I have a vague recollection "competition" hydro fluid was once available which made the ride in hydro cars harder, but improved the handling. I imagine it is NLA.
No doubt others more knowlegable, older or wiser can comment.
I have thought of experimenting with the viscosity of the fluid (adding more ethelene glycol perhaps?) to replicate the competition fluid, but it would probably involve to much trial & error and life is too short

_________________
1967 Cooper S - new front bearings to do.
1965 Cooper S shell - Slow progress. No time or money!
1966 Deluxe- next rustoration!
Mk 2 & XJ6 Jags. Less said the better.

I use a 50/50 mix of pure ethylene glycol and distilled water as a hydro fluid. A little more viscous than standard, and it works well.

I have heard some use 100% EG, and it seems to work for them.

Hydro handling is good. Try adjustable suspension arms, and good tyres if you really want to make a difference!

Matt

_________________
68 Deluxe.... it's shiny..... I like shiny!!

Hi Matt,

Can you advise where you get your EG from?

Thanks

peter

_________________
1967 Cooper S - new front bearings to do.
1965 Cooper S shell - Slow progress. No time or money!
1966 Deluxe- next rustoration!
Mk 2 & XJ6 Jags. Less said the better.

If you look in the auto parts stores you can find a coolant concentrate that is about 1200grams/litre EG. It is 99.9% EG, with just the bittering agent required by law (as it is sweet tasting but quite poisonous) added.

Might have the bottle at home somewhere, will have a look. Methinks I binned it tho. Was around $35 for a 5 litre bottle, and may have been 'tectalloy' brand from memory.

_________________
68 Deluxe.... it's shiny..... I like shiny!!

Is that why the coolant I got recently both looked like lime cordial, but also smelt like it? Didn't try the taste test but I was tempted.

Thanks guys. Yeah, I can see the dangers with the green colour.

Getting the child-proof top off may be a challenge for me though........................

_________________
1967 Cooper S - new front bearings to do.
1965 Cooper S shell - Slow progress. No time or money!
1966 Deluxe- next rustoration!
Mk 2 & XJ6 Jags. Less said the better.

So what are you trying to achieve with thicker fluid?
Thicker fluid will not increase the spring rate. (Hydro uses a rubber spring)
It will increase the damper rate provided that the original damper valves have not crumbled into grit. (When you drain oil hydro fluid you will find a lot of black granules that were once the damper valves)
External shocks will give the same result as thicker fluid.

Basically, a firmer ride. I want my deluxe project to ride like an S, but have no S displacers. Not interested in rubber cones.
I thought of your suggestion -shockers, but unsure what the effect of chucking the rear helper springs would be
So being basically a very lazy person, I thought changing to thicker viscosity would do the trick.

_________________
1967 Cooper S - new front bearings to do.
1965 Cooper S shell - Slow progress. No time or money!
1966 Deluxe- next rustoration!
Mk 2 & XJ6 Jags. Less said the better.

S displacers had thicker rubber springs and different damping valves. After all this time a standard spring will probably be as hard as the original S one!

You must keep the helper springs on the rear. You only need to fit shocks to the front.

Ok, cheers

_________________
1967 Cooper S - new front bearings to do.
1965 Cooper S shell - Slow progress. No time or money!
1966 Deluxe- next rustoration!
Mk 2 & XJ6 Jags. Less said the better.

I've had people come up to me and car shows and tell me not to change the hydro cause they changed their car over when it was working perfectly fine - they changed to dry for better handling.

I think it handles fine and my bags don't leak or anything and consistantly holds pressure. I'm not going to change to dry unless there isn't a single useable hydro bag left in the country.

Don't think the individual little valves on each bag would actually do anything apart from add more weight.

<edit> Ask yourself what all the monte carlo winners were running From memory I think it was hydro

_________________
"In two years time your car will be like a lady's clothes, out of date, my car will still be in fashion when I am dead" - Sir Alec speaking to Pininfarina

I prefer hydro so much over dry, the wife's `77 Clubby van is going wet when rebuilt. Will have 1412 stroker, just for fun.
BTW I find old hydro bags don't sag as much as old rubber cones. And if one ever leaks, meh... I got spare ones.

_________________
DrMini- 1970 wasaMatic 1360, Mk1S crank, 86.6HP (ATW) =~125 @ crank, 45 Dellorto (38 chokes), RE282 sprint cam, 1.5 rockers, 11.0:1 C/R.

can somebody please explain what hydro suspention is?

Early Minis had rubber cone suspension.
From 1965 (in Oz) they fitted hydrolastic suspension instead, on most models except 850 and vans.
These use a displacer at each corner. Imagine a rubber cone with a hollow fluid bag inside it, between it and the suspension arms.
These are filled with a water/alcohol mixture, and are pressurised to nearly 300psi. The front displacers are connected to the rear, on each side.
As the front wheels go over a bump, fluid is displaced to the rear, which causes the rear of the car to rise at the same time. This maintains the car pretty level, where in a rubber cone Mini it would pitch fore and aft.

Cooper S here all had hydro until the entire model run ended, likewise our Clubman GT.
Around 1973 Minis all went back to rubber cones, Leyland wanted to save money.

I can go over local road speed humps in mine easy at 50KMH, the car just floats a little. Do this in our dry car, with Koni shocks, and you will nearly lose your brekky.

_________________
DrMini- 1970 wasaMatic 1360, Mk1S crank, 86.6HP (ATW) =~125 @ crank, 45 Dellorto (38 chokes), RE282 sprint cam, 1.5 rockers, 11.0:1 C/R.

similar to a Citroen suspention setup?