A couple of Rootes questions

[Derek Heath]

Hi all,
In a range of Rootes cars consisting of Hillman, Humber, Sunbeam and
Singer, what markets would each car have been aimed at? ISTR that a
Hillman was the basic, family model, the Sunbeam the sportier one and the
Humber the posh one. Where does that leave the Singer or have I got it all
wrong?
And what was made (if anything) at Rootes in Maidstone? The building there
seems far too big just to be a dealership and it seems a little odd (or
coincidental) to have a dealer with the same name as the brand.

TIA, Del.
--
To email me, remove YOURCLOTHES

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <cemhec$33a$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
Ken Forrest <ken.forrest@btinternet.com> wrote:
> I know nothing of Maidstone. Rootes had two factories in Coventry - both
> still owned by Peugeot. They had a place in Birmingham which became the
> Spares centre. It was flattened and is now houses. As was Linwood in
> Paisley.

Their head office and original factory was Barbrey Road in North
Kensington London - close to the Portobello Road. The head office bit
still exists as it's listed, but the rest of the site is now a
supermarket. "The Bill" was made there up to about '90. ;-)

--
*Tell me to 'stuff it' - I'm a taxidermist.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <ceod65$du4$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>,
R.N. Robinson <ronrob@frumiousbandersnatch.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> The Rootes family bought Singer - probably for factory space - not long
> before they sold the group to Chrysler and the Singer-badged
> Rootemobiles fitted in somewhere between Hillman and Humber being
> (IIRC)Minxes with bits of wood inside.

Don't know what you mean by not long before, but they owned Singer for
about 30 years before selling out to Chrysler.

--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[:::Jerry::::]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4cd8cb0d15dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <ceod65$du4$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> R.N. Robinson <ronrob@frumiousbandersnatch.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > The Rootes family bought Singer - probably for factory space - not long
> > before they sold the group to Chrysler <snip>
>
> Don't know what you mean by not long before, but they owned Singer for
> about 30 years before selling out to Chrysler.
>

Err, I'm not so sure they sold rather than Chrysler bought what remained of
a failing group...

[MeatballTurbo]

In article <cemhec$33a$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
ken.forrest@btinternet.com says...
> As was Linwood in
> Paisley.
>
>
My uncle worked there during the end of the Imp, start of the
Chrysler/Talbot Sunbeam days.
--
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

[Adrian]

MeatballTurbo (carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

>> As was Linwood in Paisley.

> My uncle worked there during the end of the Imp, start of the
> Chrysler/Talbot Sunbeam days.

As the ex-owner of a '75 wImp, can you please give him some abuse from me?

[Leroy Curtis]

In article <4cd8cb61f8dave@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> writes
>In article <cemhec$33a$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
> Ken Forrest <ken.forrest@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> I know nothing of Maidstone. Rootes had two factories in Coventry - both
>> still owned by Peugeot. They had a place in Birmingham which became the
>> Spares centre. It was flattened and is now houses. As was Linwood in
>> Paisley.
>
>Their head office and original factory was Barbrey

ITYM Barlby

> Road in North
>Kensington London - close to the Portobello Road. The head office bit
>still exists as it's listed, but the rest of the site is now a
>supermarket. "The Bill" was made there up to about '90. ;-)
>

--
Regards

Leroy Curtis

Please replace "nospam" with "baram" in my address if you wish to
reply by Email

[Geoff Mackenzie]

"Leroy Curtis" <leroy@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ddtMCzAjjLEBFwNM@baram.demon.co.uk...
> In article <4cd8cb61f8dave@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)"
> <dave@davenoise.co.uk> writes
> >In article <cemhec$33a$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
> > Ken Forrest <ken.forrest@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> I know nothing of Maidstone. Rootes had two factories in Coventry -
both
> >> still owned by Peugeot. They had a place in Birmingham which became the
> >> Spares centre. It was flattened and is now houses. As was Linwood in
> >> Paisley.
> >
> >Their head office and original factory was Barbrey
>
> ITYM Barlby
>
Correct (as ever). Barlby Road, I went there to collect a new radiator for
a crashed Tiger (it wouldn't go in - another story).

Geoff MacK

[Geoff Mackenzie]

"Grimly Curmudgeon" <grimlycurmudgeon683@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2r4h05c2ip4qq57b8d20btfjujj71c4qp@4ax.com...
> It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember ":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.net>
> saying something like:
>
> >The whole front end was a crap design, to get safe sensible handling out
of
> >them one needed to keep a bulk bag of cement (or some such weight) in the
> >load area.
>
> Or simply lower the fixing points of the wishbones (something the
> factory should have done in the first place).
>
A story circulating at the time was that the pre-production models actually
handled rather well, but it was discovered that the headlamps were lower
than the Construction and Use regs required. So they simply jacked up the
front end, which obeyed the law but ruined the handling (shades of later
MGBs). Don't know if this is true - over to the NG.

I think another problem was the lack of development potential of the engine.
While the venerable A Series engine in its direct competitor grew from 848
to 1300 over the years, there simply wasn't enough meat or room in the Imp
block to take it any further than - what was it? about 875?

A great shame. While quite different in character to the Mini it had some
excellent points. Ruined, as other have said, by poor development, poor
build quality, incompetent management and resentful workforce.

It was a bad time for British manufacturing. Just as an aside (don't I
always) in the immediate pre and post war years Britain had a thriving light
aircraft industry. The Government appointed two Ministers to review it.
They were John Stonehouse (who did a Reggie Perrin) and Tony Benn. We now
buy Cessnas and Pipers from the USA, Robins from France and so on. I
understand we are pretty good at making paper darts.

Geoff MacK

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <cf25oh$fgg$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Geoff Mackenzie <geoff@acsysindia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I think another problem was the lack of development potential of the
> engine. While the venerable A Series engine in its direct competitor
> grew from 848 to 1300 over the years, there simply wasn't enough meat or
> room in the Imp block to take it any further than - what was it? about
> 875?

The original A Series in the Austin A30 was 803cc

But it was enlarged as the requirement for more power became apparent with
newer models. The Imp engine was adequate from the start.

But didn't Chrysler produce a larger version?

--
*Am I ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Chris Morriss]

In message <2nchl7Fv1mvbU1@uni-berlin.de>, ":::Jerry::::"
<me@privacy.net> writes
>
>"MeatballTurbo" <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1b7aa1b19bba5f6698a421@news.individual.ne t...
>> In article <cemhec$33a$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
>> ken.forrest@btinternet.com says...
>> > As was Linwood in
>> > Paisley.
>> >
>> My uncle worked there during the end of the Imp, start of the
>> Chrysler/Talbot Sunbeam days.
>
>Linwood, a classic example of Government meddling.
>The Hillman Imp, a classic example of a badly designed car.
>The workforce, a classic example of bad management / union relations.
>
>No wonder no of the three survived !... :~(
>
>

Apart from the fact that the Imp was a superb little car, and now
getting the recognition it always deserved.

--
Chris Morriss

[Chris Morriss]

In message <4cdaa6ff03dave@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> writes
>In article <cf25oh$fgg$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Geoff Mackenzie <geoff@acsysindia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> I think another problem was the lack of development potential of the
>> engine. While the venerable A Series engine in its direct competitor
>> grew from 848 to 1300 over the years, there simply wasn't enough meat or
>> room in the Imp block to take it any further than - what was it? about
>> 875?
>
>The original A Series in the Austin A30 was 803cc
>
>But it was enlarged as the requirement for more power became apparent with
>newer models. The Imp engine was adequate from the start.
>
> But didn't Chrysler produce a larger version?
>

The Imp engine in my Clan Crusader is 998cc, and a conservative 75BHP.
You can go up to 1040cc with the original crank. Above that you have to
go to expensive long-throw (longer than the standard 65mm anyway!)
cranks.

