The 1959 BMC Mini deserves the accolades that are showered on it, for its remarkable space efficiency and transverse FWD. But although it was a pioneer, the Mini was never a best seller, being too small for that role. But Alec Issigonis’ ADO 16, his second go at redefining the whole range of BMC cars, nailed it. The ADO 16 hit the sweet spot, and with four doors available, quickly zoomed to the top of the charts in the UK, and stayed there for at least a decade. In today’s standards, it was still quite small, just three inches longer than a modern MINI, which in most dimensions it is quite similar to. But its space utilization was much better than the MINI’s; it was a legitimate family hauler, at least in those leaner times. But its legacy is anything but small; more than any other single car, it created the very template for the modern European compact car.
The ADO 16 was a radical design in its time, completely breaking the mold that had shaped the typical conservative British saloon. Everything that was first explored with the Mini was now re-sized and re-thought fro the mainstream. And unlike the Mini, the AD) 16 had handsome lines designed by Pininfarina. The only thing missing was a hatchback.
That was available too, just not on the sedans. The Countryman had a low flat floor and a big hatch. With fold down seats, it could be turned into a bed without breakfast.
Was Issigonis inspired by what Citroen was doing across the Channel? Absolutely. But he took a different approach: rather than two rather very different platforms on the extreme ends of the spectrum (2CV; DS), Issigonis created a basic format that he then adapted to different sized platforms: the Mini, ADO 16, the 1800, and Maxi.
And BMC’s Hydrolastic suspension developed with Alex Moulton was in a way a hybrid of the 2CVs mechanical interconnected suspension and the DS’ hydropneumatic suspension, which required a pump and was otherwise more complicated. It was quite a brilliant system.
The principle is simple. The front and rear suspension units have Hydrolastic displacers, one per side. These are interconnected by a small bore pipe. Each displacer incorporates a rubber spring (as in the Moulton rubber suspension system), and damping of the system is achieved by rubber valves. So when a front wheel is deflected, fluid is displaced to the corresponding suspension unit. That pressurises the interconnecting pipe which in turn stiffens the rear wheel damping and lowers it. The rubber springs are only slightly brought into play and the car is effectively kept level and freed from any tendency to pitch. That’s clever enough, but the fact that it can do this without hindering the full range of motion of either suspension unit is even more clever, because it has the effect of producing a soft ride. Pictures and images of anything to do with hydrolastic suspension are few and far between now, so you’ll have to excuse the plagiarism of the following image. The animation below shows the self-leveling effect – notice the body stays level and doesn’t pitch.
But what happens when the front and rear wheels encounter bumps or dips together? One cannot take precedent over the other, so the fluid suspension stiffens in response to the combined upward motion and, while acting as a damper, transfers the load to the rubber springs instead, giving a controlled, vertical, but level motion to the car.
Remember I said the units were connected with a small bore pipe? The restriction of the fluid flow, imposed by this pipe, rises with the speed of the car. This means a steadier ride at high speed, and a softer more comfortable ride at low speed.Hydrolastic suspension is hermetically sealed and thus shouldn’t require much, if any, attention or maintenance during its normal working life. Bear in mind that hydrolastic suspension was introduced in 1964 (on the prototype BMC ADO16) and you’d be lucky to find a unit today that has had anywork done to it.
I’m not one to vouch for the last line or two, but it certainly was much more reliable than Citroen’s hydropneumatic suspension. Of course, it didn’t offer some of its features either, like ride level adjustment.
The ADO 16 was available in a plethora of brands and price levels. The Morris mirrored the Austin, as the entry level brands.
The MG 1100/1300 was the only version imported to the US, until the later ill-fated Austin America supplanted it in a belated attempt to capture a share of the growing small0car market. While these cars were far from perfect, the spotty US dealer network and American’s growing disdain for maintenance exacerbated their problems. Build quality actually got worse during the BL-Malaise era.These cars deserved better.
The Wolseley 1100/1300 was the next fine gradient in BMC’s dying class-structure.
Next up the ladder, the Riley Kestrel was quite a bit more popular than the Wolsey, and had round instrument gauges.
The top rung was the Vanden Plas Princess 1300, with its top-tier interior of fine leather, wood and wool.
