132 replies to this topic

[David Beard]

When you have a lovely old racing car called the Lightweight Special, with it's pioneering monocoque and all, it's no problem if you find it to be in the wrong place in a crowded Shelsley paddock....
You and your mate just pick up the back end, twizzle it round, and shove it where you want it to be

[Marcor]

Interesting Article + one picture of the car, at Ragley Hillclimb, April 1962, in MOTORSPORT, December 2001.

This was in the column "The car I Wish I'd Designed".

[Pete Stowe]

I believe that Alec Issigonis’ partner with the Lightweight, John M.P. Dowson, was known as, or nicknamed, "George" Dowson. Can anyone confirm this, or explain why?

[Tim Murray]

In Bolster's book Specials he refers, throughout the item on the Lightweight, to George Dowson.

[David Beard]

I find myself more and more fascinated by this delightful little car. What a pity Issigonis later squandered his talents on mere road cars...

At Shelsley Walsh the commentator said something about the engine being a Wolseley. (I took this shot at Prescott). My handy Jenks pocket book merely describes it as a replacement for the original side valve Austin engine, being "an experimental engine from the factory where Issigonis was chief designer...with SOHC and large Zoller supercharger" Can anyone elaborate?

[Ray Bell]

Hard to tell without a head on it!

It's also hard to reconcile the word 'lightweight' with a car powered by a British production engine... at least before the Hillman Imp. Issigonis must have worked very hard on the chassis side to make it qualify for the name...

[David Beard]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Hard to tell without a head on it!

It's definitely got a head, Ray!

Perhaps this photo shows it more clearly....

[Ray Bell]

And so it has...

I was looking at the panel behind the engine, whatever that is, and seeing what appeared to be the top of a block... should have realised that was too far back!

Certainly looks either experimental or very low volume. Could it be a Lea Francis SOHC?

[David Beard]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
And so it has...

I was looking at the panel behind the engine, whatever that is, and seeing what appeared to be the top of a block... should have realised that was too far back!

Certainly looks either experimental or very low volume. Could it be a Lea Francis SOHC?

And that it it appeared to be a five cylinder unit with bores of five different sizes!;)

Surely the motor has to be of Nuffield group origin?

[Tim Murray]

Bolster's book Specials gives nothing away:

"The Austin engine was then replaced by a single-overhead camshaft Nuffield engine of similar size. Little can be said about this unit, as it is a prototype."

Georgano quotes a power output of 95 bhp for this new engine, but has no other useful information.

[David Beard]

Just found this nice article....

http://www.motorsnip...p?articleid=355

[Ray Bell]

It would seem, then, that this was the only car that was ever seen publicly with this engine?

There weren't any post-war Wolseleys of this size were there?

[RTH]

Isn't it a delightful little car over 50 years old vastly ahead of its time - even dare I say ahead of Colin Chapman.

Issigonis & Dowson built it using only the simplist of hand tools in a one car lock-up garage with no electricity every rivit hole was drilled with a hand powered drill and rivits set with hammer and hand held formers each side. - I think its a wonderful piece of work.

[Evo One]

The engine is quite clearly a "Firing order 1342"

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by RTH
Isn't it a delightful little car over 50 years old vastly ahead of its time - even dare I say ahead of Colin Chapman.

Issigonis & Dowson built it using only the simplist of hand tools in a one car lock-up garage with no electricity every rivit hole was drilled with a hand powered drill and rivits set with hammer and hand held formers each side. - I think its a wonderful piece of work.

A lot of things were ahead of Chunky - Tom Killeen's MG special, for example...

now this is a seriously good website: http://esc.dl.ac.uk/...lleen_book.html

[RTH]

Pete, you are right ,that really is worth a look , thanks.

[David Beard]

Originally posted by petefenelon


now this is a seriously good website: http://esc.dl.ac.uk/...lleen_book.html

I seem to have missed all the Lotus books by the Mr Bye mentioned at that address......

