(first posted 1/31/2016) Europe has had many great rear engined cars, some more appealing than others. It still has one, the Porsche 911, which is perhaps one of the most accomplished cars on the market now or ever. Britain, however, has had only one; it had its flaws, some fairly reported, some exaggerated in many accounts. But the Imp project in many ways tells a significant part of the post war British motor industry and post war industrial story on its own.
In 1955, the Rootes Group was making a steady living producing technically conservative but style conscious cars, such as the Hillman Minx, Sunbeam Rapier and Humber Hawk to a market centered on Great Britain, the British Commonwealth and some sales in North America. But it unarguably lacked a smaller car and a truly small car. The smallest Rootes product, the Minx, competed at a size above the Morris Minor and Ford Prefect/Anglia.
BMC had the smaller Austin A35, and there was an increasing market penetration by the truly compact cars, like the Fiat 500, and the bubble cars, like the BMW Isetta. Rootes were determined to compete at this lower point in the market, as the anticipated increase in overall volume would help Rootes to grow and be able to defend itself in any forthcoming amalgamation in the British industry.
So, in 1955, Rootes started work on what became the Imp. Actually, the initial proposal came from two young engineers – Tim Fry and Mike Parkes Fry and Parkes took their proposal for a small car to Rootes’ Engineering Director, Bernard “BB” Winter, who allowed them to create the first prototypes.
Expected production and component costs had ruled out front wheel drive, and the packaging benefits led the choice of the compact rear engine/rear drive layout. The first prototype used a Citroen 2CV engine at the rear, which was quickly replaced by a 600cc twin cylinder, hemi-head air-cooled Villiers motor cycle engin, still mounted at the rear. The resulting concept was perhaps closer to the Fiat Nuova 500 than anything else, and was known internally as the Slug, for obvious reasons.
When the Slug was presented to the Rootes brothers, they turned their noses up at the idea, and at the proposed style of the car, and requested a significant rethink. Rootes wanted a four cylinder, four adult car, with at least some of the usual Rootes style. Fry and Parkes (seen above with the car) now had their direction and Project Apex was underway.
Rootes was a never a cash rich company, so with a new car, a new engine and a new factory to fund, looking for partners was an obvious thing to do. Conscious also that a larger cast iron engine mounted at the rear would bring weight and handling penalties, Fry contacted a surprising source.
In 1950, the UK Ministry of Defence had specified a new lightweight engine for fire pumps, and the selected design came from the Coventry Climax company, a builder of engines for fork lift trucks and other industrial uses. The first version, known as FW (for feather weight) was a 1020cc, four cylinder engine built in alloy, with wedge-shaped combustion chambers and an overhead camshaft, which produced 38bhp and met the weight requirements set.
Coventry Climax recognised that motor racing was a market opportunity and also an image builder for the company, and the FWA (feather weight automotive) variant was developed. Soon, a 1097cc version was winning races, and attracting some impressive attention. Colin Chapman’s Lotus company chose a 1216cc version of the FWM (for marine) variant for the first Lotus Elite in 1957.
Rootes adapted the FWM with Coventry Climax to create the FWMA (A for automotive or Apex), with a capacity of 875cc, installing the engine with the in-line transmission and radiator in the space allocated in the Slug for its original air-cooled twin. The in-line transmission had already been designed, so a transverse installation was not possible, and Fry wanted to use the space above the engine for luggage, rather than a radiator. A front radiator was rejected because of the production and materials cost. The installation was accomplished with the engine lying at 45 degrees on the right hand side of the car and the radiator with a large fan on the left.
Among the changes made to the Coventry Climax design was to move to die casting in aluminium alloy, a first for the British industry, from sand cast iron for the block, for reduced weight, and the use of cast iron cylinder liners.
The engine had a three main bearing crankshaft, a water pump combined with the cooling fan and a chain driven overhead camshaft. Amongst the issues encountered during the development were providing adequate cooling in the rear mounted location (many rear mounted engines are air cooled for a reason), porosity in the castings, excessive oil consumption and identifying a suitable head gasket material.
The gearbox was specifically designed for the Apex, and, somewhat unusually for 1963, had synchromesh on all four speeds. It was also cast in light alloy, and was almost always praised for the quality of the gearshift and choice of ratios. Given that the engine gave peak power of 38 bhp at 5000 rpm and could rev to 7,000 rpm, 50 mph was possible in second gear, and Rootes’ performance figures could be seen as conservative.
The fuel tank was under the floor of the front boot and the filler on the closure panel for the front bonnet (hood). The spare wheel couldn’t have been further forward, helping with weight distribution.
Suspension was by straightforward swinging arms at the front with coil struts, and trailing wishbones and coil springs at the rear. The first Slug concepts cars had a swing axle rear suspension but Fry and Parkes were also well aware of the limitations of a swing axle rear suspension, and the combination of trailing wishbone rear suspension and lightweight engine effectively limited any tendency to oversteer. Indeed, some accounts suggest a swing axle rear suspension was being considered until the development team crashed a Corvair.
