Mini Spares Project Min

Mini Spares decided to produce an up market twin headlamp grille, because so many Cooper owners needed to renew their grille or replace the front valance mounted spotlamps. Their location means that they get damaged so easily on impact. whether it be by cars reversing into them when parking or from minor accidents.

To produce this grille with stainless steel slats meant that we had to use the back plate from the current cars. which goes back to the first MK2 in 1968. Using this back plate would obviously govern the size of the lamps we could use. Originally it was hoped that a 6" lamp could be used. but because a reinforcement ring was required only a 5.75" or 5.5" lamp could be used which was not what we really desired. On research. it was found that Cibie made a 5.5" lamp with a hardened glass called the Tango, and some of the old type Lucas lamps also fitted, but were not readily available.

The next problem was to get the grille to fit the later cars where the engine is 0.5" further forward, and the late type alternator and pre engaged starter stick out further forward than the old types previously fitted. This gave so little clearance that only a 2.75" deep lamp could be used if the fixing point was at the back as per the Cibie Tango type.

The grille. which is very strongly made. is also quite heavy. and should withstand light knocks Two types have been made:-

1. With an opening in the slats to open the bonnet manually. 2. With no opening where an internal bonnet release is used. such as the late 1993 Minis.

Price of new grille - £52.88
Price of Cibie Tango lamps per pair approx. £60.00
Price of Bonnet locking kit as per late cars - £12.25
Prices include V.A.T.

The new Mini Sprite project car is fitted with a standard 1275 lead free engine with catalyst. Sporting a !-IIF38 1.5" bore carburettor it felt quite nice to drive. but like all Minis it became quite noisy at 70 mph. Acceleration was obviously better and smoother than the previous 998cc engine powered cars. The most crucial feelings were that the engine felt restricted due to the catalyst and twin box rear exhaust system. I removed the rear twin box system from the catalyst and bolted a twin box RC40 to see if the engine felt less restricted. It felt much better. so I tried the rear RC40 box only and was amazed how instantly quiet and responsive the engine felt.

I had a special pipe made with a catalyst adaptor flange one end. correctly shaped to take a single RC40 rear box. This part (No. AN181) is readily available. and customers have already complimented us on this easy modification and improved performance. When using the single RC40 rear box you have to use the old type original exhaust mountings and clamps, because late cars use rubber rings to hang the exhaust. The next task was to change the wheels and tyres to improve road holding. in readiness for the future power increases (to be gained by fitting the eight port head and electronic fuel injection and ignition management system).

I decided not to fit 13" wheels at this stage because of the clearance problems encountered on late cars. Rover overcome this on the Silverstone by modifying the wheel arches.

I therefore fitted our Minilife wheeL which gives about 2" track increase over the standard wheels with no spacers required. Having used these wheels, whichwere designed to fit flush with the standard wheel arch plastic flares on cars with 145 X 12 tyres, I decided to use the 165 X 60 X 12 tyres for greater traction.

These Dunlop tyres obviously stuck out wider than the standard plastic wheel arches. so a set of our Mini Special '}" wider' fibre glass type MS132 were fitted. This made the car look really smart albeit very high because of the lower profile tyres.

Before considering lowering the car's suspension to make it look and handle better. I decided to test drive it on the new footwear. The car handled much better. and on the first few bends it felt great, although on the next left hander it felt uneasy. So it obviously liked right hand bends. but not left ones! On parking the car 1 found that the right hand front wheel just rubbed on the front wheel arch (the front panel to be precise). (I had the same problem on the left hand front of my sons car which was factory built in 1986.)

On measuring the car from rear hub axle centre to front hub axle centre 1 found the right hand side length was 1/2" longer! Hence the right hand front wheel was further forward than the left hand, and it was even visually noticeable. 1 know from experience that all cars are different. but for road cars it is not too much of a problem as long as castor angles are correct. To move the wheel back would be simple, but changes to the caster angle would upset the balance of the cars handling.

Bearing in mind the car was better at right hand bends than left when driven hard , it appeared from experience that the camber angles could be out, ie. too much positive on the right hand wheel. The car was measured using special gauges and the following was found: - Caster angle was at 4-4 1/2 ° (3 1/ 2° being ideal) the right hand front wheel had 2° positive. the left hand front had 1/2 ° positive camber. When the car is lowered it will increase castor (which we wanted to reduce) by pulling the wheel forward and give more negative camber. which we require. The rear off side wheel had 1 positive camber and the near side had 1/2° negative camber.

.Bearing in mind 1° is only about 1/10". the figures indicated would alarm most people. For general driving without changing wheels or power output it would be perfectly safe and have minimal influence. For competition or high powered cars this is not ideal. but caster and camber angles seem more important (in that order) than having the wheel further forward on one side. This was the main reason for not fitting 13" wheels which would increase the problem!

On earlier cars. such as my son's 1986 model. the front panel was packed out with washers as standard where it bolted to the subframe. The project car had no packing washers so 1 could pack out the right hand front forcing the front panel forward. leaving the right hand wheel more clearance. Or I could move the wheels back equally to create 3 1/ 2° castor which would be better anyway.

The real answer would be to move the front subframe back slightly on the right hand side without distorting it to bring the wheels all square, ie. rear wheel to front wheel the same distance apart both sides.

Front subframes are not always jigged truly square or symmetrical and many racers endeavour to make modifications to alleviate the problem to make both sides identical.

For fast road use, Mini Spares produce alloy blocks C-STR640 to replace the top tower rubbers. This stops the subframe moving and flexing so much which improves handling. Rubber mounts were only fitted to reduce noise. I am having some of these alloy blocks made with holes off-centre which will enable the subframe to move either way slightly. When the engine comes out to be fitted with the 8 port fuel injected head and 5 speed gearbox. 1 might take the subframe out and true it up if possible.

At the moment 1 have not decided which option to take or which would be better.

Do you remember when driving a Mini was dangerous and sex was safe?

Keith Dodd

Importation rules regarding vehicles are very specific: Only those over 25 years in age may be brought in to the USA without compilance to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).