
1750cc 5-speed mini
#1
Posted 10 July 2006 - 04:10 PM
Interesting!!!!!
Anybody care to shed any light on it? Will this really fit in a mini? Any ideas on how much modification it'll take? It mentions its on a single bolt subframe, whats that!
It just looks like it could need a bit of radiator relocation?
#2
Posted 10 July 2006 - 04:13 PM
Single bolt subframe is the type. If you look in your engine bay, at the bulkhead in either corner - you will have 1 single HUGE bolt or 2 smaller ones.
#3
Posted 10 July 2006 - 04:13 PM
Thats pretty cool!
I think most later front subframes were single bolt (ie one big bolt at the top of each tower

#4
Posted 10 July 2006 - 04:14 PM
#5
Posted 10 July 2006 - 04:14 PM
That engine bay looks huge compared to a standard mini even though he has it on a mini subframe....no idea about the single bolt subframe??!
#6
Posted 10 July 2006 - 04:16 PM
#7
Posted 10 July 2006 - 04:17 PM
But has anyone seen one in a mini? yea it looks like it could be a squeeze but would be pretty cool tho.
Very Cool!
#8
Posted 10 July 2006 - 04:20 PM
i guess its a cheap way to get 5 speeds .... but why only do half a job .. go all the way and use a modern engine.
Matt
#9
Posted 10 July 2006 - 04:40 PM
from what i can remember its fairly stright foward conversion but the engine is a lot heavier :'(
one of the old boy (guessworks) might remember more

#10
Posted 10 July 2006 - 05:00 PM
Is that the old Austin allegro engine
Yes it was also used in the Allegro and in the Princess as a 6 pot version but mainly it's known as 'The Maxi Engine'. It's a good engine but not a great engine.
It IS a fairly modern engine, it's pretty much the last development before the Montego engine in Rover terms and development of the two overlapped. And while it fits into the (auto) subframe pretty well it's tight to get it into the actual car along with a rad. It was a fairly popular mod in the 80's when scrap Maxis were falling out of the sky all over the country.
Single bolt subframes are Mk4 onwards.
#11
Posted 10 July 2006 - 05:03 PM
Granted due to its cc it would make a Mini quicker, but so would driving it off a cliff.
Would make your Mini different, but never cool.
Not exactly a popular conversion, even back in the day, but there were not so many decent FWD engine and boxes to choose from then.
#12
Posted 10 July 2006 - 05:16 PM
Its one of the easier transplants, but by no means fancy. The only real benefit is the unstressed five speed gearbox with VERY simmilar gearbox output shafts and location.
The 1750 put out around 75bhp, the 1450 was not much different but Austin fitted a restrictor to reduce its out put so that the 1750 would look more atractive ( why would you buy a 1750 when the 1450 almost matched in output?)
They realy aren't that much heavier as some suggest, the bulk is just in a different place, making it a longer taller but rather skinny engine
For the hassle, it would be easier to fit a turbo to the A series and achieve 93bhp straight away as standard
Edited by Mini Sprocket, 10 July 2006 - 05:17 PM.
#13
Posted 10 July 2006 - 06:01 PM
That's old skool tuning. That's what the old boys used to do years ago...it's an old trick.its a mini maxi engine. and i have never seen one put in a mini as yet, but i may be wrong.
Maxi engines were plonked into Minis oh so commonly in the tuning scene back then. My dad's mate did it and a couple of his mate's too. Apparently quite easy, bit funking deadly, though. They have too much torque causing really bad, and dangerous, torque steer.
This is why it's not done so much anymore, though there was one in Miniworld and MiniMag a few months ago in a gotchic stylee. It was photographed at a show (IMM I think).
The only thng was that at 1st I was confused as to whether he was selling the engine and subframe setup or the whole car. So I sent him an e-mail (you can see it on the bottom of the listing) and asked and he said it was for the whole car, but I can make an offer for the engine if I want it, which is a bit out of order considering people are bidding on the car.
Edited by TWICEmonkey, 10 July 2006 - 06:17 PM.
#14
Posted 10 July 2006 - 06:49 PM
#15
Posted 10 July 2006 - 07:02 PM
Not worth the effort I'm afraid..
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users