More information about the Lotus 25 can be found in another book, From Weird to Wonderful Part I - Climax engined Specials by R.J. Allan and M. Morgan-Jones (Bookmarque Publishing) to be published, the many books on the Lotus marque by Doug Bye and others and the specialist book Lotus 25 Coventry Climax FWMV by Ian Bamsey (Foulis Haynes, 1990).

[275 GTB-4]

Originally posted by RTH
Isn't it a delightful little car over 50 years old vastly ahead of its time - even dare I say ahead of Colin Chapman.

Issigonis & Dowson built it using only the simplist of hand tools in a one car lock-up garage with no electricity every rivit hole was drilled with a hand powered drill and rivits set with hammer and hand held formers each side. - I think its a wonderful piece of work.

Indeed.....truly pioneering work in the field. As for Issy "wasting" his time on road cars...takes a deep breath .....Morris Minor ('nuff said?) and can anyone really say that the revolutionary Mini was anything but a marvel of the time!!! Look at the achievements of my favourite car and you get to appreciate just how good the design was...no wonder Mini was voted car of the Century!!

[David Beard]

Originally posted by 275 GTB-4


Indeed.....truly pioneering work in the field. As for Issy "wasting" his time on road cars...takes a deep breath .....Morris Minor ('nuff said?) and can anyone really say that the revolutionary Mini was anything but a marvel of the time!!!

However marvellous the Mini may have been conceptually in 1959, it was a road car....a utilitarian device to be compared with the tumble drier and washing machine not far from here.

But this ........








(b&w to save some remnants of webspace and because it's a b&w sort of car)

[RTH]

Well you are both right of course , the Mini was a mould breaking car of enormous significance. He was a trully remarkable man who still has not had the recognition he deserves .

Did any of you see the hour long BBC documentary about him a couple of years ago - I must get it out and have another look. And yes that is a very elegant and delicate racing car .

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by David Beard
.....(b&w to save some remnants of webspace and because it's a b&w sort of car)

You might check out www.homestead.com

[Roger Clark]

This is from Automobile Design: Great Designers and their work", by Ronald Barker.

"In 1933 Mrs Issigonis rented a house in Kenilworth, where the garage was immediately commandeered for construction of the new Lightweight Special. In no time a full-scale arrangement drawing began to take shape on one of the walls. Almost every part had to be made slowly and painstakingly by hand without power tools even for drilling, as and when money could be found to pay for the materials. Meanwhile, the Ulster was progressively devoured piecemeal by the Lightweight, so he had to buy an Austin Heavy Twelve for daily transport-one of the best cars he ever had. The Lightweight was still far from complete when, in 1936, Alec moved to the Morris factory at Cowley, near Oxford, and set up house with his mother in Abingdon, in fact it did not run until I939, a few months before the war put an end to such activities.

"Today he shrugs it off as 'a frivolity in my life. It was not so much a design exercise as a means of teaching me to use my hands. George and I leamt the hard way how to build something for ourselves from scratch'.

"Yet it was unique in design and structurally very advanced for the 1930s. A stiff monocoque, it had side members of plywood faced with aluminium sheet and united by steel tube cross-members, the bulkhead and seat pan; the final drive casing and rigidly-mounted crankcase were also stressed. Suspension was all-independent; at the front the fully cowled upper wishbones operated bell-cranks which compressed 'springs’ contained in a tubular cross-member, these being rubber rings sandwiched between steel discs. The rear wheels were carried on swinging half-axles located by long semi-trailing radius arms triangulating with three tubular transverse links at each side-one below and two above the drive shaft. Rubber loops in tension were the springing media. The cast electron wheels had steel brake liners shrunk into them.

"With its original Ulster engine the all-up weight was only 5871b - just over 5.2cwt, and of this the power unit accounted for 2.cwt. Soon after the war this was replaced by a small experimental Morris engine with overhead camshaft, also blown, and the power/weight ratio thereupon grew to better than 200bhp/ton. No wonder that for several years its all-too-rare appearances were meteoric-except when it crashed (Dowson driving, on its very first appearance in I939) or something broke. Getaway traction and road-holding were likewise exceptional, but not initially, and Alec recalls how he and George chanced upon one of the motoring discoveries of the age. It was at Prescott Hill in 1949, and they were bothered about wheelspin. Removing a rubber loop or two from each side to lower the car gave the wheels negative camber. Their times were lowered dramatically - and today negative camber at the back is a sine qua non for competition vehicles.

