Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
Recently, I found a great old amplifier. It was made in Britain and
imported into the US by British Radio Electronics, Ltd. Here are pictures of it and ads about it. http://public.fotki.com/farleybob/williamson/ It has two chassis and when I first saw them from a distance, I thought they were a pair of QUAD II's. Then I thought they just knocked off the QUAD look, but the amp was released in Sept. 1952, which I think predates the QUAD. The ads claim that the amp was actually planned and authorized by DTN Williamson. Does anyone else pot transformers in this fashion, except QUAD? I know that Williamson was had just authored a paper with Peter Walker on the QUAD II circuit in response to the Ultralinear circuit, and that they were working together on the ESL. Is it possible that Acoustical mfg. did a run of amps under a different for Williamson? The preamp shipped with the amp was a rebranded QC II. Again, I'd say it's strictly a copy of QUAD's trade dress, except that it appears that this amp was introduced first. If anyone recognizes this amp or who knows who manufactured it, I'd be glad to hear. Thanks |
#2
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
"Steve" Recently, I found a great old amplifier. It was made in Britain and imported into the US by British Radio Electronics, Ltd. Here are pictures of it and ads about it. http://public.fotki.com/farleybob/williamson/ It has two chassis and when I first saw them from a distance, I thought they were a pair of QUAD II's. Then I thought they just knocked off the QUAD look, but the amp was released in Sept. 1952, which I think predates the QUAD. ** Only just. The ads claim that the amp was actually planned and authorized by DTN Williamson. Does anyone else pot transformers in this fashion, except QUAD? I know that Williamson was had just authored a paper with Peter Walker on the QUAD II circuit in response to the Ultralinear circuit, and that they were working together on the ESL. Is it possible that Acoustical mfg. did a run of amps under a different for Williamson? The preamp shipped with the amp was a rebranded QC II. Again, I'd say it's strictly a copy of QUAD's trade dress, except that it appears that this amp was introduced first. ** As you say, the pre-amp is simply a badge engineered Quad QC2. The pics of the two chassis and their internals indicate they were produced by Acoustical, under some contract arrangement with Mr Williamson. Find another one - you can have stereo ! ....... Phil |
#3
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
Steve wrote: Recently, I found a great old amplifier. It was made in Britain and imported into the US by British Radio Electronics, Ltd. Here are pictures of it and ads about it. http://public.fotki.com/farleybob/williamson/ It has two chassis and when I first saw them from a distance, I thought they were a pair of QUAD II's. Then I thought they just knocked off the QUAD look, but the amp was released in Sept. 1952, which I think predates the QUAD. The ads claim that the amp was actually planned and authorized by DTN Williamson. Does anyone else pot transformers in this fashion, except QUAD? I know that Williamson was had just authored a paper with Peter Walker on the QUAD II circuit in response to the Ultralinear circuit, and that they were working together on the ESL. Is it possible that Acoustical mfg. did a run of amps under a different for Williamson? The preamp shipped with the amp was a rebranded QC II. Again, I'd say it's strictly a copy of QUAD's trade dress, except that it appears that this amp was introduced first. If anyone recognizes this amp or who knows who manufactured it, I'd be glad to hear. Thanks I cannot download the pictures properly. Please host the images at a properly working website thankyou. Patrick Turner. |
#4
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
"Patrick Turner" I cannot download the pictures properly. Please host the images at a properly working website thankyou. ** The pics were all there at 10:52 am - but have all expired now. ........ Phil |
#5
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
"Phil Allison" ** The pics were all there at 10:52 am - but have all expired now. ** They're baaaaaaaack ! http://public.fotki.com/farleybob/williamson/ ........ Phil |
#6
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article , Patrick Turner
scribeth thus Steve wrote: Recently, I found a great old amplifier. It was made in Britain and imported into the US by British Radio Electronics, Ltd. Here are pictures of it and ads about it. http://public.fotki.com/farleybob/williamson/ It has two chassis and when I first saw them from a distance, I thought they were a pair of QUAD II's. Then I thought they just knocked off the QUAD look, but the amp was released in Sept. 1952, which I think predates the QUAD. The ads claim that the amp was actually planned and authorized by DTN Williamson. Does anyone else pot transformers in this fashion, except QUAD? I know that Williamson was had just authored a paper with Peter Walker on the QUAD II circuit in response to the Ultralinear circuit, and that they were working together on the ESL. Is it possible that Acoustical mfg. did a run of amps under a different for Williamson? The preamp shipped with the amp was a rebranded QC II. Again, I'd say it's strictly a copy of QUAD's trade dress, except that it appears that this amp was introduced first. If anyone recognizes this amp or who knows who manufactured it, I'd be glad to hear. Thanks I cannot download the pictures properly. Please host the images at a properly working website thankyou. Patrick Turner. Fine here @ 08:44 !. In Cambridge UK.... -- Tony Sayer |
#7
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
tony sayer wrote: In article , Patrick Turner scribeth thus Steve wrote: Recently, I found a great old amplifier. It was made in Britain and imported into the US by British Radio Electronics, Ltd. Here are pictures of it and ads about it. http://public.fotki.com/farleybob/williamson/ It has two chassis and when I first saw them from a distance, I thought they were a pair of QUAD II's. Then I thought they just knocked off the QUAD look, but the amp was released in Sept. 1952, which I think predates the QUAD. The ads claim that the amp was actually planned and authorized by DTN Williamson. Does anyone else pot transformers in this fashion, except QUAD? I know that Williamson was had just authored a paper with Peter Walker on the QUAD II circuit in response to the Ultralinear circuit, and that they were working together on the ESL. Is it possible that Acoustical mfg. did a run of amps under a different for Williamson? The preamp shipped with the amp was a rebranded QC II. Again, I'd say it's strictly a copy of QUAD's trade dress, except that it appears that this amp was introduced first. If anyone recognizes this amp or who knows who manufactured it, I'd be glad to hear. Thanks I cannot download the pictures properly. Please host the images at a properly working website thankyou. Patrick Turner. Fine here @ 08:44 !. In Cambridge UK.... -- Tony Sayer Yes, I got some tiny pictures of the amp. I would pay $2 for it, but not the freight. But probably some old giza will want to own that small part of history and pay a few grand. One man's trash is another man's treasure.... Patrick Turner. |
