discs

Post by **minor_hickup** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:53 pm

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/morris-minor-disc ... dZViewItem

3.75" PCD? what does everyone reckon?

Post by **Scott** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:02 pm

3.75" PCD? what does everyone reckon?

I reckon he can't read his tape measure

.

Post by **Matt** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:01 am

He has wheels to match for sale.....

Post by **rayofleamington** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:39 am

Might go and take a look at them when I'm back in the UK.
Is anyone desperately looking for a cheap disk conversion?

Post by **bigginger** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:23 pm

I'm thinking hard about putting in an offer - but SR's rule of "go ahead and bid, it's an auction" applies

Post by **Kevin** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:27 pm

Well I think the clue in the add is

"so buy the disc brakes & back axle & wheels i have for sale & away you go"

Its a complete Marina kit which is why the rear axle is needed to enable the wheels to fit, unless you just but the uprights and have the hubs converted to the correct PCD.
I think that pcd is also common on certain Triumphs from the same era, if he had said the wheels were 13" that would have explained a lot.
As an aside I was recently told by a Dolomite buff that the discs & calipers used on the Sprint were the same as those used on the Marina so they must have been pretty good in their day.

Post by **bigginger** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:31 pm

Gah! Now you've told everybody! That would be the plan, hence the thinking hard. Most of the Marina parts are from something else - it was a real parts bin special, produced in a very short time to try and capture a slice of the Cortina market

Post by **Kevin** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:52 pm

Andrew I thought it was to replace the 1100-1300 range which at one time outsold the Cortina, but you are right about the parts bin build.

Post by **paulk** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:58 pm

1100-1300 replacement was the Allegro ( sorry didn't mean to swear)

Marina was an Oxford/Cambridge replacement but also had the smaller A series to fill the gap between Escorts and Cortinas

Post by **bigginger** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:00 pm

I can only go by what I read - http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?ado28storyf.htm

Post by **paulk** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:07 pm

Intersting site. I stand/sit corrected

Post by **rayofleamington** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:14 pm

yeah - it's a great site. The main guy was even going to feature my 54 as a car of the month but I didn't have enough time left to keep in touch with him.
He also writes for Classic car weekly, the people who put me in headlines on page 1...

g/f doesn't like me going on there as I keep finding cars that we 'need' to have

Post by **paulk** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:16 pm

Its not just me then

Post by **bigginger** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:37 pm

paulk wrote:1100-1300 replacement was the Allegro ( sorry didn't mean to swear)

Marina was an Oxford/Cambridge replacement but also had the smaller A series to fill the gap between Escorts and Cortinas

No, you were about right with the Cortina/Escort thing - it was Kevin I disagreed with

Post by **paulk** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:42 pm

S'alright I was wrong about the oxfords.

Just always assumed 1600cc oxford was replaced by a 1800cc marina in a slightly smaller boxy body.

So what did replace the Oxford/cambridge?

Post by **chrisd87** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:46 pm

Landcrab I'd have thought.

Post by **paulk** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:55 pm

Having just read some more, turns out it was the Maxi Cos the 1800/2200 was too big!

The more you read of the website the more it seems BMC/BL/AR didn't shoot themselves in the foot so much as hack their leg off and beat themselves unconcious with it. Then wake up and do it again!

Post by **bigginger** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:34 pm

a

Post by **rayofleamington** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:09 pm

This is by no means limited to the UK!
Every vehicle maufacurer has made huge errors of judgement, including spending huge amounts of money developing a car, then stopping it, or developing new technology then stopping it.
This is often followed by a knee-jerk reaction when the competition is leagues ahead and sales volume is going through the floor.
If this happens a few times it isn't good. If it happens nearly every time, something will eventually give.
IMHO BMC/Rover's best period seemed to be in the Honda years, but the 75 was also a great car. Even in these times a ridiculous amount of money was being poured down the drain with R and D that gave nothing in return. Money in production was being skimped on, causing a double whammy.

If you add the sales of Mini, landrover and Rover together in 2004 it is roughly the same as 10 years previous! The change was that the 'niche' parts of Rover that had been sold off had prospered whereas the cut-throat business of high volume cars had declined.

Maybe it would have been a very different story if BMC had been allowed to continue innovation into their product line. It would ha been fabulous to see the first high volme small hatchback come from the UK in the 60's rather than from elsewhere in the 70's.
Mabe it ws the fault of the Mini and the Minor - they did so well that management got very resistant to change (and money for old rope eventually went out of fashion)?

As for using components from an existing car into a new one - the principle is good, not bad. The Japanese have done this for a long time, but use well engineered reliable parts and add them to a new well designed car, rather than re-engineer everything.
The downside comes if there is nothing 'new' about the new car, just a new shape!

oops major off-topic alert! sorry.

Post by **bigginger** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:23 pm

But deserving of a topic of its own, I'd say - any Moderators care to oblige by putting all this stuff from Kevin onwards into a new topic?