I have a 1968 Mk2 Cooper S that's going to need a rebuild (sigh).
Are there any differences between the *rear* subframes between different years/Mks (apart from wet/dry and presence/absence of exhaust hangers) ?
Basically, if I see a good used (or, God forbid, *new*) subframe at an auto jumble will it fit my Mk2 ?
by the way I'm dry and intend to stay that way. P'raps that's a new topic - which is better, wet or dry????
Many thanks,
Pod.
Rear Subframe Differences ?
Started by
padraig.hart
, Jun 26 2009 05:19 PM
4 replies to this topic
#2
Cooperman
-
- TMF+ Member
-
- 23,308 posts
Uncle Cooperman, Voted Mr TMF 2011
- Location: Cambs.
- Local Club: MCR, HAMOC, Chelmsford M.C.
Posted 26 June 2009 - 08:07 PM
All rear sub-frames from 1959 to 2000 had the same basic geometry. there were slight differences with exhaust hangars, etc, but, apart from the hydro ones, all should be interchangeable.
However, the tooling is now quite old and tolerances have slipped, especially on the 'pattern' ones. Even the 'genuine' ones can give the rear wheels a positive camber of incorrect toe-in when assembled. it's not difficult to correct the suspension settings and it is cheap to do. The rear wheels should toe-in 1/8" and have zero to 0.5 degrees negative camber.
However, the tooling is now quite old and tolerances have slipped, especially on the 'pattern' ones. Even the 'genuine' ones can give the rear wheels a positive camber of incorrect toe-in when assembled. it's not difficult to correct the suspension settings and it is cheap to do. The rear wheels should toe-in 1/8" and have zero to 0.5 degrees negative camber.
#3
padraig.hart
-
- Noobies
-
- 30 posts
Passed Test
Posted 26 June 2009 - 10:50 PM
Many thanks, I can tootle along now to the AOVC show tomorrow with the wife's houskeeping money.
Still though......maybe I should go for a beam axle. Could I get away with "period modification" d'ya think ?
Still though......maybe I should go for a beam axle. Could I get away with "period modification" d'ya think ?
#4
bmcecosse
-
- Members
-
- 9,699 posts
Crazy About Mini's
- Local Club: http://www.srps.org.uk/
Posted 26 June 2009 - 11:00 PM
If it's a genuine S - keep it absolutely standard! Any mods will just de-value it.
#5
padraig.hart
-
- Noobies
-
- 30 posts
Passed Test
Posted 01 July 2009 - 03:03 PM
Yeah well, it *is* genuine, but it's a former rally car hence the fact that it's currently dry with hi-los rather than wet. Originality versus period modifications (David Vizard certainly showed beam axles on 70s minis)....??
I might have the opportunity to return it to wet (I have a line on a set of suitably-equipped subframes, but haven't seen them yet), which also has me wondering about that.
I'd always been under the impression that dry was the better setup (cheap, better handling, easier parts supply), and I must admit that I always loved the handling of my mini, but that was 20 years ago, and I'm a bit older now.....
What are the thoughts on wet verus dry?
Are the parts easy to get and/or cheap to buy ?
Ride versus handling compromise too much ??
I might have the opportunity to return it to wet (I have a line on a set of suitably-equipped subframes, but haven't seen them yet), which also has me wondering about that.
I'd always been under the impression that dry was the better setup (cheap, better handling, easier parts supply), and I must admit that I always loved the handling of my mini, but that was 20 years ago, and I'm a bit older now.....
What are the thoughts on wet verus dry?
Are the parts easy to get and/or cheap to buy ?
Ride versus handling compromise too much ??
Edited by padraig.hart, 01 July 2009 - 03:05 PM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