"In the beautifully-executed body one detects the influence of German Grand Prix cars of the 1930s-also in the lack of paint and tartan cloth seat covering, both weight-saving moves. For the seat material, incidentally, they went to a tailor and bought a piece of gents' suiting. Running the Lightweight introduced Alec to many pleasant people, racing amateurs like himself, who have remained close friends, but if it had any indirect professional value there was no such intent underlying the rubber-suspended monocoque 'frivolity'."

[David Beard]

Originally posted by Roger Clark
This is from Automobile Design: Great Designers and their work", by Ronald Barker.

Thanks Roger...excellent stuff which I had not seen. So the concept goes back to 1933, which makes the Lightweight Special all the more amazing. And I suppose we can take Morris as the same thing as Wolseley in engine terms?

[Ray Bell]

Though we don't know the capacity, we can probably assume this was intended as a replacement engine for the Morris 8.

That was stymied by both the war, and I imagine the proposal to fit a flat four into the Minor when it arrived.

Yes, Virginia, there is a reason for that very wide engine bay!

[RTH]

Just re-watched the documentary about Issigonis, which has a great deal on the lightweight special

It was 1999 channel 4 a full evenings programmes devoted to the 40th anniversary of the Mini. in there was a 1 hr "The Mini Man " -Sir Alec Issigonis 1906 - 1988 by great friend and car fanatic Peter Ustinov.
Issigonis was born in Turkey - evacuated to Malta as a child and after his father died on to London with his mother moving to Oxford and in time a job with SU carburetters and on to Morris Motors in 1936.

The lightweight took 5 yrs to build in a garage on friend George Dowson's farm - they even cut the steering wheel out from a sheet of spring steel ( very hard material ) design & development department at Cowley then work on wartime military projects when Autin & Morris merged went for a short time to Alvis where he met Alex Moulton on fluid interconnection systems. Lennard Lord brought him back to the now BMC as Chief Engineer - and the Minor launched in 1948 . The '56 Suez crisis - Lord orders issigonis to build a small car to' drive all those German bubble cars off the road.'

Issigonis would sketch designs on the table cloth at lunchtime with colleagues - and have it added to the bill ! Designed as a "District Nurses Car " with such inherent great handling and input from John Cooper it quickly became a highly successful competition car,

2 production lines running around the clock - production passed 1 million in 1965, buyers such as Peter Sellers , Beatles, Steve McQueen, Lord Snowdon & Twiggy kept it high profile. His Austin 1100 was the best selling car of the 1960's + much else besides.

The disasterous amalgamisation in to British Leyland meant Donald Stokes sidelined Issigonis and whilst he continued to work on new projects ( even beyond retirement at 65 ) 10 years in front of their time the new management would not adopt them.

Knighthood in '69 - 2 million minis passed in '71 when he retired. It appears with better management his skills could have brought us many more great cars .

[Tim Murray]

Originally posted by RTH
The disastrous amalgamisation in to British Leyland meant Donald Stokes sidelined Issigonis and whilst he continued to work on new projects ( even beyond retirement at 65 ) 10 years in front of their time the new management would not adopt them.

Knighthood in '69 - 2 million minis passed in '71 when he retired. It appears with better management his skills could have brought us many more great cars .

That just makes me so ANGRY thinking about what we could have had - and what we actually got.

[soubriquet]

Issigonis was very badly served by BMC. Hamstrung by the hopeless cast iron lumps of A and B series engines with their innate inability to breathe. Simca was the first to produce the definitive fwd car, with end-on rather than under-engine gearbox, and FIAT made it work with the hatch. Shame he didn't migrate to France or Italy where they would have celebrated his skills rather than buried them.

