(first posted 2/3/2016) Looking back on photos after you have seen a CC on the street can be interesting. Parked next to this saucy old Minx is something that illustrates a theory I have about modern cars; too bad I didn’t think of it at the time to get more of the Audi Q3 into the shot.
The Minx is a lot narrower than the Q3 at 62” wide vs 72” (1575 vs 1831mm) as are its 5.00-16 tyres! It is a little shorter at 160” vs 173” (4064 vs 4385mm), but has a quite similar overall height (60” vs 62.6”, 1524 vs 1590mm) and ground clearance (7” vs 6.7”, 178 vs 170mm). A similar relationship can be seen in larger vehicles too. It will take a pretty steep driveway to scrape the undersides, and you aren’t likely to catch the front bumper on the concrete wheel stop in a car park.
On the other hand the powertrain is a 1265cc side-valve 4-cylinder backed up by a 4-speed manual; an automatic was a few years away yet. On the other hand the Q3’s engine size is surprisingly similar at 1.4L, although it is turbocharged engine and has a dual-clutch automatic gearbox. The Audi has nearly four times the horsepower, but is more than 1.5 times the weight: 3263 vs just 2070 lb. Of course the Minx is a lot slower with a top speed of around 65 mph – perfectly adequate when 50 mph was a typical cruising speed – but it also uses more fuel than the Audi.
Updated photo – the interior of the 1951 Minx
I don’t think you can compare interior appointments between an early-1950s car and a modern one! The windshield of the CUV is more upright than a conventional car and side windows usually have less inwards curvature, which creates a more spacious feel than aerodynamically influenced modern sedans but can’t compare with a more upright early-50’s car. A significant deficiency in many modern cars is poor rear seat head room; another factor that I think helps CUV sales. An early-fifties car would have been designed to accommodate passengers wearing hats.
So there you have it, CUV’s are a return to the “form factor” of 1950’s cars, before the longer/lower/wider trend set in!
I’ve heard of the Hillman Minx, but I’ve never seen one in person. Nice looking car. 🙂
Nice find, and an interesting set of observations. Do you know if this a UK or Australian assembled car?
It’s along time since I saw a pre-Audax Minx on the road, to say the least!
I would have to check but I am pretty sure the Port Melbourne factory was running by 51.
Would have to have been NZ assembly and unique Humber badged models date back to the 30s.
The Todd family did well out of these products . .
The Port Melbourne factory building was only built in 1942, to assist with tank development. Rootes Australia was established 12 months or so after the war when they acquired the factory. This was after they had missed out on the government program to produce a car that went to GM and the Holden.
Before the war, cars would have been assembled and fitted with local bodies by a separate distributor in each state.
Thanks John.
Keep hunting them down!
I’ve been pointing out how CUVs are just getting back to what are mostly more ideal taller shapes for a long time. And this is a very good example.
The only issue with many CUVs is that they don’t take full advantage of their height, because the floor is too high up also, because they share platforms with sedans. So the platform is jacked up to gain height, and the roof might be somewhat taller proportionately, but not as ideal as would be the case if a CUV was designed from scratch to optimize interior packaging.
Just last weekend I drove a (rental) BMW X1. Before, I had questioned the use of such a car, but driving one it actually makes perfect sense: it’s just a little bit taller, quite compact on the outside but big inside, and provides a good view over the road – useful in busy Munich traffic – and it drives almost as well as a “proper” BMW 1-series. Pretty much the perfect size, very little not to like (besides the looks and too-high price). It’s nearly the same size as this Hillman Minx. I now see the reason for the success of this kind of car.
Agreed Paul.
