We can no longer read LJK Setright on a monthly basis as we used to, but a bit of internet browsing can unearth gems of his thoughts and wisdom, as we see here. A compare and contrast between he Mini and the new for 1992 Fiat Cinquecento.
I hope the Mini needs little introduction, other than to confirm that this one is quite special. 621AOK is actually a Morris mini-Minor, the naming format that predate the model name “Mini” and is normally identified as being the first production Mini. CAR and Setright did well to talk the custodians of this piece of heritage into using it for a photo shoot, part of which would show how little the Mini had changed in 32 years to BL’s commercial disadvantage.
The Cinquecento, named as such officially, was a sub supermini, sold as a city car, albeit with out-of-town capability. Its closest rival was probably the similarly conceived Renault Twingo, and it could trace its roots back to design studies conducted by FSM, Fiat’s Polish partner, in the 1980s. From 1973, the FSM factory had produced the Fiat 126, in parallel with Italian production, as the smallest car produced in Europe. It was in fact closely related to the original Nuova 500, but even with the a back story of that age, it still over 3 million..
The Cinquecento was a much more modern design, with a transverse four cylinder engine and end on five speed gearbox clothed in a fully contemporary of rather anonymous three door hatchback body. Power came from 704, 900 or 1100cc engines; the smallest was for Poland only, the largest for the top of the range Sporting variant. The majority were 903cc, the engine from the standard setting 1971 Fiat 127 and even the 1964 Fiat 850. All 1.16 million examples of the Cinquecento were built in Poland.
Size wise, the Fiat was just 7 inches longer than the Mini in length and in wheelbase, around 4 inches wider and 200lbs heavier, the consequence of increased safety equipment and a stronger structure. Over the years, Setright regularly noted that the width of a car, rather than its length, was critical to its ability to work through traffic.
Did it do everything a Mini could? On paper and in theory, it probably did, and with increased practicality through the hatchback, the fifth gear, better seats and seating position and so on. But for the driver who loved his or her Mini because it was a Mini? Maybe – Setright seems to suggest it could do, though perhaps not with the character of the Mini.
The Cinquecento was reskinned as the Seicento in 1997 and served until 2010, although sales dropped markedly once the 2003 Panda was available. Its place in the Fiat range has therefore effectively been taken by the Panda, which of course begat the current 500 in 2007.
I would go with the FIAT.
The Cinquecento was replaced in early 1998, and the 2 cylinders 704cc motor (ED version) was available (until 1996) also in several other markets (in Italy It was sold) 😉
I have no direct experience with the original Mini, only hearsay. With hindsight, the Mini (may have) had some design flaws. But here’s the thing…
The Mini was a game changer. Virtually every “city car” since has been variations (improvements?) on the Mini’s theme. I don’t think it’s fair or valid to make comparisons between the car that invented the genre to anything that came thereafter in that genre.
The Mini was amazing as a new alternative to a sidecar combination or a microcar like the Isetta. It was a brilliant competition car in small displacement sedan racing. As a city car for the seventies and beyond? It was old and sort of marginal. The extra space and mechanical substance of a Renault 5, Fiesta or FIAT 127 were nice to have as the austerity of the world wars receded. As a new driver in the ’80s, the bitsa Mini Cooper I got to drive struck me as an all-weather, road-legal go-kart. For hauling the irregular loads that a good city hatch can handle, or for picking up friends and their luggage at the airport, it would have been a very poor option.
Such a painterly skill with words, quite matchless, before or since, and to be savoured. He also explains potentially boring engineering ideas with simplicity and clarity, not to mention an assumption that the reader is paying due attention. And not a line of it is written for the mere show of writing, or of self, as was about to become the downward way in motor writing – with increasing speed – in all the years that have followed since.
Peak days of glory for CAR, too. Just look at the photographic quality, which I think was equalled by the quality of the glossy paper upon which it appeared.
He did under-explain one thing, mind: I wonder what he means by the “insidious creep” inherent in Moulton’s rubber suspension?
I’m not sure but my strong guess is that he’s referring to a change in the hysteresis of the rubber springs, meaning that their intended/designed reactions included a certain degree of hysteresis, which then changed (“creeped”) over time, resulting in changes to the spring’s responses to inputs.
It’s the only logical explanation, and may well explain why rubber suspension never caught on: the stresses of use affect it, in ways that other springing media are not.
Quite agree about the superb writing. Two things come to mind:
1.) Very bright people today (and in recent decades) are not drawn to automotive journalism, because they can make so much more money in other fields. Back in the 50s and 60s, that was not the case; they were compensated decently, some even quite well, in relation to other fields they might have chosen. But the divergence in income potential in technology, finance, media, and other fields have utterly changed that equation. And of course the automotive media business has changed drastically, having become highly fragmented.
The unfortunate but inevitable result is that those pursuing this field generally are much lower down in terms of their innate abilities. Who else would want to make a career in this nowadays? And the same applies to the readers: automotive media once attracted a very affluent and well-educated audience; not longer. They’ve moved on to other interests.
Similar realities are very evident in other professions: teaching once attracted bright kids; now it’s rather quite the opposite. Way too many better prospects elsewhere.
2.) This article was/is wasted on 99% of American automotive media readers. LJKS waxes (truly) eloquently about a subject that is utterly foreign (literally and metaphorically) to Americans. They simply have no conception of the reality that caused these brilliant little cars to come into being, except in very generalized and abstract terms. How could an American truly appreciate the brilliance of the Mini’s empty door insides? “Where’s the fucking power window and seat controls?” Never mind the sliding window. Anathema; or worse, if that’s possible.
