Narrow gutted

[Blaketon]

I don't know whether any of the narrow prototypes still exist or whether they have been photographed next to a production Minor. I have doctored an insurance photo of my car (Just removed the raised bonnet section) and I can't honestly say it looks "Narrow gutted", as Lord Nuffield suggested. It is more noticeable when the doctored photo is seen next to the normal one. Putting function first, yes, it gives more room inside the car and makes it more stable but aesthetically, which is subjective and not fact, I can't say.

[unclealec]

I think Uncle Bill got it spot on. To me one of the most attractive features of a Minor is the vast expanse of the interior when compared to its competitors such as the Austin A30 and Standard 8/10.

[myoldjalopy]

Don't forget the original prototype did not have the raised headlights. It would be interesting to see a 'doctored' photo of a lowlight to get a better idea of the aesthetics of a 'narrow-gutted' Minor (other than from old photos of the prototype).

[moggiethouable]

It makes a big difference. Issigonis was quite correct. I think narrow gusseted makes it look fiat tipelinoish.

[Bill_qaz]

I don't know whether any of the narrow prototypes still exist or whether they have been photographed next to a production Minor. I have doctored an insurance photo of my car (Just removed the raised bonnet section) and I can't honestly say it looks "Narrow gutted", as Lord Nuffield suggested. It is more noticeable when the doctored photo is seen next to the normal one. Putting function first, yes, it gives more room inside the car and makes it more stable but aesthetically, which is subjective and not fact, I can't say.

There are pictures of the original narrow version in the Paul Skilleter book
The world's supreme small car Morris Minor

[Blaketon]

Don't forget the original prototype did not have the raised headlights. It would be interesting to see a 'doctored' photo of a lowlight to get a better idea of the aesthetics of a 'narrow-gutted' Minor (other than from old photos of the prototype).

I found a lowlight full on front view and doctored it. I'm not still sure it's visually that noticeable, unless seen side by side. I am sure it would be more noticeable sitting inside the car (It is in my MG Midgets, which are more or less the same width as an A30/35; you wear a Midget!!) and whilst I've not driven one, I understand that the A30/35 is not so stable. The narrow Minor is about the same width as the A30/35. Function yes, form.... .

[geoberni]

The original width looks too unstable for me. The car's aren't high, but to the original width I think it would probably have been a bit of a flop in comparison to the sales it did achieve.
Why would people buy a sardine can on wheels?
At launch, in 1951, the A30 cost £507 undercutting the Minor by £62.
(£11,751.37 in 2023 using the Bank of England Inflation calculator, but equivalent to £17,989.79 using the Office for National Statistics composite price index - I'm sure it makes sense to the statisticians)
If the Minor has stuck with the original width, perhaps the A30 wouldn't have been developed?
Who knows...

A30 Minor.JPG (77.86 KiB) Viewed 3698 times

[Blaketon]

I don't know why but the A30 looks narrower than the narrow Minor. Maybe it's the straight sides. If the cars had gone up like my council tax, the Minor would now be about £100000.00 . In all honesty, £11 751 sounds very reasonable, compared with a new Mini at nearly £23000 (Even £18000 sounds OK)...I had no idea what Minis cost and I hope I don't now get bombarded with adverts for them .