comment. They also might of been putting her through her paces of course, being a road test  -Andrew |
|
|
|
Post by Penguin45 on Jan 20, 2012 0:37:49 GMT
It is a bit odd. I have the twin carbs on mine and she'll generally return 35/36 on a decent run. Bit greedy around town, mind.
Chris.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Jan 20, 2012 1:02:22 GMT
If you recall most of the reviews of the time showed fuel consumption in the low 20s. I can only put it down to the fact that the testers drove them like low torque Cortinas, using high revs instead of making use of the excellent low down power. Like you, I achieved more than 30mpg over several hundred thousand miles. I agree with the comments in the article about the power steering taking away confidence, when I had an 18/85 (with p/s) and an Austin with manual steering at the same time, I always chose the Austin if I was in a real hurry for this reason. David Good stuff, Andrew. I wonder how they managed to get the fuel consuption so bad? Chris. |
|
|
|
Post by threelitre on Jan 20, 2012 16:34:31 GMT
The comments about the power steering are spot on. The one in the 3litre is a heavily modified version and offers much more confidence around the neutral position. Our original 1800 S struggles to get any better than 31mpg. During UK hols with loads of A-road driving it can be a little better. But this is consistent since the car was fairly new. When traveling with the newish car my father usually got about 22-24mpg - but that was driving faster than in the UK. Now using it as a classic we usually end up between 26 and 31mpg. Seeing more than 21mpg in town on short journeys (say less than 3 miles) seems quite impossible. They really do like a little drink!
The mpg-figures from the test seem reasonable to me. Remember cars used to be set up a little on the rich side compared to now. Also they possibly did not really aim for best mpg during tests and BMC would have set up the carbs for easy cold starting and good performance (if they ever cared). Back in the day it was said that these should never be adjusted leaner than 4.5% CO at idle - I find that the 1800 S and the Maxi run fine with original needles and about 2.7-3% CO at idle, about 2 flats leaner. But it takes longer until the choke can be fully removed.
|
|
|
|
Post by indianajones on Jan 20, 2012 23:07:09 GMT
Granted the MPG on the ADO17 wasn't flash. But we all know this.
I just want to get the 'correct' MPG on mine, if I wanted high MPG I'd get a mini or 1300.
Anyways well worth the MPG with 5 adults inside the car and still room to swing a cat around. Also as per the review, don't forget the wood!
-Andrew
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Jan 21, 2012 0:57:11 GMT
Back in the 70s and 80s I drove more miles in an 1800 than I care to remember. My work involved periods of driving 80-150 mile a day in mixed traffic (motorways, A roads, some town work) and periods when it was all city driving. I found that in city driving economy was improved by running slightly rich, giving more low down torque. You would have thought that running weaker would have given better economy. I believe the standard 1800 cam can give much better economy than the S version as long as it isn't driven very hard. The "Motor" review suggested that the Renault was the most comfortable, despite body roll. I know I am biased but I found body roll the most uncomfortable aspect of a car's ride and didn't like travelling in this Renault model. The fact that the Renault was unpredictable at the limit is a real issue but they seem to conclude its lack of turn in on lifting off the throttle was safe. I thought for normal road use, gentle understeer with some turn in when lifting off was the most desirable from a safety aspect for the average driver. Am I mising something? Regards David T The mpg-figures from the test seem reasonable to me. Remember cars used to be set up a little on the rich side compared to now. Back in the day it was said that these should never be adjusted leaner than 4.5% CO at idle - I find that the 1800 S and the Maxi run fine with original needles and about 2.7-3% CO at idle, about 2 flats leaner. But it takes longer until the choke can be fully removed. |
|
|
|
Post by kelsham on Jan 21, 2012 10:57:16 GMT
I believe the Morris 1800 I own is the best handling car I have ever driven. I always feel safe and can predict it's course round bends.
The ride is another matter, it cries out for better damping. I suppose I could fit separate shock absorbers. However I have adapted to its foibles.
I agree with Dave 1800 about the Renault.
Regards Kels.
|
|
