Definitely. Jensen Interceptor. (1966-76)

tinyurl.com/63ct7bq

Edited by FocalPoint on 16/06/2011 at 20:41

The engine sounds better than the name-440 cubic inches of Mopar muscle. Awesome indeed!

I have googled it. It is a lovely lovely thing.

Quite. A tragic combination of kamakazee unions and incompetent management ruined many great British automotive designs. Triumph, Austin, MG all came up with some superbly engineered cars that were fatally undermined by silly manufacturing errors.

Superbly engineered ? A touch of rose tinted glasses I think. I too remember those cars and more importantly motorbikes. It amazed me they got away with it for so long. The ordinary peoples cars were, quite frankly, rubbish. Morris 1000, wheels fell off on corners and they are a classic ? The Triumph Bonneville is held up as an icon yet if you held the throttle right open for more than a few minutes it blew up ! Had a Rover 75, lovely car but made sure it didn't have the K series motor. Superbly designed ? On the Rover 75 forum the guy who designed that motor said there was nothing wrong with it, it was the customers fault !

Strikes, unions, management, yup agreed (especially strikes) but let's not get carried away thinking the actual product was any good.

When things like the cheap affordable Nissans came along and showed Britain that normal peoples cars could also be reliable the blueprints for them were largely the same as what we were making, just they built them properly and with the right materials. Where as we lumped stuff together with a "that'll do" mentality.

My goodness what have I unleashed..? I just thought it looked a bit Gene Hunt. I don't think you can compare a 70s car with today's vehicles (aside from the 4 wheels, engine, seats thing obv); expectations were totally different; it wasn't even compulsory to have seatbelts until 1983!

You didn't need to wear them until 1983 is what I meant, I'm sure of it; then it became illegal not to. I remember 'clunk click'' when I was a little girl. All cars had to have them in the front since the 60s but it wasn't illegal not to wear them.

www.flickr.com/photos/64127830@N03/5842765585/

There's the back of the Jensen!

Wiki says: "The Interceptor took its styling cues from the Brasinca Uirapuru, [2] with a distinctive large, curving wrap-around rear window that doubled as a tailgate. The original specification included electric windows, reclining front seats, a wood rimmed steering wheel, radio with twin speakers, reversing lights and an electric clock. Power steering was included as standard from September 1968."

I did find a company that is remaking (re-imagining really) the Interceptor, calling it the 'SX' and charging £145,000 for it!

I think Mitsubishi's overly Chuck Norrisesque Barbarian/Warrior/animal takes the award for the most pathetic attempt at machismo nomenclature. I'm amused by vdub's Amorak which I always read as anorak which I'm sure VAG's PR men didn't have in mind!

Best sobriquet has to be the AC Cobra, or the Ford Mustang.

I know manufacturers spend millions trying to come up with names, but they can still get it wrong.

Can't believe Ford used the name Probe for their awful-looking coupe in the 90s
("come and have a look at my probe...")

Vauxhall eventually stopped using Nova, because in some Euro-languages countries it can be "no va.." ie Not Going

Datsun used to name their cars things like Cedric and Fairlady

And it's not just urban myth that Mitsubishi named a model Starion, because they couldn't tell the difference between that and Stallion, which is what they thought they were using

Smart cars - now there's an oxymoron

Surely the most bizarre name at the mo has to be the Renault Wind? Imagine the conversation: "I've got a Megane how about you?" "Oh I've got wind!" :)

The Mazda Bongo Friendee. I once stood next to one.

"h/gasket issues aside, very strong. " ?? wot ?? haha

sorry unthrottled but how can it be a good engine if the head gasket goes every time you use it at speed, or even on a long journey ? it is a basic design fault.

Me too ;-)

Really? The consumption is certainly no worse than a Jag v12 or range rover v8 in which the Brits managed to extract terrible economy from comparitively small engines. Bristol used the 360 Chrysler smalblock for years without it being unduly thirsty.

We are talking about a 440 CID of performance here!

Half the size therefore half the performance. Sadly not half the fuel consumption.

The rover V8 wheezed up an anaemic 130ish horsepower but in the range rover it only yielded ~10-15mpg. Ok, the vehicle was heavy but most people get better economy when they retrofit a Chevy small block and put in taller gears. The tiny cylinders of the Rover/Jag v12 meant that the engine p***ed heat into the heads at low engine speeds. The big Chrysler/Chevy engines retained their efficiency down to very low engine speeds-which is the whole raison d'etre of the v8/v12 engine.

The small cylinder vs big cylinder trade off is beatifully illustrated by comparing the Chevy LS7 to a BMW 5.0 V10. The chevy wipes the floor with the 'advanced' BMW, in terms of torque and fuel economy, weight, and overall physical bulk.

It does really since the Buick 215 valve gear isn't really very good-even by pushrod standards-so you can't rev it.

An old school chum of mine has a Monaro-In 6th gear it'll yield nearly 30 mpg-at 60mph. 350 cubic inches, 350 horses, nearly 400lbf.ft of torque-cylinder deactivation at low load...outclasses the buick in every respect.

The buick 215 was never any good. That's why GM sold off the tooling to a begging BMC who couldn't manage to build their own v8. No one stateside uses the Buick 215-because it's junk.

People only stick up for the buick 215 because they think it's a great British design-it isn't British, and it isn't great.

Enthusiasts tend to have rose tinted compassion for their pet cars. The fact is the Buick 215 has never obtained very inspiring BSFC or performance figures compared to competing designs. The engine has a weak valve train and frequently requires an overhaul after only 100,000 miles. For an engine with a low specific output, that's atrocious. It's only merit is its light weight, but on a lb/hp basis it is still poor. The ford small block is physically smaller. The chevy small block is far more capable. The aluminium SBC is not that much heavier than the Buick. There is far more aftermarket support for the SBC and SBF.

You can spend £10,000 building up a trick 5.0+litre buick that'll just about make 400hp and have all the shortcomings of a full race engine. Or you could take a stock 350, bolt on a nice set of AFR heads, add a rollor cam, a nice dual plane intake, 4 barrel carb and have an easy 400 streetrable horsepower and change out of £5 grand. No comparison.

I'd like to see a buick 215 do 0-60 in 5 seconds in a Go kart.

Ok here's another 'what is this?'

www.flickr.com/photos/64127830@N03/5853163297/in/p...m

It looks like a hoover or a snowplough to me. Mega tacky - especially in that pukey green!