#8
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 3, 5:52 pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"Steve" Recently, I found a great old amplifier. It was made in Britain and imported into the US by British Radio Electronics, Ltd. Here are pictures of it and ads about it. http://public.fotki.com/farleybob/williamson/ It has two chassis and when I first saw them from a distance, I thought they were a pair of QUAD II's. Then I thought they just knocked off the QUAD look, but the amp was released in Sept. 1952, which I think predates the QUAD. ** Only just. It does lead to an interesting question though, about the casework chronology and provenance. We all know that casework is tiresome, timeconsuming and expensive, and no less so for manufacturers than for DIYers. Considering the connection between Walker and Williamson, and the fact that Acoustical was rooted in contract work, it seems to me exceedingly likely that this amp was built for the distributor by Acoustical in Huntingdon. (Acoustical was Peter Walker's company; it was not called QUAD then; QUAD was the Quality Unit Audio, not a suitable company name!). In the QUAD (that is, first series, after the QUAD.12 and before the QUAD II) promo/operating booklet, it is categorically stated that Acoustical did "all metal work, finishing" etc in-house under the supervision of the AID department (whatever that may be). In Britain at this time, and well beyond the Quad II period, any manufacturer who didn't want to lose his reputation took very great care of metal preparation. (For instance, one of the bugbears of Rolls-Royce and Bentley of this period is mu-metal pitting on door handles and other brightwork one handles, ugly --and rough on fine pigskin gloves -- and not capable of refinishing to the standard required for successful rechroming.) The question then arises, a) was the Williamson designed first and found good and adapted for the QUAD II? OR b) was the QUAD II designed and ready to go, and the design adapted to the Williamson, perhaps with QUAD II bent metalwork blanks just taken off the shelf and punched in different places? I have no difficulty in believing that Walker would put off the launch of his own product to produce the Williamson first. There was then detailed bureaucratic allocation of materials, the government deliberately gave manufacturers of exports preference in materials allocation (you couldn't even buy the Rolls mentioned above in England until into the 1950s -- they were all for export). Thus the Williamson, clearly an export order, would have taken precedence, and may well have been the mechanism which allowed Walker to launch the QUAD II at all, perhaps with a little materials "siphoning" between the projects. The Q22, as badge-engineered for the Williamson, was already a standing product at this time, having progressed in recognizable form from the earlier models of QUAD amps listed above. I don't know at what precise date the Q22 acquired the row of selector buttons along the bottom; perhaps the Williamson was their first appearance. *** Those of you who aren't as fascinated by QUAD II as those of us with more culture should keep quiet either now or when we stick the pins in your wax doll. Being fascinated by QUAD is at least better than being obsessed by Madonna (I'm not; I left my literary publishers when they greedily published her book of self-pornography) -- and a hundred times better than being obsessed with Kylie, even for an Australian (1). *** Hey, Phil, don't you miss the "authoritative* views of Pinkerton on QUAD? Rolling on the carpet! Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review (1) And, to save the usual dumb clucks the effort of accusing me of being an ocker-knocker, I should confess that I'm an Australian too. I just admire a better class of Australian, like Barry Humphries and Paul Hogan (I used to write one-liners for the latter when we were both young and hungry -- literally, I mean; we met in a King's Cross caff where the waitress would serve appreciably bigger meals to handsome young men). The ads claim that the amp was actually planned and authorized by DTN Williamson. Does anyone else pot transformers in this fashion, except QUAD? I know that Williamson was had just authored a paper with Peter Walker on the QUAD II circuit in response to the Ultralinear circuit, and that they were working together on the ESL. Is it possible that Acoustical mfg. did a run of amps under a different for Williamson? The preamp shipped with the amp was a rebranded QC II. Again, I'd say it's strictly a copy of QUAD's trade dress, except that it appears that this amp was introduced first. ** As you say, the pre-amp is simply a badge engineered Quad QC2. The pics of the two chassis and their internals indicate they were produced by Acoustical, under some contract arrangement with Mr Williamson. Find another one - you can have stereo ! ...... Phil |
#9
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
"Andre Jute" "Phil Allison" Recently, I found a great old amplifier. It was made in Britain and imported into the US by British Radio Electronics, Ltd. Here are pictures of it and ads about it. http://public.fotki.com/farleybob/williamson/ It has two chassis and when I first saw them from a distance, I thought they were a pair of QUAD II's. Then I thought they just knocked off the QUAD look, but the amp was released in Sept. 1952, which I think predates the QUAD. ** Only just. It does lead to an interesting question though, about the casework chronology and provenance. We all know that casework is tiresome, timeconsuming and expensive, and no less so for manufacturers than for DIYers. Considering the connection between Walker and Williamson, and the fact that Acoustical was rooted in contract work, it seems to me exceedingly likely that this amp was built for the distributor by Acoustical in Huntingdon. (Acoustical was Peter Walker's company; it was not called QUAD then; QUAD was the Quality Unit Audio, not a suitable company name!). ** I read " QUAD " was short for " QUality Amplifier Domestic " ? In the QUAD (that is, first series, after the QUAD.12 and before the QUAD II) promo/operating booklet, it is categorically stated that Acoustical did "all metal work, finishing" etc in-house under the supervision of the AID department (whatever that may be). ** AID = " Acoustical In-house Design " - surely ? Hey, Phil, don't you miss the "authoritative* views of Pinkerton on QUAD? Rolling on the carpet! ** Mr Pinkerton's copious jottings never approached the reputation of his famous namesake - the Pinkerton Men. Just another Mr Plod, with ambitions above his station, really. ....... Phil |
#10