[oldtimer]

Originally posted by soubriquet
Issigonis was very badly served by BMC. Hamstrung by the hopeless cast iron lumps of A and B series engines with their innate inability to breathe. Simca was the first to produce the definitive fwd car, with end-on rather than under-engine gearbox, and FIAT made it work with the hatch. Shame he didn't migrate to France or Italy where they would have celebrated his skills rather than buried them.

IIRC, Issigonis intended the original Morris Minor to have a 1500cc engine (flat 4?). Instead, BMC installed the prewar 803cc side valve Morris Minor engine. It took BMC several years to install a 1500cc engine in the Minor chassis, in Wolsley and Riley (shame on their abuse of that name) cars.

In the middle '50s, a BMC PR man told Bill Boddy it was not his place to say what was wrong with their cars, even if they were right. In a tight deadline squeeze, WB had asked DSJ to road test an Austin A70...

A favourite recollection of mine is when Issigonis appeared on a BBC programme about car styling. A Ford designer was waxing strong about the need for a balance between 'masculine' and 'feminine' lines. The interviewer then turned to Issigonis and asked for his opinion.

"I think of a car as 3 boxes, one for the engine, one for the passengers and one for their luggage. So far I have reduced it to two boxes. I would like to reduce it to one."

Engineer 1- Stylist 0

[Roger Clark]

This cutout drawing of the Lightweight first appeared in the Autocar; I copied it from the Automobile Design book I referred to earlier.



Note that in pre-war form the carburettor is in the suspension cowl. Whenever I look at the car I think of the Lotus 12, not because of any specific detail, but because the approach to high performance through simplicity and low weight seem so similar. Both seem like cars built by engineers without the ability to compromise. Despite the conditions under which it was built, the Lightweight has none of the "backyard" look of Bolster's bloody specials or Davenport's Spyder. This is not intended as a crticism of those wonderful cars.

[David Beard]

Originally posted by oldtimer


IIRC, Issigonis intended the original Morris Minor to have a 1500cc engine (flat 4?). Instead, BMC installed the prewar 803cc side valve Morris Minor engine. It took BMC several years to install a 1500cc engine in the Minor chassis, in Wolsley and Riley (shame on their abuse of that name) cars.

Not quite..the side valve engine was something like 918 cc. The 803cc was the first A series.

[David Beard]

Originally posted by Roger Clark
This cutout drawing of the Lightweight first appeared in the Autocar; I copied it from the Automobile Design book I referred to earlier.

Note that in pre-war form the carburettor is in the suspension cowl.

Also the gearchange is inside the cockpit...at some time it moved to outside right.

You are right Roger..surely the most sophisticated "special" built with the most basic facilities.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by David Beard
Not quite..the side valve engine was something like 918 cc. The 803cc was the first A series.

Glad someone picked up on that...

As for the B-Series going into a Minor, while it happened many times in private hands, it never happened from the factory.

The Riley and Wolseley sedans had different bodies altogether, they were larger inside, they had a different front shock absorber arrangement, though the same style basically, bigger brakes to go with the bigger body... they have to be considered a totally different car, even if they shared the same rear axle housing until 1960

[275 GTB-4]

Originally posted by RTH
Well you are both right of course , the Mini was a mould breaking car of enormous significance. He was a trully remarkable man who still has not had the recognition he deserves .

Did any of you see the hour long BBC documentary about him a couple of years ago - I must get it out and have another look. And yes that is a very elegant and delicate racing car .

Hear Hear..............Yes I have the Issigonis story on tape ....sad that they concentrated a little too much on his love for his Mother and not on his achievments.....however, not a bad show

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Tim Murray

That just makes me so ANGRY thinking about what we could have had - and what we actually got.

Absolutely.

Stokes was a disaster. Famously he killed the exciting Spen King designed Rover BS mid-engined car that may well have been sold as an Alvis (Rover had bought Alvis in 1965).

We had many great engineers and designers. Most of them were suffocated by types like Stokes.