One issue, on the first series of cars, was that the ride height had to be raised by an inch at a late stage, so that the headlights were high enough to meet legal requirements. The resulting increased positive camber led to increased understeer, and a visually unfortunate stance on the road, which was not addressed until revisions to the suspension mountings were made in 1967.
Rootes further complicated things for themselves by using such ideas as a pneumatic throttle and an automatic choke, and the engine still had a tendency to overheat, leading to gasket failures, warped cylinder heads and huge reputational damage to the Imp. Assuming the pneumatic throttle and automatic choke had been persuaded to let the car start…..
The Imp was styled in house at Rootes, and is normally credited to Bob Saward. Saward, who joined from Ford in 1958, accepts that the Corvair was an influence, at least below the glasshouse which itself has some resemblance to the first 1962 Ford Cortina, but it was a shape that moved on clearly into the 1960s rather than looked back to the 1950s, and was the first Rootes car for many years to show no Loewy influences.
Slowly, the roofline was improved and the familiar style of the Imp emerged and by the summer of 1960 it was very close to the final production version.
Its big thing was the back window, which opened, almost hatchback style to access a sizeable rear luggage area, which could be increased by folding the rear seat back down as well, in addition to the front boot, which contained the spare wheel. Luggage volume was around 9 cu ft in front and rear compartments, increasing if the rear seats were dropped.
The interior design was perhaps even better than the exterior, helped by the large window area. The instruments were dominated by the strip speedometer in a contemporary pod, and indicators, headlight flasher and main beam were controlled by stalks beside the wheel.
Size and capacity wise, the Imp was 18 inches longer than a Mini, on a wheelbase 2 inches longer, and 5 inches wider, at 60 inches. In terms of accommodation for passengers and their belongings, the Imp was definitely ahead of the Mini. The Imp was of a similar width to the VW Beetle or the later Renault 8, but around 20 inches shorter in length and 12 inches shorter in wheelbase than the VW or Renault. Its closest rivals in size and layout from Europe were probably the SIMCA 1000 and NSU Prinz 1000, though these too were slightly larger. So, still a small car, though not a very small car, and with a power to weight ratio and measured performance very close the Mini 850 and Mini 1000, and ahead of the smaller Fiat 600. In the UK market, the competition came from the Mini, the Ford Anglia and Vauxhall Viva.
Rootes conducted a theoretically thorough development testing programme for the Imp. In late 1961, cars were being tested in continental Euorpe ahead of cold weather testing in Canada in January 1962. These tests included the car being used for a commute in Montréal in January weather, and the consequent specification of a stronger battery, mounted in the rear engine compartment rather than the front, and of a stronger heater.
Cars were also being tested in hot weather conditions in East Africa, with findings including that the cooling was marginal, and that the cooling fan was vulnerable to stone damage.
Rootes obviously bench marked the Imp against the 1959 BMC Mini and a week before the formal launch, Fry showed the car to his personal friend, Alec Issigonis. Issigonis declared the car to be “brilliant but the wrong way round”. Issigonis and Fry would have passionate but good natured arguments about the configurations of their respective cars. Issigonis would quote a dart (“it has its weight at the front to keep it going straight”) and Fry would counter that “a dart can’t go round corners”.
And the Imp could go round corners, arguably better than a Mini. It had great traction coming out of them too, and the lightweight origins and sports history of the engine and the ease of use of the transmission were soon apparent, especially when matched against the BMC A series, where the gearbox in the sump had an awkward gear change, to say the least.
The Imp had a strong motorsport career, starting as early as 1964 when Rootes homologated a 998cc engine for the Rally Imp, and the car came first and second in the Tulip Rally in 1965.
The winner was Irishwoman Rosemary Smith, who went onto many more class wins and what were known as “Coupes des Dames”, and Rootes made certain the public knew about it.
Into the 1970s, rallycross and rallying featuring Imps and Minis was a regular Saturday afternoon television spectacle, and Imps are still seen in classic racing and rallying, even now.
The car was in the showrooms on 3 May 1963,with all the usual pomp and circumstance, including an official factory opening by the Duke of Edinburgh opened the new factory in Linwood, west of Glasgow. Many stories are told about this timing and the actual event. Given the value of the government grants and loans involved, the company was seemingly tied into the May 1963 date, despite Rootes’ new engineering director Peter Ware asking for another six months to complete the development and the production staff protesting they were not ready. Many transporters carrying Imps went past the Duke, or maybe the same transporters actually went past him many times…
Rootes had to build the Imp in Scotland, about as far from Coventry as industrial Britain could be, as government policies dictated that industrial development on this scale should be in a depressed area. Against that background, Rootes selected Linwood, rather Merseyside as chosen by Ford and GM at the same time, for the Imp.