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 4, 6:57 am, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"Andre Jute" Acoustical in Huntingdon. (Acoustical was Peter Walker's company; it was not called QUAD then; QUAD was the Quality Unit Audio, not a suitable company name!). ** I read " QUAD " was short for " QUality Amplifier Domestic " ? I was looking for the words from which the acronym was formed in my archive of QUAD materials. I now wonder if they ever announced what it stands for. The word "unit" is repeatedly used in the literature, admittedly more often in the combination "control unit". I have seen "Quality Unit Amplifier Domestic" but cannot now remember where. "Unit" in this use may be what modern manufacturers more pompously call "modular"; the QUAD was from the beginning intended to be part of a *system*. The exact name hardly matters: the two important points are that the QUAD brought BBC *quality* into the *domestic* setting. That even in an acronynym, however it may be derived, Walker should honour the conventions of English, U after Q, once more demonstrates his punctillio in everything, not only audio engineering. In the QUAD (that is, first series, after the QUAD.12 and before the QUAD II) promo/operating booklet, it is categorically stated that Acoustical did "all metal work, finishing" etc in-house under the supervision of the AID department (whatever that may be). ** AID = " Acoustical In-house Design " - surely ? Are you pulling my leg, Phil? "In-house" is surely an anachronism. Besides, it sounds a bit self- conscious to me for an Englishman of the time and place, especially considering that Acoustical grew out of a design consultancy, where "in-house design" was so axiomatic as hardly to rate a mention (and would be offensive to customers like the BBC as implying that they were so incompetent they couldn't do the job in their own house(1)). I wondered whether it might mean "Assurance and Inspection Department" or even more bluntly "Adjustment and Inspection Department". Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review (1) When Prof F Porsche founded his auto design consultancy about the time Acoustical was started, he called it not the "Porsche Design Office" but more politically the "Porsche Development Office", implying that his customers did the creative work and he merely undertook the dog-work of developing their brilliant ideas, whereas the truth was the other way round. |
#11
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article .com,
Andre Jute scribeth thus The exact name hardly matters: the two important points are that the QUAD brought BBC *quality* into the *domestic* setting. Those were the days when quality meant something.. not anymore;(... -- Tony Sayer |
#12
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
tony sayer wrote: In article .com, Andre Jute scribeth thus The exact name hardly matters: the two important points are that the QUAD brought BBC *quality* into the *domestic* setting. Those were the days when quality meant something.. not anymore;(... -- Tony Sayer Wait a minute, at the time of Quad II, rich Australian graziers were making fortunes in beef and wheat and wool sales before the prices slumped, and they spent huge outrageous sums of money on Quad and Leak on sale at emporiums of distinction. The the rest of us poor battlers could only dream, and perhaps build our own amps using 807 sold in wartime surplus stores, and buy awful OPT from Fergesson in Chatswood, NSW. And instead of the Jaguars these few rich folks had, we had to buy Morris Minors and Oxfords and all manner of crap. We were lumbered with the perfect crumminess of Bwitish Engweeneerwing. The Bwitish cars rusted while you watched them, but then nearly all cars did, because they never bothered to paint the metal on the inside of doors and body work. Workmanship was plain SHODDY, and it applied to nearly everything you bought. Designs like Quad22 and Leak all were watered down to a lowest common denominator. We can build far better amps right now, except due to Chinese competition, the trend for famous brandnames is now toward international crappiness...... I do not value Quad-II amps very highly because I know just what they are, old junk, and nice old junk, but still junk, like an old Morris Major. Still, the Willys Jeep Stationwagon my dad had was a strange wonder from the USA; maybe a lot of WW2 jeep parts lurked under the snazzy body work.... and finally mum got a VW beetle in '63, the Germams were pardonned. It was far more reliable than the Morris Oxford we had. We sure never had a German Radio, or hi-fi set, until we got a made in Oz Kreisler stereo gram with two 5 watt channels, and bloody awful, but then it was at least 20dB cheaper than anything by Quad costing a fortune. Patrick Turner. |
#13
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article , Patrick Turner
scribeth thus tony sayer wrote: In article .com, Andre Jute scribeth thus The exact name hardly matters: the two important points are that the QUAD brought BBC *quality* into the *domestic* setting. Those were the days when quality meant something.. not anymore;(... -- Tony Sayer for famous brandnames is now toward international crappiness...... I do not value Quad-II amps very highly because I know just what they are, old junk, and nice old junk, but still junk, like an old Morris Major. Still, the Willys Jeep Stationwagon my dad had was a strange wonder from the USA; maybe a lot of WW2 jeep parts lurked under the snazzy body work.... and finally mum got a VW beetle in '63, the Germams were pardonned. It was far more reliable than the Morris Oxford we had. We sure never had a German Radio, or hi-fi set, until we got a made in Oz Kreisler stereo gram with two 5 watt channels, and bloody awful, but then it was at least 20dB cheaper than anything by Quad costing a fortune. Patrick Turner. Actually the comments were about the BBC where the accountants and bean counters are running the place, with the usual results. Quite right about some of the above it did take the UK a long while to find out how to make cars as they ought, but then again some of the QUAD gear is still around and in active service, where a lot of other stuff has long been junked..... -- Tony Sayer |
#14
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
"Andre Jute" Phil Allison Acoustical in Huntingdon. (Acoustical was Peter Walker's company; it was not called QUAD then; QUAD was the Quality Unit Audio, not a suitable company name!). ** I read " QUAD " was short for " QUality Amplifier Domestic " ? I was looking for the words from which the acronym was formed in my archive of QUAD materials. I now wonder if they ever announced what it stands for. The word "unit" is repeatedly used in the literature, admittedly more often in the combination "control unit". I have seen "Quality Unit Amplifier Domestic" but cannot now remember where. "Unit" in this use may be what modern manufacturers more pompously call "modular"; the QUAD was from the beginning intended to be part of a *system*. ** Another explanation I read ( in an interview with Peter Walker, IIRC ) was that Acoustical dubbed their first hi-fi amplifier the " QADU " for " Quality Amplifier Domestic Unit ". When genteel folk rang Acoustical wishing to order one of same, they regularly failed to get the awkward acronym right - instead coming out with all manner of weird variations. One such folk ( possibly a tad dyslexic) explained that he wished to purchase a " Quad " amplifier. When told the correct acronym, he was clear the letters spelled QUAD. That neat variation was seen buy management to have merit, was adopted as the product name and later the trademark of Acoustical. ** AID = " Acoustical In-house Design " - surely ? Are you pulling my leg, Phil? ** How about: " Acoustical Internal Design ". BTW Read your own words: " ... AID department .. " Indicates the " D" does not stand for " department" . ......... Phil |
#15
