COMMENT ON A ROAD-TEST

Author

admin

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Current page

85

Current page

86

Current page

87

Current page

88

Current page

89

Current page

90

Current page

91

Current page

92

• COMMENT ON A ROAD-TEST

Sir,

read with great interest the article in }’our March issue concerning, the road-test of the Riley 1.5, and while I agree with a nue-titer of your rounuent,,.. I can not say all of them are eorreet in so far as my experience of this model is roneeraelt. a, I now have my second 1.5, the first one being one of the earlier issue,.

Going through your article and taking one or two items as they come, the first concerns the ignition switch. On both my ears 1 have had an additional fitting added whereby the key actuates the starter. This is a great improvement, particularly for dead-engine starts in driving tests. is with the original arrangement both hands are required to sic-itch on and use the starter button. Now one movement stvitehes on and starts the engine, the only disadvantage being that t wo keys :cii mc 11`,. the original having to be retained to lock the car. No under-facia shelf. This I easily made .and fitted in an hour 0.1’60 with hardboard covered with felt. It rests on the main beam under the facia board across the car and stays put with no fixing—very useful indeed for maps and various items to be hidden from prying eyes,

All B.M.C. gearboxes are reluctant to engage first when at rest, and both my -Rileys seem worse than normal in this respect. In fact, second often has to be used to move .off. Excessive roll on cornering is eorrect, but earl be cured completely

by a (ample of Kooks on the rear, and a Derrington bar On the. front. The car will then corner dead level, and out-cOrner most things on the road, except sports ears.

The brakes emit a rubbing sound. My, present car does so, but the earlier model did not. The brakes also squeal When first used in tlamp weather.

ou state that the front seats are not condonable. but I do not agree, having done several runs of up to 400 utilesin one day with no discomfort whatever. In fact. I would go so far as to say these seats are the best I have had, in the fifteen or so car.F. I have owned. Blocks are used under the rear supports to give a more creel position.

My family also do not find the car at all cramped in spite of its small size.. When all are on board they consist of teenage son and daughter, younger son of 10, and my wife, and many long runs have been undertaken, with na complaints as to lack of room.

One or two comments and comparisons of these two Rileys. Both had the head planed to give nearly 9.1 compression-ratio, straightthrough Servais silencers were fitted, together with competition valve springs. The air-cleaner was removed and the M.G.-A type fitted. A radiator blind is used.

The earlier model would rev, up to 6,000 with no trouble at all. and would return a maximum of well over 90 on the clock. My present car, now coining up to 6,000 miles, will not its yet go above 5,500 in the gears no matter what you do, and the top speed

is around 88, but it will cruise at 75-80 all day.

The first car used no oil at all the whole 2(1,000 miles I had it. except of coarse for oil changes every 2,000 miles. The present car used much oil when new, but now uses none at all.

The larger tyres now fitted seem to be a big improvement, as with the first car I wore out a set of covers every 7.000 miles. This, of course, included numerous rallies, being always driven as fast as circumstances permitted, and being cornered at the limit just for the fun of it.

I tried several makes of tyres, except Michelin ” X,” which I do not like, but they all wore out the same. The present car is driven in the same way hut the tyres at the moment. show very little signs of wear.

I purchased a second Riley because the first gave not the slightest trouble in its 18 months’ daily use by my wife and myself, except for losing me a premier award in one tally by losing all its clutch fluid during some driving tests.

Summing up, and I have been driving cars for thirty years, I would Say the Riley 1.5 is comfortable, fast and very road-worthy when modified at a cost of less than £20, easy to park and drive, and, if carefully run-in, is virtually trouble-free. I am, Yours, etc.,

Peterborough. S. A. Comic. • • *