I think about 1200cc is the absolute max, but competition versions of
these can reach 140BHP. You need to replace the head gasket with a
Wills-ringed head though.
--
Chris Morriss

[Roger]

The message <cf25oh$fgg$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
from "Geoff Mackenzie" <geoff@acsysindia.freeserve.co.uk> contains these
words:

> A story circulating at the time was that the pre-production models actually
> handled rather well, but it was discovered that the headlamps were lower
> than the Construction and Use regs required. So they simply jacked up the
> front end, which obeyed the law but ruined the handling (shades of later
> MGBs). Don't know if this is true - over to the NG.

I mentioned something on the same lines some time ago and ISTR that
several contributors dismissed it as completely untrue. I didn't hear it
at the time but read about it some considerable time later in a
magazine.

--
Roger

[Chris Morriss]

In message <2004080714040968959@nospam.zetnet.co.uk>, Roger
<Roger@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> writes
>The message <cf25oh$fgg$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
>from "Geoff Mackenzie" <geoff@acsysindia.freeserve.co.uk> contains these
>words:
>
>> A story circulating at the time was that the pre-production models actually
>> handled rather well, but it was discovered that the headlamps were lower
>> than the Construction and Use regs required. So they simply jacked up the
>> front end, which obeyed the law but ruined the handling (shades of later
>> MGBs). Don't know if this is true - over to the NG.
>
>I mentioned something on the same lines some time ago and ISTR that
>several contributors dismissed it as completely untrue. I didn't hear it
>at the time but read about it some considerable time later in a
>magazine.
>

This is correct, and the pivot point of the front wishbones was lowered
in later production versions to bring the camber back in line.
--
Chris Morriss

[:::Jerry::::]

"Chris Morriss" <crsm@oroboros.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QuyAR$BBTLFBFwH8@oroboros.demon.co.uk...
<snip>
>
> Apart from the fact that the Imp was a superb little car, and now
> getting the recognition it always deserved.
>

What, a bit like the Trabant (sp?)........

The Imp was nothing but poor build quality, poor design and problematic to
keep maintained correctly (often due to poor design - ie. the radiator being
in totally the wrong place for an all alloy engine that suffered head gasket
problems at the slightest mention of over heating).

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Dave Plowman (News)"
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> saying something like:

>The original A Series in the Austin A30 was 803cc
>
>But it was enlarged as the requirement for more power became apparent with
>newer models. The Imp engine was adequate from the start.
>
> But didn't Chrysler produce a larger version?

The same lump was used in the base model Talbot Sunbeam at 998cc afair.
In that application it was quite reliable, showing that the original
idea was sound enough, just too prone to bad maintenance.
--

Dave
SE6a

[Chris Morriss]

In message <fkech0p4fnkb0d7jdcqc4vhthtu8tc4h32@4ax.com>, Grimly
Curmudgeon <grimlycurmudgeon683@hotmail.com> writes
>It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>drugs began to take hold. I remember "Dave Plowman (News)"
><dave@davenoise.co.uk> saying something like:
>
>>The original A Series in the Austin A30 was 803cc
>>
>>But it was enlarged as the requirement for more power became apparent with
>>newer models. The Imp engine was adequate from the start.
>>
>> But didn't Chrysler produce a larger version?
>
>The same lump was used in the base model Talbot Sunbeam at 998cc afair.
>In that application it was quite reliable, showing that the original
>idea was sound enough, just too prone to bad maintenance.

Nope, the Sunbeam used a 930cc version. (same stroke as the 875, just a
larger bore). The 998cc big-bore version is still the best but pistons
and rings are getting expensive.
--
Chris Morriss

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <fkech0p4fnkb0d7jdcqc4vhthtu8tc4h32@4ax.com>,
Grimly Curmudgeon <grimlycurmudgeon683@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The same lump was used in the base model Talbot Sunbeam at 998cc afair.
> In that application it was quite reliable, showing that the original
> idea was sound enough, just too prone to bad maintenance.

The original was loosly based on the wartime Coventry Climax fire pump
engine which was designed for high output at low weight - probably
without much regard to cost. So should be sound enough. ;-)

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker? *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Chris Morriss
<crsm@oroboros.demon.co.uk> saying something like:

>Nope, the Sunbeam used a 930cc version. (same stroke as the 875, just a
>larger bore). The 998cc big-bore version is still the best but pistons
>and rings are getting expensive.

I recall CCC or some rag did a featurette on an inspired lunatic who'd
built a sub-2 litre V8 from two of the Talbot engines.

Lovely piece of work; if only the factory had made some.
--

Dave
SE6a

[:::Jerry::::]

"Grimly Curmudgeon" <grimlycurmudgeon683@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fkech0p4fnkb0d7jdcqc4vhthtu8tc4h32@4ax.com...
> It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember "Dave Plowman (News)"
> <dave@davenoise.co.uk> saying something like:
>
> >The original A Series in the Austin A30 was 803cc
> >
> >But it was enlarged as the requirement for more power became apparent
with
> >newer models. The Imp engine was adequate from the start.
> >
> > But didn't Chrysler produce a larger version?
>
> The same lump was used in the base model Talbot Sunbeam at 998cc afair.
> In that application it was quite reliable, showing that the original
> idea was sound enough, just too prone to bad maintenance.

No, it was bad design, there was no way the radiator could get enough air
flow through it - resulting in blown head gaskets and damaged head, block or
both. The Talbot Sunbeam had the radiator in the correct place and thus the
over heating problems that the Imp was prone to vanished...

[R.N. Robinson]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4cdb4aa729dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <fkech0p4fnkb0d7jdcqc4vhthtu8tc4h32@4ax.com>,
> Grimly Curmudgeon <grimlycurmudgeon683@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > The same lump was used in the base model Talbot Sunbeam at 998cc afair.
> > In that application it was quite reliable, showing that the original
> > idea was sound enough, just too prone to bad maintenance.
>
> The original was loosly based on the wartime Coventry Climax fire pump
> engine which was designed for high output at low weight - probably
> without much regard to cost. So should be sound enough. ;-)
>

Er yes, but unfortunately when Rootes adapted the engine for quantity
production of the Imp they changed the block design and lost a lot of the
rigidity of the original Coventry Climax design. I don't know about the 998
cc Sunbeam engine,but if it was anything like the 998 Imp that the Fraser
team used to race the cylinder block was considerably stiffer than the
normal one, but still not up to Climax standards.

Ron Robinson

[Chris Morriss]

In message <cf5jn0$lbo$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, R.N. Robinson
<ronrob@frumiousbandersnatch.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:4cdb4aa729dave@davenoise.co.uk...
>> In article <fkech0p4fnkb0d7jdcqc4vhthtu8tc4h32@4ax.com>,
>> Grimly Curmudgeon <grimlycurmudgeon683@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > The same lump was used in the base model Talbot Sunbeam at 998cc afair.
>> > In that application it was quite reliable, showing that the original
>> > idea was sound enough, just too prone to bad maintenance.
>>
>> The original was loosly based on the wartime Coventry Climax fire pump
>> engine which was designed for high output at low weight - probably
>> without much regard to cost. So should be sound enough. ;-)
>>
>
>Er yes, but unfortunately when Rootes adapted the engine for quantity
>production of the Imp they changed the block design and lost a lot of the
>rigidity of the original Coventry Climax design. I don't know about the 998
>cc Sunbeam engine,but if it was anything like the 998 Imp that the Fraser
>team used to race the cylinder block was considerably stiffer than the
>normal one, but still not up to Climax standards.
>
>Ron Robinson
>
>

The Mk1 Imp engines had the 'curly edged' block which proved to be too
weak. The Mk2 and onwards used the 'straight edge' block which was much
stronger. I've never used the 930cc variant but I believe that is the
strongest block of all.