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 4, 7:01 pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"Andre Jute" Phil Allison Acoustical in Huntingdon. (Acoustical was Peter Walker's company; it was not called QUAD then; QUAD was the Quality Unit Audio, not a suitable company name!). ** I read " QUAD " was short for " QUality Amplifier Domestic " ? I was looking for the words from which the acronym was formed in my archive of QUAD materials. I now wonder if they ever announced what it stands for. The word "unit" is repeatedly used in the literature, admittedly more often in the combination "control unit". I have seen "Quality Unit Amplifier Domestic" but cannot now remember where. "Unit" in this use may be what modern manufacturers more pompously call "modular"; the QUAD was from the beginning intended to be part of a *system*. ** Another explanation I read ( in an interview with Peter Walker, IIRC ) was that Acoustical dubbed their first hi-fi amplifier the " QADU " for " Quality Amplifier Domestic Unit ". When genteel folk rang Acoustical wishing to order one of same, they regularly failed to get the awkward acronym right - instead coming out with all manner of weird variations. One such folk ( possibly a tad dyslexic) explained that he wished to purchase a " Quad " amplifier. When told the correct acronym, he was clear the letters spelled QUAD. That neat variation was seen buy management to have merit, was adopted as the product name and later the trademark of Acoustical. Now this has the bizarre, somewhat edgy sound of truth! Andre Jute |
#16
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
"Andre Jute" Phil Allison ** Another explanation I read (in an interview with Peter Walker, IIRC ) was that Acoustical dubbed their first hi-fi amplifier the " QADU " for " Quality Amplifier Domestic Unit ". When genteel folk rang Acoustical wishing to order one of same, they regularly failed to get the awkward acronym right - instead coming out with all manner of weird variations. One such folk ( possibly a tad dyslexic) explained that he wished to purchase a " Quad " amplifier. When told the correct acronym, he was clear the letters spelled QUAD. That neat variation was seen buy management to have merit, was adopted as the product name and later the trademark of Acoustical. Now this has the bizarre, somewhat edgy sound of truth! ** Alas and as usual, the truth is almost invariably less palatable and to most folk far less plausible than conveniently manufactured fictions. A truism, universally relied upon by all liars. ........ Phil |
#17
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
Phil Allison wrote: "Andre Jute" Phil Allison ** Another explanation I read (in an interview with Peter Walker, IIRC ) was that Acoustical dubbed their first hi-fi amplifier the " QADU " for " Quality Amplifier Domestic Unit ". When genteel folk rang Acoustical wishing to order one of same, they regularly failed to get the awkward acronym right - instead coming out with all manner of weird variations. One such folk ( possibly a tad dyslexic) explained that he wished to purchase a " Quad " amplifier. When told the correct acronym, he was clear the letters spelled QUAD. That neat variation was seen buy management to have merit, was adopted as the product name and later the trademark of Acoustical. Now this has the bizarre, somewhat edgy sound of truth! ** Alas and as usual, the truth is almost invariably less palatable and to most folk far less plausible than conveniently manufactured fictions. A truism, universally relied upon by all liars. ....... Phil Mining operations for truth are always difficult in the swamp full of BS..... Patrick Turner. |
#18
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article .com, Bret
Ludwig scribeth thus Mechanically the Jaguar, Rolls and Aston were good, but they used the Lucas garbage electrics. Joe Lucas!.. I was once rather worried to hear their junk was used in aircraft;!.. Aston was David Brown and had a good transmission: Jaguar used a US Borg Warner slushbox (mediocre) or the horrid Moss POS manual. Rollers had US GM transmissions, the best. If only Jaguar had used a better transmission, better rustproofing, and better electrics. Actually what would have been even more useful is had they offered the Gardner 4LK engine as an alternative as Mr. Gardner tried to tell them. The Jaguar engine is stout but heavy. With three Webers and an American distributor or a Scintilla Vertex mag they are pretty reliable. Wot about the dreaded "Tin Worm" that used to infest British cars for too long!... -- Tony Sayer |
#19
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
"tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article .com, Bret Ludwig scribeth thus Mechanically the Jaguar, Rolls and Aston were good, but they used the Lucas garbage electrics. Joe Lucas!.. I was once rather worried to hear their junk was used in aircraft;!.. Aston was David Brown and had a good transmission: Jaguar used a US Borg Warner slushbox (mediocre) or the horrid Moss POS manual. Rollers had US GM transmissions, the best. If only Jaguar had used a better transmission, better rustproofing, and better electrics. Actually what would have been even more useful is had they offered the Gardner 4LK engine as an alternative as Mr. Gardner tried to tell them. The Jaguar engine is stout but heavy. With three Webers and an American distributor or a Scintilla Vertex mag they are pretty reliable. Wot about the dreaded "Tin Worm" that used to infest British cars for too long!... It moved into the millions of steel lintels that have been used in the construction industry for the last few decades - the *ultimately unavoidable* replacement of which (because people drilled lots of holes in them) is going to be a nice little earner for a few companies in the coming century.... http://www.cornerstonemason.com/steel.htm http://www.soumar.com/html/lintel_replacement.html |
#20
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
tony sayer wrote
Joe Lucas!.. I was once rather worried to hear their junk was used in aircraft;!.. http://libcom.org/history/1976-the-f...ucas-aerospace I did a job for Lucas Aerospace here in Bradford. They made missile guidance systems. Considering the Malvinas debacle I guess they may have been squeezed out of European aerospace reorganisation by the likes of Aerospatiale and Matra. Has a British guided missile ever been known to hit a target? http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Exocet.html Ian |
#21
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article , Keith G
scribeth thus "tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article .com, Bret Ludwig scribeth thus Mechanically the Jaguar, Rolls and Aston were good, but they used the Lucas garbage electrics. Joe Lucas!.. I was once rather worried to hear their junk was used in aircraft;!.. Aston was David Brown and had a good transmission: Jaguar used a US Borg Warner slushbox (mediocre) or the horrid Moss POS manual. Rollers had US GM transmissions, the best. If only Jaguar had used a better transmission, better rustproofing, and better electrics. Actually what would have been even more useful is had they offered the Gardner 4LK engine as an alternative as Mr. Gardner tried to tell them. The Jaguar engine is stout but heavy. With three Webers and an American distributor or a Scintilla Vertex mag they are pretty reliable. Wot about the dreaded "Tin Worm" that used to infest British cars for too long!... It moved into the millions of steel lintels that have been used in the construction industry for the last few decades - the *ultimately unavoidable* replacement of which (because people drilled lots of holes in them) is going to be a nice little earner for a few companies in the coming century.... http://www.cornerstonemason.com/steel.htm http://www.soumar.com/html/lintel_replacement.html Not heard of that being a problem in the UK!... -- Tony Sayer |
