ausmini
https://www.ausmini.com/forums/

hydro and dry 50/50
https://www.ausmini.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=33117		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  1360 LS [ Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:36 am ]
Post subject:  hydro and dry 50/50
How common was the dry front end and hydro rear? Does it effect performance and if so does it increase or lower it? What are the advantages if any? Last but not least what model's would you find this setup on and was it factory fitted?
Author:  bnicho [ Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:39 am ]
Post subject: 
Never factory fitted. A Mini was either all-dry or all-hydro.

But why would you want to anyway? Hydro is designed to work as inconnected front to rear.
Author:  1360 LS [ Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:43 am ]
Post subject: 
bnicho wrote:
Never factory fitted. A Mini was either all-dry or all-hydro.

But why would you want to anyway? Hydro is designed to work as inconnected front to rear.



Well apparently thats what I have..... so in other words best to convert the rear then at some point and have dry all round??
Author:  clubmn [ Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: hydro and dry 50/50
1360 LS wrote:
How common was the dry front end and hydro rear? Does it effect performance and if so does it increase or lower it? What are the advantages if any? Last but not least what model's would you find this setup on and was it factory fitted?


Wasn't ever factory fitted to any car, maybe a modification and prob for lazyness, would be found on a mini that someone has purchased a complete sub frame with motor and it was dry and they put it in blocking off or crimping the hydro line, so the rear would still hold fluid.

Is it good? nope, but i have seen it before.
Author:  Mort Subite [ Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: hydro and dry 50/50
1360 LS wrote:
How common was the dry front end and hydro rear? Does it effect performance and if so does it increase or lower it? What are the advantages if any? Last but not least what model's would you find this setup on and was it factory fitted?


My 2 cents:
AFAIK Hydrolastic is a sealed unit with dampened displacement front to rear and vice versa. One sealed system either side. Just like other fluid systems - there are no moving mechanical parts to wear out. 8)

Having the rear blocked off from the front may still give you some movement via the compression of the low preasurised sealed fluid line and diaphram unit, but I would seriously suspect that it would be a rotten road holding alternative to simply replacing/reconnecting the proper hydrolastic system. :D

Even if changing from 'wet' to 'dry' (as lots of owners seem inclined to want to do) is to get better 'performance' from a mini, hydraulic systems have been used in big money engineered competition cars for decades with great success (sorry the Citroen owner comes out in me now). :roll:

Sounds like yet another butchered car to me. :cry:

Be brave and give it back what it was intended to have. If you really dont like the hydro - then it seems an easy weekends work and a few rubber blocks to the change it to static suspension. :wink:

Q: Are there really that many cases of unreliable hyrolastic systems in BMC products:?:
Author:  mad-mk1 [ Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:23 am ]
Post subject: 
just thinkin about it, i recon it wooldent be too bad, spastic up the front and dry at the rear , wooldent it handle better?

the spastic on my delux is all over the shop....
Author:  1360 LS [ Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:29 am ]
Post subject: 
It's a 74 model Clubman what was the factory fitted suspension for this model?
Author:  Mike_Byron [ Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
1360 LS wrote:
It's a 74 model Clubman what was the factory fitted suspension for this model?


dry !!!!
Author:  1360 LS [ Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
thanks mike, well I'll eventually get around to changing it and thanks
Author:  bnicho [ Thu Jun 21, 2007 1:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
No! It could be either. 74 was the changeover year! It depends when in 74 it was built.

If there are no hydro pipes under teh floor above the back subframe or sticking out of the bolt on covers at either end of the floor, it's likely it started life as dry.

My bet would be it started luife as Hydro and someone has replaced teh complete engine/gearbox/front sub as a unit at some point and simply blanked off the hydro pipes somewhere.
Author:  Mort Subite [ Thu Jun 21, 2007 1:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
bnicho wrote:
No! It could be either. 74 was the changeover year! It depends when in 74 it was built. ............... My bet would be it started luife as Hydro and someone has replaced teh complete engine/gearbox/front sub as a unit at some point and simply blanked off the hydro pipes somewhere.


I'd pay that one too.
Author:  AEG163job [ Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yep - third that. No doubt some backyard butcher who failed to appreciate the engineering masterpeice of floating on fluid :cry:
Author:  1360 LS [ Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
who knows at the end of the day all I know for certain is I want it all to the same. I'll check out exactly whats going on over the weekend.
Author:  jbeenz [ Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
so you have a new mini?
Author:  Mike_Byron [ Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
I will bow to better knowledge. I thought the change over to dry was earlier than 74.

Zach - I actually prefer a wet car. The are softer in the ride etc and with a set of shockies fitted all the way round they handle well. They won Bathurst floating on fluid.

I also maintain that a normal person on the road and at sensible speeds could not tell the difference in ultimate road holding capabilities between wet and dry. On the race track yes - but then many other factors start to come into play as well.

I think the claims of dry being better is a myth because many are simply frightened of the wet system being fragile. Its normally not the case.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/