10 replies to this topic

[Mite]

Historically the original Mini was kept in production with the odd tweak here and there despite many attempts to replace it prior to the BMW Mini. However 9X, ADO74 and even Metro aside what if a cost-effective evolutionary (as opposed to costly revolutionary) approach was taken in updating the original Mini?

 

In this instance an evolutionary approach would be defined as updating / improving the design to remedy various design flaws (largely ignored by both BMC/BL) as well as properly costing the Mini, along with including new more practical bodystyles and upgrading the A-Series to A-OHC as well as the gearbox from in-sump to an end-on design.

 

The Mini prototypes that best exemplify the above would be the 4-door Mini prototype (plus hatchback conversions), ADO20 Clubman hatchback (including the improved costing of the production mk3 Mini), Project Ant (e.g. Barrel Car) and despite usage of the K-Series units even the Minki prototypes.

 

 

 

 

[mab01uk]

Most modern cars go through a 7-year life cycle with a mid-life facelift to boost sales and introduce some minor improvements before a new model is launched. The classic Mini never went through this process mainly due to lack of cash by the parent companies (BMC/BL) to invest and so most of the replacements like the 9X and Minki were cancelled before reaching production. However because of this and the lack of much evolution happening it has actually added to the appeal of the relatively unchanged Mini in the long term as an iconic classic car. I doubt the classic Mini would be as remembered and popular today if it had been replaced by the Issigonis 9X Mini back in 1968.

One thing for sure is no modern car will ever be in production again for so long close to its original design.

[Ethel]

Love a bit of Mini philosophy.

 

Would it still be a Mini, when did the Fiesta, Golf, Civic etc cease to have any connection with the original other than the name?

 

Without its longevity, I can't see how the Mini would have survived as the icon it is today. This is linked to Mab's 7 year cycle as I'm sure that will have a lot to do with intellectual property rights. The commercial viability of that Golf will be partly down to the Seats and Skodas sharing a lot of its DNA; without registered design protection there could be a model that undercuts the lot by ripping off the floorpan without contributing to any of the R&D cost.

 

Thankfully Mini body panels were stamped out on spurious presses well before production ended. Even without BMH we'd have access to all manner of bits as long as there's enough of us to create the demand. In turn all those purveyors of exotic goodies with 4 pistons, 5 or 6 gears, 7 or 8 ports... in alloy, titanium, carbon fibre or kryptonite can have the confidence to make their dreams real.

 

AustinRover did try evolve the Min, but it was the progenical Metro that went extinct first. I imagine in the Longbridge of a parallel universe, where both were granted a long term future, then the Rover 100 would have had a smaller sibling with a K Series lump - the Rover 75? Oh hang on...

 

I'm not as sure as Mab about the future. I'd agree if the business model stayed the same, but we're likely on the cusp of a sea change with the demise of the internal combustion engine, autonomous vehicles and who knows what else. If we find ourselves renting our personal transport, by the journey or the year, then it could make economic sense for the corporate owners of it to squeeze as much life as possible out of as many components as possible. More sophisticated (re)assembly robots and bigger environmental levies on just chucking stuff on the scrapheap would help the viability. If we're also denied the pleasure of driving ourselves, then we're likely not to care much beyond how comfy the seats are. 

[paulrockliffe]

I think there was a point where revolution was the best approach rather than evolution, that point was probably a good bit before BMW bought the brand and brought out the all-new not-Mini.

 

I think the OPs what-if is the wrong question, you couldn't evolve the body without evolving the subframes and the engine, so you hit a buffer and have to replace a lot at once, at which point you might as well update everything.  Which is where the 7-year cycle comes in.

 

The concept would have survived much closer to the original if it hadn't been bought by a manufacturer that didn't (and still don't!) have a small car platform. 

 

It should have been sold to (for example) VW and become a Lupo GTI with a Mini body on top.  Stick to two seats if the back seats compromise the exterior design.  The brand could then have expanded into the Polo and Golf platforms to cover the market that BMW have exploited, while retaining a car that actually is a modern version of the original.

[r3k1355]

You'd never get the Mini through modern safety or emissions tests, in fact weren't later models exempted from some tests on the basis it'd been in continuous production for so long???

[mab01uk]

You'd never get the Mini through modern safety or emissions tests, in fact weren't later models exempted from some tests on the basis it'd been in continuous production for so long???

 

Yes the Mini was exempted from modern crash tests because of its long continuous production run, however the Metro/Rover 100 was not and sales dropped and production was stopped soon after it failed to perform well in the Euro NCAP crash tests.

 

Edited by mab01uk, 30 October 2018 - 12:43 PM.

[mab01uk]

The concept would have survived much closer to the original if it hadn't been bought by a manufacturer that didn't (and still don't!) have a small car platform. 

 

It should have been sold to (for example) VW and become a Lupo GTI with a Mini body on top.  Stick to two seats if the back seats compromise the exterior design.  The brand could then have expanded into the Polo and Golf platforms to cover the market that BMW have exploited, while retaining a car that actually is a modern version of the original.

 

The problem for BMW and BL/Rover before was how to build a cheap modern small car to replace the original Mini in the UK with its high wage economy, the answer was you could not and make a profit.....hence why they created a new class of prestige higher priced supermini, it was a risk for BMW but it worked and sales of the Oxford built R50/53 MINI exceeded expectations and the 'premium' sector small car concept has since been copied by several other manufacturers like the Audi 100, etc.

