24 replies to this topic

[spiguy]

I often read / hear criticism of Austin / BL / Rover etc because they didn't significanlty update the mini design throughout it's long life. Sure, there were changes, but fundementally the car remained the same.

 

Whilst I guess you can't deny that this is the case, I find myself of mixed opinion as to whether that was a good or bad thing. I have a '92 Cooper, and I love the fact that it is still essentially ' a mini'  - most onlookers also regard it as an old fashioned mini, and sometimes people are even confused about it's age (I guess they don't notice the reg plate). So for me, I am glad that the car remained largely unchanged, as it means that I can own a 'proper' mini regardless of whether it is a 60's car or a 90's car.

 

What do others think?  What would the mini 'scene' be like if they had revised the car - say along the lines of the fiesta, which has changed hugely over the years. Would we really have such a large scene, or would the original mini just be like any other classic, in the world of the stereotypical classic car owner (as Jeremy Clarkson would say, anorak wearing adenoidal type people).

 

Would the mini even have continued to be popular if they had revised the design over the years?  Or would they have sooner or later come out with a variant which was basically rubbish, and ruined the brand?

 

Discuss !

[maryquant]

I think the fact that it remained so popular over the decades despite not being changed greatly speaks volumes to the original design. Because they didn't change much they could be produced cheaply and be constantly marketed as an affordable family car without needing massive reinvestment in new tooling etc.

 

Because they remained so similar and used many of the same parts, I think we have a much easier time in the classic scene.  NOS is still around and parts are still being made because the sheer quantity of them left running is so high. You wouldn't find that with many other make/models of classic I don't think.

[spiguy]

yeah true. It is a unique classic in terms of avaliability of parts, just wish they were still making the engines!

[Anthony30]

Shame they decided to go injection on the 5 port head, and not design/produce a 7/8 port cylinder head for all minis after 1989 ish.  

[robminibcy]

I think it just shows how good the design was the fact that it was popular and sold well for so long. In someways though I think it would be better if it had changed. I've noticed that in the vw scene where models are far less long lived in te same form (except the beetle) there is a far more accepting and dare say it interesting community.

[Spider]

Interesting topic.

 

Well, if you look at it in a strict sense, the Mini was up-dated and still in production, probably more widely known as the MINI which I think is still owned by BMW. If you read up on the history at the point were Rover was up for sale and then what BMW's intentions were in buying Rover, you'll definitely see that the Mini is still in production and up-dated.

 

But coming back to what I feel we all recognise and know as a Classic Mini and should have it been up-dated along the way, while still keeping it's Mini size / shape?

 

IMO, the basic package of what the Car was from the outset really was WAY ahead of it's time and also at (and beyond) the cutting edge of production car technology at the time of it's initial release, it seemed to take other major manufacturers around 12 - 15 years just to catch up. 

 

In particular regards to the engine, it was starting to get a little dated when first fitted to the Mini in 1959 and certainly by the 1970's it was a museum piece, archaic and ancient, but amazingly the technical guys stretched that rubber band - no doubt at the pointy end from management - and damn long way and they deserve some some serious credit for doing what they did and keeping the A Series alive for as long as they did, especially in meeting emissions requirements, some extraordinarily clever guys there, I take my hat off to them. It would have been a blessing to everyone though if management had the balls to tool up though for at least some proper improvements to the A Series (like the OHC Heads that were developed) and even looked to what the South Africans were doing (I think a case of 'not invented here' unfortunately).

 

Likewise the Gearbox could have done with a serious revision, oh yeah, they did little up dates along the way, but nothing I would call an improvement, more a case of sorting it to what it was intended to be from the start!

 

The suspension was also ahead of it's time, but had it's issues too, It was very expensive to manufacture, even in dry form, hence why no other manufacturer went down that road. Perhaps they could have revised it to run on torsion bars (dead easy on the rear end) and maybe coils on the front.

 

In regards to the body I'm not going to get in to styling, but I always felt overall the Mini could have been just another 2" wider, would have made a world of difference and maybe even a similar amount added to the length.

[mab01uk]

1968 - The 9X Mini Update - cancelled after BL's takeover of BMC

Full Story:

http://www.aronline....oncepts-bmc-9x/

 

The 9X Engine:

Alec Issigonis wrote to BL boss Donald Stokes 18th April 1968:
"The greatest need in combating increased production costs over the year is the development of a new engine for a small car of the Mini type. The present A-Series engine offered a quick way of getting the car into production in 1959, but has now outlived its purpose both for weight and cost compared with European competition."

