R Type Bentley 1952.

Christopher Carnley · Posted: Mon May 16, 2016 9:06 am Post subject: R Type Bentley 1952.

The ex Mike Couper 1952 R Type Bentley (1953 Monte Carlo Rally car) only realised 47,040 euros.
There is little love for these MK VI (and)variants, except for the rare coach built ones.

John Murch · Posted: Mon May 16, 2016 10:01 am Post subject:

I thought that I read in another thread (which I cant find) that this car was very nice but unrestored. In which case is that not a good price?

Christopher Carnley · Posted: Mon May 16, 2016 12:27 pm Post subject:

John,

The car was original apart from the paint,but in first class condition.

John Robins · Posted: Mon May 16, 2016 9:55 pm Post subject:

Due to their having a substantial level of refurbishment cost, since the cars are worth less prospective owners are put off buying them as they feel they may be taking on a money pit. With the further passage of time, and further attrition, the values may start to increase although these models will probably tend to remain at the bottom of the pile.

For about ten or so years following WW2 the majority of the station taxis in Stafford were 25/30s, it would probably be a less economic business these days, I haven't seen a Silver Spirit plying for hire among the diesel Toyotas, but it does emphasise the way perceived values can change.

John Murch · Posted: Tue May 17, 2016 4:43 am Post subject:

Car prices can be very strange, In about 1992 I had a RR 20/25 with very nice bodywork and interesting history. I didn't really enjoy it and sold it a year later for about what it cost me. Twenty years later, the subsequent owner who had done a lot of good work on the car sold it, it failed to reach even the 1992 price.
John

Christopher Carnley · Posted: Tue May 17, 2016 7:29 am Post subject:

I had an email from George Giese, the previous owner of the R Type, who felt rather disappointed for the vendor, who had bought the car from George a few years ago for $80,000.
These old relics are seen as funeral and wedding cars by the majority, and for others are perceived as being silent sports cars, when they are really just lumbering old brutes, by any modern standards.

Other than the main outlets, the majority of gearbox work is among Silver Wraiths, as the rebuild costs are seen as disproportionate to the sale value of the MK VI.

Peter Boxer · Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 10:46 am Post subject:

Sorry - late to this thread...

...But I think "lumbering old brutes" is a bit harsh, Chris: if they're functioning as they were built to behave, the MkVI (I haven't driven an R-Type) - especially with a 20% 'taller' back-axle ratio than standard - is an extremely comfortable, reasonably-fast way of getting around the countryside.

If you 'zero-time' the brake-servo (in particular), and stay on top of the drums' & shoes' serviceability, even the brakes are pretty good for their era; and if you also taughten the front roll-bar, and install one at the rear, to complement properly-overhauled suspension, they're really quite fun in a rather staid sort of way.

I've had mine for over 12 years and 50,000 miles now, and even though it and my local specialist garage have benefitted from some fairly liberal spending (including, as you will know, on its gearbox..), as a 'package' I reckon it's a highly-commendable motor-car. True, I shall never recover what I've spent on it; but then I'm not intending to get rid of it any time soon - and meanwhile, it'll go on giving great Bentleying pleasure - and, for a MkVI, a few additional surprises - and hopefully go "lumbering" on for some years yet!

Peter

Christopher Carnley · Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 2:11 pm Post subject:

Peter,

As you say, with the 13:40 axle and 4.9 litre engine, they are not quite a MK VI, as intended.

The comment may have been taken out of context in that it was a comparison with modern cars as seen through the eyes of the more modern people.

Peter Boxer · Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 2:36 pm Post subject:

Sorry for the misunderstanding, Chris - and by the way, I didn't mention NPO999's 4.9, because with the rebuilt 4.5 which it had before, the remarks about performance and driveability still applied: based on an R-Type block and a late-R-Type head, that engine was also a good'n.

The 4.9, with the proper S1 crank-shaft + S1 Continental-type large valves & 2" carbs, does make it a little more 'grin-worthy' but honestly not for most of the touring time, which is really what I was referring to. But I do admit it's been the icing on the cake, and has even given the occasional unsuspecting co-Bentleyist a slight surprise...particularly if, as you suggest, he/she was indeed thinking "lumbering"!

