Jowett 7hp falcon weight

[MartinRaine]

Hi could anyone tell me the weight of my Jowett falcone 1935, or a kestral. as i need to know for my trailer weights.

[Tony Fearn]

Helo Martin,

I'm sorry i don't have the answer to your question, but I'm glad you are using JowettTalk, and welcome to it.

George knows all about these esoteric bits and pieces, but if he doesn't, perhaps someone else does. If not, then perhaps a visit to a friendly re-cycling site might just be what you need.

They usually weigh in and out the refuse lorries.

Tony.

[george garside]

thhe 1935 Culew was quoted by The Autocar as weighing 16 cwt 2 qr 28 lbs ( or 16 cwt 82 lb) ready for the road. The Falcon may be a few pounds less as minus free wheel & less plush trim. Therefore for trailer capacity 161/2 ccwt would seem to be plenty. ( I asssume you are talking about the cars weight for transporting on a trailer rather than what it will tow.

For what its worth the Falcon is a 1936 only model, replacing the 1935 standard saloon. Of course as the 1936 models started Oct 1935 it could well have been registered in 1935 but belongs to the 1936 model year (Oct - Sep)

george

[k. rogers]

I find it odd that Jowett never seemed to give weights in the spec section of their brochures pre-war - it would make life much easier when the MoT man needs to work out brake efficiency and for towing purposes. Also most of the road test reports I have seen give the weight including driver which isn't much help, either! I would love to know the weights of my Weasel and Kingfisher; I would guess they're around 13cwt each, the former being an aluminium bodied tourer and the latter having the lighter ladder chassis and some ally panels - what do you reckon, George?

[george garside]

the following are probably unladen weights but may include full fuel tank & tools i.e. everything exept people.This is to a degree confirmed by some cross references to JCl specs. Most are Aauatocar , vans commercial motor which are definately unladen weights.

1923 2 seater 8.5cwt
4 " 10.5cwt

1926 saloon 12cwt

1929 short saloon 2 wheel brake (The Motor) 13.5 cwt with 2 people ( minus?3cwt for 2 people = 10.5cwt)

1930 saloon 13.5 cwt

1939 jowett catalogue short sal 11.5cwt long 2 11cwt, long 4 11.5ccwt long saloon 13.5 cwt

1932 saloon 14 cwt (both autocar & motor)

1933 kestrel 15.75 cwt

1934 kestrel 15.25 cwt

1935 curlew 16.75 cwt ( cross braced chassis starts here)

1938 8 autocar 17. cwt motor 16.8 cwt

1939 8 16.5 cwt

1940 8 16.5cwt Jowett catalogue figure

1930 van 12 cwt

1934 van 11.75 cwt

1936 van 11.75cwt


4 cyl
1935 jason 18.5 cwt ( autocar & light car)

1938 18.5 cwt

bradford
CB van 14cwt

CC de lux (motor) 17cwt

my guess is that the Weazel woould come in around 2 to3 cwt less than the curlew i.e. 13 to 14 cwt due to lighter body |& reduction in glass.

[k. rogers]

Thank you George, I knew you would come up trumps! This is really useful info. It is food for thought when you consider the difference between the 32 Saloon and the 35 Curlew was the equivalent of a pretty hefty bloke or 2 smaller grown ups - yet with virtually no increase in bhp, I suspect!

[george garside]

Its interesting to look at the 'performance data' for 1932 long saloon & 35 Curlew. over a quarter mile, 10 to 30 in top was 1932 16.5 sec & 1935 21.5 sec so the extra weight seems sto effect the acceleration but certailny not max speed. as the Curlew was faster than the lighter '32 car (see below).

This raises the ;question as to whether the twin produced 17 bhp throughout the '30's or perhaps a bit more as the uyeaars went by. I have also often wondered if the 17bhp was in fact only 17bhp as it was measured on Horace Grimlays -home made brake that he constru;cted in ?1921 & which he told me was not entirely accurate in absolute terms but which was useful for measuring anyu ikmprovement in comparative terms.

As far as max speed the weight put on in the 30's seems to have had little effect

32 50.56mph
'33 kestrel 52.6mph
34 kestrel 54.2mph
35 Curlew 54.55
'38 8 48.39 nearly a cwt heavier than the Curlew
'39 8 56.35 same weigt as Curlew & possibly fitted with some 1940 engine features as it was tested by autocar on7
July only 2 months before 1940 model was due. Autocar described it as having 'modifications recently made' including alloy heads, higher compression ratio,double valve springs, redesigned induction pipe & HIGH LIFT CAMSHAFT. nONE OF THESE WERE MENTIONED WHEN THE 39 MODEL RANGE WAS INTRODUCED so this car may have been something of a testbed for the 1940 model which had in addition new crankshaft , borg & beck clutch, vacuum ignition advance & enclosed bellhousing ( to fit sychro box)

the 'high lift camshaft & revised induction pipe (4stud flanges & thermostat housing) were probably carried forward on the CA Bradford & so the '39 8 tested would presumably be knocking o;ut a full 19bhp!! an increase of no less than 12%!!

,

[Tony Fearn]

George knows all about these esoteric bits and pieces,.

Quod erat demonstrandum!!

Thanks George

[MartinRaine]

Hi thanks for all the info, this will now determine what tipe of tow car i need. Thanks martin