PdeRL

[Ray Bell]

Like the Austin Healey 4000...

Stokes reckoned that four 6-cylinder sports cars in the range was too many... the GT6, the TR6, the E-type were kept, the very promising 4000 (wider body, still the classic lines, better suspension and a lighter engine with more power) was canned.

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Like the Austin Healey 4000...

Stokes reckoned that four 6-cylinder sports cars in the range was too many... the GT6, the TR6, the E-type were kept, the very promising 4000 (wider body, still the classic lines, better suspension and a lighter engine with more power) was canned.

This would be the R-R engine as used in the Vanden Plas 4-litre R? Well it had side exhaust valves, not de rigeur for a sports car, was probably rather expensive (R-R) and the A-H was really rather long in the tooth, although of course the engine would have had a bit more poke than the old lorry unit used in the 3000.

My understanding was that Stokes preferred the Triumph "Snag" as it became to be known in England (he was a Triumph man) and also felt that the Rover/Alvis BS was a bit close to the E-type, which of course it wasn't.

He was an idiot actually.

PdeRL

[RTH]

The R-R engine in the VDP4R was a result of over ordering by the British military subsequently cancelled for an armoured vehicle these were offered to BMC in 1965 and the VDP 3 Litre became the 4R with some rear body restyling.

The R-R engine was huge and very heavy it did have massive torque which made the 4R leap away from the traffic lights up to about 30 mph in all honesty it was not suitable for a front engined sportscar

[Ray Bell]

Having driven a Healey 4000 I'd have to disagree...

But the one I drove didn't have the ohv head that was planned, so it could have been 30hp or so better.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by VAR1016
.....the engine would have had a bit more poke than the old lorry unit used in the 3000.....

Sorry, but I just have to ask you this...

Exactly which lorries had the C-Series engine installed?

In fact, I'd like a list of all vehicles BMC (or anyone else, for that matter...) made using the C-Series 6.

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Ray Bell


Sorry, but I just have to ask you this...

Exactly which lorries had the C-Series engine installed?

In fact, I'd like a list of all vehicles BMC (or anyone else, for that matter...) made using the C-Series 6.

Well this is based on information I received thirty years ago (exactly) when I had a 3000 Mk I. I was told that the engine originated in an Austin 3-ton lorry, obviously without its 12-port head.

PdeRL

[Ray Bell]

Well, I'll tell you the list of vehicles that I know used this power unit...

Morris Isis
Wolseley 6/90
Austin A90-six
Riley Two-point-six
Austin A95, A105
Morris Marshal
Austin Healey 100/6

All of the above were 2639cc versions.

Then, in 2912cc capacity came:

Austin A99, A110
Wolseley 6/99, 6/110
Princess vdp 3-litre
Austin Healey 3-litre

Now I realise this includes not trucks, but I have never seen one in a truck, nor heard of one in a truck.

I'm not sure in my own mind about the engine that was used in the MG C and the Austin 3-litre Deluxe... it had the same 2912cc capacity, but it had a 7-bearing crankshaft. Some people say it was a Freeway engine bored out and with the extra bearings (the Freeway had a B-series with two extra cylinders), others say it was a C-series with the extra main bearings.

Though I fancy it was the latter, I reserve my judgement until I actually see one.

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Well, I'll tell you the list of vehicles that I know used this power unit...

Morris Isis
Wolseley 6/90
Austin A90-six
Riley Two-point-six
Austin A95, A105
Morris Marshal
Austin Healey 100/6

All of the above were 2639cc versions.

Then, in 2912cc capacity came:

Austin A99, A110
Wolseley 6/99, 6/110
Princess vdp 3-litre
Austin Healey 3-litre

Now I realise this includes not trucks, but I have never seen one in a truck, nor heard of one in a truck.

I'm not sure in my own mind about the engine that was used in the MG C and the Austin 3-litre Deluxe... it had the same 2912cc capacity, but it had a 7-bearing crankshaft. Some people say it was a Freeway engine bored out and with the extra bearings (the Freeway had a B-series with two extra cylinders), others say it was a C-series with the extra main bearings.

