The only time I've driven a Hydro Mini was the first time I drove a Mini. It was a test drive, and I was learning too many other things to notice what the ride felt like. Like how to change into 1st on a three synchro box (didn't crunch once).
That said, Hydro can't be all bad. Think about it this way - it wasn't ditched on the Mini because of handling flaws, it was ditched because of cost, manufacturing and reliability reasons. Odds are those reliability problems were down to the available materials and production technologies. Others could confirm this, but I'd imagine the Monte cars were all hydro - didn't they have to be exactly the same specs as those on the showroom floor (although with blueprinted motors)? And all S's were hydro? If not, doesn't legend also state that a showroom S was tested back to back with the 66 winning (but disqualified) car, and the showroom car (which would've been hydro) was faster? Leyland continued with the concept, and the MGF was the last of their cars to use it. 25 years after it was taken off the Mini.

So that tells you that they didn't think it was a bad thing!

Further, even Audi's used it. The last RS6 to come to Australia (the one which was the V8 Supercar Pace Car for a while) had something very close to Hydro, except it had the fluid lines going diagonally across the car, rather than directly front to back. Which would be interesting on a Mini...
I wish the bloke who last owned my 69 hadn't converted it to dry...

Oh well, at least he did the right thing and put new rubber springs in it.

I'm not spending the money to convert back now... Don't know if my subframes would suit it, either.