7 replies to this topic

[littlewimp]

Hi guys,   being new to the mini scene i was wandering the best place to obtain info on mk 1 minis , just to find out if my car would of been fitted with hydro or dry suspension as it came with both subframes missing, also the engine cc, it says 1100 on the logbook but im unsure if these were fitted to the mini in 1967.  any help would be appreciated.   

       thanks neil.

[rally515]

Hi Neil, any chance you could pop us some pictures up, mainly of the exterior whole and the engine bay, should be able to tell you most things you need to know from a good engine bay shot, if theres tubes coming out of the bulkhead crossmember then you,ve got hyfdro setup there, if theres just two bolts either side then its dry setup on rubber cones, as for the engine, if its a small bore you'll have tappet chests at the rear of the engine under the exhaust manifold, you should be able to stick your hand down the back and if theres two rectangular pressed plates you have a small bore engine

 

Cheers,

Cliff

[Daz1968]

A 1967 mk1 would have been hydrolastic, it came in in about 1964 and ran all through till the mk3 mini, exception to the rule is mk3 cooper s and 10inch wheel 1275 gt retained hydrolastic where other mk3 models where dry. There were no std 1100 mk1 minis so would have been an engine swap informed to dvla. A lot of other details dependant on model and colour.

[littlewimp]

thanks cliff, i'm hoping to get some pics up soon,  with regards to the engine the car didn't come with a engine but i was unsure if they fitted 1100 from standard?.   thanks neil.

[littlewimp]

Thanks for the replies,   

                    is there anyway i could find out what engine would of been fitted from standard, also would it affect the value of the car if i was to fit dry suspension ?

[carbon]

A basic spec1967 Mk1 would have most likely been an 850 (might be on the heritage certificate?), but for practical road use a 998 would be better.

 

If you have to rebuild the suspension there is really no point in trying to put hydro back in unless you have all of the parts already in excellent condition. The dry suspension is easier to fit, more reliable, but a slightly harsher ride. I don't think there will be much difference in car value between wet and dry, unless you are going for a totally original concours spec.

 

If you are buying subframes make sure you get the right type. Should be 4 bolts fixing to the front crossmember (2 each side, used up to 1976), and if you are fitting a manual gearbox get a suitable manual front subframe. You should be able to get this second hand without too much trouble.

[littlewimp]

Thanks carbon, some more much appreciated info. will keep my eyes open for the parts i need, the shell needs a fair bit of work first though, i will get some pictures up.     cheers neil

[Cooperman]

Hydrolastic came in in September 1964.

Most people restore with 'dry' suspension as the hydro stuff is getting hard to find these days. In fact I'm currently doing an October 1964 car and it will be 'dry' with all new cones. I also have a November 1964 car and that is also 'dry'.

The sub-frames can be used for dry or 'wet', but to convert a front from 'wet' to 'dry' requires knocking back or grinding away the small locking tabs in the sub-frame towers - or fitting a new sub-frame (Mk.1 fronts are very expensive).

You need to get a good close-up look at a Mk.1 undergoing restoration and you would be most welcome to come and see mine, but I'm in Cambridgeshire so rather a long way!