Wolseley 1500 vs Singer Gazelle: middleweights for middle England

Never miss an issue of Classic & Sports Car and save money when you subscribe! Check out their latest offers

Genteel cars for gentlefolk, that was the sales pitch for the 1500 and the Gazelle.

These were well-appointed mid-size saloons for those who could afford something more than a basic Minor or Minx, and wanted something with a touch of class.

There was no need for anything sporting – heavens, no – but a modest aura of sub-Rover luxury would do nicely, provided the price were not too high.

This low-mileage Wolseley feels taut

A compact body would suffice, as would an engine neither too big nor too small; something around that sweet spot of 1500cc would be ideal.

Conveyances for older people? Quite likely, if my childhood memories of these cars in the 1960s are any guide.

This was Wolseley’s natural constituency, neatly encapsulated for the pipe-puffing classes in the marque’s motto: ‘Buy Wisely – Buy Wolseley.’

Then-parent the Nuffield Organization had missed the target with the overpriced and underpowered 4/50, but had regained customers with the elegant 4/44 and its successor the 15/50.

But what the sales network was crying out for was a modern ‘Wolseley Ten’ – something a bit smaller than the Palmer-designed saloons but with the same-sized 1250-1500cc engine.

Although the Wolseley 1500 is less powerful than the Singer, it’s 122kg lighter

The answer came in a roundabout way.

Minor owners had long complained about the lack of a decent engine for the small Morris.

After the Austin-Morris merger, BMC accordingly developed a rebodied Minor that was intended to have a 1200cc version of the corporate B-series unit.

But the Minor’s market share carried on holding up nicely; further to this, 1956 would bring a vastly improved 948cc engine that at last gave the Morris acceptable performance and further boosted sales.

So was there any need to replace the evidently still competitive Issigonis design?

BMC had a rethink.

Wolseley dealers wanted their ‘New Ten’ and Riley agents wanted something – anything – that was more saleable than the Pathfinder that was all they could offer.

At the rear, the Wolseley houses a decent boot, with separate stowage for a spare wheel

A neat solution would be to tart-up the would-be Minor replacement with some wood and leather, pop in the 1489cc B-series, in two different tunes, and – hey presto! – sell the car as a Wolseley and a Riley to solve both problems.

So was born the Wolseley 1500, launched in April 1957 with a single-carb 43bhp engine and followed in November by the twin-carb 62bhp Riley One-point-Five.

Right to the last, there was thought of a pared-down Morris version, still with the 1200cc power unit; this eventually saw service in Australia, only with the 1489cc engine, as the Morris Major and Austin Lancer.

The Rootes Group arrived at the same place by a more direct route.

It had the sporting side of the market covered by the Sunbeam marque – or Sunbeam-Talbot, as it was until 1954.

But there was no Rootes equivalent to Wolseley.

The purchase of Singer in 1955 changed all that.

The Wolseley’s nicely appointed dashboard has two gloveboxes

There was no point in keeping Singer’s dead-in-the-water Hunter and Roadster in production, and Rootes had no money to develop a stand­alone Singer, even had it wanted to do so.

But adding plusher trim to the upcoming Audax Minx would provide the mid-market brand the combine was lacking, and keep the Singer name alive.

So it was that in September 1956 Rootes announced the Gazelle – complete, for a while, with the single-overhead-cam Singer engine.

With the arrival of the Series IIA Gazelle in August 1958, this venerable unit was replaced by the pushrod 1494cc motor from the Minx, in single-Solex form developing 56bhp.

At £796 in ’58, the Wolseley was £102 cheaper than the Gazelle IIA, but the two were still close competitors – because of their similar specs but also because, enviably, no other models occupied this niche.

Both were resolutely conventional rear-drive designs, with semi-elliptics at the rear and drums all-round.

Based on the Minor, the Wolseley inherited many of the Morris’ mechanicals

Being based on the Minor floorpan, the 1500 inherited the torsion-bar front suspension and rack steering of the Morris, along with its lever-arm dampers at front and rear.

The Gazelle, meanwhile, had a coil-and-wishbone front, complete with anti-roll bar, and boasted telescopic dampers at all four corners.

It made do, however, with steering by box, this being recirculating ball from the IIA onwards.

The two cars did well for their makers.

By the time that the Wolseley was withdrawn in 1965, an impressive 103,394 had been made, against just 39,568 One-point-Fives.

That made it the best-selling car in Wolseley’s history.

Rootes wasn’t far behind, building 83,061 Series I-VI Gazelles, the last in 1966.