This nomination has become a wee bit long, but it only touches on the vast ADO 16 story. It was made in Italy by Innocenti, which had a big influence on future Fiats, most of all the 128. And variants were built in Spain, Australia and South Africa, if not elsewhere too.
The final version, the Austin Apache, was built in South Africa as late as 1977. Ironically, the original Pininfarina design was redone extensively by Michelotti, giving it a decidedly Triumph-ish look, as well as a traditional trunk.
You may not agree on this one, but at least show the ADO 16 a bit of respect. Despite its poor showing in the US, its influence is still to be seen; everywhere.
I’ll be happy to show the ADO16 some respect. I test drove an Austin America when they were introduced in 1968, and found it comfortable, spacious and nicely finished. It was also reasonably quick, even with the Automotive Products four speed auto in the one I tried. In the end, it was fear of Lucas electrics that made me stick with my VW Beetle. My real love is reserved for that red Citroen. In the early Seventies, I co-owned a ’58 ID19 that remains one of my automotive benchmarks. The car gave us no trouble in the six months we owned it. Sadly, my buddy and I had to sell it to raise college money, but it went to a loving home.
Not sure Lucas was that bad in the 60s. All variants of ADO 16 had a 3 solenoid Voltage / Current Regulator that gave superior Voltage regulation compared to the cheaper 2 solenoid regulators fitted to Minis (and to the Beetle ??).
My Dad got 168,000 miles ** out of a 1965 Austin 1100 and I don’t recall either the generator or starter motor ever needing replacement but I may be wrong since I was a boy then (born Jan 1957). In comparison the starter motor on my 1971 Mini failed fairly early on (insulation appeared to go) ……. it was the type with the commutator at right angles to the rotor axle with end on brushes ……. so I went to a scrap yard and got another off of a Morris Minor 1000 (it was the earlier design with the tradional commutator with side on brushes) which had `windows’ in the sides to get at the brushes (usually covered by a sliding metal collar) and what appeared to be cotton cloth field winding insulation; no problems after fitting this. The generator on the Mini never needed replacing in 170,000 miles (car sold at this point).
** While the engine of the 1100 lasted 168,000 miles (valves ground in @ 100,000 miles) we were on the 3rd gearbox in the end (and 2nd rear subframe due to rust).
Regarding rust I read somewhere that Pressed Steel pointed out to Sir Alec Issigonis all the rust traps in the ADO 16 design and he told them to proceed with the design unchanged, what a shame.
N.B. Since these gearboxes share the oil with the engine it’s obviously very important to use a good engine oil, Dad always used BP Visco Static 20w/50 as did I in my 1971 Mini. I remember, for some reason, deciding to try another brand of oil in my Mini engine (I think Shell in an all black can) and the gearbox immediately became obstructive to use (shift); it seemed that the different oil stripped off the slippery layer of e.g. molybdenum disulfide that had coated the metal surfaces. I immediately changed the oil back to the original BP and the gearbox slowly returned to it’s original feel of being well lubricated. This could have been an example of how oil additives can clash.
Final thought. it seems, with hindsight, that BL should have tried to keep nearer to the appearance of ADO 16 when designing it’s replacement, like VW have done so successfully with their Golf. The 1500 / 1750 engines should have been designed as slant 4s to allow a more aerodynamic bonnet line.
I also agree this was one of the most important cars, not of 1962, but all time. The space inside is really amazing, and they are much more comfortable to drive than one would think. Endless motorway mile munching was not their strong suit, with very revvy little engines- only 1100cc to start, but then again, very few popular (meaning for the masses) cars of 1962 were capable of extended 70+mph driving, and very few middle income people were required to trundle up and down the then incomplete motorway network.
Thus, this little car served the needs of the UK and European motorist perfectly. It was small, easy to drive, capable of driving in winter, reasonably reliable- yes, it was- fun, and quite spacious.
I never owned one, although I have driven plenty. I have though owned its unfairly maligned successor, the Allegro. The mechanical bits were very robust on both cars- as long as they were serviced, and the A-series was capable of over 100K miles between rebuilds. This was unheard of for such a tiny engine designed in the 50s. Similarly, the gearboxes were not bad either- certainly much better than the notorious syncro-strippers Fiat was using, better than Saab, and at least as good as many RWD manuals at the time, and far better than the later cable actuated boxes in the 1800 and early Maxi.
