|
|
Post by indianajones on Jan 30, 2013 9:38:22 GMT
Fight! Just joking, but as a bit of fun and for some education (mainly for yours truly) I figured it'd be novel to compare the two cars side by side.  Pros? Cons? -Andrew |
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Jan 31, 2013 10:00:37 GMT
Dangerous ground indeed! I like the Maxi doors David Fight! Just joking, but as a bit of fun and for some education (mainly for yours truly) I figured it'd be novel to compare the two cars side by side. Pros? Cons? -Andrew |
|
|
|
Post by indianajones on Jan 31, 2013 10:02:43 GMT
Taking the old Swiss position I see lol
-Andrew
|
|
|
|
Post by Penguin45 on Jan 31, 2013 19:40:32 GMT
There are two Maxi doors on my car!
Chris.
|
|
|
|
Post by indianajones on Jan 31, 2013 19:59:21 GMT
Non original! noooooooooo! lol
I do like the hatch back on the maxi, but I do prefer the front end of the 1800.
-Andrew
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick RS on Jan 31, 2013 20:49:12 GMT
Indy, you'll find your ideal car here then on the great aronline www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/cars/bmc-cars/18002200/the-cars-bmc-18002200-development-history/ about half way down there is an image of the 1800 estate. 1800 front / Maxi rear; sort of. There is also some footage of the Maxi under development on youtube which is well worth a look. The editor always cuts the footage just before you get a good look at the blue car which is a great pity as it is the Maxi Saloon which was never produced (just about see the windowless c-pillar) In my fantasy garage I would have an early rod change 1750 on hydrolastic.... Nick |
|
|
|
Post by Penguin45 on Jan 31, 2013 20:58:16 GMT
And that was the crux of the matter. There were some hatch back 1800's made by Crayford(?) but never sanctioned by BMC.
I think the Maxi was slightly narrower than the 1800, but much play was made at the launch about the ability to fold the seats down to make a double bed. Clubman front to go with the Mini face-lift meant it was taller to fit the 1500 E engine, then there was the cable gear change...... A true shocker.
Chris.
(The doors need the latch area chopping out and the 'Crab one welding in.)
|
|
|
|
Post by threelitre on Feb 1, 2013 8:24:02 GMT
Nice topic - I have both  The Maxi doors on the cable change cars (1500 up to 1970/1) are exactly the same as 1800 MkII, later Maxis (rod change) are the same as 1800 MkIII - you've bought the wrong doors Chris! The famous cable change: I've not yet had the fortune (?) to drive a cable change Maxi as there are so few left. I do rate the cable change in the 1800 quite well, but where the 1800 uses quite short cables, the Maxi ones are very long and run around the gearbox to enter it from the side. It is not hard to imagine it would be worse than the 1800... The rod gearchange that BL adopted all through the range was developed for the Maxi and changed the gearbox' useability into something acceptable, but still inferior to many (like 1800s with cable change). Chris, the Maxi was designed to take the E-series from the start. As the 2200 does show, it is not much taller than the B, but quite a lot narrower. The facelifts of the Maxi (in production) never changed a single panel. The Maxi is 5cm narrower than the landcrab. It does look similar for many people, but in fact it really is a completly different car - apart from doors, outer sills and b-pillar. That the Maxi is a much more practical car due to the rear door and folding seat is obvious. Other than that die boot is the biggest difference to the 1800, as that's where the length got lost and hence some space went missing. The reduced width is not soo obvious, as it still is spacious and airy inside. While the Maxi still has a strong body, the 1800 feels much more massive. Some of the over-engineering apparent on the 1800s body (compared to other cars of the time) had been eliminated, showing in the significant weight loss of the Maxi compared to the 1800 (about 200-250kg). To drive the cars feel very different, and I think there is a reason for this. The Maxi feels more like a grown up 1300, not like a shrunk 1800. The 1800 feels quite different to both, having similarities to the 3litre (again, mechanically completly different to the 1800). But: Both the 1300 and Maxi are Cowley designed cars, while the 1800 and 3litre were Longbridge designs. The Maxi also shows progress: It has less road noise than the 1800, the ride is - 3litre apart - the best of the Hydrolastic cars, less sporty than the ADO16, but better damped. With Hydragas a Maxi is really a class above the 1800 in ride refinement. The E-series is also quieter than the B (well, at least the S with the steel downpipes) and quite economical. Regards, Alexander |
|
|
|
Post by indianajones on Feb 1, 2013 9:31:45 GMT
Cheers for the comments lads, nice write up 3L!
My mate has a Mk. I Maxi, I'll have to see if he has the cable change on it or not and ask for comment regarding it. I shall need to take it for spin one day, I might like it even more than the 'crab!