#22
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article .com,
Bret Ludwig wrote: Another substantial upgrade is the use of Oldsmobile valves in the RR V8 engine. Do you mean the Range Rover engine? That started out life as a Buick/Olds unit. -- *A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#23
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article .com,
Bret Ludwig wrote: Mechanically the Jaguar, Rolls and Aston were good, but they used the Lucas garbage electrics. Aston was David Brown and had a good transmission: Jaguar used a US Borg Warner slushbox (mediocre) or the horrid Moss POS manual. Rollers had US GM transmissions, the best. If you're going back to the days when Jags used Moss manual boxes, Rolls of that era had the pretty nasty GM Hydramatic 4 speed with fluid flywheel rather than torque convertor. Round about '69 they changed to the GM 400 - a three speed plus torque convertor not that different from the Model 8 or DG boxes fitted to Jags. If only Jaguar had used a better transmission, better rustproofing, and better electrics. Actually what would have been even more useful is had they offered the Gardner 4LK engine as an alternative as Mr. Gardner tried to tell them. The Jaguar engine is stout but heavy. With three Webers and an American distributor or a Scintilla Vertex mag they are pretty reliable. Dunno where you get the idea Lucas distributors are not reliable. Or indeed the need to change from SU carbs. Six chokes worth of Webers will increase the maximum power but loose the tractability. Three SUs are a better bet for road use. -- *Always borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#24
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 4, 7:01 pm, "Phil Allison" wrote: "Andre Jute" Phil Allison Acoustical in Huntingdon. (Acoustical was Peter Walker's company; it was not called QUAD then; QUAD was the Quality Unit Audio, not a suitable company name!). ** I read " QUAD " was short for " QUality Amplifier Domestic " ? I was looking for the words from which the acronym was formed in my archive of QUAD materials. I now wonder if they ever announced what it stands for. The word "unit" is repeatedly used in the literature, admittedly more often in the combination "control unit". I have seen "Quality Unit Amplifier Domestic" but cannot now remember where. "Unit" in this use may be what modern manufacturers more pompously call "modular"; the QUAD was from the beginning intended to be part of a *system*. ** Another explanation I read ( in an interview with Peter Walker, IIRC ) was that Acoustical dubbed their first hi-fi amplifier the " QADU " for " Quality Amplifier Domestic Unit ". When genteel folk rang Acoustical wishing to order one of same, they regularly failed to get the awkward acronym right - instead coming out with all manner of weird variations. One such folk ( possibly a tad dyslexic) explained that he wished to purchase a " Quad " amplifier. When told the correct acronym, he was clear the letters spelled QUAD. That neat variation was seen buy management to have merit, was adopted as the product name and later the trademark of Acoustical. Now this has the bizarre, somewhat edgy sound of truth! Andre Jute QADU - barada nikto? Shonuff! Shonuff barada nikto. QADU kickahsso. QADU rocko! Right time period, too. I know ****-all about this prehistoric audiophool stuff, I just wanted to say Howdy, Jute. Be well. ;-) Lord Valve Purveyor of Loud Stage Equipment to the (largely) Musically Ignorant and (largely) Tone (or otherwise) Deaf |
#25
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article .com, Bret Ludwig wrote: Mechanically the Jaguar, Rolls and Aston were good, but they used the Lucas garbage electrics. Aston was David Brown and had a good transmission: Jaguar used a US Borg Warner slushbox (mediocre) or the horrid Moss POS manual. Rollers had US GM transmissions, the best. If you're going back to the days when Jags used Moss manual boxes, Rolls of that era had the pretty nasty GM Hydramatic 4 speed with fluid flywheel rather than torque convertor. What was so "nasty" about the "GM Hydramatic 4 speed with fluid flywheel"? I always thought that was the best automatic transmission GM ever made, as long as it wasn't the later version with two "fluid flywheels". My Mother had a third hand 1949 Cadillac with that transmission, until it died when she ran it without any oil in the engine. Later she had a Pontiac that had the version with two "fluid flywheels", Ugh. "Torque converters belong in Transit busses, not personal automobiles. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#26
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article ,
John Byrns wrote: If you're going back to the days when Jags used Moss manual boxes, Rolls of that era had the pretty nasty GM Hydramatic 4 speed with fluid flywheel rather than torque convertor. What was so "nasty" about the "GM Hydramatic 4 speed with fluid flywheel"? The gear ratios. And the change quality. To get sensible gear ratios you would have needed an extra gear train. The ratios on the Hydramatic had 3rd approximately the same ratio as second on a three speed auto. I always thought that was the best automatic transmission GM ever made, as long as it wasn't the later version with two "fluid flywheels". My Mother had a third hand 1949 Cadillac with that transmission, until it died when she ran it without any oil in the engine. Later she had a Pontiac that had the version with two "fluid flywheels", Ugh. Might have been ok in '49, but Rolls were still using it 20 years later. Really as a hangover from their earlier vehicles where they'd modified it to drive the mechanical brake servo for the drum brakes - and this was still needed on the Phantoms made at the same time as the Shadows which had discs. "Torque converters belong in Transit busses, not personal automobiles. Depends on how they're used. Modern multi ratio epicyclic autos only use the TC for starting off and to cushion gear changes. Otherwise it's mostly locked out. -- *It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#27
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
"tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G scribeth thus "tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article .com, Bret Ludwig scribeth thus Mechanically the Jaguar, Rolls and Aston were good, but they used the Lucas garbage electrics. Joe Lucas!.. I was once rather worried to hear their junk was used in aircraft;!.. Aston was David Brown and had a good transmission: Jaguar used a US Borg Warner slushbox (mediocre) or the horrid Moss POS manual. Rollers had US GM transmissions, the best. If only Jaguar had used a better transmission, better rustproofing, and better electrics. Actually what would have been even more useful is had they offered the Gardner 4LK engine as an alternative as Mr. Gardner tried to tell them. The Jaguar engine is stout but heavy. With three Webers and an American distributor or a Scintilla Vertex mag they are pretty reliable. Wot about the dreaded "Tin Worm" that used to infest British cars for too long!... It moved into the millions of steel lintels that have been used in the construction industry for the last few decades - the *ultimately unavoidable* replacement of which (because people drilled lots of holes in them) is going to be a nice little earner for a few companies in the coming century.... http://www.cornerstonemason.com/steel.htm http://www.soumar.com/html/lintel_replacement.html Not heard of that being a problem in the UK!... Not yet, but give it 50 years or so and you'll see.... |
#28
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 6, 12:29 pm, Lord Valve wrote:
Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 4, 7:01 pm, "Phil Allison" wrote: "Andre Jute" Phil Allison Acoustical in Huntingdon. (Acoustical was Peter Walker's company; it was not called QUAD then; QUAD was the Quality Unit Audio, not a suitable company name!). ** I read " QUAD " was short for " QUality Amplifier Domestic " ? I was looking for the words from which the acronym was formed in my archive of QUAD materials. I now wonder if they ever announced what it stands for. The word "unit" is repeatedly used in the literature, admittedly more often in the combination "control unit". I have seen "Quality Unit Amplifier Domestic" but cannot now remember where. "Unit" in this use may be what modern manufacturers more pompously call "modular"; the QUAD was from the beginning intended to be part of a *system*. ** Another explanation I read ( in an interview with Peter Walker, IIRC ) was that Acoustical dubbed their first hi-fi amplifier the " QADU " for " Quality Amplifier Domestic Unit ". When genteel folk rang Acoustical wishing to order one of same, they regularly failed to get the awkward acronym right - instead coming out with all manner of weird variations. One such folk ( possibly a tad dyslexic) explained that he wished to purchase a " Quad " amplifier. When told the correct acronym, he was clear the letters spelled QUAD. That neat variation was seen buy management to have merit, was adopted as the product name and later the trademark of Acoustical. Now this has the bizarre, somewhat edgy sound of truth! Andre Jute QADU - barada nikto? Shonuff! Shonuff barada nikto. QADU kickahsso. QADU rocko! Right time period, too. I know ****-all about this prehistoric audiophool stuff, I just wanted to say Howdy, Jute. Be well. ;-) Howdy, Valve. Lord Valve Purveyor of Loud Stage Equipment to the (largely) Musically Ignorant and (largely) Tone (or otherwise) Deaf Sounds like I could qualify easily as a customer! Andre Jute Purveyor of truth and other unpopular ideas |
#29
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article om,
Bret Ludwig wrote: Dunno where you get the idea Lucas distributors are not reliable. Growing up in a family with several British cars. I grew up with only British cars.;-) But the worst distributor I ever came across was a Delco fitted to a Vauxhall. Lucas ones of course required periodic lubrication - but if this was done had a decent enough service life. Or indeed the need to change from SU carbs. he SU isn't that bad but needs constant maintenance. Because they are adjustable and most carbs ain't plenty felt the need to fiddle with them. Usually while not having clue as to how to set them correctly. The only maintenance they needed was topping up the piston damper at engine oil change times. Later Jags had the useless Strombergs which were terrible. Yes - they were slightly better at emissions control and semi tamper proof. Compared to the SUs of the time - but SU developed a better unit shortly afterwards. Six chokes worth of Webers will increase the maximum power but loose the tractability. Three SUs are a better bet for road use. -- *What do little birdies see when they get knocked unconscious? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#30
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:48:42 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: Later Jags had the useless Strombergs which were terrible. Yes - they were slightly better at emissions control and semi tamper proof. Compared to the SUs of the time - but SU developed a better unit shortly afterwards. The big problem with the Strombergs was that the piston was sealed by a thin rubber diaphragm which would eventually split - usually at some inopportune moment. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#31
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article ,
Don Pearce wrote: Later Jags had the useless Strombergs which were terrible. Yes - they were slightly better at emissions control and semi tamper proof. Compared to the SUs of the time - but SU developed a better unit shortly afterwards. The big problem with the Strombergs was that the piston was sealed by a thin rubber diaphragm which would eventually split - usually at some inopportune moment. Indeed - but that diaphragm meant there could be no leakage past the piston while it was sound. However, the shorter travel of the piston introduced other problems. -- *Constipated People Don't Give A Crap* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#32
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:37:46 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article , Don Pearce wrote: Later Jags had the useless Strombergs which were terrible. Yes - they were slightly better at emissions control and semi tamper proof. Compared to the SUs of the time - but SU developed a better unit shortly afterwards. The big problem with the Strombergs was that the piston was sealed by a thin rubber diaphragm which would eventually split - usually at some inopportune moment. Indeed - but that diaphragm meant there could be no leakage past the piston while it was sound. However, the shorter travel of the piston introduced other problems. Leakage past the piston of an SU isn't a problem unless it changes. You just calibrate the spring and needle to get the right mixture curve, and choose the damping oil carefully. Too thin and it will hiccup when you put your foot down, too thick and initial acceleration is compromised. It is, in my view an utterly brilliant piece of design, in which everything seems to do about ten different jobs, unlike the Weber where you have to change jets for every aspect of the power curve. And as you say, the longer piston travel of the SU makes all of that hugely easy compared to the Stromberg. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#33
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article . com,