Though I fancy it was the latter, I reserve my judgement until I actually see one.

Yes,

Of course my informant must have meant the 2.6-litre version.

The engine was really a very ancient design, and, I believe very similar to the 4-litre one that was used in the A125 Sheerline (for some reason I have always fancied one of these, God knows why) the A135 Princess and the Jensen Interceptors, type 541. (The 541R had what was optimistically described as a "hot" version which was discontinued, so the 541S reverted to the cooking model).

Since the Sheerline was introduced in 1947, this gives a clue to the age of the engine. At that time quite a lot of lorries and taxis too, in England were powered by petrol.

PdeRL

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by RTH
.....The R-R engine was huge and very heavy.....

This kind of surprises me...

The C-series was heavy enough, weighing in at about the same as a 327V8 Chevy (c620lbs carburettors to clutch).

But the Rolls-Royce engine had an alloy block and head, something that the C-series could never match. I would have thought it very difficult for the crank and rods to weigh all that much more. It's hardly any larger overall...

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Ray Bell


This kind of surprises me...

The C-series was heavy enough, weighing in at about the same as a 327V8 Chevy (c620lbs carburettors to clutch).

But the Rolls-Royce engine had an alloy block and head, something that the C-series could never match. I would have thought it very difficult for the crank and rods to weigh all that much more. It's hardly any larger overall...

Yes, I'm surprised too; I have moved C-series engines more than once - mind you the Jaguar XK unit was worse.

PdeRL

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by VAR1016
Of course my informant must have meant the 2.6-litre version.

The engine was really a very ancient design, and, I believe very similar to the 4-litre one that was used in the A125 Sheerline (for some reason I have always fancied one of these, God knows why) the A135 Princess and the Jensen Interceptors, type 541. (The 541R had what was optimistically described as a "hot" version which was discontinued, so the 541S reverted to the cooking model).

Since the Sheerline was introduced in 1947, this gives a clue to the age of the engine. At that time quite a lot of lorries and taxis too, in England were powered by petrol.

Well, let's clarify that a bit more (sorry to take this thread quite this far off topic...)...

The engine that gave birth to the A125 engine was a pre-war (yeah, well before 1947!) truck engine that came in about 3.5 litres capacity.

This engine was a six, but during the war the ADO was asked by the War Department to come up with a replacement engine for Jeeps so that any that might be needed wouldn't have to be brought in from across the Atlantic. So they created a 4-cyl version of that six.

After the war that engine went into Austin 12s, A70s, Austin Gipsy 4wds and the familiar London cabs in its 2250cc (or thereabouts) capacity. In a bored out 2.6 version it went into the 3-headlight A90, the civilian version of the Austin Champ 4wd and it was probably both sizes powered various Austin and (later) Morris Commercial trucks. There were also Nuffield tractors with it fitted, and a diesel version (I believe) was created.

The six continued in trucks and the Shereline and Princess limos. I never knew about the Jensens, that's interesting indeed.

Now you see where I'm headed?

The 2.6 version in the A90 was chosen by Donald Healey to power the Healey 100. This was then put into the Austin lineup by BMC as the Austin Healey 100. There came to be the racing (100S) and some record attempt versions of this engine.

It was a physically much larger engine than the C-series, and not the same family at all. There are some aspects of the C-series architecture which are very different, particularly in the head design. Equally importantly, its introduction was later than any of the other BMC engines of the era... the A-series (1952?) and the B-series (1953?) were all in production well before the C-series showed itself. The next new engine out of BMC would have been the Marina OHC unit, unless I've overlooked something.

So the Healey 4-cyl shares its engine with a truck, not the 6-cylinder cars...

Unless someone can enlighten me further?

[David Beard]

Originally posted by Ray Bell


The next new engine out of BMC would have been the Marina OHC unit, unless I've overlooked something.

"E" series Maxi engine?

[Catalina Park]

Originally posted by David Beard


"E" series Maxi engine?

Yes that is the one!