On the Q3 example the floor would only be about 40mm higher, and I think the extra ground clearance over a too-low car is part of the appeal
Despite the maxim “You can’t sell an old person’s car to a young person” I think there’s a market for “taller” cars as people like boomers get older, and less agile (I include myself in that remark). I recently rented a Jeep Compass driving to my Father’s funeral, and though it is taller than my “normal” car (2000 VW Golf) it was actually too tall for my petite Mother, who struggled to get in the back seat (she has sciatica but is otherwise is pertty good health for her age). I used to have an A2 Golf (GTI) which seemed quite a bit taller than my current (A4) Golf, kind of like VW lowered the seating position maybe to get better fuel economy…the seating position of the A4 Golf reminds me of a Honda (sedan) which used to seem like a lower seating position than my A2 Golf. Anyhow, I’m getting interested in taller cars with higher seating, other than the Scion XB and maybe the Honda Element, there doesn’t seem to be too many car models with this arrangement. Maybe that’s part of the reason that many of these cars sold to older buyers (than expected by their marketers)? I guess I could go back and try to buy an old Checker or even older 50’s car (prior to Chrysler’s forward look cars of 1957), but there aren’t that many of them around, plus I mostly am looking for a “small” tall car, don’t otherwise need room for lots of passengers (though cargo room is welcome).
If the Audax Minx favors the American 1953 Studebaker, this one favors the American 1949 Plymouth. I like this car a lot.
I suppose that the horsepower available in this Minx eliminates the worry of items tumbling out of the dash cubby on hard acceleration. 🙂 And as the promotional picture implies, every gentleman needs to keep his pipe handy.
From the brochure 37.5 hp@4200rpm acceleration is glacial by modern standards slow even by the standards of my 59 model with its massive 55hp.
HAHAHAHAHA …when i was a young teenage kid i once dared the owner of a black 1950 Ford V8 Pilot over a measured hundred yards from a standing start .. AND easily beat him (on foot) to the line!! Even the “V8’s” back then were slower than geriatric sloths . .lol
That body style came out in 49.
Locally we have a 1952-4 style Austin A40 (also black) that demonstrates how the old style fits in with the ‘tall’ look of people carriers and SUVs. As here, the most obvious departure, (styling aside) is the narrowness of the older car.
Is it just me that sees that old Minx’s anthropomorphic smile in that front view?
Nice Minx, it does look like a K.T. Keller kind of car. What’s a “dipper control”?
Headlight dimmer switch.
In the proper place on the floor next to the clutch pedal.
The brochure says the dip switch is in the horn button , not on the floor .
-Nate
That is the trafficator switch not the headlight dipper.
C’mon Bryce ~
READ THE BROCHURE . it clearly mentions trafficator , horn and dipper switch as being ‘ conveniently located in the steering wheel boss ‘.
I’da copied and pasted it if I could .
-Nate
I owned one of the cars identical to the featured model and three other pre Audax sidevalve Humber 10s headlight dipper switches were floor mounted on all of them.
Is it possible there are differences between the UK & Australian/NZ models?
I wonder if John has an interior shot he can post? I’m curious about the dash as well. It does look expensive for a cheaper, early 1950’s car that was also built for export. But it does look like a Hillman brochure.
I will try to get an interior shot
Ok, I got a photo of the interior last weekend. I will change out the brochure shot, not sure when that would be from. Hillman stayed with the central instrument cluster for many years after this.
On the floor next to the clutch, the blurb in the post is for a totally different car.
Dashboard convertibles are easy to get interior shot of.
No, I like the modern placement of the dimmer switch on the steering column, a simple push-pull on the turn signal switch. I remember those old floor-mounted dimmer switches and how much they rusted and stuck from all the road salt here in Canada. I suppose road salt wouldn’t be a problem in Kiwiland.
My comment was going to be “K. T. Keller gets his revenge.” You beat me to it…
Great point about the early fifties shapes coming back with the high comfortable seating positions and greater ground clearance.
I wonder if tall but narrow wheels may also make a comeback. I noticed that the new BMW I3 had 19 by 5 inch wheels standard.
My family’s first car. I still see Audax Minxes occasionally but I suspect there’s only a handful of these in the States and I haven’t seen one for decades. My mom told me that she drove the car from sea level to Lake Tahoe over Donner Summit (7000+ feet) which must have been a leisurely drive with a family of four and luggage. She also took it on several dirt forest roads. I have only very dim memories of this car … I was three when we sold it.
Great story Dman. The other thing with cars of this era is if you pushed them to hard up hills in a low gear they would overheat, so a leisurely approach was better.