The plant was directly adjacent a plant set up by Pressed Steel, which would supply not just pressings but pressed, assembled, painted and mostly trimmed out Imps to Rootes. Rootes also set up an extensive die casting facility for the engine and gearbox castings in Linwood, though these were all machined in Coventry. A train ran daily taking castings south and engines and gearboxes north.
The Rootes publicity people (voiced by the incomparable Raymond Baxter, of course) gave their side of the story, as ever.
Rootes, being Rootes, used different names for the Imp in various markets, often selling it as the Sunbeam Imp but also as the Sunbeam 900 in Scandinavia for example. And Rootes, being Rootes, soon started badge engineering the car in the home market as well. In late 1964, the semi-luxury Singer Chamois was offered, with wood trim and even a little false grille on the front, and in 1967 the sports brand Sunbeam joined in, with the Sunbeam Imp Sport fitted with a 51bhp version of the 875cc engine, and additional cooling slots on the rear bonnet lid. There are even rumours of Humber, Rootes’ luxury brand, being considered for use on the Imp.
The first significant revisions came in September 1965, in reality less than two years after the car was widely available. A new water pump, a revised cylinder head and gasket, a bigger radiator and more fan blades helped address the cooling and overheating issues; the pneumatic throttle and automatic choke (the lever ahead of the gearlever) were replaced with conventional cables, and there were other minor changes, not least of which were Mark II badges to make the point. The feature car is a 1966 Hillman Imp MkII, seen recently on UK ebay, and probably best looking Imp I can remember seeing, ever.
In 1965, the first style variation appeared – the Hillman Husky estate and Commer Imp van variation, with a roof raised by four inches to maintain a good load bed height over the rear engine. These were significantly more accommodating than a Mini van, though the Post Office turned them down, considering them too fast for the postmen, and stuck with the Morris Minor van.
The other major revisions came in 1968, with a new, arguably less modern but more conventional interior featuring a single plane flat dash with four instrument slots, some used only on the sports Sunbeam and Singer versions, and losing the second finger tip stalk, and revised (and improved) seats and trim details.
The other production body variation was the fastback Hillman Imp Californian (an old Rootes model name), Singer Chamois Sport and Sunbeam Stiletto variant of 1967, with a roofline 2 inches lower.
This was a very attractive style with a more steeply raked windscreen, and although these cars lost the versatility of the opening rear window, they gained a (the first?) split fold rear seat squab. Some versions, typically the Sunbeam and Singer 51bhp cars, had four headlamps, which fitted as if they had been supposed to be there all along.
The Sunbeam version had an alternative dash style as well, with a group of instruments arrayed around the steering wheel in a style not dissimilar to the 1968 Sunbeam Rapier/Alpine GT.
Something that never saw the light of day was a light commercial and small people carrier, roughly along the same lines as the VW Type 2.
Rootes also had a proposal for a compact light commercial designed for CKD assembly using deliberately simple body work in less developed countries.
One variation that was built, but only in prototype form, was this is saloon height estate-cum-full hatchback, and which was photographed as early as 1964. It lost out to the familiar Husky and van as Rootes could only justify one and the greater internal height of the familiar van was necessary. To me at least, that makes a visually more attractive car.
But after 1968, the Imp was effectively left to soldier on with next to no change, other than colours and a series of limited run special editions culminating in the Imp Caledonian, picking up on its Scottish connections.
The Imp made it to North America, from 1964 to 1967, as Sunbeam Imps (Paul Niedermeyer’s Imp CC is here) but figures suggest no more than 5,000 were sold.
But it was by no means a success and clearly not suited to that market, even if Billy Rootes shook hands with Cary Grant over one.
The Imp was in production until 1976, when after the UK Government bailed out Chrysler UK for £125m (say £700m or $1100m now) it was replaced at the foot of the Chrysler UK range by the Chrysler Sunbeam, a cut-down Hillman Avenger (Plymouth Cricket) with a sharp contemporary style. A version of the Imp engine, stretched to 928cc, mounted conventionally at the front and driving the rear wheels made the cut though, in a car that matched the Vauxhall Chevette/Opel Kadett City or Toyota Starlet very closely.
In volume terms, the Imp was a failure for Rootes. Production had been planned at 150,000 a year, but with the impact of the arguably premature launch, the reliability issues, the lead already established by BMC, the lack of experience of Rootes and its dealers in this part of the market and, I suggest, the layout of the car, volumes never approached the target. UK sales in 1963 were 33,000, rising to 50,000 in 1964. It then declined despite the improvements to the car and the wider range, to the extent that by 1968 it was down to 35,000. Almost half of the Imps sold in the UK were sold in the first 5 years; of 440,000 cars, 252,000 had been built by 1966. In 1969, Rootes built around 20,000 Imps, not 150,000; BLMC built 318,000 Minis.
This lack of commercial success was a factor, though not the only one, in the final decline of the Rootes Group and its takeover (or rescue if you wish) by Chrysler that started in 1964. Rootes needed to start paying back the government loans, and the projected volume was not there.
