OLD ROAD TESTS

Post by **petefarrell360** » 17 Jan 2005 02:39 am

Ok everyone, here it is, the road test from 1982 of the 360 GLT from Autocar!

http://www.farrell17.freeserve.co.uk/Page%201.jpg
http://www.farrell17.freeserve.co.uk/Page%202.jpg
http://www.farrell17.freeserve.co.uk/Page%203.jpg
http://www.farrell17.freeserve.co.uk/Page%204.jpg
http://www.farrell17.freeserve.co.uk/Page%205.jpg
http://www.farrell17.freeserve.co.uk/Page%206.jpg

Pete

Post by **5lab** » 17 Jan 2005 03:37 am

nice! that just distracted me from work for 20 mins

Post by **foggyjames** » 17 Jan 2005 02:13 pm

A couple of interesting points there...

1) Confusion over where the redline is on the Smiths tachometer....been there!

2) Totally flat load bay with the seats folded...eh?!

cheers

James

Post by **SteveP** » 17 Jan 2005 04:52 pm

Interesting read

I do like the Mk2s!!

Post by **foggyjames** » 17 Jan 2005 05:06 pm

Agreed - the 86 facelift to what we call the mk3 wasn't radical enough, whereas a mk2 actually looks 'of its time'.

cheers

James

Post by **pavlos** » 17 Jan 2005 05:06 pm

5lab wrote:nice! that just distracted me from work for 20 mins

Post by **foggyjames** » 17 Jan 2005 07:58 pm

Welcome Pavlos, and congratulations on discovering the 'Smilie' function...!

cheers

James

Post by **jtbo** » 17 Jan 2005 08:00 pm

I almost were late from work. Too interesting to read forgot time totally

Post by **Geez** » 17 Jan 2005 08:43 pm

NICE ONE!!!!!!!! Cheers for that Pete, thats exactly the type of thing that I was after!! I agree with Foggy about the mk3 facelift though could have been a bit more radical Mk 2 was bang on its time

Post by **petefarrell360** » 17 Jan 2005 09:14 pm

No problem mate! I've often wondered what would've been said about the cars when they were new and how they compared. It's the only review of it's kind I've seen so far really, other than the odd Clarkson grilling!
Pete

Post by **SteveP** » 17 Jan 2005 09:26 pm

Yeah thanks for sharing that Pete! Old car tests are so much more interesting to read... could you buy Top Gear magazine now and be told the final drive ratio or maximum speeds per gear of a test car?!

I'd also agree with most of the review too.. although the 0-60 performance figures seem a bit low.

Post by **petefarrell360** » 17 Jan 2005 09:34 pm

Your all very welcome! I saw a copy of the magazine ages ago and forgot about it, and didn't manage to get it, so when this one came up I thought I'd better have it. Steve, you're right, old reviews are a lot more interesting and in depth, 6 pages for the 360! Very interesting to read with the key issues addressed. Living with the car, something magazines often forget about! I'd be inclined to agree, the figures do seem a little low allround actually, top speed and acceleration. I always thought the earlier cars had the better perfomance, as the MK3's had the detuned engines, to prolong life and ran on unleaded etc.
Pete

Post by **foggyjames** » 17 Jan 2005 10:14 pm

I'd say those accelleration figures are about right - they say they're in the wet. I seem to recall a GLT is about 10s (official) for 0-60. It's no rocket ship - like with the newer cars, is the midrange that's impressive. The mk2 > mk3 performance differences are minimal - a little less compression, so a little less torque, but it equates to 4 bhp for both 360 models. From day one the B200 was mentally de-tuned.....but that's good news, right chaps

Scrapyard tuning parts at the ready...

Bear in mind that given the high drag coefficient, we need a lot of extra power to significantly increase our top speed. Double the power of a B200K will get you to 140, yet I've had 125 from mine. Also bear in mind that all 'our' speed measurements are indicated, not actual, as speedos tend to be wildly inaccurate.

I liked the fact that they agreed with me that its unfair to compare the 300 to most of the 'hot hatches' as it's too big

cheers

James

Post by **SteveP** » 17 Jan 2005 11:12 pm

Very true.. people always seem to underestimate how big the 300 series actually is! It doesn't actually look that big, but its dimensions prove otherwise... its more Sierra/Cavalier/405 size than Escort/Astra/309 of the same era.

Post by **5lab** » 17 Jan 2005 11:44 pm

nagh its about halfway in-between - theres no way the 300 boot is as big as a cavileir or sierra.