As with the Wolseley, the Singer outsold its supposedly more desirable sporting sister, albeit by a smaller margin, a total of 66,809 Audax Rapiers being constructed.

Wolseley’s 1500 (left) looks tall and conservative next to the Singer Gazelle’s bright modernity

Put the two together, and you see two very different styles of vehicle.

Gerald Walker’s ’61 Wolseley looks tall, narrow and conservatively old-maidish – although both cars are the same height and width, give or take a fraction of an inch.

Launched just a year before the revolutionary square-cut Farina A40, the BMC car’s staid lines show how off-the-boil had become the company’s design studios at Longbridge.

No wonder 1500 sales would taper away during the ’60s.

Andrew McAdam’s 1960 SIIIA Gazelle, meanwhile, has a bright Americanised modernity about it, aided by the subtle roll-over rear fins introduced in late 1959 with this generation of Audax Minxes and Gazelles.

As we’ve said, the Singer is not leaner and lower, but it is longer than the Wolseley, by exactly a foot.

The interiors send out the same message: that of the Wolseley being quaintly old-fashioned, that of the Singer more airy and crisply contemporary.

You can quibble about the mismatch of the veneers, but the 1500’s dash is a nicely integrated piece of work, and incorporates dials with classically elegant faces, while the chrome-rimmed switches and dished wire-spoke wheel are equally charming.

The Singer Gazelle has an Americanised look about it

In contrast, the Gazelle’s timberwork might be neatly mirrored, but it is so manifestly add-on and has that characteristically Rootes over-glossed finish.

The dials have brasher lettering and there is a gruesomely fake woodgrain finish to the heater/radio console.

In brief, there’s a more naturally classy feel to the Wolseley, even though Walker’s car, a lower-cost Fleet model, lacks the leather trim of regular 1500s.

Both cars are just about adequate four-seaters, and feel to have about the same amount of rear legroom – although figures show the vynide-trimmed Singer to be more generous here, as well as offering more internal width.

The boots of the two cars are a good size, which is a rewarding practical bonus.

Slip into the slightly low-set bucket seat of the Wolseley, and you discover a usable get-in-and-go machine, demanding no acclimitisation even for someone who might have just a nodding acquaintance with old cars.

Aided by a smooth hydraulic clutch, the notchy, short-throw gearlever slots in sweetly every time, with a pleasant metallic click as you go through the gate. The steering is delicious.

This Gazelle has a front bench with an armrest, although separate seats were an option

Quick, free of play and perfectly weighted, it allows you to hold the car effortlessly on its line and corner at a decent lick.

You couldn’t call the engine refined; it’s a tad coarse, even, until you throttle back.

But it pulls well, despite a relatively high final drive, and can cope with top from a little over 20mph.

What this means is that progress cross-country is brisk and unflustered, with no need for continual gearchanging.

It’s happy doing 50mph and at an indicated 60mph the Wolseley is still unstressed, with power in reserve: the car is working much less hard than even a 1098cc Minor, latterly part of its mission.

An output of 43bhp might not be a lot, but maximum torque, at 74lb ft, is up by roughly 50% on that of a 948cc Minor, even if it comes in 500rpm later, at 3000rpm.

It also pays to bear in mind that the Wolseley might be frumpy, but with a kerb weight of 2061lb (935kg) it’s not all that lardy: it tips the scales a full 270lb (122kg) lighter than the Singer.

With optional overdrive on third and top, the Gazelle can hit 70mph with ease

The 1500 corners flatly and, despite the extra weight of the B-series engine relative to the Minor’s A-series, there is no noticeable nose-heaviness even when driving vigorously.

There’s a bit of jounce on undulating surfaces, but the Wolseley generally rides well.

Uncorrupted by a servo, the brakes are firm, take up immediately, and give instant check braking along with effective stopping from speed.

Indeed, the 1500 is a car of relatively firm inputs all-round – giving a pleasant harmony to the controls.

Moving to the Gazelle, the first point to make is that if you had bought a Series IIIA, current only for the ’60 model year, you had struck lucky.

By a strange aberration of product planning, the IIIA alone had a 60bhp twin-carb engine and a Rapier close-ratio ’box.

That made it almost as quick as the Sunbeam, which didn’t make much sense and, after just one season, the IIIA was replaced by the IIIB with a 56bhp single-carb unit.

Whatever the engine, the pushrod Gazelles were also available with an optional overdrive, operating on third and top – as on McAdam’s car.

The lively, all-iron engine is smooth and crisp

It’s a package that can only give the Singer a performance advantage over the born-to-be-mild Wolseley, and so it proves.