However these proposals were kicked into the long grass by British Leyland who were not interested in technical excellence or innovation at a time when they wanted Austin-Morris to return to financial stability and profit.......

The Alec Issigonis 9X engine from 1968

 

 

1975 - The OHC A-Series Engine:

Pictures of BL's OHC A-Series engine for the Mini in 1975 which featured belt drive to the overhead camshaft, single or twin-SU carbrettors and retained all the familiar A-Series features, such as the starter motor, alternator, distributor and spark plugs on the same forward facing side of the original cylinder block. There were also inline versions developed for BL's rear wheel drive cars. 11 prototypes of all sizes were built and completed 3,200 hours on test beds and 2,200 vehicle miles.
The 1275cc OHC A-Series produced 84bhp @ 6750, torque 80lb/ft @ 4,500 (against 59bhp @ 5300, torque 69lb/ft @ 3000 for the pushrod engine) in standard form.
There were also 970cc and 1097cc versions produced and tested but the project was eventually canceled due to the mounting losses of British Leyland which had become nationalised during the engines development. Lots more info on what could have been in Graham Robson's interesting book.........."A-Series - The First 60 Years"





 

Edited by mab01uk, 16 August 2015 - 09:28 AM.

[spiguy]

interesting points moke. I have just finished reading the book 'The A series, the first 60 years'. Very interesting read and backs up what you say about the reasons for the longevity of the A series. It was mainly down to management and funding stalling every time someone came up with fundamental design changes to the engine. Again though, I am kinda glad as again it makes the mini 'still a mini' even up to the later cars.

 

I was at a car museum the other week, and I saw some big Austins from right around the year the mini was launched, and this gave me a new perspective on the mini design. Instead of looking at say ans 80's mini and comparing it to other 80's cars, if you look at late 50's cars and then compare their design and styling to the mini as it was at launch, you then see just how amazingly modern the mini was by comparison. Night and day really. It hadn't really struck me before just how modern the styling - interior and exterior - really was at the time!

[mab01uk]

1992 - Minki 1 & II

Some interesting information and pictures of the Minki 1 & II development of a new Mini concept under Rover and later BMW, here on the excellent 'Austin Memories' website.
Link to the full story:
http://www.austinmem...e46/page46.html

Minki-I
"The thinking behind the replacement for the Mini started back in about 1992, while under the ownership of British Aerospace and called at that time The Rover Group.
So how was the name MINKI arrived at, simple, put a ‘K’ series engine into a Mini and you have MINKI.
At the time the general feeling was that because the design was then thirty three years old, technology had moved on so much, and with new legislation on emissions and crash testing etc., that it was best to start with a clean sheet."

The first part of the concept stage was to do an appraisal of the current Mini and see how improvements could be made.

1) Improve the powerunit, by installing the ‘K’ series engine with a 5- ---speed gearbox
2) Improve the suspension, by installing hydragas suspension.
3) Improve the driving position, by installing better seats, altering the ---rack of the steering column, and along with the fascia / controls
4) Improve its overall luggage capacity, by making it into a hatchback ----and altering the rear end package.

Minki-II
"1995 arrived, and so did BMW! They were surprised that we had such a strong brand of Mini, but no plans to do anything with it. Plans for a new Mini were required, and a ‘competition’ was set up, for later on in 1995, to decide on the route forward.
It was decided that a part of that event should be a vehicle that represented what current Mini could have become if investment and development had been put into the Mini over many years. This vehicle would then act as a better benchmark than a standard current Mini for judging what the new Mini needed to beat.
Fortunately, all of the old Minki-I stuff had just been scrapped off, so a Minki-II was hastily required! I say fortunately, because in comparison, the Minki-II project was a very grand affair! By this time, our senior management had seen BMW in operation, and were impressed by the way that they did everything properly, with very high quality prototype vehicles, excellent engineering, etc. Minki-II had to live up to this standard. Great! It was a proper project, with designers and even a few bought-out parts!"

(Minki-II can be seen on show at the Gaydon Motor Museum)

Edited by mab01uk, 16 August 2015 - 08:56 AM.

[mab01uk]

As already said the Mini was eventually updated by Rover with the R50 MINI of 2001 developed at Longbridge and Gaydon (R50 is the Rover project number)......but launched under BMW. There is an interesting write up on the 'Austin Memories' website about the original plans for the new MINI production at the Longbridge factory:


First R50 MINI Body Built in 1999 by Rover workers at Longbridge.


Early R50 Built at Longbridge (Methods Build 1999)

New MINI comes to Longbridge.
That was the Plan, although in the end it never happened........

The general BMW plan for the Rover Group was that Cowley, renamed Oxford would produce the large cars, with Longbridge, becoming Birmingham which would produce the small and medium.
Rover Birmingham (Longbridge) needed to undergo major restructuring to prepare for the launch of R50 (new Mini) in the year 2000. In order to create a world class manufacturing facility for the production of the new Mini, Rover needed to replace existing old buildings with new factories, designed to accommodate modern machinery and equipment.
More details of the original plans here:
http://www.austinmem...64/page164.html

 

John Cooper unveils the new MINI Cooper

 

New Mini (R50) Comes To Longbridge............

http://www.theminifo...-to-longbridge/

 

TV News video of the R50 MINI Launch 1997

Edited by mab01uk, 16 August 2015 - 09:21 AM.

[mab01uk]

It should also be remembered that the 'Mini' Metro was being developed in the 1970's as the updated Mini hatchback replacement, to replace the original Issigonis-designed Mini that eventually out-lived the Metro and remained in production until 2000.....

 

Austin/MG Metro development history:-

http://www.aronline....opment-history/

 

The introduction of the Metro did however severely reduce the sales of Mini's from 1980 onwards, as can be seen in the sales chart figures below.

 

Edited by mab01uk, 16 August 2015 - 09:22 AM.

[Spider]

Great posts and info there mab01uk, many thanks mate.

 

Just on the secondary topic raise here (thanks mab01uk ), replacement for the Mini started in earnest, that I am aware of back in the mid 60's!

 

And yes, the much touted 'car to beat the world' Metro was intended to replace the Mini too, but for what ever reason, they just hung on to the Mini, which did out live the Metro.

 

In some ways, I am glad that for the most part, the cars was (or so it appeared) little updated for it's life, but I also find it frustrating at times too, though it really is amazing.

 

In line with the topic title re: Up-dating the Mini, well, I recon it was updated / changed a fair bit over the years, while they more or less looked the same from start to finish, there is very very little from a 2000 model Rover that would interchange with a 1959 Austin Seven.

 

Also, slightly OT, but IMO one major contributing factor to the car not being up-dated in a serious way for so long pre-dates the car itself. The Merger between Austin and Morris, may or may not have been a good thing, but the knife in the back (so to speak) was to hang on to those names and identities. I have little doubt that the British motoring world / scene today would be considerably different had the powers to be dropped those names back in the early 50's and just traded completely under the name BMC. I know Leyland has copped a kicking over the years and many perceive them to have ruined the company, but by the time they had come along, the damage was done, they were just caught holding the baby. IMO, they actually did some good as far as lessening the blow.

 

The merger between Austin and Morris, while encouraged by the Government of the day, seems to be one that was borne more from emotion rather than any logical business strategy / plan, therein laid the seeds for a disaster!  

Edited by Moke Spider, 16 August 2015 - 09:48 AM.

[MikeRotherham]

One thing that could have been improved on was build quality.

The way it was built was old fashioned but as improvements in car build design were introduced over time. Things like galvanised body panels, weld through primers, better sealants.

Could that not have been introduced?

Would it have added that much to the production cost?

[mab01uk]

In line with the topic title re: Up-dating the Mini, I agree with Moke Spider in that I am glad that for the most part, the Mini was little updated during it's life, but also found it frustrating that the lack of money for investment in even something so simple as adding a 5th gear to the gearbox was missed especially when the Metro was introduced to share the same A-Series engine/gearbox in 1980.

 

Quite a contrast with the major body/engine/transmission updates every 7 years on the current BMW owned MINI and most other modern cars, especially when you remember BMW started in the car industry by manufacturing the original Austin Se7en under licence as the BMW Dixi from 1928......!!

 

"The main differences between the BMW Dixi below and the contemporary Austin Seven were the addition of Bosch shock absorbers, the placement of the driver's controls on the left side of the vehicle, and the use of metric fasteners."

 

[firstforward]

For me personally I think a hatchback would have made it so much more practical at times...

http://www.auto-bmc....emid=73&lang=fr

 

Another interesting link:

http://jalopnik.com/...ni-c-1478172102