The Imp was an appealing car in some ways, with some innovation in materials, layout and ergonomics, hampered by some awkward manufacturing logistics, an ill-prepared marketing network against strong competition, and some technical issues and failures. It was in many ways a good car to drive, perhaps better than its intended market needed, and had motorsport success, but the unusual configuration, and early quality and reliability issues obscured that for many potential owners.
But the Imp was more than a car – it was also a heartfelt and genuine, if ultimately not fully successful, attempt to revive a depressed area and may have brought more benefit than it is credited with, and we should acknowledge that.
Thanks to fellow Curbivores Don Andreina for some of the development images.
If you want to know more about the Imp, try www.imps4ever.info, possibly the best single car website I’ve seen
Remember these well – a very distinctive noise and much roomier than a Mini. But everyone knew they broke down a lot. Looks over- ambitious in retrospect.
Nice pice our kid.
Brilliantly engineered and poorly built by Scots who had never built cars before. The Climax engines had to be detuned in development as the car would have been to fast 110mph +. The mino ws more reliable!.
So it overheated because the production line staff had never built cars before?
The water pump was one of the main weak points, it would leak then the loss of coolant would cause overheating. Apparently this was identified early on and they built a big test rig to run a dozen or more pumps simultaneously, but nothing was really solved before production began. It took a few revisions during production to get something reasonably reliable.
Also the 150,000 cars per year figure was just fanciful. I can’t remember what the bottleneck was, maybe the volumes of one of the main castings?, but they could not have built that many cars if they wanted to. If a more reasonable capacity figure was used, the car would not sound like such a failure.
The major driver in the ultimate capacity of Linwood was the die casting’s plant capacity to produce 3000 sets a week, but even when Linwood was building the Hunter/Arrow as well, production rarely topped 2,000 cars a week.
Even so, it is likely that production capacity always exceeded likely sales. There are many stories/rumours/anecdotes of the company provoking a strike over next to nothing if the storage yard was looking full.
“There are many stories/rumours/anecdotes of the company provoking a strike over next to nothing if the storage yard was looking full.”
I can believe that! The Rootes Group of companies was deliberately set up in a convoluted manner to confuse the taxation department, so provoking strikes would not surprise. In the later 60s & 70s I wouldn’t expect it would take much either…
Nah Im talking about the build quality or lack of..
We had a couple of Imps when I was growing up. The treat was to travel, lying down, in the rear parcels trough. Safety first!
Nice piece Roger. Always liked this shape especially that gorgeous fastback Californian.
Read that the Imp engine originally was to feature 800-998cc versions with the 800cc dropped during development along with desmodromic valves also being considered.
Interested to know the source of the the light commercial and small people carrier picture, also heard that Chrysler investigated a Front-engined FWD version of the Imp at one point prior to abandoning the project.
They also had a version with bare aluminium cylinder bores too.
I’m not sure if the front-engine version was anything more than an illustration done by one of the magazines of the day (Autocar in 1971) as a ‘what-if’ exercise, where they showed the engine/transaxle turned around and shifted to the front. I can’t find a picture at the moment.
There was also the Asp sportscar prototype, that was developed with the van. It would have made a good MG Midget competitor.
Great details on the imp engines here
http://www.imps4ever.info/tech/kuzmicki.html
http://www.imps4ever.info/tech/engine.html
The Asp was front engined, with the 998cc engine.
http://www.imps4ever.info/protos/asp/asp.html
Somewhere I have a paper by a guy who was part of the works racing team, about how they managed to triple the output of the engine for racing – 120 bhp from 998 cc!
I don’t think the Asp was intended to be front-engined, there is a side view drawing that overlays the people mover and the Asp, which would share the same platform. Actually I don’t think I’ve seen that people mover styling sketch before. The one I’ve seen is more of a ‘monospace’ with the front and rear pillars extending to the end of the vehicle. I’ll dig it out when I get to my other computer.
They were also looking to build a new taller block to give the engines a longer stroke yet retain the reliable dry-liners from the 875 engine in order to overcome the engine capacity limitations, which after being abandoned were later used in competition Imps with the engines bored out to as much as 1150cc.
Pity if the front-engined version was merely a magazine “what-if” illustration and not an actual project.
Apparently they were also testing Imps with McPherson strut suspension during development.
There was also the TVR Tina Spyder and Coupe sports car prototypes, the Coupe in particular vaguely resembles a rear-engined Ford Capri.
http://www.imps4ever.info/specials/tvrtina.html
Great design , much better than the Mini!
Leave it to the Brits to take badge engineering and trying to compete in every market segment to their extreme.
I assume the real name was…
Hillman Imperial Mk II
shortened to: Hillman Imp. Mk II
Rootes had an Imperial, but rather bigger and a Humber:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Humber_Imperial_rear.jpg
No, Imp as in mischievous little devil, which sat in showrooms alongside the Minx.
