ausmini https://www.ausmini.com/forums/ |
|
Cooper S subframes https://www.ausmini.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=68854 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | norton [ Mon Feb 14, 2011 10:16 am ] |
Post subject: | Cooper S subframes |
I am about to send a front and rear 69 Cooper S subframes to scrap and I need re-assuring that there is nothing special about them. I have always believed there was the same subframe in all cars. They are badly knocked around and could be repaired with a fair bit of work but I don't think they are worth it I have a phobia about scrapping anything of interest as I am still traumatised after finding out my dad sent no less than 3 Cooper S's (one of them a 970) to the tip over the years when they were rusty ![]() |
Author: | 66S [ Mon Feb 14, 2011 11:17 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Hi Norton, I have never found any difference in the Hydro frames, other than minute production changes. I reckon your '69 S frames will be identical to Mini frames. Al |
Author: | 850man [ Mon Feb 14, 2011 11:56 am ] |
Post subject: | |
The hydro bags are different so I would keep them, the rest is the same as a deluxe. |
Author: | graham in aus [ Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:29 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Yup, hydrobags need saving, and fuel pump bracket off rear frame. I'll take them off your hands! ![]() |
Author: | norton [ Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:25 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Hi thanks all i should have said they are dry frames better get some measurements for the holes for the fuel punp bracket though |
Author: | Hanra [ Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:15 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
How many S's were dry suspension? |
Author: | GT mowog [ Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:43 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Hanra wrote: How many S's were dry suspension?
Very early S's were dry. All 1071's and a very small handful of 970's and 1275's. Although I think/guess norton is meaning his subframes are 'bare' rather than 'dry'. |
Author: | brett [ Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:04 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Are the Hydro bags any good? |
Author: | Morris 1100 [ Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:55 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Hanra wrote: How many S's were dry suspension? None of the Australian made ones.
|
Author: | norton [ Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:17 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
No not Hydro definately dry suspension subframes, they were in a Police spec S. I think a 69 MKII cos no body/compliance plate. So should it be Hydro ? |
Author: | Morris 1100 [ Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:19 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
norton wrote: No not Hydro definately dry suspension subframes, they were in a Police spec S. I think a 69 MKII cos no body/compliance plate. So should it be Hydro ? Yes.
|
Author: | adamstuart [ Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:31 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
How complete are they? I'm in need of a rear subby |
Author: | winabbey [ Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:02 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
norton wrote: ... they were in a Police spec S.
What tell-tale signs are there that it is Police spec., or is there a handbook or some other documentation? Is the car still with you? Not doubting you on its origin, just keen to collect as much intelligence as I can about pre-1970 Police S's since SPO41 doesn't apply to these early MK II cars. |
Author: | norton [ Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:30 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
winabbey wrote: norton wrote: ... they were in a Police spec S. What tell-tale signs are there that it is Police spec., or is there a handbook or some other documentation? Is the car still with you? Not doubting you on its origin, just keen to collect as much intelligence as I can about pre-1970 Police S's since SPO41 doesn't apply to these early MK II cars. Hi Doug You may remember we had a few msgs back and forth on this car last year mate. When you say SPO41 doesn't apply to these early MK II cars, does that mean they didn't use them as police cars or that they didn't have aformal specification ? |
Author: | Morris 1100 [ Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:34 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Early cars used SPO16, just the lowered seats. |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |