Talk:Ford Anglia

Untitled
"The new styling was matched by a new engine, something that the smaller Fords had been needing for some time - a 997cc overhead-valve straight-4. Acceleration from rest was still, by the standards of today, sluggish, but it was much improved from earlier cars"

I had the pleasure to drove an Anglia with the 997 engine for one week 7 or 8 years ago (the car wasn't restored). The brakes were a real nightmare by today standards. But the engine was marvelous. 39 hp in such a light car can give nice accelerations.

The 997 engine was tuned by Cosworth in a F3 engine giving around 100 hp, the best of its time.

Ericd 22:19, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I drove one once and remember it being not so bad as other vehicles of the time, but not speedy either. Of course, having been in the US for the last six years may have skewed my judgment. Recent American - market cars are rather more engined than the equivalent European -- a function of cheap fuel and manufacturers having finally worked out how to get performance out of a emissions-controlled vehicle.

To say nothing of how driving a '67 seven-litre Thunderbird regularly is making it feel very odd driving a modern car lately ...

Of course, it could just have been that the Anglia I drove was rather badly out of tune and thereby more sluggish!

Morven 23:09, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Despite the fact that that european cars are getting larger and american engine are getting smaller there's still a serious gap between the American market and the European market. A small car for an American will be considered as medium or large here

The Anglia was a low-end car at the time it was in competition with the Mini on the English market. The Anglia was not speedy at all top speed may have been less than 120 km/h.

But compared to modern small cars the Anglia (or the Mini) are sometime more pleasurable (OK they're noisy by today standards and the brakes are obsolete) to drive under 80 km/h and give similar or better accelerations.

Modern cars are build with motorways in mind. There generally heavier for passive security.

Most manufacturers use rather large engines (around 1,3 L while in the sixties low-end cars were powered by less than 1 L engines) running at low rpm. The gearbox is also very different modern car have long ratio for motorway and fuel efficiency I think the 4th on an Anglia will be between the 3th and the 4th on a modern 5 gearbox on a similar car. Combined with obsolete aerodynamics it a real pain to drive such a car on a motorway.

In another category. I still have a 1,8 L 1983 Golf GTI (I love this car). Compared to a modern 1,8 L GTI the evolution is obvious : the new one is at least 50 cm longer, my old GTI is more nervous under 90-100 km/h but the new one is at least 30 km/h faster at top speed. Except for noise and fuel consumption I prefer my old GTI it makes me more respectuous of speed limits :-). Ericd 10:57, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think American car sizes are these days about one larger than European. A small car for an American is something around Ford Escort sized, in general, which is the second or third step up in the average European car range. Of course, there are a few smaller than that available in the US, but not many.

They definitely weren't thinking of motorways when they built the Anglia and most small to mid-sized British cars of the era. As you say, even 4th gear is definitely not that high on them, more suited to A-roads of the period. Only things like Jaguars etc. of the era seem to have been really made to be comfortable at modern motorway speeds of 70-100 mph.

American cars of the Sixties are different because freeways were already fairly well established by then. My Thunderbird has NO trouble keeping up with modern traffic. Being a high-geared almost-luxury cruiser, in fact, it's happier on the freeway; though it has a big engine, it's not really geared for off-the-line acceleration (though a 428 engine means it's not quite sluggish there either). It really starts being happy over 50mph and it accelerates hard between 60 to 80 and beyond. I've had it up to 110 with little effort. People on the mailing list I'm on for them have had them up past 130mph in unmodified form. It's the rare (non performance targeted) car that's if anything over-engined for the task.

I would love to have a GTi from that period, though; definitely an enjoyable car to drive. I had a non-GTi 1.8 a while back (back in England) and enjoyed it a lot. I'm not sure the boulevards and freeways of Southern California would be the best place to enjoy one, though.

Morven 13:49, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * This is not a discussion forum. The Anglia had three speeds and a usable top speed of about 70 km/h - perfectly acceptable for rambling around B roads.203.39.81.92 (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

American Drag Racing
In the late 60's early 70's, Anglia's were a common sight in USA quarter mile drag racing, heavily modified for speed. A quick search on flickr will turn up hundreds of classic photos. Hanz ofbyotch (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"twenty four year old twins Tony and Michael Brookes"
This info has been added several times, both here, and on at least one other page - Ford Corsair - but I'm unable to corroborate it. True, a Google search does bring up a few links that include the phrase, but it's such a close match that I'm pretty convinced that the source came from Wikipedia itself - this one for example - so until a reliable source appears, it shouldn't be added. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This piece has been added by Michael Brookes, one of the drivers on the Corsair GT World Record run in May 1964. Corroboration can be obtained from page 127 of the Monza official year book of 1965. I do not know why the facts are continually being disputed as to origin. The article is accurate with one exception G Boxall was not a driver but the engineering leader. Furthermore some of the records still stand and can be located in the FIA records.


 * Except Worldbruce has given us another source which he says dates back to 1962.  It's not an online source and I cannot easily check it.   Nor, I suspect, can you.   But Worldbruce looks like a serious editor, and his apparently hubristic choice of user name presumably comes from a well developed sense of irony and not from an ambition towards word domination .... well anyhow, I think his edit history speaks for itself.


 * I do sympathize with your point that originally it looked as though we were going round and round in circles with a statement that originated in wikipedia.  I've no idea if it did or not, but I am sorry that I had not spotted the possibility for myself.   And I am glad that you did.   But I think the 1962 source rather trumps that.


 * The original discussion was exacerbated because we were dealing with someone who has evidently not so much experience contributing to wikipedia and is not familiar with all the unwritten (and other) assumptions by which we operate.  But that does not make him a bad person!   You need to give people like that the benefit of the doubt because of (1) human courtesy (2) I'm sure there's a wiki guideline somewhere about good faith and (3) we've all been there.   Not to put too fine a point on it, after you and I and Worldbruce have lost the will to wiki-live, it is important that there will be a successor generation to keep on making wikipedia bigger and better (unless you wish it to be set in aspic, which .... no, of course you don't)


 * I don't know why I've just given this matter three more little paras, because I think that everyone involved probably could use our wiki time better.  But somehow I guess a change of focus can be refreshing.   Anyhow, it was on my mind, and my mind doesn't always operate logically.   (Actually ... I think that in this respect, if in few others, I am more or less "normal".)


 * Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * WorldBruce came into the fray after I posted the above. I see that the claim has since been corroborated by a rarely watched Youtube video.  Now, I know that Youtube is not generally considered a reliable source, but I downloaded and watched it myself.  It's actually a very good way to pass 14 minutes of time.  Fascinating slice of history.


 * Anyhoo, I only objected to the lack of sourcing and continued insertion without source or commentary. Now it has a source, I have nothing against its insertion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Anglia A494A (Australia: 1949–1953)
This section describes the available engines in terms of x KW (y HP) However, the horsepower figure is the tax or fiscal horsepower rating, not the actual power output, so this ought to be changed to something more meaningful, or the KW figures deleted. Emmajnation (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)