Rootes liked ‘related’ names, eg Sunbeam Rapier and Stiletto, or Humber Hawk and Snipe.
heh
Well…I guess here in America there was a car named the Gremlin, which is probably a dumber name for a car than Imp or Minx.
If I asked you to source me a vintage Humber, would I be sending you on a Snipe hunt?
Always a very smart and sharp looking little car, the Imp. They did have a small car of a kind before in the Husky, effectively a cut down ‘Audax’ Hillman estate, but such proto-hatchbacks (like the similar A40 Farina Countryman) weren’t yet in vogue.
Yes they had the Husky/Cob from the early 50s pre AUDAX through till 61/63 when the Imp van replaced it, heres an early one but fitted with a Simca V8 engine.
A wonderful article for a quiet Sunday morning.
It is unfortunate that the Imp didn’t meet with the success that was planned for it, but from my vantage point I can see where the layout and initial quality greatly conspired against a greater degree of success.
The featured example looks fantastic. It would make a fellow a terrific fair weather weekend car.
This is a fascinating article for a Yank. I’ve never seen an Imp in the street, although of course I know the name. Reading through the story, I was rather expecting the Imp to be a great success, noting the extensive development drill, and then I got to the pneumatic throttle. Why, British people, why???? I often mourn the fact that Mercedes stopped giving its engineers free reign, but this clearly seems a case of love of a pet technology run amuck.
Big Paws makes an interesting point above, “…everybody knew they broke down a lot. I wonder how many fundamentally good cars have been ruined by bad first year quality woes? Would the asked for additional six months of development changed the history of the Imp? For the distance of years and 3,000 miles of ocean the Imp really looks like a pretty decent car with a few flaws. However, I know that 90’s GM cars look great in pictures but when you can personally see the paint peeling off the bodies and the ‘rubbermaid/playskool’ interiors, it’s a different story. Does anybody have any Imp driving experience or impressions they can share?
Well, my Mum’s Imp certainly broke down a lot!
The widow who moved in next door to us in the late 60s had one, it never failed to start she had it maintained by the across the street neighbour who was the local Hillman dealer, her car was a MK2 so lacked the troublesome vacuum operated throttle, that car ran for years with no issues some did some didnt,
One of the kitchen staff at boarding school had a very rough Imp she used for work duties I guess it was cheaper to run than the Dodge Pioneer family car she sometimes turned up in that was a MK1 so probably lucky they also had the Dodge she rarely drove.
I’ve driven a few Imps, the first thing you notice are the heavily offset pedals thanks to the wheel arch intrusion. Apart from that the seating position is normal, you are aware you are in a small car because the windows are not far away! You can easily reach the passenger door, there is plenty of glass area and the window sills are low. The seat can be adjusted for legroom, the early seats have two positions a couple of inches apart and later ones slide.
The steering is very light – you can turn the wheel when stationary with one finger, but very quick at 2.75 turns lock-to-lock. The engine is very free-revving and is easy to drive, although you need to stir the gears and keep the engine on the boil for hills etc; it is less than 900cc after all. Non-assisted brakes are easy to use in normal driving even for someone used to power brakes.
Handling wise the car can be pushed harder than you think would be possible, even with the comical front camber settings. The only time I’ve spun one was doing hand-brake turns on wet concrete, the heavy rear end would slide around further than intended. The suspension gives a comfortable ride and the body sits flat in normal cornering but leans when pushed as there aren’t any sway bars; you can see in the photos above it isn’t excessive though. The car is reasonably quiet, even with a loud exhaust the noise is behind you so not too intrusive.
They are a lot of fun to drive, I always say the closest thing to a go kart you can drive on the road.
Compare that account with some other rear engined cars you could name…..
That is thanks to the front suspension (including tyre pressure settings similar to the Corvair) deliberately having less grip than the rear.
I had a short drive of a Beetle years ago but no other rear-engined cars to compare.
Yes.
I bought a 10 year old Singer Chamois in 1976 for £150. It was reasonably reliable for the time – picked up a hitchhiker on the A34 one Sunday who after a mile asked “this car is very quiet – is it foreign?”
My mum had two Chrysler Imps. I once managed to exit a corner sideways but you had to drive like a lunatic.
The main drawback of Chrysler’s cost cutting was they did away with the fuses so if a car suffered an electrical fault it would catch fire which ours did requiring a new wiring loom.
The other serious drawback was the heater or lack of it. It took so long for hot water to reach the heater matrix that on short journeys you had arrived at your destination but the windscreen still had ice on the inside
Good package on the whole especially the rear opening window. The car features in the Sunday Express cartoon “The Gambols”
I really like this car a lot. Thanks for this really comprehensive writeup.
I know the 911 was eventually able to transition to being water cooled, and Simca and Renault were water cooled. Was it possible though, given the state of radiator technology in the sixties, to truly overcome the airflow problem inherent to rear engine mounting. The engine bay pictures of the Imp indicate a large radiator.
