Jump to content

Autoshite cliches, myths and old wives tales...


inconsistant

Recommended Posts

At the NEC Classic Car Show this weekend it was interesting listening to visiting 'experts' trotting out the usual cliches and myths about whatever car they were standing next to. Here's some of what I heard on Saturday:

 

"The Porsche 924 has got a van engine*"

 

"The Allegro is more aerodynamic going in reverse*"

 

"The Ford Transit was used as a getaway vehicle as it was faster than the police cars of the time*"

 

"Jaguar changed it's name from SS so as not to upset the public*"

 

"Audi stands for Auto Union De.. something...*"

 

"Delorean went bust because the bloke went to prison for fraud*"

 

Most/All of these are based around misinterpreted fact. This is the stuff that Top Gear and loveable pub car experts love to trot out.  What others are out there?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Porsche 924 has got a van engine*"

 

That is fairly accurate - the VW LT engine was used in vans prior to the 924, no? Strangely, people didn't keep sniggering that the Dodge Viper had a lorry engine though, despite the fact that even a 924 could probably leave it behind on a slightly damp road with corners.

 

 

Unloved cars like the Allegro always have their fair share of derogatory myths (the windscreen pops out when you jack up the rear corners, all the steering wheels were square, etc) most of which were started when they were new. BL cars probably attracted more than their fair share for sociopolitical reasons.

 

 

MOAR FACKTS:

 

Landrovers are made completely from aluminium, and everything is bolted together. Therefore they'll never need welding.

 

Mazda rotary engines need rebuilding every 10,000 miles.

 

AC Cobras were banned in the UK for being too fast.

 

Bullbars are illegal - manufacturers can fit them due to a legal loophole, but you're supposed to remove them before driving on the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Jaguar / SS one is true isn't it? The Allegro one may be true, but so are a lot of other cars.

I remember reading a quote in a jag book from Bill Lyons / on the ss moniker as something like " a section of the community not highly regarded " plus they were keen to make people forget they used to plonk fancy bodies on Austin 7 chassis as ss cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Scrappage Scheme was a complete success.

The Ford F150 is made in America.

The Ford Model T only came in black.

Ralph Nader killed the Corvair.

Manual gearboxes provide better OMGMPG than automatics.

The police can't book you for driving too slowly.

Smaller engines use less petrol.

There is no British car industry.

ABS provides shorter stopping distances.

British cars are unreliable.

German cars are reliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Punative damages in the states were a result of death claims  against Ford. for faults on Pintos that caused them to catch fire (Fuel tanks punctured by shock bolts when rear ended, I think).  Ford calculated it would be cheaper to settle claims that organise a recall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in con sis tant, on 18 Nov 2013 - 5:18 PM, said:in con sis tant, on 18 Nov 2013 - 5:18 PM, said:

"Audi stands for Auto Union De.. something...*"

 

The name Audi came about when August Horch lost control of the Horch company after being forced out by the Board of Directors. So he started up Audi, which is the Latin equivalent of what Horch means in German (= "listen" ). PHACT... http://www.linguee.com/english-german/search?source=auto&query=horchen

 

:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Lada' roughly translates into English as 'My Love'. WAY.

 

'This Rover 75 is fitted with the ultra smooth 2.5 Honda engine'. NO WAY.

 

Practical Classics went through a phase of very inaccurate details such as describing the MK3-5 Cortina's front suspension as MacPherson struts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Volvo 240 Torslanda is a special 'cold climate' version of the 200 Series."

 

In reality, it was an effective way of getting rid of surplus RHD base models and DLs at the end of the 240's production run.

YES!!!! This myth annoys me as much as people who say "robin reliant" or "rover sdi" when they mean "SD1".

I have even "corrected" the wikipedia entry to reflect the truth. Its nothing more than a cosmetic makeover of a base model, with alloys and black trim instead of chrome. and some stickers that say "torslanda".

 

why would they make a cold weather variant that has an open diff?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern cars are more environmentally friendly than older ones. They also are more fuel efficient.

 

I'd like to believe that one as myth, but I work in environmental research and no matter how I try and fiddle life cycle assessments into my favour, I've never been able to make an old car look more environmentally friendly than a new one if you take the whole life cycle of production, use and recycling/disposal into account. Even the Prius. All the 'rubbish' you think goes into the batteries and the environmental 'devastation' that the internet depicts pales into insignificance when you look at the what steel industries of China and Brazil cause, where most steel comes from.

 

Second point about fuel consumption. Cars are getting heavier due to safety equipment and toys, this has offset most of the efficiency gains in engines and it's only very recently that we have seen cars that are genuinely more fuel efficient than 50 years ago. I've had a sit-up-and-beg Ford Pop, a Prefect and an Anglia and all have managed almost the same average 35mpg fuel economy as her moderns. Current one sits at a lifetime average of 36.9mpg. I think that's pretty poor, personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'd like to believe that one as myth, but I work in environmental research and no matter how I try and fiddle life cycle assessments into my favour, I've never been able to make an old car look more environmentally friendly than a new one if you take the whole life cycle of production, use and recycling/disposal into account.

That's interesting, I work in manufacturing and while I know about the low cost of shipping I'm not sure about that.  Here's a couple of scenarios, simplified for my simple brain.

 

1. Years ago a car had 5000 components, that's every single screw included.  Every component has to be designed, made and shipped and there are people driving to work every day to achieve that.

 

2. Modern cars have perhaps 20,000 components, there's an awful lot of them.  Same for every part needing to be designed, made and shipped and the people to do it.  While the final assembly of the new car is probably much more efficient, if you follow the supply chain all the way, every new car has a lot of people driving to work to get it done.

 

But I don't think the full answer will ever be known because it's really complicated and the people with all the information can't be arsed to churn through it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...