115 replies to this topic

[mab01uk]

Ford did this rather than chase a wide range of engines for a wide range of similar sized cars, which is what BMC did. Then BMC were competing more with themselves than with Ford & GM (e.g. Spitfire v Midget/Sprite, Dolomite v Maxi v Marina, Triumph 2000 v Rover 2000).

 

Never understood why BL allowed Triumph to waste money developing their troublesome V8 engine for the Stag, when BL already had the very reliable Rover V8 engine which many Stag owners later transplanted into their Stags to gain reliability!

Edited by mab01uk, 19 June 2018 - 11:09 PM.

[EasterBern]

 

Ford did this rather than chase a wide range of engines for a wide range of similar sized cars, which is what BMC did. Then BMC were competing more with themselves than with Ford & GM (e.g. Spitfire v Midget/Sprite, Dolomite v Maxi v Marina, Triumph 2000 v Rover 2000).

 

Never understood why BL allowed Triumph to waste money developing their troublesome V8 engine for the Stag, when BL already had the very reliable Rover V8 engine which many Stag owners later transplanted into their Stags to gain reliability!

 

I guess it was all to do with timing.

 

Leyland bought Rover in '67 (IIRC), Triumph's slant 4 and the sister V8 were well into development (the slant 4 may have already been in production for SAAB). Although the Rover V8 was all alloy, it was a pushrod engine whereas Triumphs was OHC so in some respects a more modern design. They wouldn't have known it was troublesome at the time, though they would've done had they tested it thoroughly rather than letting the customers do it!

[paulrockliffe]

Really interesting subject.  I've wondered a few times why the SPI and MPI persisted with the A-Series engine, when it's relatively easy to drop a different engine in the car for a man in a garage, let alone a proper motor company.  I guess politics.

[Icey]

Really interesting subject.  I've wondered a few times why the SPI and MPI persisted with the A-Series engine, when it's relatively easy to drop a different engine in the car for a man in a garage, let alone a proper motor company.  I guess politics.

 

It's easy for a man in a garage because he only has to do one.

 

Changing factory tooling to build thousands is a significantly bigger challenge. And because it would likely require changes to major structural components it would probably need to be submitted for various crash tests again.

 

Put that to a background of a cash starved manufacturer and you have your reasons why they only every tinkered around the edges.

Edited by Icey, 20 June 2018 - 11:13 AM.

[EasterBern]

Plus it had no real competitors by the 90s, so it had a class leading engine anyway!!

[paulrockliffe]

That's one way of looking at it I suppose!

 

Surely the factory would do it the same way a man in a garage does - buy the engine in ready to go.  A new front subframe design isn't going to be a huge deal.  I don't know the ins and outs, but could the crash testing not be done simply by using the same mount points and being able to show that the new frame is broadly the same as the existing frame?

 

I know it's not dead straightforward to industrialise, but it shouldn't have been a massive job either.

[Mite]

 

Ford did this rather than chase a wide range of engines for a wide range of similar sized cars, which is what BMC did. Then BMC were competing more with themselves than with Ford & GM (e.g. Spitfire v Midget/Sprite, Dolomite v Maxi v Marina, Triumph 2000 v Rover 2000).

 

Never understood why BL allowed Triumph to waste money developing their troublesome V8 engine for the Stag, when BL already had the very reliable Rover V8 engine which many Stag owners later transplanted into their Stags to gain reliability!

 

Limited production capacity of the Rover V8 was one reason, another was Triumph were unwilling to scrap an engine programme (which included the Slant Four) they invested much time and money in developing.

 

Then again BL should have never happened and Leyland should have never bought Rover, opting instead for Jaguar.   

[Cooperman]

I always thought that it was a licencing issue with Buick as in the licence to manufacture only covered Rover cars. Then Morgan got an agreement. Maybe BL wouldn't pay an extra fee for using it in the Stag.

[EasterBern]

That's one way of looking at it I suppose!

 

Surely the factory would do it the same way a man in a garage does - buy the engine in ready to go.  A new front subframe design isn't going to be a huge deal.  I don't know the ins and outs, but could the crash testing not be done simply by using the same mount points and being able to show that the new frame is broadly the same as the existing frame?

 

I know it's not dead straightforward to industrialise, but it shouldn't have been a massive job either.

 

They had to widen the Metro to get the k-series and end-on gearbox to fit. By the 90s the Mini wasn't selling enough to make any large investment worthwhile. 

 

I always thought that it was a licencing issue with Buick as in the licence to manufacture only covered Rover cars. Then Morgan got an agreement. Maybe BL wouldn't pay an extra fee for using it in the Stag.