We had them in the Morris 1500 which was a Morris 1100 with the Maxi engine from 1969 and the Marina with the 1500 and 1750 and 2620 versions as well as the Austin Kimberley with a 2227cc 6 cyl from 1970 to 1973 as well we had the P76 with the 2620cc 6cyl and a 4.4 v8.

[soubriquet]

Well the one thing all these engines have in common is that they are all dogs. I saw the light when I realised that you could spend money cubed tuning them, and still have less power (and torque) than an equivalent Alfa straight from the factory. And the Alfas also had plenty of potential ;)

But back to the topic. It must have been very frustrating for Issigonis to work for such an ineptly run company, rather than and engineering-led one.

[RTH]

Originally posted by Ray Bell


This kind of surprises me...

The C-series was heavy enough, weighing in at about the same as a 327V8 Chevy (c620lbs carburettors to clutch).

But the Rolls-Royce engine had an alloy block and head, something that the C-series could never match. I would have thought it very difficult for the crank and rods to weigh all that much more. It's hardly any larger overall...

I have craned them out, and yes despite being alloy I can tell you from first hand experience this was a big heavy thing - not helped by a gearbox which looked as if it belonged on a locomotive - indeed it looked as if it should be in an armoured car. True the C series was also very heavy neither of them were designed on a car scale let alone a 2 seater sports car in contrast to the Triumph sixes in the Vitesse and GT6 which were a bit lighter built . At the time BMC had a whole range of engines which were at least 20 years out of date.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by RTH
I have craned them out, and yes despite being alloy I can tell you from first hand experience this was a big heavy thing - not helped by a gearbox which looked as if it belonged on a locomotive - indeed it looked as if it should be in an armoured car. True the C series was also very heavy neither of them were designed on a car scale let alone a 2 seater sports car in contrast to the Triumph sixes in the Vitesse and GT6 which were a bit lighter built . At the time BMC had a whole range of engines which were at least 20 years out of date.

And without the gearbox?

The fact is that most pommie production engines were heavy. I would still like a comparison of the weights of the engines, as the gearbox in the Princess VDP was an auto (and a hefty auto at that...).

Like I said the weight of the C-series was around 620lbs, the same as a Chev V8. But that aside, I have never heard anything every about them being designed for or fitted to trucks. And John Gray, who owned the Healey 4000 I drove said the alloy Rolls engine was markedly lighter than the C-series.

It had to be. The two heaviest components were alloy rather than iron, and it's not much bigger physically.

When alloy heads came out for the Healey 3000s, they saved over 50lbs. Ross Bond, then dominant in Production Sports Car racing in NSW had one fitted and lost ten horsepower compared to his iron head. Despondent, he turned out at Warwick Farm and found the change in weight and balance enabled him to be two seconds a lap faster!

True, the GT6/2000/2.5 etc six was more compact and a lot lighter. But it wasn't as big, nor did it have the room for expansion. This engine was derived from the Standard 10/Herald 4-cyl and was out at its very limit by the time it got to TR6s and 2.5PIs.

I also agree that the engines were all out of date. Maybe not fully twenty years out of date, but certainly showing their age rapidly in the market of the late sixties. After all, not one of them was yet twenty years old then, though the A-series and B-series were based on an engine that hit the scene in 1948, which in turn was based somewhat on the pre-war truck engine described earlier.

Even the XK engine was older, a wartime design with architecture based partly on a 1930s Morris truck 6. And it was the ultimate when it came to weight, so much so that one wonders how C-types and D-types ever became competitive.

But as for whether either the C-series or the Rolls 4-litre should have been fitted to a sports car, there was ample evidence that the world would buy such cars at that time. The downfall of the Healey was the suspension design, which was altered in the 4000 and would have been much more user friendly. The 4000 was 4" or 6" wider in the body, so it was roomier, had more room to work around the engine and handled better.

Seeing as the TR5 had some of the same problems, it was probably more the case that Stokes wanted to bring more in-house and do away with the cumbersome transportation of components to Healeys and paying royalties to Donald and sons...