Looking at this 1934 Talbot which was the Bees Knees at the time:

https://nationalmotormuseum.org.uk/vehicle-collection/talbot-105/

it says 2,969 cc 100hp @ 4.500 rpm. Over head valves.

top speed 85mph and 0 to 50 in 16 seconds.

With that engine capacity and HP, why was it so much slower than todays'
cars.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

john west <mail.invalid456@mail.invalid> wrote:

Looking at this 1934 Talbot which was the Bees Knees at the time:

https://nationalmotormuseum.org.uk/vehicle-collection/talbot-105/

it says 2,969 cc 100hp @ 4.500 rpm. Over head valves.

top speed 85mph and 0 to 50 in 16 seconds.

With that engine capacity and HP, why was it so much slower than todays' cars.

At a guess, weight (and they lied about the power output). Aerodynamics of
a brick won’t help the top speed.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

At a guess, weight (and they lied about the power output). Aerodynamics of
a brick won’t help the top speed.

Tim

Along with some insanely wide spaced gear ratios - probably on a 3 speed
box ?


And on the subject of aerodynamcs ... I would say that with those
extended front wings it was probably a good thing that it maxxed out at
85mph

--
random signature text inserted here

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 04/04/2022 14:44, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:

At a guess, weight (and they lied about the power output). Aerodynamics of >> a brick won’t help the top speed.

Tim

Kerb weight allegedly 1395 kg.

Along with some insanely wide spaced gear ratios - probably on a 3 speed box ?

4 speed, manual pre-engaged.

And on the subject of aerodynamcs ... I would say that with those extended front wings it was probably a good thing that it maxxed out at 85mph

But even a Landrover 90 brick with 83 hp was 0-50 in much less then 16s.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

 But even a Landrover 90 brick with 83 hp was 0-50 in much less then 16s.

I was suggesting that the front wings might provide a degree of unwanted
lift at high speed, regardless of the overall drag coefficient -
assuming that enough power was available to get there.

Some of these discussions seem to compare hp and bhp as if they are interchangeable.

Also ..the car under discussion is the "Talbot 105" - but its not clear
if the "105" refers to the wheelbase or the horsepower rating (or
something else ...)


--
random signature text inserted here

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)