Bret Ludwig wrote: Lucas ones of course required periodic lubrication - but if this was done had a decent enough service life. Oh, they'd last longer than you wanted them. The coils would fail, the points would shift and lose time-Mallory did a land office business in aftermarket ones for all BL products that took Ford parts as I recall. All points 'shift'. If they didn't there'd be no adjustment provided. As regards Mallory I recently fitted a Unilite to my Rover V-8 to replace the high mileage DLM8 Lucas having been assured I'd notice a vast improvement. And there was none. Of course if you have a modified engine the ability to easily alter the advance curve would be useful. But mine is standard. Or indeed the need to change from SU carbs. he SU isn't that bad but needs constant maintenance. Because they are adjustable and most carbs ain't plenty felt the need to fiddle with them. Usually while not having clue as to how to set them correctly. The only maintenance they needed was topping up the piston damper at engine oil change times. The SU is quite expensive over here, probably over there now too, As is the Mallory. I imported direct and got it for half the UK price. Fact of life with some imports. and they never really had any aftermarket support over here-right or wrong, the trend was to get away from them. All spares were and are readily available in the UK. Burlen Fuel Systems now make them (and fuel pumps) and have good stocks even for older models. Of course not cheap being no longer mass produced. I suppose they aren't all that bad. But Webers if correctly sized and set up are the best carb anywhere for most anything. Eduaardo Weber SpA had the carb thing down. The best US one was usually a Holley: I loathed and hated Rochesters. The snag with the DCOE Webers and similar designs is the poor atomisation at low flow rates - ie low engine speeds. It can also be near impossible to get smooth progression. The SU alters the venturie size to keep relative airflow speed high to aid atomisation. The downside of this is you can't make such a clear flow path at maximum power. But for road cars it's a good compromise. Other ways of course are twin choke designs with a small and large venturie - but these aren't known for long reliable service life. Other thing with fixed jet carb is there is no compensation for the inevitable wear - an SU unless bodged or neglected can be adjusted as needed. Of course BL cars used SU because they owned the company. Same as GM and Delco or Ford and Mallory. But Rolls Royce continued with SU until they changed to injection - and cost etc can't have been a factor. The Stromberg had a diaphragm and it would fail, but it was just lousy aside from that. -- *The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#34
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article ,
Don Pearce wrote: It is, in my view an utterly brilliant piece of design, in which everything seems to do about ten different jobs, unlike the Weber where you have to change jets for every aspect of the power curve. The main problem with DCOE Webers is getting the progression from the idle jets correct. Means enlarging holes in the body or drilling one in the butterfly. Of course not a problem if only used for racing - but a real PITA on a 'normal' car. -- *I'm pretty sure that sex is better than logic, but I can't prove it. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#35
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 10:54:58 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article , Don Pearce wrote: It is, in my view an utterly brilliant piece of design, in which everything seems to do about ten different jobs, unlike the Weber where you have to change jets for every aspect of the power curve. The main problem with DCOE Webers is getting the progression from the idle jets correct. Means enlarging holes in the body or drilling one in the butterfly. Of course not a problem if only used for racing - but a real PITA on a 'normal' car. I used to have a pair of twin 45s on my mkI escort rally car (BDA engine). I had it on a rolling road four or five times trying to get that progression right. as you say, flat out was not a problem apart from in long one-way bends when the levels in the emulsion tubes could drop (or climb if going the other way) and the mixture wasn't right. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#36
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 10:30:23 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: The snag with the DCOE Webers and similar designs is the poor atomisation at low flow rates - ie low engine speeds. It can also be near impossible to get smooth progression. The SU alters the venturie size to keep relative airflow speed high to aid atomisation. The downside of this is you can't make such a clear flow path at maximum power. But for road cars it's a good compromise. Other ways of course are twin choke designs with a small and large venturie - but these aren't known for long reliable service life. Other thing with fixed jet carb is there is no compensation for the inevitable wear - an SU unless bodged or neglected can be adjusted as needed. Can't remember how the provenance between the two companies worked, but the Dell'Orto version of the Weber side draft carb seemed to do a better job of low speed pickup. I remember following some mods I found in Cars and Car Conversions on an SU carb, and it really could be made to flow very well with some strategic use of a small grinder. You just had to be careful not to mess with the flat part of the venturi bridge, or the calibration was screwed for good and all. A friend of mine had an Imp Sport with an SU, and that worked best with no spring - just gravity. I suspect it was hitting full throttle at very low airflow and actually not working well at all; entirely inappropriate setup. BTW, venturi doesn't have an "e" on the end. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#37
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article om,
Bret Ludwig wrote: 90% of carbs on the US road anymore, if not 95% are four barrel Holleys with progressive operation, two small and two large. 90% Holleys, that seems far fetched, do you have any hard evidence to support this contention? Most are on 60s-80s V8s. But where people were converting 80s cars with TBI to carb ten years ago, now we are seeing EFI on everything from old Beetles to flathead Ford V8s. You have to realize that at least in these parts the easy availablity of credit and $100/hr shop charges have denuded the US roads of cars older than ten or fifteen years. Does that mean my twelve year old car will soon be on the scrap heap and I should bit it farewell while I still have the chance? Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#38
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article om,
