"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Huge wrote:
I stopped reading it over 20 years ago, when they said that the Mini
Metro gearbox was weak because when they engaged first gear at maximum
revs without depressing the clutch, it broke.

Think you may have embroidered this somewhat?

The A Series BL gearbox wasn't a strong unit as it originated from the
'40s Austin A30 with 28 BHP. As of course did the engine - but there's
more room to strengthen that than a gearbox. They used the Triumph
equivalent where they could easily - like the RWD Marina etc.
Re-engineering for a gearbox in sump unit like the early Metro - basically
the same as the Mini - would have been very costly. And they simply didn't
have the money. Later Metros with the K Series engine used bought in
5-speed gearboxes, and not in the sump. Racing Minis used special boxes
where the gear clusters were replaced with straight cut gears - noisy but
more robust.


The fact is the Mini boxes from the 60's were actually better than the
80's Metro boxes from a strength point of view- Two things happened
when the A+ engine was introduced for the Metro and Mini, the helix
angle of the gears was changed to reduce noise and a critical bearing
that was always expensive was replaced by a substandard one.

The result in the early 80's was excessive bearing and thrust washer
loads eventually resulting in gearbox failure, particularly in the
1.3's, the MG and the MG Turbo.

In a similar way tosspot Quentin Willson declared the Mini was a
better buy than the Mini because it was "more reliable" and would
always start in the morning. Effectively they were the same car,
built on the same production line, just with a different body. Just
as he got that wrong he also managed a few years ago to sell a few
cars that had time traveled hence reducing their mileage - yet he
calls himself the motorists friend.

Which is and always has been crap though.


--