Also was it possible/adviseable to open the rear window while driving. Aside from breathing the exhaust the window flipped up may move around in the slipstream.
It was possible to drive with the rear window open because it would hold in place, but not advisable. There are cabin air outlets above the window that have one-way flaps to prevent fumes being sucked inside.
One issue with the cooling was the air flowed forward through the radiator, driven by the fan, exiting under the car. This was to avoid sucking dirt and debris kicked up off the road by the front wheels into the radiator, but at highway speed it would tend to get sucked back in for another lap. I wonder if an air intake at the base of the rear window would have been better, as used by most rear-engined cars.
As they say, “don’t try this at home!”
After your article on the Rootes Group, I bought Graham Robson’s book, and I’m just getting into reading it. Imps are among my favorite small European cars just based on their attitude and style. Their idiosyncrasies aren’t as important as they used to be (all old cars break!), so it’s easier to romanticize them. 🙂 Not that they show up in the US of A very often…
If you have not already you should also consider getting Apex: Inside Story of the Hillman Imp by David Henshaw.
Thank you for another splendid read about a car that was everywhere as a kid in the 60s & 70s. 2 of my favourite teachers drove Imps, Mrs Gray a lovely Scottish lady who taught R.E, Art, History & Geography. The Imp replaced a very rusty HA Viva. Miss Turner my favourite Art teacher had a Stiletto which replaced a rustier Karmann Ghia.
I preferred it to the Mini, much nicer looking. The Imp was used in the TV thriller series Man in a Suitcase to make it look cool but it never caught on like the Mini.
We sometimes took in lodgers, i remember one having an Imp in a lovely warm gold colour.
I remember the Plymouth Cricket, especially their commercials. Was the Imp sold through Chrysler-Plymouth dealers in the US?
I remember seeing the Rootes name in U.S. school buses. Any connection ?
Rootes made commercial vehicles under the Commer name in the UK. Never seen a bus, I’m sure a CCer will let us know if they did!
Commer did produce some bus chassis into the 1950s/60s, but in the USA as a school bus? Not sure myself
Could have been a slightly different spelling inside those school buses, Roots.
The weird thing about the 1966 Hillman Imp was that it had looked like it borrowed the speedometer from any General Motors Car. The 1977 Chrysler Sunbeam 2 Door Hatchback looks like it can pass for a 2 Door version of the Simca/Chrysler/Plymouth Horizon/Dodge Omni 4 Door Hatchback even though the Horizon was a FWD while the Sunbeam was a RWD still based from a truncated Hillman Avenger/Plymouth Cricket (Dodge Polara in South America) or Dodge Colt in Canada.
Both were styled by the same team in Whitley under Roy Axe, by then part of Chrysler Europe, but the Horizon was based on developments of the Simca mechanics. The Chrysler Sunbeam used the entire front doors from the 4 door Avenger but blends them into a completely different, more angular style, the rear lights came straight off the Simca 1301/Chrysler Alpine while the dashboard was the same Alpine-like one as the facelifted Avenger.
Did it come with a tow strap as standard equipment?
Don’t ask me about British car reliability. I was never that brave. Fortunately, a car this light can easily be pushed to the side of the road by one driver.
Which reminds me of my NSU 1000, which was sometimes mistaken for this model. I see a lot of similarities beneath the boxy styling. The rear suspensions didn’t skimp, with proper trailing arms and separate shocks and springs (come to think of it, my GTI sits on similar underpinnings). I was glad not to have the complications of water cooling, but perhaps it would have been more effective. Both had all-alloy, OHC engines, but this Imp’s block hangs farther behind the rear axle than Neckarsalum’s transverse layout.
With nearly 10 years of wheel time in the NSU, I can vouch for the handling of this kind of car. A light engine in the rear that’s balanced by the similar weight of a driver. This doesn’t have to feel tail-happy at all. Mine was lively, nimble and direct.
The irony about British cars was, they were not designed well for producibility [English ambivalence about Mass Production] so they were easier on the amateur mechanic. For example, my MGB’s instrument & door panels were assembled using inefficient screws & thus were easily accessed for things needing repair/replacement.
I see a conflict of interest between Lean Production with emphasis on efficient assembly & parts reduction, & owner DIY repairs. To my horror, I found that the Prius sun visors are attached by plastic fasteners, not screws. I understand why, but I still don’t like it on a high-use part. And plastic gets brittle over time, no escaping that.
Very interesting point.
I agree, in general.
Efficient assembly does drive modularization and non-serviceable fasteners (or harder to service–screws can be removed and reattached–if you have access of course, but plastic retainers can break or lose their ‘grip’ with reuse).
However, efficient assembly must also be easier for the operator. Processes that are easy to initially assemble are far less likely to be incorrectly assembled and cause issues.
Classic case of your lean production v DIY repair concern – headlights that cannot be replaced without removing bumpers….. VW Golf for example
I was always intrigued by the Imp, but I had read about the reliability issues; they became known very early on. A pneumatic throttle? Sounded good in theory, but there had to be a good reason nobody else had done that. And such a high compression for a family car? Hmm.