There were, however, three massive fault with these cars.
1. They rusted. Big time. Right up there with the Dauphine and Victor F. It was all the more sad because they were otherwise such good little things. The rust was also in strange places that were inaccesible to welders- way up inside the top of the (welded on) inner wing assembly trumpets. Inside the heater air intake, which was totally inaccessible, and in the multi-layered rocker panels. Worse, the subframes on these would rot out in a couple of years making the cars very unsafe.
2. Like Minis, the ignition cables would get damp because there was no radiator to protect the front of the engine from spray. The thin plastic shield was often lost or trashed by mechanics when servicing the car, so whenever it got damp, a spare tree branch was needed to beat the car into life, or at least kill time waiting on the RAC.
3. They were absolute pigs to work on. That packaging left very little room to swing a wrench. Disassembly was required for what on other cars would be simple jobs. Knuckles would be scraped on tetanus laced rusty edges (see no1). This meant that maintanence didn’t get done, which gave the cars an undeserved reputation for unreliability.
I won’t mention build quality, because frankly, aside from VW, every other European ‘mass market’ car was atrocious in this area.
British Leyland listened, and in 1973 replaced the ADO16 with a car that had nearly as small of a footprint but much more comfortable seats, and a roomier interior. The new car had absolutely gobs of space to work on the engine, and the radiator was in the front so wet weather problems were a thing of the past. They also carefully engineered (if not built) the car with almost no rust traps. Weld flanges were covered, and the underside of the car was designed to be smooth and without ledges to collect crud. A posts were covered from front fender muck. The ADO16’s replacement was known by many as one of the most rust resistant cars of the ’70s- as witnessed by ‘used car buyer’ articles. (unless you got a strike car that had been sitting in the weather unpainted, in which case all bets were off).
Sadly though, as is often the case it is impossible to trump perfection. The very ‘fashionable for ’73’ styling was compromised between the drawing board and assembly line. The first two years of buyers were beta testers. (not unlike when the ADO16 was launched). However, unlike in 1962, in ’73, Austin was owned by the taxpayer. The right wing press blamed Labour, socialism and trade unions for faults with the car, some of which were justified and later remedied, and others that were not the car’s fault. The deferential attitude towards car makers that allowed the flaws of the ADO16 to be glossed over was long gone. The ADO67, little piggy faced dumpling it was, became a car to laugh at. It became as unfashionable as the ADO16 was fashionable, and it was this that prevented later examples from reaching the volumes the Allegro deserved.
Yet, like many people who purchased Volares and M bodies after 1978, owners of later Allegros had the last laugh. Once the bugs were worked out after ’75, the Allegro became a very reliable, incredibly roomy, and fun car to drive. Further, although lucas bits would break now and again, they were dirt cheap to get, easy to replace, and the bodyshell would last for over 10 years before rust got to them if taken care of.
So yes, in spite of its flaws, the ADO16 is a groundbreaking car, even if it wasn’t as good in any objective way as its much maligned successor, the Allegro.
Heh, like the “spare tree branch” reference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78b67l_yxUc
I had a Fawlty Towers DVD Box Set that came with a bonus 1/43 Scale Red ADO16, 1/43 Scale Basil and a 1/43 Scale Tree Branch.
New Zealand both assembled these things and imported the up market ones they were immensely popular and may survive today. Yes all the fragility of the Mini powertrain was shared but so was the parts supply and these cars far more than anything else replaced the Morris Minor on the roads. That Orange Wolseley is still around it still lives on my street. As far as the CCCOTY Id go with ADO16 simply for impact on the automotive landscape good choice Paul.
A 1970 Austin 1300 was my first car in 1976. I liked everything about it except the driving position: Bus-like, with the gear lever too far forward. The gear change was sloppy, but that didn’t matter too much with a 4-speed: just aim the gear lever at one of the corners of the ‘H’ pattern and it would go in to gear.
The ride/clutch feel/seats/space were excellent. The styling was a refreshing change from the boxy and conventional Hillman Hunter and Ford Cortina MkII. Even people who didn’t like the car would tell me it was safer because it was clearly wider than it was tall, and so wouldn’t roll over as easily.
