On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:08:08 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


I suppose it depends on other things like driving conditions, etc. But
father managed to wear out the engine by something like 35,000 miles,

That was about the accepted norm, (I was shocked to the core when on
buying my A35 I read the manual and found that the service intervals
were evry 1500 miles!). At that stage you could de-coke it, drop the
sump and fit Hepolite "Oil saver" rings, (maybe big end shells if the
oil pressure was low) and ... wait for it, get all of another 10,000
miles before it was re-bore, re-grind, and oversize pistons time.

Considering I drove 650 miles *Yesterday*, getting another 10,000
miles after a traumatic refit like that, scarcely seems worth the
candle. It could be as little as 6 weeks driving, and nowadays there
would be a whole lot more gubbins to remove if you were to take the
cylinder head/sump off.

so I doubt he drove that gently.

It could be that he had a niche application for the car. But OTOH ...
22 HP wouldn't exactly have been a ball of fire...

My A35 van was used to drive the length of the M1 twice each weekend
back home to Leeds, and to commute to work from South Harrow to TV
Centre. It had a well worn Zenith downdraught carburettor, which was
reputed to make it thirsty. In any event tt always had a sooty exhaust
pipe. I eventually changed it for an SU but it made no difference, and
all manner of fiddling with float chambers and weaker needles changed
nothing. :-(

The tyres lasted almost as long. ;-)

About usual FWIR. A local reject tyre shop had "Remould Quality"
Pirelli Cinturato radials, very cheap which lasted rather longer, not
as long as the mileage we are used to nowadays, but better.

The tyres the vehicle came with to me with were narrow Michelin Cross
ply tyres made of very hard rubber. I once, very embarrasingly, spun
out of control steering straight ahead accellerating away from
suburban traffic lights in second gear just after the first light rain
for weeks in a hot summer, I got them changed for radials ASAP.


I've heard it said the 948 cc engine was a retrograde step fuel
consumption. Something about "Siamesed" ports.

All the A and B series were the same. Siamese inlet ports and a siamese
exhaust port for the two centre cylinders. Which caused the most common
failure - cooked exhaust valves on 2&3.

The way I read the article, I took it the increase in size resulted in
the "siamesing". Must have read it wrong.

Hmmm, I did get episodes of burnt out valves, (didn't record which
ones) I replaced them all, and those regular trips the length of the
M1 flat out at 69 +/- 2 mph for 2-1/2 hours can't have helped. :-( .

However now, even with a a 125 HP turbo diesel I can't achieve the
timings I did in 1969/70.

I can well exceed the MPG I got. 650 miles from 68 litres with 4
passengers and overnight baggage. (seems to be 43.11 mog).

DG