The Gazelle’s engine is smoother, revvier, and really is sprightly, with crisp responses that enable the Singer to hit 70mph with ease, in overdrive top and still accelerating strongly.

Impressively, the overdrive does not rob the car of performance, despite dropping engine speed noticeably.

Over the same roads, you find yourself doing 5-10mph more than in the Wolseley.

McAdam sings the praises of the IIIA, which he regards as flexible without being too low geared, and perfectly set-up for long-distance cruising.

He also says that the 1494cc engine is sweeter than the subsequent 1592cc and 1725cc units.

Nor is it any hardship to exploit this performance.

The clutch is smooth and there’s a sportily short-throw gearlever – although a column change could be specified.

The unservoed brakes come in more softly – lacking the immediacy of those on the Wolseley – but are up to the job.

Despite the Singer’s flexible engine, it’s trumped by the Wolseley in the steering department

Yet if the Singer makes a convincing case with its drivetrain, it doesn’t have it all its own way.

The steering is slower and less communicative than that of the Wolseley, while, despite a front anti-roll bar, the Gazelle leans more and rides in a softer and slightly under-damped fashion.

The Singer holds the road well enough, although it feels bigger and less poised than the Wolseley – albeit more modern, faster and ultimately more sporting, at least as far as performance goes.

Which to choose? In some ways the Singer is identifiably superior – and from youthful experience, I know how these cars can be dramatically improved by fitting Koni dampers or similar.

As it stands, though, the Wolseley may lack the Singer’s verve but it has its own sporting side, thanks to its crisp steering and general tautness of feel.

It also has a certain old-fashionedness that I find appealing, and for me that tips the balance in the BMC car’s favour.

Others, of course, might be tempted by the Singer’s more contemporary character, and vote differently.

Images: Tony Baker

Thanks to: the Wolseley Register; the Wolseley Owners’ Club; the Association of Singer Car Owners and the Singer Owners’ Club

This is from our October 2014 magazine; all information was correct at the date of original publication

The Singer (right) and the Wolseley remained largely the same and received few updates during their lives

Both the Singer and the Wolseley changed little during their lifetimes.

The 1500 in particular underwent barely more than a few minor cosmetic tweaks.

In May 1960, the bonnet and boot gained concealed hinges; in October 1961, the model was given lowered suspension, new side grilles with round indicator/sidelight units, and Austin A40 Farina tail-lights; for 1963, there was a stiffer crankshaft and a stronger gearbox, albeit still with an unsynchronised first gear.

As for the Singer, after the overhead-cam Series I and Series II Gazelles and the physically identical pushrod Series III, the Series IIIA received roll-over fins and a larger front windscreen, as well as having the twin-carb engine.

After the single-carb but otherwise unchanged IIIB of August 1960 to July ’61, the IIIC of the ’62 and ’63 seasons had a 53bhp 1592cc engine.

This was carried over to the Series V, introduced in September 1963, which had a revised square-roof glasshouse, plus front discs and 13in wheels, along with a new dash.

An all-synchro ’box came in for ’65 and, for the Audax Gazelle’s last year, the Series VI had a 1725cc engine and a new lowline grille.

Convertible Gazelles were available until February 1962, and estates in Series II through to Series IIIC formats.

Enjoy more of the world’s best classic car content every month when you subscribe to C&SC – get their latest deals here

READ MORE

The battle for middle England: Rover 3-Litre vs Wolseley 6/99

Keeping up appearances: Ford vs Vauxhall vs Hillman vs Singer vs Humber vs Riley

Also in my garage: a fascination for the ’50s

Tired after eating? Here’s why, and how to fix it

Sign up for CNN’s Eat, But Better: Mediterranean Style. Their eight-part guide shows you a delicious expert-backed eating lifestyle that will boost your health for life.

CNN  — 

After a busy morning, lunch can feel like just the pick-me-up you need — but sometimes the meal you thought would energize you is the very thing that makes you want to nap at your desk.

“As a registered dietitian (nutritionist), I’ve heard people say that often over my career, so I think it’s fairly common for people to have that response,” said Julie Stefanski, a spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

Feeling tired after lunch, or post meals in general, is known as postprandial somnolence — or, colloquially, the food coma.

Part of this phenomenon is due to basic physiology: When humans eat, most of their blood goes to the digestive organs to process the food, said Sandra Arévalo, director of community health and wellness at Montefiore Nyack Hospital in New York state and national spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

After a person eats, the body might produce more serotonin, a neurotransmitter that regulates sleep and mood — especially if the food was high in the essential amino acid tryptophan, which is found in proteins such as chicken, cheese and fish, according to the Cleveland Clinic.

