In article ,
Nev wrote:
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.

Right. Nice to have inside information.

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.

I had very early Minis in the NE of Scotland and never had starting
problems in the coldest of days. Same as any other car with SU carbs -
unless something was wrong.

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.

So saying the Metro gearbox was crap was crap?

IMHO, most simply read the press synopsis of Which reports. Which are
about as accurate as most press synopsis of *anything*. And I'd rather
they didn't allow them - or charge dearly for their use - and have
editorial control of the contents - and a right to reply. To get the
benefit of those tests, you have to read the results completely and
carefully - it's mostly all there. Then you'll understand that they really
do rather a good job. Glance through them and you'll just get what they
are designed to do - to give a rough guide to those who really aren't much
interested in the product but want something which is adequate and good
value for Mr or Ms average.

But anyway, you're not forced to buy Which or pay for it through taxation
or advertising. It is paid for *purely* by subscription. Which begs the
question why so many seem to hate it. I'd say it's because it can't be
'bought' by big business, and that scares many.

--
*He who dies with the most toys is, nonetheless, dead.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.