Block-stiffening plates are available to fit between the sump and the
block and these seem to remove the problems associated with any flex in
the crank area on very high output engines.

The Imp engine was a derivative of the Coventry Climax FWMA engine (this
being a 750cc design). The original all-alloy fire-pump engine was the
first of the 'FW' series.

The Imp block is actually better than the CC ones as it was pressure
die-cast, rather than a gravity casting.
--
Chris Morriss

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember ":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.net>
saying something like:

>No, it was bad design, there was no way the radiator could get enough air
>flow through it - resulting in blown head gaskets and damaged head, block or
>both.

The radiator was generally ok, perhaps a little on the small side, but
numpty owners topped up with hard tap water and didn't use antifreeze
with corrosion inhibitor, resulting in a double whammy. Slack fan belts
didn't help.

I don't know how many clagged up Imp radiators I encountered, but it was
quite a few.

> The Talbot Sunbeam had the radiator in the correct place and thus the
>over heating problems that the Imp was prone to vanished...

My point was mainly about the engine - it was a fine design.
--

Dave
SE6a

[R.N. Robinson]

"Chris Morriss" <crsm@oroboros.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BQrkOdAkalFBFwGE@oroboros.demon.co.uk...
>
> The Imp block is actually better than the CC ones as it was pressure
> die-cast, rather than a gravity casting.


The FW series of Coventry Climax engines had a top deck cast in. The Imp
did not as this would have complicated the coring for the castings, in fact
it would have rendered the production process that Rootes chose to use
impossible. This, among other things, led to some gasket problems.

Ron Robinson

[R.N. Robinson]

":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2nk8sfF1pa8vU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Chris Morriss" <crsm@oroboros.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:QuyAR$BBTLFBFwH8@oroboros.demon.co.uk...
> <snip>
> >
> > Apart from the fact that the Imp was a superb little car, and now
> > getting the recognition it always deserved.
> >
>
> What, a bit like the Trabant (sp?)........
>
> The Imp was nothing but poor build quality, poor design and problematic to
> keep maintained correctly (often due to poor design - ie. the radiator
being
> in totally the wrong place for an all alloy engine that suffered head
gasket
> problems at the slightest mention of over heating).
>
>
As probably the first person to build a 100mph* Imp I cannot agree with you
regarding the radiator postion , or for that matter most of your other
comments about the car. In spite of several pre-production models being
driven for hundreds of miles around the country every night, as soon as it
went on the market it was obvious that there were problems with the water
pump and the cylinder head gasket. AFAIR it took three re-designs of each
of these to sort them out. It wasn't exactly helped by the fact that this
was the first water-cooled rear-engined car built in this country and people
were just not used to that sort of thing. If a front engined car is
boiling and you come to a stop you know about it, but with a rear engined
one, unless you look in your mirror, you don't. As I say, our Imp would do
100 mph and we never had a problem with the radiator position or the airflow
through it. The pneumatic throttle has been mentioned and admittedly was
not very clever, but you have to remember that until then no-one had tried a
throttle cable more than a couple of yards long and most people thought
anything longer would be too jerky. I did manage to make the pneumatic job
work two SU's, but was very glad when I found a cable that would do the job
better - and also later work 4 Amals, though the vibration period that the
engine had around 8000 rpm tended to destroy the linkage to those.
IMHO the suspension worked quite well, in fact in the original form it
resulted in handling that was more like a front wheel drive car than most
front wheel drive cars.
If that didn't suit, all you had to do was drop the front pivot points (and
inner track rod ends) 2" and you could run rings round practically anything.
I am not saying that the car was perfect, it wasn't; compare the
transmission design with the VW and see which you think is the most
economical to produce in quantity, but if you consider when the thing was
originally proposed, it wasn't that bad. Both the original designers are
dead now and the recent obituaries for Tim Fry have revealed how the
Coventry Climax derivative found its way into the thing. It was perhaps
unfortunate that there wasn't the time or inclination to develop a more
suitable engine, but that is the way of the world. Basically, given the
state of the art at the time, Tim Fry's and Mike Parkes's original concept
was OK - of course anyone who has done better is welcome to disagree.

Ron Robinson

*With a special camshaft and two 1.25" SU's. Before PC's, but calculators
were just on the market; designing a cam was a matter of shutting yourself
away for a couple of days with a wet towel around your head :-( And then
you've got the valve springs of course...

[:::Jerry::::]

"R.N. Robinson" <ronrob@frumiousbandersnatch.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:cf67vt$hps$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> ":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:2nk8sfF1pa8vU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Chris Morriss" <crsm@oroboros.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:QuyAR$BBTLFBFwH8@oroboros.demon.co.uk...
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > Apart from the fact that the Imp was a superb little car, and now
> > > getting the recognition it always deserved.
> > >
> >
> > What, a bit like the Trabant (sp?)........
> >
> > The Imp was nothing but poor build quality, poor design and problematic
to
> > keep maintained correctly (often due to poor design - ie. the radiator
> being
> > in totally the wrong place for an all alloy engine that suffered head
> gasket
> > problems at the slightest mention of over heating).
> >
> >
> As probably the first person to build a 100mph* Imp I cannot agree with
you
> regarding the radiator postion , or for that matter most of your other
> comments about the car. In spite of several pre-production models being
> driven for hundreds of miles around the country every night, as soon as it
> went on the market it was obvious that there were problems with the water
> pump and the cylinder head gasket. AFAIR it took three re-designs of each
> of these to sort them out. It wasn't exactly helped by the fact that this
> was the first water-cooled rear-engined car built in this country and
people
> were just not used to that sort of thing.

So it was not well designed, you seem to be agreeing with me, how ever you
try and put iceing on it below.

If a front engined car is
> boiling and you come to a stop you know about it, but with a rear engined
> one, unless you look in your mirror, you don't.

Err, never heard of a temp' gauge ?!...

As I say, our Imp would do
> 100 mph and we never had a problem with the radiator position or the
airflow
> through it.

No I doubt you did at that sort of speed, but driving around at 30 in a
built up area on a hot day after the husband had forgotten to check the
coolant level the previous weekend is a different thing all together...

The pneumatic throttle has been mentioned and admittedly was
> not very clever, but you have to remember that until then no-one had tried
a
> throttle cable more than a couple of yards long and most people thought
> anything longer would be too jerky.

Err VW and Renault seemed to manage....

<snip>
> IMHO the suspension worked quite well, in fact in the original form it
> resulted in handling that was more like a front wheel drive car than most
> front wheel drive cars.

Err, is that meant to be a good thing, considering that it was RWD ?

> If that didn't suit, all you had to do was drop the front pivot points
(and
> inner track rod ends) 2" and you could run rings round practically
anything.

Try telling that to the average house-wife of the time !

