theres a lot of so called myths about leyland, but they're all BS
leyland made ****** awesome cars, the fact that we're still driving them when the competition have rusted away long ago PROVES that.

i've had both remote and rod change, currently using a remote, and i do enjoy the direct feel, but its the remote thats agricultural, not the rod change.

I don't understand Leylands idea of the rod-change box. It may have been cheaper to make the rod change but they already had the tooling for the remote. The cost of tooling up a completely new gearbox would have been more than the savings in making a cheaper gearchange.
Then again there were a lot of Leyland mistakes around that time.

less weight, less vibration, less wear, cheaper to manufacture, easier to service.

Less weight. doubt it.
Less vibration. a little less.
Less wear. No!
Cheaper to manufacture. So sure but with the cost of tooling up for a new gearbox I would say they would never have made their money back.
Easier to service. No way!

You forgot the sloppy gearchange, the oil leak from the gearshift seal that was never cured by the factory. The rubber mounts on the gearshift that break or crack the floor.

I would say that the remote shift was way in front.

yep i vote the remote

_________________
Current Ride : Toyota Trueno AE86

mini parts for sale http://www.ausmini.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=42247

I've used both, Remote definetly has a heaveir feel, kinda, cant explain it, but rod is too light and it doesnt feel direct it feels somewhat..fake but in the end it doesnt matter, i wouldnt care if my car had a rod but it's got a remote gearbox som i'm happy. But I would definetely say it has a lot to do with money, yes they were stupid to change it, if it ain't broke don't fix sign must have been laid off to save cost at BL

_________________
1964 Morris 850, 1330 Supercharged - 81.8hp atws.
1975 Leyland Mini S 1100S powered - Nice and reliable.
1977 Leyland Mini LS - Project LS-T

Read the history, it's documented.
John Cooper took the first `Cooper' to BMC for approval after he built it. This was in 1961. The Morris 1100 came out.. when??
Cooper got 2 quid per car, for all the Coopers and S's until the end, which just happens to be not much prior to the Rodchange box.
Cooper 997 was the first Mini to use the remote shift..

_________________
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.

Leyland were planning on stopping production of the mini and the redesign was for the Metro, easy hey so you can all stop wondering

Jon

_________________
Roundies and Clubbies(except vans) are both ugly that is why I have Midas and a van
1293 Mini Midas Bronze,1275 Clubman van

Metro was supposed to supersede the Mini, but guess what- nobody bought the idea...

_________________
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.

The Rod change came out in 74? The Metro came out in 80. So I doubt it was the Metro.
The Metro was supposed to have an ohc engine with mono-block engine/gearbox cast as one unit. (I have seen this engine )
The A+ was the fallback when Leyland overspent the budget.

Don't trust was is written about Minis! The Morris 1100 came out in the UK in 1962. The Cooper may have been in the shops first but the 1100 had been under development for about 5 years.
If it wasn't for the 1100 there would not have been a remote box.

And here we go again...
Both are equally as good as the other.
End of story.

The replacement for the mini was started in about 1970 and was coded the ADO33, the redesign of the gearchange and box and block started as soon as the mini was going to be replaced, the car was such a failure with the reseach that Leyland carried out it never made it to production and the Metro was planned always to use the A series as the first step because the new engine had not been any further than the design stage, they needed to remove weight to mantain a reasonable performance level hence rod change saved about 8 kilo

Thank the lord for good bottom engine steadies

Jon

_________________
Roundies and Clubbies(except vans) are both ugly that is why I have Midas and a van
1293 Mini Midas Bronze,1275 Clubman van

Ah well- when all my good remote change ones are dead and I just HAVE to use a rodchange, I'll build a triangulated torque arm for the back of it.
That way, it'll locate the engine better than the 850 one did in 1961... just like the remote box does.

_________________
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.

remote for me. The rod change box is all but the same but the ease of change in a remote is better, the stability of the engine with the extra mount is by far and away better. But of course if your after a box that will have parts available for some time in the future the rod will be better as there are just more 2nd hand boxes around and are cheaper. These nothing wrong with a rod change it just isn't as nice as a remote in my opinion.

So now do e move onto the pot joint v hardy spicer uni joint debate?

Cheers
Aaron

_________________