There was so much thoughtful engineering – an alloy engine in the rear, canted over for luggage space above. I loved the idea of the hatchback and fold-down seat – little did I know what that would lead to. And the two control stalks pivoting from the dash seemed brilliant too. Reading the story they seemed to spend plenty of time developing the car in climatic extremes – so why the reliability issues?
I remember seeing one dumped in a back street in the mid-seventies. I toyed with the idea of rescuing it, but remembered the reliability issues, and my non-existent budget.
A very interesting car. Thanks, Roger.
I have driven an Imp with a pneumatic throttle, but only in a small paddock so I don’t know if the unit was leaking. They also introduced non-greased PTFE bushes for the king pins, however any surface rust would wear them away, so reverted back to normal. Stainless steel kingpins would probably have avoided the issue but likely at too high a cost.
The cooling system was always known to be marginal in hot weather, and if you lost some coolant you were in trouble. I’ve driven mine on a 43C/110F day without overheating while on surface roads, but once I hit the freeway the temperature climbed; off at the next exit. The fan provides plenty of airflow but I think the engine working harder at higher speeds was the difference. Similarly the gearbox would overheat at very high speeds (80-90 mph?), but before the car was launched the speed limit was introduced in the UK, so that problem ‘went away’.
There was an 8:1 low-compression engine for use with lower-octane fuel, and for the van.
My first ever ‘proper’ girlfriend (lol) had a sand-beige Singer version of the Imp (the Chamois??)
I remember her bemoaning that she thought that every single part in that little car had been replaced with a new one during her ownership of it . .
It was a high revving little machine that sounded a bit ‘thrashy’ but perhaps she had given it a hard time..
Funny how many of the rear-engined cars of that era were mechanically “noisy” (ie: the 944cc Simca)..
But for some reason they were more fun to drive than the weak swaying front-mounted ‘iron-sled’ equivalents of the day – lol (the rear-drive Morries, Austins, Viva’s and Anglia’s) …urrgh ! 🙂
[i am NOT including the Mini Cooper S in any indictment however – THAT was the MOST FUN of ALL the small cars of the era] 🙂
One source of noise is the direct-acting OHC with shims under bucket-type followers, when cold before things warm up and expand the tappet clearances will be a bit large.
“Too fast for postmen” — hadn’t they ever heard of throttle governors? And it sounds perverse on the surface, like “Can’t have the mail delivered too quickly, old chap.” But I know, you can’t have grannies getting run down by enthusiasts, either.
Cromwell tanks were governed to preserve their Meteor engine & Christie running gear, but I’m sure crews might’ve had other ideas while in combat zones.
I don’t have the URL handy, but there’s an Imp site that includes a reminiscence by one of the engineers (who was fairly young at the time) who took part in the cold-weather testing in Canada. At one point he gently suggested to Lord Rootes that the car could do with more development than it was scheduled to get. Lord Rootes gave him, as he put it, a very English look and said, “Whose company is it?”
Try this one
http://www.imps4ever.info/algemeen/test_northamerica.html
Great article! 🙂 ..always was fascinated by that superb little slanted alloy OHC 10:1 engine! 🙂 ..and the Stiletto (saw one a few months ago in dark green at the Orakei train station) is a knockout little beauty to behold! 🙂
Nice work Roger. One minor detail is the Lotus Elite engine was designated FWE, while the FWM was only 653cc. That was then developed into the 745cc FWMA (automotive) which is what Rootes started with.
Apart from winning an international rally outright (the Tulip), the Imp’s biggest success was winning the British Saloon Car Championship three times in a row from 1970-72 with Bill McGovern driving for George Bevan Racing. It must be said that this was possible because the championship was based on class wins, and the Imp dominated the <1000cc class.
My father bought an Imp new in 1967 and I learned to drive in it .
It was utterly reliable for the three years he owned it, no head problems , no water pump problems.
The guys in Linwood must have been in a good mood the day they put our car together.
Superb article – amazingly informative and entertaining I never knew these had a pneumatic throttle – I’m going to have to do a little research on that………
we had a 65 Singer Chamois – same colour as the purple car
In front of me I have my September, 1996 edition of “Classic and Sportscar,” an English publication. In an article about a restored Corvair, Simon Duval Smith wrote, “Declan Sheeran’s 1964 Monza coupe is a first series car with its distinctive Hillman Imp front-end looks and infamous ‘Quadri-Flex’ suspension.” SMH
Sorry for the late comments… I believe it’s best to include a picture of a Zagato Imp. The article itself is extensive, but I feel it would be an injustice not to include a beautiful, Italian-bodied Imp.
Best regards
Actually, I have a genuine CC Imp find that I should write up…
There is one currently for sale on NZ’s Trade Me . . needs a small amount of work, but not too bad . . original Minx ‘sea green’ colour by the looks with red interior
They arent actually very rare in Aotearoa survivors abound.