I’m struck by how spartan that dashboard is. Nothing in a 1950 American car would have looked like that. That used to be a significant cosmetic difference between European and American cars.
I see your point on how most American dashes in 1950 were flashier. However, there were exceptions like this 1950 Studebaker Champion. Studebaker had offered some really nice interiors in the 40s, but were starting into a design period that was quite austere by 1950 (when they could have afforded to do better.)
Yes exceptions like Chevrolet and Ford with sheetmetal dash and just a speedo that Minx dash is incorrect I just happen to have a brochure for the 53 model which only differed in grille size and tailight placement, This dash matches the 51 model I owned speedo fuel gauge, shift pattern engine coolant temp, radio was extra cost option.
Kind of makes sense re: the Sudebaker since Raymond Lowey’s office worked for both Stude and Rootes at the time. Although, as noted above, I’ve always found this generation of Hillmans and Humbers to have strong Chrysler overtones.
My parents had a 1950 Studebaker Champion, but it had this far nicer steering wheel. I have no idea why, since my total cheapskate Dad always bought the lowest end stripper car possible. It had the bullet instead of a clock, of course.
Nice find, as usual I had one in pale green and badged Humber 10 as a NZ assembly special to exploit the import quota laws of the time, Ironically they are quite good solid old cars mine was very reliable and was my main strike car for some 18 months used for highway commuting to work and back, it was good on gas our speed limit being a mere 50mph at the time it cruised easily at the speed limit though was somewhat slower on steeper hills, it would however accelerate slowly to an indicated 75 mph on the flat so the suggested top speed of 65 isnt correct and for NZ assembly the dashboard is wrong all the instruments were grouped in the centre of the dash, the power train is the same used by Hillman minx?humber10 since the mid 30s only the column change and hydraulic brakes were new for this model, mechanically they were quite robust though not bullet proof mine lost a tooth from the crownwheel I simply replaced the diffhead with a spare, when I bought my car for $100 I was offered a 53 model for parts I took it and the trailer load of spares that came with it for $35 no knowing what the parts supply would be like for whay was then quite an old car the diff was the only thing I fixed, by the way the spares car though it did run was towed some 40 miles to where it was dismantled by a friend with his 28 Model A roadster pickup,
Quite roomy and reasonably comfortable these elderly Minxs I’d drive another though I’d uprate the power train for modern traffic conditions probably not to the extent this Commer Cob pictured has been done with Simca flathead V8 but just later Minx bits the mission to install the V8 was quite extensive I’m told.
Glad to hear you mention how roomy they were. A neighbour had one; much more spacious in the back seat that my aunt’s A30, but not as big as dad’s Oxford.
Available in a range of body styles even
Including station wagon or as a Commer comercial. Long wheelbase or short like the Cob pictured above
I don’t know why automakers persist in the “4 door coupe” styling for sedans. No wonder sedan sales are falling. The swoppy rooflines make it difficult to get in and out of the back seat without smacking your head and make the trunk opening laughably small.
I get irritated when people say their CUV/SUV gives them a better view of the road: if everybody is driving one that advantage disappears pretty fast!
A little later on, Hillman tried to spruce up their cars with a tag line that can evince a few giggles now…
That’s from 1955. I seem to remember “gay” being a synonym for “happy” until at least the early 1970’s. Remember Stonewall didn’t happen until 1968, and prior to that any description of someone with those sexual tastes (other than the coldly clinical “homosexual”) are unprintable by today’s standards.
The term ‘gay’ first acquired its current meaning in the 1920s and 30’s. It was in the pop lexicon sufficiently that Cary Grant used the term (as a reference to homosexuality) in the 1930’s film “Bringing Up Baby”.
But I think the term maintained its ‘happy’ interpretation in Britain, for a longer time.
I can smell the inside of that car just from the pictures (and it’s delicious!).
Dad had a Hillman Husky when I was a tot. He said it leaked oil like, well, a British car.
I love the “spacious cubby hole” which, even on a car so narrow, could teach a thing or two to a GM in my past.