> I am not saying that the car was perfect, it wasn't; compare the
> transmission design with the VW and see which you think is the most
> economical to produce in quantity, but if you consider when the thing was
> originally proposed, it wasn't that bad. Both the original designers are
> dead now and the recent obituaries for Tim Fry have revealed how the
> Coventry Climax derivative found its way into the thing. It was perhaps
> unfortunate that there wasn't the time or inclination to develop a more
> suitable engine, but that is the way of the world. Basically, given the
> state of the art at the time, Tim Fry's and Mike Parkes's original concept
> was OK - of course anyone who has done better is welcome to disagree.

It would be nice to know what the BMC design team behind the Mini really
thought of the Imp, inotive but unfinnished I suspect.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <2nnnpeF2pl3kU1@uni-berlin.de>,
:::Jerry:::: <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> It would be nice to know what the BMC design team behind the Mini really
> thought of the Imp, inotive but unfinnished I suspect.

You make it sound like the early Mini was without problems.

Wheels broke.
The synchromesh just didn't.
They leaked like a sieve.
Dreadful brakes.
Engine stabiliser failing causing broken exhausts - and in the worst case
throwing the car out of gear.
Windows falling out
etc etc.

I loved them both.

--
*Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Chris Morriss]

In message <4cdaa6ff03dave@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> writes
>In article <cf25oh$fgg$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Geoff Mackenzie <geoff@acsysindia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> I think another problem was the lack of development potential of the
>> engine. While the venerable A Series engine in its direct competitor
>> grew from 848 to 1300 over the years, there simply wasn't enough meat or
>> room in the Imp block to take it any further than - what was it? about
>> 875?
>
>The original A Series in the Austin A30 was 803cc
>
>But it was enlarged as the requirement for more power became apparent with
>newer models. The Imp engine was adequate from the start.
>
> But didn't Chrysler produce a larger version?
>

The Imp engine in my Clan Crusader is 998cc, and a conservative 75BHP.
You can go up to 1040cc with the original crank. Above that you have to
go to expensive long-throw (longer than the standard 65mm anyway!)
cranks.

I think about 1200cc is the absolute max, but competition versions of
these can reach 140BHP. You need to replace the head gasket with a
Wills-ringed head though.
--
Chris Morriss

[Jim Warren]

:::Jerry:::: <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2nn0ieF2elq2U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> No, it was bad design, there was no way the radiator could get enough air
> flow through it - resulting in blown head gaskets and damaged head, block
or
> both. The Talbot Sunbeam had the radiator in the correct place and thus
the
> over heating problems that the Imp was prone to vanished...
>
The air flow over the radiator varied with road speed. If you travelled at
76-78 mph, the temperature gauge shot up, and if you didn't do anything
about it, it boiled. Speeding up or slowing down restored cooling.

Jim

[Roger]

The message <4cdb79a274dave@davenoise.co.uk>
from "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> contains these words:

> You make it sound like the early Mini was without problems.

One of the supposed advantages of the transverse engine in the Mini is
the gyroscopic effect countering roll when cornering but ISTR reading
years ago that as originally designed the engine pointed in the opposite
direction. If the direction of rotation of the engine was not reversed
as well that surely would have meant that the gyroscopic effect would
have accentuated roll when cornering but then would that have been at
all important given Issigonis' desire to design a motorised shopping
trolley rather than a normal car.

--
Roger

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <2004080912453868959@nospam.zetnet.co.uk>,
Roger <Roger@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > You make it sound like the early Mini was without problems.

> One of the supposed advantages of the transverse engine in the Mini is
> the gyroscopic effect countering roll when cornering but ISTR reading
> years ago that as originally designed the engine pointed in the opposite
> direction. If the direction of rotation of the engine was not reversed
> as well that surely would have meant that the gyroscopic effect would
> have accentuated roll when cornering but then would that have been at
> all important given Issigonis' desire to design a motorised shopping
> trolley rather than a normal car.

It was designed with a transfer engine to save space - nothing else. The
reason the engine was turned round was the carburettor at the front
suffered from icing problems. So they swapped that for distributor ones.
;-)

I've still not had it explained why they didn't just change the rotation
direction of the engine after being forced to turn it round. Would have
saved those noisy transfer gears. You'd have needed a different dizzy and
oil pump, but can't really think of much else.

--
*Don't worry; it only seems kinky the first time.*

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <4cdbc2ab53dave@davenoise.co.uk>,
Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> It was designed with a transfer engine to save space

Bl***y spool cheekers.

--
*Proofread carefully to see if you any words out or mispeld something *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Jim Warren]

Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4cdbc2ab53dave@davenoise.co.uk...
>
> I've still not had it explained why they didn't just change the rotation
> direction of the engine after being forced to turn it round. Would have
> saved those noisy transfer gears. You'd have needed a different dizzy and
> oil pump, but can't really think of much else.
>
Wouldn't the timing chain adjuster need to be moved to the slack side?
The starter motor would need to be reversed, along with the bendix thread.

Jim

[:::Jerry::::]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4cdb79a274dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <2nnnpeF2pl3kU1@uni-berlin.de>,
> :::Jerry:::: <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> > It would be nice to know what the BMC design team behind the Mini really
> > thought of the Imp, inotive but unfinnished I suspect.
>
> You make it sound like the early Mini was without problems.
>
<snil list of faults for brevity only>

Yes, but there was nothing new about the Imp, it had all been done before...

[:::Jerry::::]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4cdbc2ab53dave@davenoise.co.uk...
<snip>

[ re Mini engine ]
>
> I've still not had it explained why they didn't just change the rotation
> direction of the engine after being forced to turn it round. Would have
> saved those noisy transfer gears. You'd have needed a different dizzy and
> oil pump, but can't really think of much else.
>

That would in effect mean a new engine, remember that blocks are designed to
accommodate the thrust forces from the power stroke and as such the block
would have needed to be re-worked, also the camshaft (lobe timing) would
have had to be altered.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <ZxNRc.2076$3w7.22501393@news-text.cableinet.net>,
Jim Warren <jimwarren@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > I've still not had it explained why they didn't just change the
> > rotation direction of the engine after being forced to turn it round.
> > Would have saved those noisy transfer gears. You'd have needed a
> > different dizzy and oil pump, but can't really think of much else.
> >
> Wouldn't the timing chain adjuster need to be moved to the slack side?

What timing chain adjuster? ;-)

> The starter motor would need to be reversed, along with the bendix
> thread.

True, but not all engines run in the same direction, so others must manage
it.

--
*How much deeper would the oceans be without sponges? *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <2npmogF3dnjvU2@uni-berlin.de>,
:::Jerry:::: <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> > I've still not had it explained why they didn't just change the rotation
> > direction of the engine after being forced to turn it round. Would have
> > saved those noisy transfer gears. You'd have needed a different dizzy and
> > oil pump, but can't really think of much else.
> >

> That would in effect mean a new engine, remember that blocks are
> designed to accommodate the thrust forces from the power stroke and as
> such the block would have needed to be re-worked,

I wonder if they are on an engine that crude? I realise it had the tappet
chest on one side.

> also the camshaft (lobe timing) would have had to be altered.

Hardly a major problem, even then?

--
*We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[:::Jerry::::]

[ re BMC Mini engine ]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4cdbde26e8dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <2npmogF3dnjvU2@uni-berlin.de>,
> :::Jerry:::: <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> > > I've still not had it explained why they didn't just change the
rotation
> > > direction of the engine after being forced to turn it round. Would
have
> > > saved those noisy transfer gears. You'd have needed a different dizzy
and
> > > oil pump, but can't really think of much else.
> > >
>
> > That would in effect mean a new engine, remember that blocks are
> > designed to accommodate the thrust forces from the power stroke and as
> > such the block would have needed to be re-worked,
>
> I wonder if they are on an engine that crude? I realise it had the tappet
> chest on one side.
>
> > also the camshaft (lobe timing) would have had to be altered.
>
> Hardly a major problem, even then?
>

All in all, more expensive [1] than just adding one more transfer gear, as
placing the gearbox in the sump means you need a gear-train anyway - to get
the power down to the gearbox IYSWIM.