Great work, Roger — a really good overview.
The Imp’s resemblance to the first-generation Corvair is obvious, but what strikes me looking at the development prototypes is why the Corvair was such a revelation for British and European stylists. It had a set of graphic elements that could be applied to front- or rear-engine cars and that were scalable to different sizes — it was a straightforward way to add a bit of stylistic character to small and boxy cars, which otherwise end up looking like dumplings.
There are some interesting parallels between the Coventry Climax engines and the Crosley COBRA and CIBA engines. Also, I didn’t realize the Imp had swing-axle front suspension.
I had a mk.1 imp that carried my stuff around ( I used to install milking machines in farms for Alfa Laval. It was a pity it never really took off. But oh that bloody throttle !!!!! especially going up hill
Know anyone whos selling a hillman husky mk1 1954 panel van or estate? Let me know
Thank you for the compliment to my website http://www.imps4ever.info .
Please let me know about any mistakes you spot. (My email address is on my homepage)
Best wishes
Checked out your website (which was very informative) and was wondering if you can kindly answer a few questions I Have regarding the Imp?
1) Was any consideration given to a 4-door Imp similar to the 4-door SEAT 850?
2) Does anymore information exist regarding the “Spartan” Styling Study for a rear-engined 1.1-litre car found in Graham Robson’s Cars of the Rootes Group book?
Was it to be a car that slotted in between the Imp and the Swallow as a replacement for the Minx (as mentioned in Graham Robson’s book) or was it in fact early thoughts for what became the Swallow, if the former would the 1100cc “Spartan” unit have likely been a bored out Imp engine or a de-stroked Swallow engine?
I have had Imps for 50 years and although they need attention they have rarely given up without notice. Compared to moderns they have vastly better vision to the sides and rear, don’t hide a London bus as a rental Fiat 500 did! No stupid electronics to fail and the air conditioning worked even at a standstill, wind the window down. I can even get in and out without difficulty, try that in a modern with a sharply raked windscreen. I don’t mind driving an antique, I am one anyway. We both get along fine and by looking ahead keep up with and often pass the leadfoot loons at the next corner.
My father had a blue1965 Imp Mk1 – I remember the water pump breaking one night and the sight of those hinges for the rear window…
Imps had a great sporting history, not only intheir original form, but as Ginetta G15s and Davrians.
I would love to try a Chamois, Sunbeam, or G15 – I think I would be rather partial to the latter!
The yellow car is the Ginetta G15- fast and pretty! Here’s the Davrian…
Five years late here, but I thought it worth noting that Mike Parkes, mentioned as part of the initial engineering team, was also a race driver who went on to a very successful career with Ferrari, as engineer and driver including a brief stint on the Formula 1 team in 1966-67. After a serious racing accident he retired and left Ferrari, working on the Lancia Stratos among other Italian projects.
Fantastic article, very well written as always by Roger.
I have owned Imps since I got my drivers license back in 1982. These were always rare cars in the Netherlands, when I bought my car I was not sure what I had bought – the badges were missing. But I fell in love with it and still have one, a near similar car to the one in the article. Mine is a Sunbeam Chamois Mk2 of 1967 which I have owned since 1999. Even though I have much faster cars, this little car still feels sporty and always make me smile whenever I drive it.
The Imp engine and gearbox seemed to appeal to small manufacturers.
Bond made a plastic three wheeler in passenger and van versions.
And some ex Lotus engineers the plastic Clan Crusader.
I hate clowns who electricfy Porsches like 356 and 911’s and other classic sports cars who then upload their work to Youtube.
Here is a car perfect for a EV conversion.
Replace the rear subframe with a battery pack and electric motor transaxle, also plenty of room under the rear seat area as well.
I would still be loathe to EV an original solid car, perhaps take moulds for a carbon fibre body and use a rotten parts car for the glass and other minor parts.
Use a more modern suspension especially at the front with disks all round.
Roger
Interested to know what the original source is for the 600cc twin-cylinder air-cooled Villiers motorcycle engine featuring hemi-heads? Seen claims of it being a Flat-Twin, however there appears to be no additional information available other then the fact it was used in the Imp prototype between the initial 2CV placeholder and Coventry Climax engines.
It is not know if the Villiers engine was all-new or cribbed from another design by another company.
There was the 1949 Little Jimmy prototype by Craig Miller which made use of a Volkswagen-based twin-cylinder engine, however that did not use hemi-heads unlike say the Steyr-Puch or any other Flat-Twins with Hemi-Heads that Villiers could have used as a template to create their own.
How about makin it a 4dr and make the C pillar wider to incorporate the same type of down draft cooling vent as in a T 25 vdub van. Same car though it is it had a very spacious cabin area. As with most 2dr offerings the 4rd version meant shortening the door, move the B pillar forward, create a new C pillar ,yes you loose a bit of rear vision ( marginal ) but allows room for the all important cooling vent .