(I know: "Little things please little minds", etc.)

Peter

James O'Neil · Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 3:46 pm Post subject:

What evidence is there that anyone assesses these early postwar cars by modern standards? Is the assertion based on any empirical research? If so, what was the size of the control group?

I have certainly never expected my Mark VI to perform like a sports car; what I do expect its that its performance will be commensurate with the published contemporary road tests, which are readily available, and also to be similar to that of the R Type which I drove extensively, and although that was a few decades ago I have fond and accurate memories of the experience.

James

Peter Boxer · Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 4:04 pm Post subject:

I agree, James. The only slightly tangental way in which lots of drivers in modern cars seem to judge our classic and older cars as similar to theirs is on the assumption that our brakes (a) have discs and (b) antilock. They really do cut in and out sometimes, filling the rather more 'defensive' gap you're trying to leave (e.g. on a motorway at 70mph) between you and the car in front.

That is of course yet another reason, besides the boredom factor, why one tries to avoid motorways in our cars!

Peter

John Robins · Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 4:15 pm Post subject:

These days my defensive gap is due to the servo lag between my brain and my right foot!

Christopher Carnley · Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 5:04 pm Post subject:

It is the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, or in other words unreliable memoirs and reality.
I defy anyone who drives a modern car from day to day, and then mounts an old car,to say that it compares at all well. Different certainly, but favourably?

Weddings and funerals apart, the younger end have no time for old relics, unless there is some money attached, then they get rid and buy a BMW 6 series to impress. It is a fact of life.

Christopher Carnley · Posted: Thu May 26, 2016 8:22 am Post subject:

I am still looking for contemporary test reports of a 1950 bentley MK VI fitted with a 13:40 rear axle, or an R Type for that matter.

(They don,t exist).

John Murch · Posted: Thu May 26, 2016 9:04 am Post subject:

Is this of any help?http://www.kda132.com/pdfs/Bentley-Mark-VI-Road-Test.pdf

Also

http://www.kda132.com/pdfs/Bentley-Continental-Road-Test.pdf

Christopher Carnley · Posted: Thu May 26, 2016 11:08 am Post subject:

John,

Thank you, the MK VI in the article has an 11:41 rear axle, and the Continental 13:40 is a very lightweight car 33 cwt.
The R Type steel saloon only had a 12:41 axle as standard, during the last of the series.

John Murch · Posted: Thu May 26, 2016 1:09 pm Post subject:

Christopher, forgive me if I am being very slow here (!) but were any Mk VI cars fitted from new with a 13:40 axle? I see that the continental is only 3cwt lighter than an SS car, so I would assume that the extra top speed is largely a result of extra bhp, were its aerodynamics really very much better?
John

Christopher Carnley · Posted: Thu May 26, 2016 1:46 pm Post subject:

John,

James ONeil,s MI VI 4 1/4 litre car is fitted with a 13:40 axle, but he is comparing that to figures from earlier cars with more perky axle ratios.

The Continental was designed with the aid of a wind tunnel and the aerodynamics are much improved,but as the axle ratio is usually 13:40, the initial acceleration is not as one would expect; it is a high speed tourer, and not a racing car.

Peter Boxer · Posted: Thu May 26, 2016 2:10 pm Post subject:

Chris, you're surely not going to find an original-spec car which is also in the kind of fettle that they would have been when new. Your original question was about comparisons that might be made by "the more modern people", as you phrased it, between a modern 'daily driver' and an old car.

Well, for a start they're going to judge the early post-war cars - or for that matter Derbys or W O s - they come across by how they are now, not according to a contemporary road test. If it's a clapped-out (and probably pretty dangerous) wedding car, such an 'oldie' doesn't stand a chance. Also, one has to assume that the tester's daily driver isn't one of those endless balls of blancmange which all do exactly the same thing without mental or physical effort or sensation, but are nonetheless considered satisfactory!