The Austin/Morris/Wolseley/Riley 1100/1300 was probably the most common car in NZ in the early 1970’s.
(Because of its low and wide stance I’ve heard younger people mistakenly call it a Land-Crab. That car was its big brother the ‘1800’, and I don’t think ‘Land-Crab’ was a term of affection.)
There were lots of these in Canada.
My Great Uncle Arch had an Austin 1100, driving an aircraft carrier during WW2 had left him with a distaste for large American iron, so he drove British cars from then on.
Significantly, this was the last British car he owned. By 1973 his mechanic convinced him to try a Honda CVCC, and he was a Honda guy for the next 20+ years.
These are great cars and turn up here once and a while. Usually in terrible shape though. I do find the air cleaner quite amusing on them – like a doughnut.
I agree with most of this – the ADO 16 was a pretty and very popular car in the 60’s, albeit with a few design shortcomings. The hydrolastic suspension was great as long as there were no leaks, though putting a load in the back would tend to “jack-up” the front end. Have to admit though that for me the star of 1962 was the “Nue Classe” BMW.
i hear the tire where rad is on will heat up the tire, so that side dont last as long.
these suspension is kind of dreadful! whether is cheaper to put real spring in will be more costs?
did helped my bro to change a head gasket on one of these. In the end he couldn’t figure out the why the push rod cannot go down as it should be, it turned out the solid lifter was knocked out, do need to open up the side panel to set the lifter right, had to hire another mech to finish the job, lucky the guy was free.
saw many of these while growing up in Hong Kong, when it rains it does for sure no go.
something the British never improve as it gave room for Jap cars to fill the big niche!
And the Prinz of darkness aka Lucas didnt help at all, just added more nails to the coffin.
the 1275 minis with twin SU were pretty fast for its time, won many rallys.
“The only thing missing was a hatchback.”
The Morris Nomad did, when it was introduced in 1969 as I think an Australia-only variant. It had a 1500cc engine, five doors (counting the hatch), and after a year or two also a 5-speed gearbox.
Let’s be clear here. It’s Neue Klasse vs ADO 16. The rest of you – thanks for coming in.
My sense is that this is a choice between a good idea done amazingly well and developed with passion and intelligence (Neue Klasse), and an amazing idea done in a mediocre fashion, neglected and then left to wither (ADO 16).
As much as I love the BMW’s for their excellence, I can’t take my eyes off the friendly face of the original Austin 1100 and love it for its simple genius (and maybe also because of its abandonment).
Can we declare a tie, for one year only?
Interesting choice, and one that has provided the basic template for virtually family sedans sold in this country today. Anyone remember the green MG 1100 sold by Matchbox, with the dog looking out the rear side window?
All these comments and still nobody’s used the word “landcrab.” So I will: LANDCRAB!
http://www.landcrab.net/
Yes, I’m aware that “landcrab” technically refers only to the 1800s and 2200s that followed a couple of years later. I just like saying landcrab. LANDCRAB!
I’d have to cast my vote here with the little ADO 16 I think. It’s the most successful of the Issigonis quartet Paul mentions.
The Mini’s the star of course, but just that bit too small for mainstream 1st car needs, imo the Maxi is what the 1800 should have been all along and the 1800 itself need never have been built.
Meanwhile the Maxi arrived at the party a little late and inexplicably wearing the 1800’s doors which leaves the little 1100/ADO 16 in its sharp Pinin suit bearing the standard for what became the template of a modern car.
OK so for whatever reason Hydralastic suspension didn’t catch on, and the lack of a hatch is a dropped ball (shared with so many other BMC/Leyland cars) but otherwise this is what most cars would eventually look like. Groundbreaking, successful and cute with it.
My first car was one of these, a 1968 Morris 1100, purchased in 1974 for about $1,000. It had the 4 speed automatic, which was unusual in that it could start in any of the gears, even 4th. It also had free wheel on first gear, and no park position. They were introduced in Australia in 1964, and were immediately popular, winning Wheels magazine’s 2nd Car of the Year award. It was a very comfortable little car, and handled very well, even on retreaded bias ply tires, which were all I could afford then. Hardly any power, which kept me from getting into too much trouble. I kept it for a couple of years, and the only major work that I had done was to replace the CV joints. I used to see it driving around well into the 80’s. They are very rarely seen now.