[1] money that was not available AIUI.

[:::Jerry::::]

"Chris Morriss" <crsm@oroboros.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QuyAR$BBTLFBFwH8@oroboros.demon.co.uk...
<snip>
>
> Apart from the fact that the Imp was a superb little car, and now
> getting the recognition it always deserved.
>

What, a bit like the Trabant (sp?)........

The Imp was nothing but poor build quality, poor design and problematic to
keep maintained correctly (often due to poor design - ie. the radiator being
in totally the wrong place for an all alloy engine that suffered head gasket
problems at the slightest mention of over heating).

[Stuffed]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4cdbde533edave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <ZxNRc.2076$3w7.22501393@news-text.cableinet.net>,
> Jim Warren <jimwarren@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > The starter motor would need to be reversed, along with the bendix
> > thread.
>
> True, but not all engines run in the same direction, so others must manage
> it.

Only other one I can think of that uses a Lucas inertia starter, but going
the wrong way, is the TR1300 fwd. Although I'm sure I remember someone I
know talking about Berkleys using the same "reverse" starter, BICBW.

Oddly, the 1300 engine goes the right way, it's just the starter is in the
wrong place..

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <cf25oh$fgg$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Geoff Mackenzie <geoff@acsysindia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I think another problem was the lack of development potential of the
> engine. While the venerable A Series engine in its direct competitor
> grew from 848 to 1300 over the years, there simply wasn't enough meat or
> room in the Imp block to take it any further than - what was it? about
> 875?

The original A Series in the Austin A30 was 803cc

But it was enlarged as the requirement for more power became apparent with
newer models. The Imp engine was adequate from the start.

But didn't Chrysler produce a larger version?

--
*Am I ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[AR Gonot]

sPoNiX wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 18:48:36 +0100, Derek Heath
> <derekYOURCLOTHESheath@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi all,
>>In a range of Rootes cars consisting of Hillman, Humber, Sunbeam and
>>Singer, what markets would each car have been aimed at? ISTR that a
>>Hillman was the basic, family model, the Sunbeam the sportier one and the
>>Humber the posh one. Where does that leave the Singer or have I got it all
>>wrong?
>>And what was made (if anything) at Rootes in Maidstone? The building there
>>seems far too big just to be a dealership and it seems a little odd (or
>>coincidental) to have a dealer with the same name as the brand.
>
>
> Rootes Maidstone used to make truck bodies, afaik.
>
> sPoNiX
It was the Tilling-Stevens plant the TS3 engine was produced there I
think and the PB van

[AR Gonot]

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

> "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4cd8cb0d15dave@davenoise.co.uk...
>
snip
>
> Err, I'm not so sure they sold rather than Chrysler bought what remained of
> a failing group...
>
>

Not quite correct Rootes were doing very well up until 61-62 when a long
strike coupled with the costs of starting Linwood up caused them to
start running at a loss, what really caused them major financial trouble
was the warranty costs on the early Imps combined with its resultant
slow sales.

When Chrysler bought in circa 66 they were suposed to invest cash and
technical resources they did neither a situation which didn't change
with the later full takeover. Truth was Rootes/Chrysler Uk was so small
a pin on Chrysler US map that they simply forgot about it and its
losses until the US company got into deep trouble then they robbed both
the British and French arms of small car design know how and cut and ran.

[AR Gonot]

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

> "MeatballTurbo" <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b7aa1b19bba5f6698a421@news.individual.ne t...
>
>>In article <cemhec$33a$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
>>ken.forrest@btinternet.com says...
>>
>>>As was Linwood in
>>>Paisley.
>>>
>>
>>My uncle worked there during the end of the Imp, start of the
>>Chrysler/Talbot Sunbeam days.
>
>
> Linwood, a classic example of Government meddling.
> The Hillman Imp, a classic example of a badly designed car.
> The workforce, a classic example of bad management / union relations.
>
> No wonder no of the three survived !... :~(
>
>

Hold it

(1) The Imp was an exceptionally well designed car with one killer
design flaw that could have been fixed with a little investment
(2) Chrysler didn't invest any money in developing the UK arm.
(3) Problem with Linwood was initially caused by the fact it started
with an already highly unionised labour force into which was inserted
"key workers" from the Coventry plant -- for keyworkers read the
trouble makers the other plants didn't want.
(4) Chryslers single contribution to the Linwood plant was managers
from Chryler US -- you guessed it mostly sent over here because they
had caused union trouble in the US

[AR Gonot]

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

> "Grimly Curmudgeon" <grimlycurmudgeon683@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rbg4h0hot89crjvrlutr0dp4gseglu1dhn@4ax.com...
>

> The whole front end was a crap design, to get safe sensible handling out of
> them one needed to keep a bulk bag of cement (or some such weight) in the
> load area. The body was designed to rot, the inside trim was appalling. I'll
> grant you the back end was good, very good, pity that all the design teams
> grey matter was used up before getting further forward than the rear
> wheels...
>
>

It was designed to have terminnal understeer -- quite a considerable
achievent in a rear engined car. The Mk1 had too much understeer the Mk
2 a bit less and the Imp Sport with had more or less neutral handling,
and would out corner anything on british roads at that time including
the Lotus Elan ( I owned both at the same time). For race circuits
with mods the consisted simply of lowering and fitting as front
anti-roll bar the Imp out handled the Mini as a result Minis were
quickly pushed out of the up to 1000cc saloon racing class.

The trim was a lot better than the Mini of the same era which lacked
windup wundows, door handles and a carpet (Imps had these from day
although the carpet disapeared from the poverty model in the early 70s),
and if you consider the Singer models plush.

[AR Gonot]

Geoff Mackenzie wrote:

> "Grimly Curmudgeon" <grimlycurmudgeon683@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c2r4h05c2ip4qq57b8d20btfjujj71c4qp@4ax.com...
>
snip
>
> A story circulating at the time was that the pre-production models actually
> handled rather well, but it was discovered that the headlamps were lower
> than the Construction and Use regs required. So they simply jacked up the
> front end, which obeyed the law but ruined the handling (shades of later
> MGBs). Don't know if this is true - over to the NG.
>
This is true but I am told it was at the request of Lord Rootees
Interesting the Imp Sport rides 2 inches lower than the MK1 and didn't
have problems with C & U regs.



> I think another problem was the lack of development potential of the engine.
> While the venerable A Series engine in its direct competitor grew from 848
> to 1300 over the years, there simply wasn't enough meat or room in the Imp
> block to take it any further than - what was it? about 875?
>

Bigger engines were possible laying aside the wet liner 998 and other
much bigger engines built for racing the Sunbeam 930 used the more or
less same block with bigger cast in liners and a longer stroke version
were built and tested in various protypes (including Avengers).

The real problem was Chrysler refused to invest in new castings.
In its original form the Imp engines was detuned for insurance reasons,
even in the early 70s when the sprt cam was fitted to meet emmission
requirements the carb venturi was reduced in dia to bring power back
down to the original level.