The matter of the back axle only has to do with the engine-speeds in the gears: at 70mph the original MkVI (as you know, of course) was turning over somewhat more than 3,000 rpm. However that was probably not a road-speed which they kept up for long on late-40s and early-50s roads; nonetheless >3,000rpm on a 4.5 litre engine is stupidly 'revvy'...but it's basically impossible to fit an overdrive on a MkVI/R-Type, so if you intend to use your machine (I've averaged 4Kmi/yr including sometimes-extensive down-time) your attention turns to the the back axle ratio. With or without a 4.9 engine, my 3-to-1 back-axle set-up gives about the same revs at 70 in 3rd gear as the original MkVI did in top. (As I mentioned, the re-built 4.5 made light work of this: the 4.9 S1 Continental-spec 'donk' of course does too - it just makes getting up to speed slightly more fun.)

So we're back to your claims about the cars themselves not really being a basis for comparison with, and by, today's 'moderns'.

Well quite simply, if the person enjoys driving, I submit that exposure to a well-sorted oldie impresses even today. If not, it's probably a losing case of 'pearls before swine'! I'm certainly not saying that I'm necessarily an above-average driver; but I do try to make it my business to know where my car's road-going limits lie; and the MkVI is indeed not a sports car.

Even so, I've had another MkVI owner express amazement at NPO999's cornering with proper, grippy tyres (he was curious about their performance, and was thinking of buying some). My experience is that strangers to a well-sorted MkVI simply don't expect "a car like this to perform like that". Similarly, on another occasion my 2 passengers, having been driven for their 1st full day in an 'oldie' (9 hours elapsed including fuel & food stops, covering just over 430 miles), were amazed at how comfortably they'd been cosseted - a little stiff through relative lack of movement, perhaps, but basically ready for the evening festivities for which we'd been rushing to arrive.

So I'm sorry, but provided it's in proper fettle, I still reckon a 50s Bentley (and of course many other splendid models before and since) can impress by comparison to a so-called 'modern'. It's not better, or worse; it's just 'impressively' different!

Peter

Christopher Carnley · Posted: Thu May 26, 2016 5:51 pm Post subject:

Peter,

No, don't be sorry, as you say "enjoyment" is a personal thing, but you can,t impress it on anyone, especially the mindsets of anyone not remotely interested in old cars.

Things are what they are, we "dress them up" to suit ourselves, if we can.

Martin Webster · Posted: Fri May 27, 2016 5:23 pm Post subject:

My '54 Healey 100/M is often overtaken at 85 or so by modern family cars and I wonder if the drivers give a thought to what technical progress has been made in 60 years to motor car performance. When new the 100/M was an absolute record breaker and is really only a curiosity now, all be it still pretty quick.
B88HR

John Murch · Posted: Fri May 27, 2016 5:57 pm Post subject:

These days I don't have a modern car, the need has gone away. When I did, my sole enjoyment of driving it was What mpg I could get out of it ( best ever was 85mpg on a 275mile round trip central London - Poole return, cruising at 55mph). Each time I get into my 3ltr I have difficulty wiping the grin off my face, I love every mile I drive in it, there is superb feedback through the steering, drive train and seat of pants!
If you want to get from A to B quickly, dry, ecconomically then a modern car is better, but I'm still happier in the 3ltr and have felt that way for 45 years.
John

Peter Boxer · Posted: Fri May 27, 2016 6:04 pm Post subject:

Ah, you've put me firmly in my place, John re. 'daily driver': just back into France yesterday in the midst of the current blockades of oil refineries, I thought I'd better 'fly for range' in my 3-litre 6-cylinder Subaru - and was frightfully impressed when, at the 1st precautionary top-up since Portsmouth, on the A13 autoroute southbound, it turned out that I'd managed just over 130mi on just under 19 litres of essence !

..Shows what I know...

Peter

Christopher Carnley · Posted: Fri May 27, 2016 6:15 pm Post subject:

John Murch · Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 4:44 am Post subject:

John Robins · Posted: Sun May 29, 2016 11:52 am Post subject:

Going off topic a little, but your Golf does a lot better than my C220D Estate. Local tripping around about 38, best ever on a Somerset to Staffs motorway run 62. I always reset the computer when I fill the tank so no idea over the 28k it's done, but I'd be surprised if it beats 40 by much. It has a very high top gear at 42mph/1000rpm, but rarely stays in it for long unless on motorways.