Hi Guys,

I'm fortunate to be back in the position to have a mini again.. yay me!

I previously had 79 clubman 998 that was unmodified and still running the 10" rims and so on, and I loved the go-kart ness of the handling, the revvy engine, and the fact that you could feel what the car was doing. When you nailed a corner just right you knew it.

I've noticed a few of the rover produced minis from the 80's/90's kicking around at the moment, and while I have found information on the timelines and evolution, I just cant find anything that tells me if they feel the same on the handling side of things.

Have the 8.4 discs, the 12" rims, instrusion bars, air con and other comforts killed the handling that made the mini so good, or were the engineers able to keep that essential mini-ness? I dont really need that much comfort to be honest (the other car is an old land rover defender).

So, can anyone who has driven both please share their experience of the difference? Did they kill the mini vibe?

Thanks

Dave

Tricky to compare without two cars having same wheels and engines and stuff, but generally they still drive like a mini. The main difference is the subframes were rubber mounted in the later cars which some say make the handling a little spongy. The mounts have virtually no give in them so it can't be much, and they can be replaced by solid ones anyway.

Everything else can be pulled out or changed to make it the same as a 70s car no problems.

I use a Mini40 (1999) as my daily driver and a Mini Minor (1966) for motorsport (albeit heavily modified).

To me the 13 x 6 wheels and the rubber mounted subframe just don't work as well as the original 10 inch wheels and solid mount arrangement. The Mini40 wanders a bit and tramlines, is very sensitive to bumps, and even with the rubber mounts transmits more road bumps to the cabin. Admittedly all the subframe mounting rubbers are 10 years old now and probably need refreshing to restore it to new, and I could also do with replacing the shocks and springs. I just replaced the tie rod bushes because the PO replaced them but tightened the nuts up while the car was still jacked up meaning that they were shagged almost from the day they were put in. It is a bit much to need to do this if the car is only 10 years old. Also the rubber mounted subframe tends to make it more sensitive to throttle inputs mid corner. There is a nice S-bend on the motorway on the way home that is a comfortable "hundred mile an hour" type bend. At the 120km/hr speed limit, I can easily move the car accross the lane by adjusting the throttle - and more so than the original configuration.

The original configuration is very precise, transmits less vibrations from the road, and overall just feels better. I think the reason for the differences can be found in the profile of the tyres. The 10 inch rims afford much more tyre to act as spring/damper in combination with the suspension. The profile of the 13 inch tyres means that the suspension is doing all the work but was designed to have a contribution from the tyres. Having the subframe rubber mounted should help with transmitting vibrations to the cabin, but not as much as having the larger sidewall tyre.

Dunno about the 12" version as i have never driven one.

Having said all of that, the Mini40 is still very much a Mini and has all the advantage of a fuel injected engine (MPi in my case), smooth idle and easy starting, good spread of torque as well. If you can get a MPi with 12 inch wheels, it is probably the best of both worlds.

cheers
michael

_________________
the world is a book, and those who do not travel read only a page
66 Mini Minor sponsored by http://www.lifeonthehedge.com.au/ The Dog Harness Specialists
It was a pleasure ausmini. I'll miss all you misfits and reprobates

Thanks Guys,

So it sounds like there is some difference between the two. I assume its impossible to fit the 10" rims over the 8.4 discs? Though, with the rubber subframe that would probably make it even more spongy. If I got the more recent mini, I'd be looking at 12" with some decent rubber, which might help. Hmmm.

How is the gearbox on them compared to the older leylands? It was a bit of a pain at times with the older one as very few of my friends could drive it without a lot of grinding and gear missing...

cheers

Dave

That would be a correct assumption

_________________
Simon

The adventures of an owner builder in the Tallarook Ranges

The later gearbox is essentially the same design. I think the gears have more of an angled helix on them for a slightly better power capacity and quieter running but not much else.
(somone else confirm that?)

I can't answer your question from experience of older cars as I have only ever driver a 1986 Austin, a 1990 Rover and a 1992 Rover auto.

However, be aware that there are quite a wide range of differences in what's available in the '80s & 90s' category - a 2000 model sourced from Japan (for example) will have fuel injection, side-impact bars and airbag (i think) and probably Air con, 13 inch (and wide too) wheels etc, whereas a 1986 Austin could still be on narrower 12s with a carb and no real safety improvements over a 60s car other than better brakes (brake booster/discs).

That's just an example. I think that the later ones are heavier and therefore slower too

There is more helix on the A+ gears, this makes them quieter, but they lose more HP in friction.
Also, the last of the Rover boxes were thrown together with wrong idler shims etc, as they were running out of parts stock.

_________________
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.

13" wheels are universally condemned in the road handling department, they're for looks only.

i've driven some 12" wheel rover minis and they're still very much a mini

i think the rubber mounted subframe is inbetween dry cone and hydro in terms of handling.

I reckon they are worse than hydro for handling
But I'm biased, I'm a hydro lover. 7,500 Cooper Ss can't be wrong...

_________________
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.

i had a 65 deluxe with hydro, lots of other minis, and now have a 1988 Rover Austin 1000.

My Deluxe with hydro had 12x5 wheels and stuck to the road like bear poo to its hairy back side. I am with Doc. There is just something about hydro that normal suspension just doesnt give. I did have competition bump stops all round and that car just jammed into a corner and pulled out as if there was a straight road running through.

My Rover has the hi los and the modern day cone/spring/shock combination as well as (now) 13x7 wheels. The feel is bouncier, bumps feel a little mroe shuddering and cornering makes you think twice about the exact speed/braking/steering combination your using, but to be honest, i havent seen that much difference between the two in the speed vs corner ability.

In driving heaps of minis there are SO many things taht change the way you drive. Brakes, the seat cushioning and side bracing, the seatbelts, the steering wheel, the wheels, the tyres, the road condition, if its auto or manual, the roadworthiness of the car, the way the car has been treated, ....... hold me back from going on.

If you ask me, set the car up to how you like it and drive it how you drive. Its going to be impossible if you ask me to find a car that will act how you want it to act.

having had a 100 or so "older" minis , with every type of suspenson package you can think of, i now have an 86 rover with "green" coils.......the BEST ride handling combination of ANY mini i have ever driven or ridden in.

_________________
the mokeman cometh...........