Power outputs were

875cc standard Imp 40bhp
875cc Imp sport twin 1.25" Stromberg 52 BHP
998cc "Rallye" Imp 65 bhp (Sport cam but with 1.5" Strombergs)
932cc Sunbeam Hatchback sngle 1.5" Stromberg 52 bhp
998cc race imp to works spec 105 BHP
998cc race imp to hartwell spec 117bhp
998cc race Imp Chessman spec 123 bhp
1140cc race Imp Carter spec 137 bhp
932cc Sunbeam Hatchback sngle 1.5" Stromberg 53 bhp

Intresting to note the 875 Imp Sport and 932cc Sunbeam engine were as
almost powerfull as the A seies in a the Mini 1275GT


> A great shame. While quite different in character to the Mini it had some
> excellent points. Ruined, as other have said, by poor development, poor
> build quality, incompetent management and resentful workforce.

Strangly build actual quality was pretty good although we did come
across a case of industrial sabotage on one new Imp --- a production
plug deliberately insertetd into an oil gallery.
The real quality problems came from a lack of willingness to invest in
cures for problems they knew how to fix.

> It was a bad time for British manufacturing. Just as an aside (don't I
> always) in the immediate pre and post war years Britain had a thriving light
> aircraft industry. The Government appointed two Ministers to review it.
> They were John Stonehouse (who did a Reggie Perrin) and Tony Benn. We now
> buy Cessnas and Pipers from the USA, Robins from France and so on. I
> understand we are pretty good at making paper darts.
>
> Geoff MacK
>
>

[AR Gonot]

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

> "Chris Morriss" <crsm@oroboros.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:QuyAR$BBTLFBFwH8@oroboros.demon.co.uk...
> <snip>
>
>>Apart from the fact that the Imp was a superb little car, and now
>>getting the recognition it always deserved.
>>
>
>
> What, a bit like the Trabant (sp?)........
>
> The Imp was nothing but poor build quality, poor design and problematic to
> keep maintained correctly (often due to poor design - ie. the radiator being
> in totally the wrong place for an all alloy engine that suffered head gasket
> problems at the slightest mention of over heating).
>

Actually the raddiator position wasn't a problem SIMCA and Ranault used
rads in exactly the same position without problem -- they however used
fans the pushed the air in the opposite direction - at low speeds the
Imp would recirculate warm air through the rad.

[AR Gonot]

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

> It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember "Dave Plowman (News)"
> <dave@davenoise.co.uk> saying something like:
>
snip
> The same lump was used in the base model Talbot Sunbeam at 998cc afair.
> In that application it was quite reliable, showing that the original
> idea was sound enough, just too prone to bad maintenance.

932cc with minor stiffening mods to the block it still blew head
gaskets but on a (slightly) lesser scale real problem was block flexing,
not a problem on the 998 competition engines which used Wills rings
which allowed more relative movement between block and head.

[AR Gonot]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> In article <fkech0p4fnkb0d7jdcqc4vhthtu8tc4h32@4ax.com>,
> Grimly Curmudgeon <grimlycurmudgeon683@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The same lump was used in the base model Talbot Sunbeam at 998cc afair.
>>In that application it was quite reliable, showing that the original
>>idea was sound enough, just too prone to bad maintenance.
>
>
> The original was loosly based on the wartime Coventry Climax fire pump
> engine which was designed for high output at low weight - probably
> without much regard to cost. So should be sound enough. ;-)
>
Yes the key difference was the block the Coventry Climax was sand cast
with a conventional block face -- the Imp used an open deck design not
disimilar to the Renault 16 and Rover K series.

[AR Gonot]

R.N. Robinson wrote:

> "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4cdb4aa729dave@davenoise.co.uk...
>
>>In article <fkech0p4fnkb0d7jdcqc4vhthtu8tc4h32@4ax.com>,
>> Grimly Curmudgeon <grimlycurmudgeon683@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The same lump was used in the base model Talbot Sunbeam at 998cc afair.
>>>In that application it was quite reliable, showing that the original
>>>idea was sound enough, just too prone to bad maintenance.
>>
>>The original was loosly based on the wartime Coventry Climax fire pump
>>engine which was designed for high output at low weight - probably
>>without much regard to cost. So should be sound enough. ;-)
>>
>
>
> Er yes, but unfortunately when Rootes adapted the engine for quantity
> production of the Imp they changed the block design and lost a lot of the
> rigidity of the original Coventry Climax design. I don't know about the 998
> cc Sunbeam engine,but if it was anything like the 998 Imp that the Fraser
> team used to race the cylinder block was considerably stiffer than the
> normal one, but still not up to Climax standards.
>
> Ron Robinson
>

Ordinary racing 998s just used a standard MK2 block casting with the
liners removed by boring the wet liner were then pressed in with "green
Loctite" to secure them. The block deck is machined so the liners sit a
few thou proud of the block Likewise it was found the Fraser "deep
head" wasn't required once Wills rings were used.
Will rings are tubes about 1.5 mm dia formed in a circle with the but
ends welded together -- the important bit is they are filled with
nitrgen at very high pressure so they act as gas springs.
The Wills rings sit in grooves cut in the head round each bore with a
thin paper gasket round the outside perimeter of the block.

[:::Jerry::::]

"AR Gonot" <zen53576@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4119f087$0$203$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> :::Jerry:::: wrote:
>
> > "Grimly Curmudgeon" <grimlycurmudgeon683@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:rbg4h0hot89crjvrlutr0dp4gseglu1dhn@4ax.com...
> >
>
> > The whole front end was a crap design, to get safe sensible handling out
of
> > them one needed to keep a bulk bag of cement (or some such weight) in
the
> > load area. The body was designed to rot, the inside trim was appalling.
I'll
> > grant you the back end was good, very good, pity that all the design
teams
> > grey matter was used up before getting further forward than the rear
> > wheels...
> >
> >
>
> It was designed to have terminnal understeer -- quite a considerable
> achievent in a rear engined car. The Mk1 had too much understeer the Mk
> 2 a bit less and the Imp Sport with had more or less neutral handling,
> and would out corner anything on british roads at that time including
> the Lotus Elan ( I owned both at the same time). For race circuits
> with mods the consisted simply of lowering and fitting as front
> anti-roll bar the Imp out handled the Mini as a result Minis were
> quickly pushed out of the up to 1000cc saloon racing class.

Yes, anything can be done to improve matters, but the fact remains that the
Imp was not as it should be when leaving the show room - which after all is
what matters on a mass production 'family' car.

>
> The trim was a lot better than the Mini of the same era which lacked
> windup wundows, door handles and a carpet (Imps had these from day
> although the carpet disapeared from the poverty model in the early 70s),
> and if you consider the Singer models plush.

With the exception of the carpet the Mini was devoid of those items due to
design and not cost, an awful lot of 'storage' space was lost when wind up
windows were fitted to the Mini range.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Chris Morriss
<crsm@oroboros.demon.co.uk> saying something like:

>Nope, the Sunbeam used a 930cc version. (same stroke as the 875, just a
>larger bore). The 998cc big-bore version is still the best but pistons
>and rings are getting expensive.

I recall CCC or some rag did a featurette on an inspired lunatic who'd
built a sub-2 litre V8 from two of the Talbot engines.

