Posted by stu on August 16, 2009, 10:58 pm
> 15 years ago Rover (ex British Leyland -> ex BMC) was a profitable
> expanding
> company with a great range of vehicles. BMW totally screwed the company
> up - deliberately so. It was predicted BMW would and they did. The new
> Mini is very heavy car and heavier than the Austin Maxi. A technically
> poor design - just retro design.
To be fair to the new Mini, it does do/have a lot of things the old Mini
didn't do/have. I've often wondered though what a old mini like car with old
mini options would get in mpg with a modern engine in it.
Posted by vaughn on August 17, 2009, 12:33 am
"stu" <no where just yet> wrote in message
> To be fair to the new Mini, it does do/have a lot of things the old Mini
> didn't do/have. I've often wondered though what a old mini like car with
> old mini options would get in mpg with a modern engine in it.
There are lots of "cute" retro body styles that could be brought back
(perhaps on a modern space-frame platform with a plastic body) and sold on
the boutique market, much like the Mini is today. The little 2-seat
convertible Nash Metro and the MG Midget come to mind as possible examples.
Vaughn
Posted by clare on August 17, 2009, 3:50 am
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:58:50 +1000, "stu" <no where just yet> wrote:
>> 15 years ago Rover (ex British Leyland -> ex BMC) was a profitable
>> expanding
>> company with a great range of vehicles. BMW totally screwed the company
>> up - deliberately so. It was predicted BMW would and they did. The new
>> Mini is very heavy car and heavier than the Austin Maxi. A technically
>> poor design - just retro design.
>>
>To be fair to the new Mini, it does do/have a lot of things the old Mini
>didn't do/have. I've often wondered though what a old mini like car with old
>mini options would get in mpg with a modern engine in it.
I'm sure a car the weight of the old mini, with a current technology
850CC engine would get well in excess of 70mpg if limited to the
speed/performance of the original.
The only car I ever drove (1961 Morris Mini) that could go faster in
3rd gear than 4th with 4 people on board!!! It was faster than my '49
VW with only one on board - but not by a whole lot.
Posted by harry on August 17, 2009, 7:31 pm
On Aug 17, 4:50 am, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:58:50 +1000, "stu" <no where just yet> wrote:
> >> 15 years ago Rover (ex British Leyland -> ex BMC) was a profitable
> >> expanding
> >> company with a great range of vehicles. BMW totally screwed the company
> >> up - deliberately so. It was predicted BMW would and they did. The new
> >> Mini is very heavy car and heavier than the Austin Maxi. A technically
> >> poor design - just retro design.
> >To be fair to the new Mini, it does do/have a lot of things the old Mini
> >didn't do/have. I've often wondered though what a old mini like car with old
> >mini options would get in mpg with a modern engine in it.
> I'm sure a car the weight of the old mini, with a current technology
> 850CC engine would get well in excess of 70mpg if limited to the
> speed/performance of the original.
> The only car I ever drove (1961 Morris Mini) that could go faster in
> 3rd gear than 4th with 4 people on board!!! It was faster than my '49
> VW with only one on board - but not by a whole lot.
Years ago, I went to one of these specials shows and there was a mini
that somone had shoehorned a 3500 V8 into. I think it was converted
to rear drive so there was very little mini left. From a quick glance
though it was not apparent. There was a hump on the bonnet to
accommodate the carbs, that was all. Must have given some Ferraris a
fright at the traffic lights.
The same guy had a motor cycle with a 3500 V8 engine. Longitudinal
with shaft drive. Clearly had this thing about V8s.
Posted by News on August 27, 2009, 12:10 pm
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:58:50 +1000, "stu" <no where just yet> wrote:
>>
>>> 15 years ago Rover (ex British Leyland -> ex BMC) was a profitable
>>> expanding
>>> company with a great range of vehicles. BMW totally screwed the company
>>> up - deliberately so. It was predicted BMW would and they did. The new
>>> Mini is very heavy car and heavier than the Austin Maxi. A technically
>>> poor design - just retro design.
>>>
>>To be fair to the new Mini, it does do/have a lot of things the old Mini
>>didn't do/have. I've often wondered though what a old mini like car with
>>old
>>mini options would get in mpg with a modern engine in it.
>>
> I'm sure a car the weight of the old mini, with a current technology
> 850CC engine would get well in excess of 70mpg if limited to the
> speed/performance of the original.
> The only car I ever drove (1961 Morris Mini) that could go faster in
> 3rd gear than 4th with 4 people on board!!! It was faster than my '49
> VW with only one on board - but not by a whole lot.
The A series block was the same for the 850, 1000 and 1300 cc engines. They
just altered the displacement. The 850cc engine was way too heavy for its
size. The last of the A series at 1300cc and fuel injected had an amazing
power/weight ratio. They got the most of out of the unit. A lightweight
850cc engine would more like get 80-90mpg, today. I liked the idea of the
gearless Mini with a small high torque lightweight 6 cylinder engine.
Overall it was lighter as the transmission was minimal. It would have been
more reliable as few parts. Mpg would have been excellent.
> expanding
> company with a great range of vehicles. BMW totally screwed the company
> up - deliberately so. It was predicted BMW would and they did. The new
> Mini is very heavy car and heavier than the Austin Maxi. A technically
> poor design - just retro design.