Great Phillip…… I recently got 23.7 mpg on a trip of 650 miles …… using the 2.88 can’t wait to get the 2.88 plus od on the road .
When I bought my 3.8 FHC, the PO told me to take it easy to begin with; if I didn’t crash in the first month, I probably never would! A couple of weeks later I went on a trip to visit my brother in a town 200 miles way. About 150 miles in, I was concerned that the fuel guage was faulty as it had scarcely moved. It read 1\2 full when I gassed up at my destination. A fraction over 7 gallons to cover 210 miles, or 29mpg full tank to full tank. Autocar claimed a steady speed consumption of 9600HP at 28.2 mpg @ 60mph and 22.5 @ 90mph. I read somewhere that an E Type was more economical at 80mph than a Mini.
1 Like
Undoubtedly, because at 80 miles an hour, a Mini of that vintage was crankin’ about 6500 RPM!
Indeed, if would actually achieve that speed. Not sure which model Mini, though, maybe a Cooper, or S
An 850 WanderWand damn sure wouldnt!
1275cc Minis all readily exceed 80mph if in good condition - they ranged from 82 mph for the estate body style to 96mph for the Coopers. Many of the 998-1100cc models could exceed 80mph as well, but the 850cc models would not (~75mph top speed.)
The original Mini prototypes had a 948cc motor, but this was deemed dangerously fast! (claimed to have exceeded 90mph, which was thought to be much too high for a economy car being introduced to a market where many people still had no experience driving cars.) So the 1st Minis were fitted with a 848cc motor instead.
I don’t know if a E-type is more economical than a Mini at 80mph, but I do know that aerodynamic drag has a big impact on fuel economy at 80mph in a Mini vs 60-65 mph.
I drove a V6 swapped Mini estate (2.5L Vauxhall aka Cadillac Catera/Saab V6) from New England to Seattle. It would easily cruise at 80+, no surprise given the power to weight ratio, but I found fuel mileage dropped by 25% or more if I did a leg (in the flat Great Plains) at 80+ vs. 65.
I don’t know how much worse the drag coefficient of the Mini is than the E-type (.56 I believe for the Mini, but I understand the E-type doesn’t have a particularly good coefficient of drag despite the work of Malcolm Sayer. (He was going for stability at speed with his tests and calculations, and couldn’t measure the drag with no wind tunnel.)
Dave
Could be more to come on a good road then. I was on country roads for the trip yesterday
I would expect so. Back in the day ( pre radar, speed cameras, mobile phones when disgruntled drivers could dob you in and very much less traffic on the road) I used to cruise at whatever speed I felt comfortable, usually somewhere around 70-80mph, road and traffic conditions permitting. With 8:1 comp, 3.07 diff, mileage averaged out about 24mpg, with o\d and more care, I expect you can improve on that. BTW, I survived that first month, the subsequent 5 years, and another 9 years with my 2nd E Type without crashing.
The E-Type would be brilliant aerodynamically , if they had sloped the windscreen a lot more , but then would it look as good ?
I am pleasantly surprised that you find the slope of the windscreen to look good. I for one hold this aspect of the FHC’s styling to be the most awkward and the one thing I would like most to change. Although it’s at the same angle for both FHC and OTS, I feel the OTS does not suffer much from it, if at all. Perhaps it is not so much the slope of the windscreen as it is the A-pillars themselves. Moving the base of the pillars forward and reducing the side wraparound of the windscreen might just do the trick. I’d like to see someone take that experiment on. Another thing that, to me, contributes to the upright look of the FHC’s windscreen is the way the chrome trim covers the entire A-pillar instead of just covering the rubber seal itself. This would visually drop the height of the A-pillars in my view. One more thing that I have tossed around in my head for a while is to adapt the windshield from the S2 2+2 which has the windscreen base moved almost to the edge of the scuttle. The screen would need to be cut down, though. Of course, all of the above is easier said than done.
1 Like
There’s an E type FHC vintage racer I’ve seen that runs a +2 front windshield. Dark blue with red stripes, IIRC. Can’t find a photo at the moment.
Edit: found a photo, not mine. Windshield looks like lexan or similar, forgot about that. When I saw it person, it appeared it used a +2 scuttle top, otherwise standard FHC tub.
1 Like
I didn’t note the source of the article I have on my computer – I cherry-picked a handful of drag coefficient of various well-known vehicles:
0.47 Ford Mustang (the profile looks late 60’s)
0.46 VW 1200
0.44 Jaguar XKE coupe
0.42 Mini Minor
0.42 VW Microbus
0.41 Ford Capri
0.38 Mercedes 220
0.35 Maserati Ghibli
0.34 Porsche 911
0.31 Citroen DS 19
0.30 Citroen GS
3 Likes
IMO, the greater slope of the 2+2 windscreen is superior in looks to that of the FHC and OTS. That also results in much easier to fiddle with windscreen washer nozzles. But you lose the charm of three windscreen wipers.
1 Like
.44: it was almost the equal of a VW Kombi.
Hi,
Yeah, but it’s a factor, the total wind/air resistance is quite a lot less as the most important thing is the complete area of the cross section, which is smaller in an E-type than a Mini. Not to even mention a VW combi.
Easy to test. Try how much engine power you need to get a Mini or a VW combi up to 140 mph? About 230 hp is enough for s LWB E-type like a S1 2+2 or a V12 OTS. YMMV,
Cheers!
1 Like
A very important point. An F1 car, for example has a Cd of between .7 and 1.1 due to the extreme downforce they generate, but that is offset by their small drag area.
Has anyone here ever performed a coast down test on their E-type?
Discover Your Drag with Coast-Down Testing | Articles | Grassroots Motorsports
2 Likes
I think that “too vertical” slope of the OTS windscreen is hardly noticeable because of the small height of that windscreen and of the superb roadster overall design that captures the eye:
2 Likes
I meant to, but never got a ‘round tuit.’
I might go do one on the Ford, though!