Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

[maria]

Some nice pictures there optimist

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Lovely pictures Optimist! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

That top one appears to be a Jaguar E-Type V12.  Am I right? :-/ :-/

I have posted a picture of one in the other thread:



 

[Amigo]

Loving the Fizzy. Exactly the same as mine when i was 16. Loads of us had them. We used to ride round the underground road under Worthing Bowl over & over again & hang out in the Viking coffee bar in Ann St.
   KWV 30P. Happy days!!! 8-)

[Tony H]

Lovely pictures Optimist! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

That top one appears to be a Jaguar E-Type V12.  Am I right? :-/ :-/
I have posted a picture of one in the other thread:



 

Same top speed as as Miggy 3LTR just show how much more efficient modern engines are

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Lovely pictures Optimist! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

That top one appears to be a Jaguar E-Type V12.  Am I right? :-/ :-/
I have posted a picture of one in the other thread:



 

Same top speed as as Miggy 3LTR just show how much more efficient modern engines are

Wow!!

They certainly are Tony!

[Tony H]

Lovely pictures Optimist! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

That top one appears to be a Jaguar E-Type V12.  Am I right? :-/ :-/
I have posted a picture of one in the other thread:



 

Same top speed as as Miggy 3LTR just show how much more efficient modern engines are

Wow!!

They certainly are Tony!

The V12 came in either 5.3 or 6.0 ltr sizes so give or take double the size of the GM V6 that said the E type had a drag coefficient of 5 which suprised me I would have thught it would have been alot more slippery than that

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Lovely pictures Optimist! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

That top one appears to be a Jaguar E-Type V12.  Am I right? :-/ :-/
I have posted a picture of one in the other thread:



 

Same top speed as as Miggy 3LTR just show how much more efficient modern engines are

Wow!!

They certainly are Tony!

The V12 came in either 5.3 or 6.0 ltr sizes so give or take double the size of the GM V6 that said the E type had a drag coefficient of 5 which suprised me I would have thught it would have been alot more slippery than that

Yes and of course it had twin carbs, which was great technology then, and we all wanted them for our cars (Webber carbs, mmmmmm 8-) 8-)),  but now nowhere as efficient as an injection system

 

[Tony H]

Lovely pictures Optimist! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

That top one appears to be a Jaguar E-Type V12.  Am I right? :-/ :-/
I have posted a picture of one in the other thread:



 

Same top speed as as Miggy 3LTR just show how much more efficient modern engines are

Wow!!

They certainly are Tony!

The V12 came in either 5.3 or 6.0 ltr sizes so give or take double the size of the GM V6 that said the E type had a drag coefficient of 5 which suprised me I would have thught it would have been alot more slippery than that

Yes and of course it had twin carbs, which was great technology then, and we all wanted them for our cars (Webber carbs, mmmmmm 8-) 8-)),  but now nowhere as efficient as an injection system

 

Yep twin carbs but on both banks, the 5.3 knocked out 240+ bhp and the 6.0 developed 300+ I can't see that ther would be a great deal of weight difference between a Mig and an E type so it must be down to drag coeff. One of the reasons that Rats chose an Omega for his "rocket ship" project 8-)

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Lovely pictures Optimist! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

That top one appears to be a Jaguar E-Type V12.  Am I right? :-/ :-/
I have posted a picture of one in the other thread:



 

Same top speed as as Miggy 3LTR just show how much more efficient modern engines are

Wow!!

They certainly are Tony!

The V12 came in either 5.3 or 6.0 ltr sizes so give or take double the size of the GM V6 that said the E type had a drag coefficient of 5 which suprised me I would have thught it would have been alot more slippery than that

Yes and of course it had twin carbs, which was great technology then, and we all wanted them for our cars (Webber carbs, mmmmmm 8-) 8-)),  but now nowhere as efficient as an injection system

 

Yep twin carbs but on both banks, the 5.3 knocked out 240+ bhp and the 6.0 developed 300+ I can't see that ther would be a great deal of weight difference between a Mig and an E type so it must be down to drag coeff. One of the reasons that Rats chose an Omega for his "rocket ship" project 8-)

I never knew they had four .  I believed it was just the two   Just tuning one was always a challenge to get it perfect, but four.........!!

[Bent valve]

Second one down is a Triumph Snag.
Dont ever buy one, they're Shit.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Lovely pictures Optimist! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

That top one appears to be a Jaguar E-Type V12.  Am I right? :-/ :-/

I have posted a picture of one in the other thread:



 

Spot on Lizzie.....also used in the XJ12..

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Second one down is a Triumph Snag.
Dont ever buy one, they're Shit.

Yep...with a 3 litre V8......not known for it's reliability....

[Mr Skrunts]

Lovely pictures Optimist! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

That top one appears to be a Jaguar E-Type V12.  Am I right? :-/ :-/
I have posted a picture of one in the other thread:



 

Same top speed as as Miggy 3LTR just show how much more efficient modern engines are

Wow!!

They certainly are Tony!

The V12 came in either 5.3 or 6.0 ltr sizes so give or take double the size of the GM V6 that said the E type had a drag coefficient of 5 which suprised me I would have thught it would have been alot more slippery than that

Cant remember a 6.0 as standard, I know lister bored out the XJS lump to 6.0

http://www.google.co.uk/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&biw=789&bih=391&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=lister+xjs&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

[Mr Skrunts]

Second one down is a Triumph Snag.
Dont ever buy one, they're Shit.

Yep...with a 3 litre V8......not known for it's reliability....

Great looking cars though.