Lovely piece of work; if only the factory had made some.
--

Dave
SE6a

[R.N. Robinson]

":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2nk8sfF1pa8vU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Chris Morriss" <crsm@oroboros.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:QuyAR$BBTLFBFwH8@oroboros.demon.co.uk...
> <snip>
> >
> > Apart from the fact that the Imp was a superb little car, and now
> > getting the recognition it always deserved.
> >
>
> What, a bit like the Trabant (sp?)........
>
> The Imp was nothing but poor build quality, poor design and problematic to
> keep maintained correctly (often due to poor design - ie. the radiator
being
> in totally the wrong place for an all alloy engine that suffered head
gasket
> problems at the slightest mention of over heating).
>
>
As probably the first person to build a 100mph* Imp I cannot agree with you
regarding the radiator postion , or for that matter most of your other
comments about the car. In spite of several pre-production models being
driven for hundreds of miles around the country every night, as soon as it
went on the market it was obvious that there were problems with the water
pump and the cylinder head gasket. AFAIR it took three re-designs of each
of these to sort them out. It wasn't exactly helped by the fact that this
was the first water-cooled rear-engined car built in this country and people
were just not used to that sort of thing. If a front engined car is
boiling and you come to a stop you know about it, but with a rear engined
one, unless you look in your mirror, you don't. As I say, our Imp would do
100 mph and we never had a problem with the radiator position or the airflow
through it. The pneumatic throttle has been mentioned and admittedly was
not very clever, but you have to remember that until then no-one had tried a
throttle cable more than a couple of yards long and most people thought
anything longer would be too jerky. I did manage to make the pneumatic job
work two SU's, but was very glad when I found a cable that would do the job
better - and also later work 4 Amals, though the vibration period that the
engine had around 8000 rpm tended to destroy the linkage to those.
IMHO the suspension worked quite well, in fact in the original form it
resulted in handling that was more like a front wheel drive car than most
front wheel drive cars.
If that didn't suit, all you had to do was drop the front pivot points (and
inner track rod ends) 2" and you could run rings round practically anything.
I am not saying that the car was perfect, it wasn't; compare the
transmission design with the VW and see which you think is the most
economical to produce in quantity, but if you consider when the thing was
originally proposed, it wasn't that bad. Both the original designers are
dead now and the recent obituaries for Tim Fry have revealed how the
Coventry Climax derivative found its way into the thing. It was perhaps
unfortunate that there wasn't the time or inclination to develop a more
suitable engine, but that is the way of the world. Basically, given the
state of the art at the time, Tim Fry's and Mike Parkes's original concept
was OK - of course anyone who has done better is welcome to disagree.

Ron Robinson

*With a special camshaft and two 1.25" SU's. Before PC's, but calculators
were just on the market; designing a cam was a matter of shutting yourself
away for a couple of days with a wet towel around your head :-( And then
you've got the valve springs of course...

[Chris Morriss]

In message <cf5jn0$lbo$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, R.N. Robinson
<ronrob@frumiousbandersnatch.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:4cdb4aa729dave@davenoise.co.uk...
>> In article <fkech0p4fnkb0d7jdcqc4vhthtu8tc4h32@4ax.com>,
>> Grimly Curmudgeon <grimlycurmudgeon683@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > The same lump was used in the base model Talbot Sunbeam at 998cc afair.
>> > In that application it was quite reliable, showing that the original
>> > idea was sound enough, just too prone to bad maintenance.
>>
>> The original was loosly based on the wartime Coventry Climax fire pump
>> engine which was designed for high output at low weight - probably
>> without much regard to cost. So should be sound enough. ;-)
>>
>
>Er yes, but unfortunately when Rootes adapted the engine for quantity
>production of the Imp they changed the block design and lost a lot of the
>rigidity of the original Coventry Climax design. I don't know about the 998
>cc Sunbeam engine,but if it was anything like the 998 Imp that the Fraser
>team used to race the cylinder block was considerably stiffer than the
>normal one, but still not up to Climax standards.
>
>Ron Robinson
>
>

The Mk1 Imp engines had the 'curly edged' block which proved to be too
weak. The Mk2 and onwards used the 'straight edge' block which was much
stronger. I've never used the 930cc variant but I believe that is the
strongest block of all.

Block-stiffening plates are available to fit between the sump and the
block and these seem to remove the problems associated with any flex in
the crank area on very high output engines.

The Imp engine was a derivative of the Coventry Climax FWMA engine (this
being a 750cc design). The original all-alloy fire-pump engine was the
first of the 'FW' series.

The Imp block is actually better than the CC ones as it was pressure
die-cast, rather than a gravity casting.
--
Chris Morriss

[R.N. Robinson]

"Chris Morriss" <crsm@oroboros.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BQrkOdAkalFBFwGE@oroboros.demon.co.uk...
>
> The Imp block is actually better than the CC ones as it was pressure
> die-cast, rather than a gravity casting.


The FW series of Coventry Climax engines had a top deck cast in. The Imp
did not as this would have complicated the coring for the castings, in fact
it would have rendered the production process that Rootes chose to use
impossible. This, among other things, led to some gasket problems.

Ron Robinson

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember ":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.net>
saying something like:

>Linwood, a classic example of Government meddling.

Just jobs, from the govt point of view. Something had to be done to
replace the disappearing shipbuilding jobs in the area. It was daft,
though, having all the extra cost of a relatively remote location
removed from the main markets.

>The Hillman Imp, a classic example of a badly designed car.

Not badly designed at all- marvellous little buggy to drive. Badly
maintained, often enough; the Mk2 had most of the bugs sorted.
The daft pneumatic throttle of the Mk1 was crap design, I'll give you
that.

>The workforce, a classic example of bad management / union relations.

Bad management is the right term - the heavy-handed Chrysler style was
almost guaranteed to get up the noses of the workforce, and it escalated
from there.

>No wonder no of the three survived !... :~(

It never stood a chance, given items 1 and 3.
--

Dave
SE6a

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember ":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.net>
saying something like:

>The whole front end was a crap design, to get safe sensible handling out of
>them one needed to keep a bulk bag of cement (or some such weight) in the
>load area.

Or simply lower the fixing points of the wishbones (something the
factory should have done in the first place).

> The body was designed to rot,

Normal for the time.

> the inside trim was appalling.

Nothing unusual in that, for its day.

> I'll
>grant you the back end was good, very good, pity that all the design teams
>grey matter was used up before getting further forward than the rear
>wheels...

It had some design failings, but all in all easily fixed by any halfway
enthusiastic owner.
--

Dave
SE6a

[:::Jerry::::]

"Grimly Curmudgeon" <grimlycurmudgeon683@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2r4h05c2ip4qq57b8d20btfjujj71c4qp@4ax.com...

[ re the Hillman Imp ]
>
> It had some design failings, but all in all easily fixed by any halfway
> enthusiastic owner.

But that is *not* how to design a car being sold as a 'shopping and
run-about' manly to females...

I think you 'enthusiasm' for the car has just proved my point !

[:::Jerry::::]

"Grimly Curmudgeon" <grimlycurmudgeon683@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rbg4h0hot89crjvrlutr0dp4gseglu1dhn@4ax.com...
> It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember ":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.net>
> saying something like:
>
<snip>
>
> >The Hillman Imp, a classic example of a badly designed car.
>
> Not badly designed at all- marvellous little buggy to drive. Badly
> maintained, often enough; the Mk2 had most of the bugs sorted.
> The daft pneumatic throttle of the Mk1 was crap design, I'll give you
> that.

The whole front end was a crap design, to get safe sensible handling out of
them one needed to keep a bulk bag of cement (or some such weight) in the
load area. The body was designed to rot, the inside trim was appalling. I'll
grant you the back end was good, very good, pity that all the design teams
grey matter was used up before getting further forward than the rear
wheels...

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <2004080912453868959@nospam.zetnet.co.uk>,
Roger <Roger@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > You make it sound like the early Mini was without problems.