The tendency to get tired after eating isn’t inherently suggestive of something amiss. However, you might think of it as a problem due to cultural norms, particularly in the United States, that “fight against their natural processes” by mandating productivity instead of rest when the body needs it, Stefanski said. “I always think about Spain and people that have told me when they visited places where they do take a siesta,” she added.

But there can be additional factors that exacerbate this natural response, making getting through the rest of the workday or any activities feel like a slog. Here’s what to watch out for and how to make adjustments.

When it comes to why you feel overly tired after eating, a common cause is consuming meals that are heavy in terms of quantity or quality.

Some people overeat instead of stopping when they feel comfortably satiated, especially if they’re distracted by multitasking. Not eating breakfast can also lead to overindulging later in the day if excessive hunger makes controlling your appetite difficult, Arévalo said.

READ MORE: The foods you should eat to jump-start your morning, and 2 recipes to try out

“Someone that feels very tired after a meal might consider looking at slowing down their eating and cutting back on their portions a little bit to the point that they’re not overeating,” Stefanski said. “Because no matter what you eat — whether it’s carbs, fat, protein — if you eat a lot more than what your body is designed to handle, your body’s going to spend a long time digesting that food.”

If you can’t always step away from whatever you’re doing to be present with your meal, taking even just five minutes to do so can help, experts said.

Sometimes, however, the makeup of certain foods can contribute to tiredness. Fats are the hardest nutrient to digest because their molecules are much larger than those of protein or carbs, Stefanski and Arévalo said. If you had a meal high in fat — such as fried foods or pizza — that could make you feel tired. Meals high in added sugar or refined or highly processed carbohydrates can have the same effect because of how the body metabolizes these items versus sugar or carbs in natural or minimally processed foods.

The fiber in so-called whole foods slows the absorption of sugar into the body, which means they don’t cause blood sugar or insulin spikes and instead give you more stable, lasting energy, said Kristin Kirkpatrick, a registered dietitian at the Cleveland Clinic.

If your lunch mostly consists of carbs and then dessert on top of that, your blood sugar and insulin levels can rapidly increase.

Then, “a lot of times your blood sugar drops below where you originally started from,” Kirkpatrick said. “That can really be an energy zapper.”

Just like high-sugar foods, sugary drinks can also make you feel tired once the crash hits, Stefanski said. Additionally, alcohol is a sedative, so if you’re commonly having alcoholic beverages with lunch, abstaining is one of the first places to start, she added.

Choosing more balanced meals and snacks can help you feel less tired after eating, experts said. That could look like a bean-based soup and a salad with an olive oil-balsamic vinegar dressing; lean proteins such as salmon, white chicken meat or beans; and other toppings that aren’t high in sugar, Kirkpatrick said. A whole-grain wrap with white turkey meat, cheese and vegetables is another option. And if you’re in a pinch, try having an apple with nut butter instead of grabbing a candy bar. Packing your own food can help you refrain from grazing on vending machine snacks, fast food or free office doughnuts.

READ MORE: When you should eat to fuel your workout

“A five-minute walk or something helps to improve circulation and alertness, as well,” Arévalo said.

Sleep regulates your hormones, including your digestive ones, according to Kirkpatrick. And if you’re sleep-deprived, your body’s likely to suppress the hormone called leptin that signals “I’m full and don’t need any more” or elevate ghrelin, the hormone that commands “feed me,” she explained. Being insufficiently rested can also negatively affect your decision-making skills, emotional regulation and a brain region that regulates food intake, making it harder to resist cravings for highly palatable foods.

You can improve your sleep by making sure you sleep for seven to nine hours per night in an environment that’s cool, dark and quiet. Avoid drinking caffeine at least six hours before your usual bedtime or drinking alcohol before bed. Having a wind-down routine and reserving your bedroom for sleep and sex only can also help.

For some people, post-meal fatigue can signal something more serious.

“Statistics show right now that a lot of people in the US have diabetes or prediabetes and don’t know it,” Stefanski said. When someone can’t properly metabolize carbs and therefore has a high amount of insulin in the blood, that can diminish energy levels, she added.

If you regularly feel drowsy after eating even after making dietary adjustments, ask your doctor to administer the hemoglobin A1c test. The test measures average blood sugar levels and shows how much glucose is attached to hemoglobin in red blood cells, Stefanski said.

“If that’s high,” she said, “it shows that your body is struggling to metabolize food and metabolize carbohydrates.”