Did not know “dipper” until this. Was there another word the English used for glove box?
The English called them ‘dippers’ because back before dual-filament bulbs the reflector would physically move (dip) to lower the beam, and the driver’s side light would go out entirely – literally a ‘dip-and-switch’ system. I’ve read about this in thirties road tests. Sure sounds dangerous at today’s speeds!
On the late 1920s Humbers like Roger wrote up recently and a friend of mine own the dipping mechanism was operated by engine vacuum.
More reliable than a Lucas solenoid?
When my MGB’s voltage regulator failed, a mechanic told me the MGA’s would be a more reliable replacement!
I submit “dash compartment” or “owner’s manual compartment” as a more relevant term than “glove compartment,” since the latter is hardly ever used for its nominal purpose. Hey, we rename so many other things in life (e.g. “chairpersons” since English doesn’t have gender suffixes like more civilized languages), why does that archaism still stand?
Documents Compartment, because along with the manual that’s where many folks keep things like registrations and safety test papers. Docs Box for short.
“Leftover Fast Food Napkin Compartment.”
I actually do have gloves in my Fit glove box… Go figure!
The term dip switch carried over to floor mounted switches to dip the lights from main/high beam, and even to the same function on stalks.
Adding further confusion, DIP switches have been used on electronics to configure settings, DIP being an abbreviation of Dual In-line Package for electronic components like the old 5V 7400 series TTL parts once popular with hobbyists.
Was this taken near Geelong? There’s one just like it in the next town to me; can’t remember the rego number. It was a daily driver until last year, but it’s on club plates now.
No, inner Melbourne. An area with lots of terrace/attached houses and not much off-street parking
I know this is an old thread but I have the original service history for this car. It hasn’t been out of registration since delivery in 1951! The car was originally green. The booklet has the service history up until 10-4-56… I think the paperwork needs to get back to the glove box of that car…. Is it still parked around there I wonder?
That car makes me happy. 🙂
I find this to be a very attractive car .
That dashboard is solidly 1940’s style and looks great , it really does need a glove box door though .
Too bad about it being a Flathead though .
IIRC the Morris Minor still had a two piece windshield in 1950 making this Hillman look more modern .
-Nate
The Hillman Minx of 1940 had a one piece windscreen it was hardly modern in 1950
O.K. so Hillman was ahead of the curve as many American cars still had two piece flat glass windshields in 1950….
-Nate
Morris untill the Minor had a onepiece opening windscreen too on the E model 8 and on the pre war Morris 8, it wasnt only Rootes cars, Vauxhalls too were like that and Fords and others.
The two-piece angled screen was relatively uncommon in Britain because we all but missed out on that whole era of car styling due to the War so what was new in 1938/39 was returned to production in 1945 (and largely exported!) until the truly new post-war designs appeared from around 1948. Soon after one-piece curved screens became available/affordable and quickly displaced the angled screen.
Interesting comparison and the Hillman is cute as a button! I’ll bet it’s also easier to see out of in all directions than the Audi. It seems we have indeed gone back to early 1950s dimensions/proportions, but sadly visibility is a major problem in most modern designs with their thick roof pillars designed to conceal airbags and other safety doo-dads.
My Mum drove one of these back in the late 60s, but i think it was a newer model than this , It had the same instrument panel as the one in the brochure that Bryce posted.
I remember the gear shift pattern and the Rootes emblem.in the dash.
It was very impressive at night with everything lit up, even the Rootes emblem.
One day we were driving along and the hood flew up, Mum was always a panicky driver and just slammed on the brakes, of course there were eggs on the front seat, and a bottle of milk, what a mess.
Nice little Minx. A neighbour a few houses down had one. It was still running by the mid-sixties and then at some point wasn’t and sat in his backyard for many years. These cars and Austin A40s were imported in great numbers into Canada after WWII. They seemed to be everywhere in the late fifties and then died out as owners became more affluent and started buying bigger cars.
Looks like dad’s 1959 Plymouth squeezed in a giant vise!
I have never seen one of these, far as I know. Were they good cars? Were any British cars good cars? I say that because of the different driving environment in the U.S. than in Britain.