> One of the supposed advantages of the transverse engine in the Mini is
> the gyroscopic effect countering roll when cornering but ISTR reading
> years ago that as originally designed the engine pointed in the opposite
> direction. If the direction of rotation of the engine was not reversed
> as well that surely would have meant that the gyroscopic effect would
> have accentuated roll when cornering but then would that have been at
> all important given Issigonis' desire to design a motorised shopping
> trolley rather than a normal car.

It was designed with a transfer engine to save space - nothing else. The
reason the engine was turned round was the carburettor at the front
suffered from icing problems. So they swapped that for distributor ones.
;-)

I've still not had it explained why they didn't just change the rotation
direction of the engine after being forced to turn it round. Would have
saved those noisy transfer gears. You'd have needed a different dizzy and
oil pump, but can't really think of much else.

--
*Don't worry; it only seems kinky the first time.*

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <4cdbc2ab53dave@davenoise.co.uk>,
Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> It was designed with a transfer engine to save space

Bl***y spool cheekers.

--
*Proofread carefully to see if you any words out or mispeld something *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Jim Warren]

:::Jerry:::: <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2nn0ieF2elq2U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> No, it was bad design, there was no way the radiator could get enough air
> flow through it - resulting in blown head gaskets and damaged head, block
or
> both. The Talbot Sunbeam had the radiator in the correct place and thus
the
> over heating problems that the Imp was prone to vanished...
>
The air flow over the radiator varied with road speed. If you travelled at
76-78 mph, the temperature gauge shot up, and if you didn't do anything
about it, it boiled. Speeding up or slowing down restored cooling.

Jim

[Chris Morriss]

In message <2004080714040968959@nospam.zetnet.co.uk>, Roger
<Roger@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> writes
>The message <cf25oh$fgg$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
>from "Geoff Mackenzie" <geoff@acsysindia.freeserve.co.uk> contains these
>words:
>
>> A story circulating at the time was that the pre-production models actually
>> handled rather well, but it was discovered that the headlamps were lower
>> than the Construction and Use regs required. So they simply jacked up the
>> front end, which obeyed the law but ruined the handling (shades of later
>> MGBs). Don't know if this is true - over to the NG.
>
>I mentioned something on the same lines some time ago and ISTR that
>several contributors dismissed it as completely untrue. I didn't hear it
>at the time but read about it some considerable time later in a
>magazine.
>

This is correct, and the pivot point of the front wishbones was lowered
in later production versions to bring the camber back in line.
--
Chris Morriss

[Geoff Mackenzie]

"Leroy Curtis" <leroy@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ddtMCzAjjLEBFwNM@baram.demon.co.uk...
> In article <4cd8cb61f8dave@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)"
> <dave@davenoise.co.uk> writes
> >In article <cemhec$33a$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
> > Ken Forrest <ken.forrest@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> I know nothing of Maidstone. Rootes had two factories in Coventry -
both
> >> still owned by Peugeot. They had a place in Birmingham which became the
> >> Spares centre. It was flattened and is now houses. As was Linwood in
> >> Paisley.
> >
> >Their head office and original factory was Barbrey
>
> ITYM Barlby
>
Correct (as ever). Barlby Road, I went there to collect a new radiator for
a crashed Tiger (it wouldn't go in - another story).

Geoff MacK

[Roger]

The message <4cdb79a274dave@davenoise.co.uk>
from "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> contains these words:

> You make it sound like the early Mini was without problems.

One of the supposed advantages of the transverse engine in the Mini is
the gyroscopic effect countering roll when cornering but ISTR reading
years ago that as originally designed the engine pointed in the opposite
direction. If the direction of rotation of the engine was not reversed
as well that surely would have meant that the gyroscopic effect would
have accentuated roll when cornering but then would that have been at
all important given Issigonis' desire to design a motorised shopping
trolley rather than a normal car.

--
Roger

[:::Jerry::::]

[ re BMC Mini engine ]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4cdbde26e8dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <2npmogF3dnjvU2@uni-berlin.de>,
> :::Jerry:::: <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> > > I've still not had it explained why they didn't just change the
rotation
> > > direction of the engine after being forced to turn it round. Would
have
> > > saved those noisy transfer gears. You'd have needed a different dizzy
and
> > > oil pump, but can't really think of much else.
> > >
>
> > That would in effect mean a new engine, remember that blocks are
> > designed to accommodate the thrust forces from the power stroke and as
> > such the block would have needed to be re-worked,
>
> I wonder if they are on an engine that crude? I realise it had the tappet
> chest on one side.
>
> > also the camshaft (lobe timing) would have had to be altered.
>
> Hardly a major problem, even then?
>

All in all, more expensive [1] than just adding one more transfer gear, as
placing the gearbox in the sump means you need a gear-train anyway - to get
the power down to the gearbox IYSWIM.

[1] money that was not available AIUI.

[Jim Warren]

Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4cdbc2ab53dave@davenoise.co.uk...
>
> I've still not had it explained why they didn't just change the rotation
> direction of the engine after being forced to turn it round. Would have
> saved those noisy transfer gears. You'd have needed a different dizzy and
> oil pump, but can't really think of much else.
>
Wouldn't the timing chain adjuster need to be moved to the slack side?
The starter motor would need to be reversed, along with the bendix thread.

Jim

[:::Jerry::::]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4cdb79a274dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <2nnnpeF2pl3kU1@uni-berlin.de>,
> :::Jerry:::: <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> > It would be nice to know what the BMC design team behind the Mini really
> > thought of the Imp, inotive but unfinnished I suspect.
>
> You make it sound like the early Mini was without problems.
>
<snil list of faults for brevity only>

Yes, but there was nothing new about the Imp, it had all been done before...

[:::Jerry::::]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4cdbc2ab53dave@davenoise.co.uk...
<snip>

[ re Mini engine ]
>
> I've still not had it explained why they didn't just change the rotation
> direction of the engine after being forced to turn it round. Would have
> saved those noisy transfer gears. You'd have needed a different dizzy and
> oil pump, but can't really think of much else.
>

That would in effect mean a new engine, remember that blocks are designed to
accommodate the thrust forces from the power stroke and as such the block
would have needed to be re-worked, also the camshaft (lobe timing) would
have had to be altered.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <2npmogF3dnjvU2@uni-berlin.de>,
:::Jerry:::: <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> > I've still not had it explained why they didn't just change the rotation
> > direction of the engine after being forced to turn it round. Would have
> > saved those noisy transfer gears. You'd have needed a different dizzy and
> > oil pump, but can't really think of much else.
> >

> That would in effect mean a new engine, remember that blocks are
> designed to accommodate the thrust forces from the power stroke and as
> such the block would have needed to be re-worked,

I wonder if they are on an engine that crude? I realise it had the tappet
chest on one side.

> also the camshaft (lobe timing) would have had to be altered.

Hardly a major problem, even then?

--
*We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <ZxNRc.2076$3w7.22501393@news-text.cableinet.net>,
Jim Warren <jimwarren@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > I've still not had it explained why they didn't just change the
> > rotation direction of the engine after being forced to turn it round.
> > Would have saved those noisy transfer gears. You'd have needed a
> > different dizzy and oil pump, but can't really think of much else.
> >
> Wouldn't the timing chain adjuster need to be moved to the slack side?

What timing chain adjuster? ;-)

> The starter motor would need to be reversed, along with the bendix
> thread.

True, but not all engines run in the same direction, so others must manage
it.

--
*How much deeper would the oceans be without sponges? *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.