 

I've not heard that before, but you could be right. Though the engine did find it's way into the MGB and the TR8.

[EasterBern]

 

 

Ford did this rather than chase a wide range of engines for a wide range of similar sized cars, which is what BMC did. Then BMC were competing more with themselves than with Ford & GM (e.g. Spitfire v Midget/Sprite, Dolomite v Maxi v Marina, Triumph 2000 v Rover 2000).

 

Never understood why BL allowed Triumph to waste money developing their troublesome V8 engine for the Stag, when BL already had the very reliable Rover V8 engine which many Stag owners later transplanted into their Stags to gain reliability!

 

Limited production capacity of the Rover V8 was one reason, another was Triumph were unwilling to scrap an engine programme (which included the Slant Four) they invested much time and money in developing.

 

Then again BL should have never happened and Leyland should have never bought Rover, opting instead for Jaguar.   

 

 

Well, BL was formed when Leyland took over British Motor Holdings (who were BMC and Jaguar). I've always felt that Rover suffered most at the hands of British Leyland!

[Mite]

One of the benefits of an alternate A-Series with scope for more displacement earlier during development or a slightly enlarged derivative (in the same way the Ventoux became the Cléon, which in turn became the Energy / E-Type engine) to slot between the A-Series and B-Series would be in allowing BMC to quickly field a 1400-1600cc ADO16 along with similar capacity versions for the Midget and Mini. A 1600cc B-Series for the Mini is obviously out of the question, however while there was the existence of the B-Series powered Austin-Healey Mars prototype it is not known whether a B-Series ADO16 would have been practical beyond a few rumours of experimental prototypes.

 

Inevitably though BMC needs a new range of engines by the early/mid-1960s at the very latest, whether via earlier properly developed 9X, E-Series and narrow-angle V4/V6 engines or a BMC version of the Dante Giacosa designed 128 SOHC / 130 V6 engine family. 

 

One also wonders whether it is worth BMC's while to continue with the in-sump gearbox layout or the proposed 9X/10X gearbox instead of opting for an end-on gearbox layout. The criticism of the 9X/10X gearbox layout comes from Issiginois's biography by Gillian Bardsley where the 9X was compared with an Autobianchi A112 Abarth, original Mini and the then new Clubman where the gear shift was viewed to be comparatively worst. That is on top of his record on gear shifts with the Landcrab and Maxi, with even the Autobianchi A112 itself being known to have a rubbery change yet everyone would adopt the end-on gearbox layout once the issues were sorted out.

 

It is down to the 9X's gearbox that makes me lean more towards a Mini replacement that is an evolution like Project Ant / Barrel Car with elements of the later Minki-II including end-on gearbox.

 

 

 

 

 

Ford did this rather than chase a wide range of engines for a wide range of similar sized cars, which is what BMC did. Then BMC were competing more with themselves than with Ford & GM (e.g. Spitfire v Midget/Sprite, Dolomite v Maxi v Marina, Triumph 2000 v Rover 2000).

 

Never understood why BL allowed Triumph to waste money developing their troublesome V8 engine for the Stag, when BL already had the very reliable Rover V8 engine which many Stag owners later transplanted into their Stags to gain reliability!

 

Limited production capacity of the Rover V8 was one reason, another was Triumph were unwilling to scrap an engine programme (which included the Slant Four) they invested much time and money in developing.

 

Then again BL should have never happened and Leyland should have never bought Rover, opting instead for Jaguar.   

 

 

Well, BL was formed when Leyland took over British Motor Holdings (who were BMC and Jaguar). I've always felt that Rover suffered most at the hands of British Leyland!

 

 

Indeed, especially as they had a number of projects going on including a 16-valve DOHC 2.2 4-cylinder P10 engine putting out roughly 145-170 hp. Though would be surprised if either it or the 2-litre P6 OHC engine could be fitted into an MGB. There were actually around two or so 2-litre engines with SOHC or DOHC that could have powered the MGB besides the B-OHC and later O-Series. Regardless BMC would have benefited from earlier introduction of 1400-1600cc and 2000-2500cc engines.

 

 

[62S]

Inevitably though BMC needs a new range of engines by the early/mid-1960s at the very latest, whether via earlier properly developed 9X, E-Series and narrow-angle V4/V6 engines

BMC did toy with a V4 OHC A series engine, I think in the late 1950's or very early 60's but for whatever reason it never happened. A friend of mine has an exploded drawing of it but I've not seen mention of it elsewhere.

They also seriously looked at an aluminium block, initially for the 998 A series.

A commonized bottom end with 2" main bearings for 998, 1098 and 1275 units - same as used on later Midget/Sprite 1098's - apparently got so close to production they had actually allocated new engine prefixes for them.