Yes ;
Many British cars were perfectly good if designed for different use than the average American put them to .
The primary fault in older British cars was the almost total lack of initial Quality Control in the initial build .
Once you take the time to sort one out they can be very good , economical and most importantly , FUN TO DRIVE .
-Nate
Nice find and interesting comparo with the Audi.
On the subject of British cars being good or bad, I think Rootes Group cars were a lot better than other affordable British cars especially before the Chrysler takeover. Much better than the BMC cars of the time,
They seemed to resist rust quite well too, at least here in Australia.
A friend of the family had a late 50s Minx which used to handle a 200 mile one way trip from Melbourne to the country town we lived in at the time all through the 60s no issues at all, she kept it right up to the mid 1970s when it was passed to my sister who had it to 1980 or so. can’t remember what happened to it, but I don’t believe it ever let anyone down.
The friend replaced it with a Morris Marina Coupe (she was a real Anglophile,) which she didn’t keep for quite as long. It was replaced with a Toyota.
The late 50s car would have had the overhead valve engine and at least 20% more power. There are lots more of those still around.
Yes I knew that,
I was using that car as an example in answer to the question asked by Zackman,
“were any British cars good cars”
My point was that Rootes Group cars in general were good cars.
No worries jonco, the info was for the benefit of other readers who would not have known.
I agree the Rootes cars were essentially designed very sturdily (thicker sheetmetal than average) and engineered conservatively on the whole; the exception to the latter being the Imp of course.
Thanks mate, didn’t mean to sound rude, should have used my words more carefully.
When I was a kid the only time I listened to adults was when they were talking about cars, I heard lots of good things about Hillmans and such
Not a problem, the difficulties of communicating by the written word only!
Your basic point about current CUVs or whatever they are called being proportioned a lot like early 50’s cars is something I’ve noticed as well. One difference is the space taken up by the wheels, which being CUV’s have to be extra large. When I see a rare Honda whateveritscalled fastback semi-SUV sedan (now discontinued) I think of late 40’s/ early 50’s cars.
Also cars back then except for Hudsons were body on frame with straight through frames, so there were no footwells in the front seat or back. Minivans don’t either. I’ve often thought that the front and back seats (in particular) in my minivan are a lot like a pre/postwar car. Chair height, lots of legroom, lots of headroom. Step up to flat floor.
That Minx has no footwells the floor is flat level with the bottom of the doors basicly
Saw this 57 Hillman Minx in Portland Oregon for sale as of 8/17. Looks real nice , body looks straight , and a new paint job. Some chrome doesn’t look good. 2K on rebuilt motor. He’s asking $5449. Phone # 1 – 541 – 221 – 8316. Sorry about the photo being sideways.
Thanks Christopher, looks like a nice Series 1 Minx. A friend has one just like that although not in the same colours.
The only Hillman I ever recall seeing in person was in either Boston or Brookline, MA 20 yearrs ago near the Arnold Arboretum it looked like this one.
What struck me about the car this time around is how short the boot/trunk is on these early models. Apart from looking lower, the proportions are very much like a prewar car reskinned. Compared to the old-shape Minx, these were an inch and a half longer, an inch and a half wider, and (you guessed it) an inch and a half lower, on a one inch longer wheelbase. Even uses the same 16 inch wheels, and don’t they look huge?
I await the return of the Minx’s “tall (in height) and short (in length)” trunk instead of the typical CUV’s ubiquitous hatch. There are still advantages of having a separate cargo compartment in terms NVH and body rigidity.
I found a summary of this model of the Minx in the 1949 London Auto Show issue of Autocar.
My parent’s first car, and I probably the one I came home from the hospital in. An enduring memory is the back doors had a slot stamped out of the interior panel so you’d put your fingers there to pull the door shot. I used it to dispose of lolly/candy wrappers.
Reminds me of one the most comfortable cars that my 6’2’self ever drove( also with great all around visibility) a PT Cruiser
In the TV show “All Creatures Great & Small”, Seigfrid bought Helen Herriot one of these. ( I do believe)