Have read of more conventional suspension systems being looked at for the Mini both during its development (e.g. simple leaf-sprung beam back axle) as well as over the course of its production run (e.g. coil-spring suspension*), with claims there was little to no difference between them in terms of effectiveness with regards to Alex Moulton’s suspension systems**.
One question that immediately comes to mind is apart from cost how would BMC opting for more conventional suspension like leaf/coil springs or any other type used by rivals have impacted the Mini’s handling/ride let alone its giant killing reputation in motorsport?
Additionally how feasible would it have been for the Mini in say ADO20 / Project Ant form (along with other larger models) to have later carried over the 9X’s Polo/Golf-like front MacPherson strut and rear torsion beam axle suspension arrangement?
For owners who have converted their Minis to conventional suspension or others have driven such cars over the years. what is your assessment of a Conventional Suspension Mini? Is there a particular arrangement BMC in retrospect could have adopted at some point or as with Minis featuring larger sized wheels compared to the original 10-inches do you believe Minis with conventional suspension to ultimately be a blind alley over the original Rubber-Cone/Hydrolastic arrangement?
*- One mention so far of a Mini with Coil-Spring suspension also included rubber-mounted subframes though not sure whether one without subframes was looked at.
**- Another experimental Moulton suspension arrangement tried in a Mini (before Issigonis ditched the Moulton suspension and apart from the Hydragas used in Moulton’s Mini and Minki prototypes) was apparently an 1800-type of Hydrolastic installation that did away with the subframes, however it is not mentioned to what degree this arrangement was improvement in the Mini over both the existing rubber-cones and Hydrolastic suspension. Is more known about this experimental Mini?