Bret Ludwig wrote: The snag with the DCOE Webers and similar designs is the poor atomisation at low flow rates - ie low engine speeds. It can also be near impossible to get smooth progression. The SU alters the venturie size to keep relative airflow speed high to aid atomisation. The downside of this is you can't make such a clear flow path at maximum power. But for road cars it's a good compromise. Other ways of course are twin choke designs with a small and large venturie - but these aren't known for long reliable service life. Other thing with fixed jet carb is there is no compensation for the inevitable wear - an SU unless bodged or neglected can be adjusted as needed. 90% of carbs on the US road anymore, if not 95% are four barrel Holleys with progressive operation, two small and two large. Most are on 60s-80s V8s. Interesting point was that just about the only US V-8 that ended up being made in the UK was the Buick unit which became the Rover one - and gained some 20 bhp when being fitted with SUs. Of course that wasn't the only mod. But I'm not sure what the original carbs were. But where people were converting 80s cars with TBI to carb ten years ago, now we are seeing EFI on everything from old Beetles to flathead Ford V8s. IMHO the reason is injection no longer holds the same fears for home mechanics who also now realise the considerable benefits. You have to realize that at least in these parts the easy availablity of credit and $100/hr shop charges have denuded the US roads of cars older than ten or fifteen years. Pretty rare here too. Certainly 15 year old ones. Last time I was in England the numbers of old cars I saw vastly exceeded what I have seen anywhere in the US, except for a couple of college towns and parts of Los Angeles. Heh heh - you saw all of England? Of course, we are going to see a massive credit implosion.....but that's another matter. I hope it doesn't end up being as bad as some fear. It will hit the poorest most - as usual. Many have been predicting a property crash here in the UK too. But so far it hasn't happened. -- *The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#39
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 9, 2:54 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article om, Bret Ludwig wrote: The snag with the DCOE Webers and similar designs is the poor atomisation at low flow rates - ie low engine speeds. It can also be near impossible to get smooth progression. The SU alters the venturie size to keep relative airflow speed high to aid atomisation. The downside of this is you can't make such a clear flow path at maximum power. But for road cars it's a good compromise. Other ways of course are twin choke designs with a small and large venturie - but these aren't known for long reliable service life. Other thing with fixed jet carb is there is no compensation for the inevitable wear - an SU unless bodged or neglected can be adjusted as needed. 90% of carbs on the US road anymore, if not 95% are four barrel Holleys with progressive operation, two small and two large. Most are on 60s-80s V8s. Interesting point was that just about the only US V-8 that ended up being made in the UK was the Buick unit which became the Rover one - and gained some 20 bhp when being fitted with SUs. Of course that wasn't the only mod. But I'm not sure what the original carbs were. The particular aluminium engines that came from Buick to Rover were marine engines, if that gives a clue to their carburettors and tune. If you're right and they picked up so many horses on being fitted with SUs, they couldn't have put out more than about 110-120hp in US trim. We had one out of a Rover Coupe on the dyno in the middle 60s and it was good for less than a four and a quarter Bentley engine, which was pretty choked and good only for a smidgin under 130bhp. (I seem to remember people often spoke of 135 horses for that engine in the Mk Vi.) We were looking at the Rover V8 because back then it was the only engine we knew with any power that two guys could pick up between them, a wonderful thing. It wasn't much chop though; a very unreliable engine if you breathed on it even lightly. Still, a decade later it made the SD1 into one of the greatest cars BL ever built; such a pit they didn't see fit to carry forward the second-best thing about the P8, the De Dion rear axle, a beautiful thing of 300B-like purely linear motion.. Just as a mattter of historical evidence, Ford apparently between the wars made their flathead V8 in England, possibly in a tax-friendly smaller size as well. I spoke to someone only at the beginning of the summer who had once owned such a British Ford V8; he said it was the only one he ever saw at the shows he went to; it is probably logical that the British preferred the lower-tax fours. Andre Jute Off-topic? Me? See the 300B reference above. But where people were converting 80s cars with TBI to carb ten years ago, now we are seeing EFI on everything from old Beetles to flathead Ford V8s. IMHO the reason is injection no longer holds the same fears for home mechanics who also now realise the considerable benefits. You have to realize that at least in these parts the easy availablity of credit and $100/hr shop charges have denuded the US roads of cars older than ten or fifteen years. Pretty rare here too. Certainly 15 year old ones. Last time I was in England the numbers of old cars I saw vastly exceeded what I have seen anywhere in the US, except for a couple of college towns and parts of Los Angeles. Heh heh - you saw all of England? Of course, we are going to see a massive credit implosion.....but that's another matter. I hope it doesn't end up being as bad as some fear. It will hit the poorest most - as usual. Many have been predicting a property crash here in the UK too. But so far it hasn't happened. -- *The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#40
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article om,
Andre Jute wrote: The particular aluminium engines that came from Buick to Rover were marine engines, if that gives a clue to their carburettors and tune. This basic engine block was sold in the US by both Buick and Oldsmobile, but equipped with radically different head designs. On other engines the Oldsmobile heads had bigger valves and could flow more air than the Buick heads which due to their somewhat odd design couldn't accommodate valves as large as the Oldsmobile heads, I assume the same rule held on this engine. Also the Oldsmobile version of the engine was sold in two different states of tune, one with a 2V carburetor and the other with a 4V carburetor and a different cam. I can't remember if Buick offered a version in a higher state of tune like the Oldsmobile. If you're right and they picked up so many horses on being fitted with SUs, they couldn't have put out more than about 110-120hp in US trim. We had one out of a Rover Coupe on the dyno in the middle 60s and it was good for less than a four and a quarter Bentley engine, which was pretty choked and good only for a smidgin under 130bhp. (I seem to remember people often spoke of 135 horses for that engine in the Mk Vi.) We were looking at the Rover V8 because back then it was the only engine we knew with any power that two guys could pick up between them, a wonderful thing. It wasn't much chop though; a very unreliable engine if you breathed on it even lightly. Still, a decade later it made the SD1 into one of the greatest cars BL ever built; such a pit they didn't see fit to carry forward the second-best thing about the P8, the De Dion rear axle, a beautiful thing of 300B-like purely linear motion.. Just as a mattter of historical evidence, Ford apparently between the wars made their flathead V8 in England, possibly in a tax-friendly smaller size as well. I don't know if it has any relation to the engine you are speaking of, but Ford also had a smaller flathead V8 that was sold for a few years in the US, also "between the wars" IIRC. A friend and I shoehorned one of these into an MG-TC. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Williamson kt66 mono amp and pwr supply $400 | Vacuum Tubes | |||
FS. Williamson kt66 amp (acrosound 300 transformer) $400 | Marketplace | |||
Williamson Amplifier-a good web page | Vacuum Tubes | |||
neatly built Williamson monoblocks | Vacuum Tubes | |||
FS: WILLIAMSON G-400 Mono Power Amps | Vacuum Tubes |