Most modern 'cheap bargain basement' small cars are now built in low wage countries like Eastern Europe, India or the Far East in very high volumes on shared platforms to cut costs and ensure profits. It is much easier to make profits on larger cars with lots of expensive customer options sold at higher prices but far harder to make profits on small low priced cars as there is not a great difference in the costs to engineer, design and manufacture a small basic car compared to a larger luxury car which can be sold at a far higher price.

Edited by mab01uk, 30 October 2018 - 07:14 PM.

[some1158]

BMC managed to make a bit of a mess of its product planning in the 60s. Failure to rationalise properly after the Austin/Nuffield merger wasn't helped by the project drift on the 1800 (which meant the Maxi had to be invented to plug the gap), nor was the 1800 really the right car for the market. The Minor, Mini and 1100/1300 were left to sell right through the decade BUT that said the Mini's sales increased c. 1970/71 and the 1100/1300 was still selling well in the early 1970s, so maybe the decision to can the 9X was the right one, at least in the short term. By 1975, however, it is clear that the company had got itself into a mess.

 

My 'alternative reality' is that the 1100/1300 would have been rebodied c. 1970, which would have got the car through to c. 1976 without the need for the Allegro.  In the meantime BL could have had a proper go at the Cortina (rather than the Marina stop-gap) which might also have replaced the 1800 in time.  The small end of the market from the mid 70s should have been taken up with a 9X-like car (maybe not with the DX engine to save costs) in short and long lengths to replace the Mini and rebodied 1100. 

 

Within the 'real world' the tragedy, apart from the loss of the 9X, is the loss of the AR6 in the mid-1980s, which would have been a brilliantly inventive replacement for the Metro. Its inventiveness and cost was as ever with BL its downfall, but it would have bottled the spirit of the Mini (though not its style).

[Mite]

BMC / BL would have not been unique in investigating an evolutionary approach to replacing successful cars with updated versions remedying various flaws of the originals, both Volkswagen and Citroen were tempted as well for icons like the Beetle and 2CV respectively. Ford and other carmakers managed to do well by adopting an evolutionary approach to replacing their cars, the Cortina up to the mk5 and possibly even the related Sierra come to mind.

 

Volkswagen Beetle

1) https://jalopnik.com...-lat-1818581916 (albeit more a what-if)

2) https://jalopnik.com...n-ne-1792130876

 

Citroen 2CV

1) http://www.citroenet...v/2cvretro.html

2) http://www.citroenet.../2cv-hayon.html

 

As for an updated Mini. Would say Project Ant is a decent starting point (albeit minus the external seams), combined with the costing of the production ADO20 mk3 / Clubman (including realization of projects mentioned in pages 144-145 and page 151 of Mini: The Definitive History) and the slight length / width increase of Minki-2, mainly under the rationale of comfortably fitting an end-on gearbox to an A-Series / A-OHC unit as well as allowing future scope for a new engine to be fitted (since the A-Series was still slightly smaller then the K-Series and thus an A-Series with end-on gearbox from a Maestro would have easily slotted into Minki-II sized car despite being a tight fit in the original Minki project that retained the original Mini's dimensions).

 

New features for the updated Mini being 12-inch wheels, hatchback (including 5-door), wraparound bumpers, coil-spring or (R6-style) Hydragas suspension, front-mounted radiator, electric fan, oil cooler, a comprehensively engineered sound-deadening package (an alternate early version of the real-life 1980 “Quiet Mini” package albeit uncompromised by accountants), internal bonnet release and a 5-speed gearbox (or 4-speed gearbox with overdrive) or if still making do with in-sump gearbox layout a production version of the 5-speed AP Automatic transmission developed by Keith Gerrard of Bushey Transmissions in conjunction with Jack Knight.

 

In terms of styling, while it is a subjective thing there was choice of roughly three options available. The first being an Evolution of the Classic Mini (aka Project Ant), Modern (Clubman including hatchback) and Bertone (Innocenti Mini).

 

Am sure there are other as yet unmentioned potentially useful or viable updates or styling options that were investigated for the Mini.

Edited by Mite, 31 October 2018 - 06:26 PM.

[r3k1355]

 

You'd never get the Mini through modern safety or emissions tests, in fact weren't later models exempted from some tests on the basis it'd been in continuous production for so long???

 

Yes the Mini was exempted from modern crash tests because of its long continuous production run, however the Metro/Rover 100 was not and sales dropped and production was stopped soon after it failed to perform well in the Euro NCAP crash tests.

 

 

 

Cor look at that sucker go!!

 

I suppose it's no great surprise considering they'd just been lazily rehashing a design from the 70's that was never fully through through in the first place.

[r3k1355]

 

The problem for BMW and BL/Rover before was how to build a cheap modern small car to replace the original Mini in the UK with its high wage economy, the answer was you could not and make a profit.....hence why they created a new class of prestige higher priced supermini, it was a risk for BMW but it worked 

 

I think the key point was that BL/Rover had no idea quite how valuable and recognisable the Mini brand was, BMW execs were aghast when Rover employees told them of plans to finally can the Mini.

 

It was the entire reason they bought Rover in the first place (also Land Rover but they flogged that arm off)