Why didn't these things happen? Some probably didn't work that well? Extra production cost? Look at the problems the alloy Imp engine caused for Rootes because they didn't build it properly as Coventry Climax told them. And BMC never seemed very good at spotting opportunities to maximise economies of scale, for example why so many different gearbox casings for ADO 15 and ADO 16 at the same time?

[Spider]

I always thought that it was a licencing issue with Buick as in the licence to manufacture only covered Rover cars. Then Morgan got an agreement. Maybe BL wouldn't pay an extra fee for using it in the Stag.

 

Getting a bit astray here, however that Buick Block / Engine was 'used' by quite a few manufacturers and for a very long time. It must have been a very good design not just from an engineering stand point, but also a production (and cost) side of things too.

The Repco Brabham F1 engine also used these blocks and there was a V6 version too, which I'm not sure if directly related to the V8, but that only very recently ceased production here a few months back. I've had a few cars now with these V6 versions and they are magnificent.

 

One of the benefits of an alternate A-Series with scope for more displacement earlier during development or a slightly enlarged derivative (in the same way the Ventoux became the Cléon, which in turn became the Energy / E-Type engine) to slot between the A-Series and B-Series would be in allowing BMC to quickly field a 1400-1600cc ADO16 along with similar capacity versions for the Midget and Mini. A 1600cc B-Series for the Mini is obviously out of the question, however while there was the existence of the B-Series powered Austin-Healey Mars prototype it is not known whether a B-Series ADO16 would have been practical beyond a few rumours of experimental prototypes.

 

Getting back closer to the track! They did fit the E Series to the ADO16 family, which I think you guys called the Maxi (we had them as a Nomad here), 1500 and later 1750 cc, Alloy OHC.

The 1500 CC versions IMO, weren't all that powerful, not a lot better than a 1275, I guess the 1750 versions,, that we didn't get here, would have been considerably better.

 

There have been a few Mini and Moke conversions done here, that had the 1500 engine and 5 speed gearbox fitted to them. The lack of choice for final drive didn't help, (3.9:1), and with the added weight, we found that the stock 1275 engines cars performed better all round.

[Mite]

Another potential affect of an evolved A-Series replacement or an alternate A-Series capable of reaching 1600cc, was that Lotus's Colin Chapman would have likely considered such an engine in place of the Ford Kent chosen for the Lotus Twin-Cam engine used in the Lotus Elan (later Lotus Cortina, etc) if the following quote below is any indication. It would have been interesting to see what Harry Mundy could have done to create the A-Series based equivalent of the Lotus Twin-Cam in such a scenario and how it would carry over to limit-run Minis and other BMC models.

 

It is worth mentioning on BMC's end that more radical homologation special versions of what became the Cooper S were considered during that period including a brand new cylinder head with hemispherical combustion chambers as well as the development of single and twin overhead camshaft, 5-bearing crankshaft engines versions of the 1000-1300cc -Series for use in advanced versions of the Cooper S (mentioned on page 83 of John Pressnell's book on the Mini). Along with Eddie Maher's unbuilt if seemingly undefined plans to further improve the A-Series, where it is not clarified whether it was just limited to an alloy head, crossflow, an experimental 8-port head (here), 83 hp 1275cc twin-carb or something else entirely. 

 

A replacement engine for the Elite's Coventry Climax 'fire pump' engine was required, and early in 1961, Colin Chapman decided that a modified head fitted to a standard production short engine would be the way forward. The 'A' Series BMC was considered but rejected on the basis there wasn't a long term 'evolution' plan for the engine.

http://www.lotuscort...m/?page_id=3551

[mini13]

What were the issues with the imp engine?

Inevitably though BMC needs a new range of engines by the early/mid-1960s at the very latest, whether via earlier properly developed 9X, E-Series and narrow-angle V4/V6 engines

BMC did toy with a V4 OHC A series engine, I think in the late 1950's or very early 60's but for whatever reason it never happened. A friend of mine has an exploded drawing of it but I've not seen mention of it elsewhere.

They also seriously looked at an aluminium block, initially for the 998 A series.

A commonized bottom end with 2" main bearings for 998, 1098 and 1275 units - same as used on later Midget/Sprite 1098's - apparently got so close to production they had actually allocated new engine prefixes for them.

Why didn't these things happen? Some probably didn't work that well? Extra production cost? Look at the problems the alloy Imp engine caused for Rootes because they didn't build it properly as Coventry Climax told them. And BMC never seemed very good at spotting opportunities to maximise economies of scale, for example why so many different gearbox casings for ADO 15 and ADO 16 at the same time?