Interceptor wonderings

Post by **soggykitkat** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:42 pm

Hi Kevin,

The idea behind buying the ASBO for Lisa was to prove it's cheaper to run a 36 year old car than a brand new one. Without petrol, insurance, tax or servicing costs, our Lexus had a depreciation cost of approximately xxx£70 per week, just sitting on the drive. When the time comes to sell the ASBO, we should hopefully get back about what we paid for it. The servicing is done by myself, sometimes helped out by others (Steve Payne), the insurance is a lot cheaper and the road tax is free.

True she only gets about 7mpg around town but she puts a lot less than xxx£70 per week in petrol into it. So the reality is that she has swapped depreciation for a huge grin on her face.

If you are not doing too many miles in a week, the maths stack up in favour of a 7.2 litre, 36 year old car over a new car.

Post by **Keith** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:43 pm

That's a terrific story Mr Cullen, very worthy of the JOC Magazine!

So get those pics and a longer version of the story into my inbox please!

Post by **Kevin Ainsworth** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:50 am

Thanks for all the replies, daily I ride a motorcycle and, assuming a slight trim in the number of Healeys I think we will go for it based on the fact that if one is found tax free then there is little harm in it resting in the garage for special occasions..... (trying to limit the number of "special Occasions" might become an issue as I am sure it will be hard to resist!

That just leaves the problem of three children and only four seats - neatly avoided by the Healeys and GT headroom

So heres hoping, will keep you posted of any outcome

colin7673 · Post by **colin7673** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:16 am

So you going to jump in, go with both feet and you really won't look back.

It's one of those thing's that when you have one, you will wonder how you got on with out one.

It really is a way of life.....

Davenewby · Post by **Davenewby** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:19 am

Yes Kevin, go for it, BUT, please, please, don't neglect the Jensen-Healeys

David

Post by **Kevin Ainsworth** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:56 am

David

Dont worry, I bought my first JH in 1985 regreted selling it and cant ever imagine being without at one again - besides my youngest has already asked for one to be repainted Pink so that she can drive it when I am too old to bend down that far!!!!!!!!!!

CrAzYMoPaRGuY · Post by **CrAzYMoPaRGuY** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:15 am

I must be one of the odd ones, I have had 440 powered cars for decades, most of them 2x4bbl, and not one dipped into single digit MPG numbers...
My work truck was a 440HP with head work, a fair sized cam and 2x4bbl tunnel ram intake, it had 4.10 gears and 29" tall tires, it was 12mpg overall.

My Demon was a 2x4bbl 440 with higher compression, headwork etc and it got 15-18mpg on the highway with a pretty steep gear, it's mileage would drop like a stone if my foot was into it, but normal driving would net 12mpg all around usually also... and it passed our AirCare emissions standards easily with no detuning whatsoever.....
I built the engine myself. Shiny on the outside, but very simple as far as mods go really, it was much milder than it appeared.

Post by **Steve Payne** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:23 am

Crazy

I would guess you good gas mileage is probably down to the lack of traffic you have compared to us.

Once in top gear and cruising these cars are not to bad but idling in traffic plays havoc with those averages. I got caught in a traffic jam on the M25 last year for 4 hours and used 3/4 of a tank doing less than 40 miles.

Steve

CrAzYMoPaRGuY · Post by **CrAzYMoPaRGuY** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:51 am

Steve Payne wrote:Crazy

I would guess you good gas mileage is probably down to the lack of traffic you have compared to us.

Once in top gear and cruising these cars are not to bad but idling in traffic plays havoc with those averages. I got caught in a traffic jam on the M25 last year for 4 hours and used 3/4 of a tank doing less than 40 miles.

Steve

We aren't terrible for traffic so it could very well be....
I was getting near 20mpg on the highway with my Coupe and it was a 440 2x4bbl, we are Imperial gallons and that was a 60mph cruise.... 3.23 gears and 27" tall tires.

Glaffy · Post by **Glaffy** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:17 am

I've been using my Interceptor every day since I bought it in 2004 and, previously, used my FFII on a daily basis from 1994 - 2004. Once I uograded the cooling system and overhauled the electrics, both cars proved to be very reliable and I can't face driving a modern car now.

My FFII had the E series 383 engine and my current Int has the 440. Of the two, I prefer the 440 because it's quieter and feels more torquey. The 383 had more of a bark, but the extra weight of the FF blunted the performance.

My friends and family think I'm a nut for driving a Jensen on a daily basis, but at least you all understand....!

Post by **RAP72** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:15 am

Glaffy wrote:
My friends and family think I'm a nut for driving a Jensen on a daily basis, but at least you all understand....!

But on this forum you are Normal

CrAzYMoPaRGuY · Post by **CrAzYMoPaRGuY** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:05 pm

One thing I notice that is Jensen specific in nature it seems- the 383 seems to be regarded as the more "raw power" engine.
I'm not gonna tell you it's the other way around here, but very few people would look at a 383 over a 440 as far as performance goes over here.... from what I've experienced anyways.

It seems to me the pre-smog 383s were fitted to the Interceptors, then when the switch to 440s were made it was during the "8.2 smogger" years. Which seems to me to be why the preference for the 383s *might* be...?

Post by **Joerg** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:09 pm

Crazy

You are right and most of our friends from the isle never touch their engine to give it the power that is hidden under all the anti - smog - stuff.

440 ruels!

Joerg

Julian_S · Post by **Julian_S** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:59 am

#112/2371 wrote:Crazy

You are right and most of our friends from the isle never touch their engine to give it the power that is hidden under all the anti - smog - stuff.

440 ruels!

Joerg

That's an issue that I can't understand. The engine is without doubt the best part of the car, to leave it standard and operating in an asphyxiated strangled condition should be made a criminal offense. Modification is so easy, the engine is a dream to work on.

440 rules - agreed, but 500 is better, there's no substitute for cubic inches!

Julian.

bobclevenger · Post by **bobclevenger** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:21 am

Well, even though I agree completely that some modifications are desirable, I understand the position of those who wish to maintain their classic car as close to factory stock as possible. So if you want a fast Interceptor that is factory-original, look for a 383 or an early SP.

But... if power is more important to you than originality, go with a modified 440.

I have driven a much-modified 361 (later bored to 372), equally-modified 383s, nearly-stock 383s, and a moderately-modified 440. All were in cars nearly the weight of an Interceptor. Most were with A-833 4-speed manual gearboxes, though there was an occasional Torqueflite (both cast iron and aluminium versions), one B&M Hydro-Stick, and one 3-speed manual (that kept breaking). The moderately-modified (3x2bbl intake, 284Â° hydraulic cam, 12.5:1 pistons with large-chamber heads to give about 11:1 compression) 440 hooked to an A-833 was the fastest of the lot.

Nothing I could do to a 383 short of supercharging it could give me the power that I got from that 440. I could get more horsepower per cubic inch from the 383, but not more total horsepower. and certainly not nearly so much torque.

Being the proud owner of a LHD SP I confront this "Originality vs. Practicality" dilemma on a regular basis.