-Andrew
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Feb 2, 2013 1:51:13 GMT
Alexander - that is interesting about the designs. I know the 1100 started life only as a Morris but the Maxi was an Austin so strange it was designed in Cowley. Just from a personal view and no reflection on the other fine BMC cars of the day, I just felt that the 1800 felt like it was "hewn from granite" and that is something I had never experienced before and also not since to the same degree. Difficult to describe to anyone who has not driven the 1800. My work colleague had a Maxi and it just did not feel the same and to me felt quite a lot narrower even though in reality it isn't. My ears also found the Maxi engine somewhat harsh and unpleasant compared with the 1800's soothing chatter. I do wish the 1800 had the ease of clutch change of its brethren and the 5th gear of the Maxi to which the 1800 engine would have been well suited. regards David Nice topic - I have both To drive the cars feel very different, and I think there is a reason for this. The Maxi feels more like a grown up 1300, not like a shrunk 1800. The 1800 feels quite different to both, having similarities to the 3litre (again, mechanically completly different to the 1800). But: Both the 1300 and Maxi are Cowley designed cars, while the 1800 and 3litre were Longbridge designs. Regards, Alexander |
|
|
|
Post by Penguin45 on Feb 3, 2013 1:53:50 GMT
You take what you can get.......... A bit of cunning artificing soon had them ready for use.
I drove a few Maxis back in the day. With the extended rear for the hatch back, it gave the feeling of a large car from the inside due to the space, yet was still pretty light on the steering and quite "frisky" on the performance front. It did lack the tank-like feel of my 1800. This might be down to the cross bracing behind the rear seat on the 1800 not being present on the Maxi - it certainly had a "softer" feel to the whole driving experience.
Chris.
|
|
|
|
Post by threelitre on Feb 7, 2013 8:32:00 GMT
You are all bang on about the hewn from solid feel of the 1800. The extremely stiff bodyshell has a lot to do with it - and the fact that only cars post 1999 or so surpass the crab in this respect. The bodyshell on the Maxi is not that much weaker, in fact it is pretty good considering the hatchback, but a major contribution for more flex (or the solid feel on the 1800) is the subframe the Maxi has. The arrangement for the front suspension of the 1800 is rather good when it comes to creating a solid feel.
The ease of clutch change is another thing. When I had the first clutch changed on my Maxi (at a main dealership at the time - as you do with young cars), the labour quoted was 45mins... Do that in an 1800!
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Feb 7, 2013 12:56:41 GMT
Did you realise that a bonded front and rear windscreens can account for 25% of the torsional rigidity of a modern car? I haven't been able to find comparable figures for the non bonded fitting as used in the 1800 but I guess it's considerably less. I remember seeing an Austin 1800 on a rallycross circuit where the owner had simply cut off the roof and didn't need to add any bracing - or so he claimed. From what I can see the rigidity of the 1800 has only been matched or bettered by adding excess weight. I tried the technique once for tipping the engine to do an in-situ clutch change with only limited success time wise. I believe the cost of getting a garage to change a 1800 clutch sent many on a premature trip to the breakers. A big plus for the Maxi. Regards David You are all bang on about the hewn from solid feel of the 1800. The extremely stiff bodyshell has a lot to do with it - and the fact that only cars post 1999 or so surpass the crab in this respect. The ease of clutch change is another thing. When I had the first clutch changed on my Maxi (at a main dealership at the time - as you do with young cars), the labour quoted was 45mins... Do that in an 1800! |
|
|
|
Post by threelitre on Feb 7, 2013 15:34:07 GMT
In terms of structural stiffness the 1800 is indeed not heavy. It was heavy compared to competitors at the time - which were generally flimsy. One of the tricks on the 1800, compared to other cars with 'normal' suspension: The effective length for torsional rigidity is greatly reduced compared to the wheelbase, as the distance between the cross-tube at the front and the location of the rear suspension arm bearings defines the effective length for torsional effects through the wheels. So in fact the 1800 is seeing the same torsional moments as a car with much shorter wheelbase, when using regular suspension, where the strut top mounts give this distance. But this also made the structure lighter, compared to trying to achieve the same amount of stiffness on a longer base. So for the weight to stiffness relations of the structure, it needs to be compared to a modern small car, like a Polo. The Maxi and Princess use the same principle.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Feb 8, 2013 1:27:28 GMT
Hi Alexander. Agreed, it is not a true comparison of the torsional stiffness as compared with a vehicle with "more conventional" mounting points. However, these figures are highly relevant when considering the suspension integrity under cornering and the handling consequences and also the integrity of the cabin. I've posted this link some time ago but here it is again as it is relevant to this discussion and was all done without computer analysis. www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?&title=One-Very-Stiff-Body&A=112137Interestingly you point out the Polo as a modern small car against which it should be measured. Did you know the Polo with its integral wrap around bumpers is only 8" shorter than a Mk1 1800. Take the bumpers off the 1800 and they're around the same length and not dissimilar weight! I recall the 1800 being criticised for being too large! How times have changed in our perceptions. Although the latest Polo is a fine car and may well have better torsional rigidity than the 1800, to me it doesn't feel as though it does. regards David In terms of structural stiffness the 1800 is indeed not heavy. It was heavy compared to competitors at the time - which were generally flimsy. One of the tricks on the 1800, compared to other cars with 'normal' suspension: The effective length for torsional rigidity is greatly reduced compared to the wheelbase, as the distance between the cross-tube at the front and the location of the rear suspension arm bearings defines the effective length for torsional effects through the wheels. So in fact the 1800 is seeing the same torsional moments as a car with much shorter wheelbase, when using regular suspension, where the strut top mounts give this distance. But this also made the structure lighter, compared to trying to achieve the same amount of stiffness on a longer base. So for the weight to stiffness relations of the structure, it needs to be compared to a modern small car, like a Polo. The Maxi and Princess use the same principle. |
|