When American magazines wrote about (sort of) small cars, they tried bravely (at times) to try to make the case for them, but it was always in rather simplistic and crude terms. No one ev er wrote about them here like LJKS did in this piece, and how I read about them in decades of Auto, Motor und Sport (superb details, if not quite the same degree of wordsmithing).
I can assure that this post by Roger will have some of the lowest stats here at CC. Not that I care, because you and I and a few others fully appreciated it. That’s good enough for me, but it’s wasted on the great majority of our readers and all readers nowadays. Times change. That era was nearing the end of a golden era, but it’s never coming back.
I’d tentatively reached the same conclusions about the “creep”, having had to look up hysterisis, I might add, but wasn’t sure. Your conclusion makes sense. If nothing else, every second old Mini I saw years ago sat as if the suspension had no travel. In fact, in more modern times when they’ve been restored is the first time I started seeing old (pre-Hydrolastic) Minis sitting up high like this one here. (Hydro ones could be anything up to kangaroo height – but often just on one one side, or wheel, or none).
LJK was notorious as a fast and excellent driver, and he got my attention when he gave due praise for the overwhelming excellence of the Lexus LS400, which the rest of the Brit pack couldn’t quite bring themselves to do. That car was so obviously superior to any other at that time: only snobs wouldn’t say so. They all got lost in the weeds of chauvanism. For all his relative obscurity in expression, quite misunderstood as snobby itself, he described the car as he does here, logically and articulately. And with total accuracy.
He was also the only Brit who celebrated the superiority of Hondas. LJKS said of one, “It is the Honda Prelude VTEC, and after using one for 14 months I feel only dismay when – as my vocation frequently demands – I have to drive anything else.” The rest were too caught up in their prejudices to tell the truth. Maybe Honda would have wound up with Rover and the UK would still have a substantial motor industry if they had better journalists.
I’m not sure if this is what LJKS was referring to, but creep is actually an engineering term with a specific meaning, the movement over time, of plastic (in the technical sense, which would include rubber or other polymers and elastomers) materials under load. This is usually exacerbated at higher temperature. What you might call “taking a set”. Elastic materials such as metals move under load but that movement does not increase with time, except at much higher temperatures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creep_(deformation)#Wood
Back in the day, so to speak, I found Setright to be rather pompous, wordy, opinionated … I preferred the “just the facts” dry style of automotive reporting: Road & Track vs Car and Driver, or Motorsport or Top Gear vs Car. With age, I have come to appreciate Setright, and those latter magazines, far more. And today, reading these pages almost 60 years after I first rode in a Mini, I’ve learned a lot about the reasoning behind the 10” wheels, external body seams, etc. Thanks Roger.
I heartily agree with you about Setright’s writing being a taste acquired with the perspective age and experience bring; without that, yes, he seems insufferably self-impressed.
I heartily don’t agree with you about the likes of Car and Driver—I thought it was the shit when I was a kid; as a grownup I think it’s shit.
I agree. I’d read a paragraph or two, and flick onwards, vaguely annoyed that I’d bothered to try. What on earth was this pompous man rabbiting on about? I even concluded his name was a pseudonym, and some smarty-pants joke in a club of which I was not a member (it wasn’t, but Setright’s got to pretty bloody unusual as a moniker, surely!)
I only started giving his work due attention close to when he died. One of us had matured enough to bother understanding the other, regretted their earlier shallowness, and have read and re-read his thoughts ever since. It’s magnificent stuff, truly. It just takes the sort of initial patience only an older brain is prepared to give it.
Thanks for the post, Sir Rog. I can’t find any of this stuff online, except behind paywalls and such, and I’d love it if you could every now and then put one of his pieces up here. The masses CAN be educated, you know, with persistence…
I love the idea of using AOK on the roads in this test. From the 2022 perspective, when a shitty, bogged-up ’74 Mini Clubman is worth $10K+, the concept of using THE original at all seems hilarious. What’s some over-monied collector going to pay for this today? $2million? Probably! I can’t help imagining too that LJK wouldn’t have spared the few horses it has, too, without any danger to it, of course.
Back in 96 I went shopping for a cheap new car. The Skoda Felicia had just been launched but for £7k you got 4 doors and a radio cassette player and nothing else. The new Ford Ka ,I decide looked like a tea pot on wheels and the build quality was in par with a McDonalds toy..
Trip to my local Fiat dear . The Sporting version was loaded with alloy wheels ,power windows and locks ,gripping sports seats and wait for it …. red seat belts!. All for just under the 7k, properly the best equipped car for the money . Problem, the factory had shut down for summer holidays!. Hence a 2 month wait. My landlady new a dealer who could get you any car you wanted. A bright red Sporting was delivered to the Toyota dealer I worked at. My boss sniffed around it and agreed Toyota could not beat it on value for money. A grand or so more would have got me Starlet with crank widows. Nice warranty mind…
Roll on a year ..The rear bumper hangers had rusted through and my local dealer took delight in telling me that the anti corrosion warranty only covered the body sheet metal?. Took a strong letter to Fait.GB and as call to the dealer principle to get them replaced .
Then the racing red paint went ,ah, a milky shade of pink!. I leaved just North of London not Dubi for christ sakes.. Then the drivers seal weld broke from the runner. Then a got a load knocking from the front end when turning left.. After 6 years together and 56000 miles it was time to say go buy. I got £500 , part exchange, for it… Lesson learnt…
Now look here, don’t you go bringing reality into all this.
Oh dear.
Beautifully-framed words of sharp insight and outlook from LJK don’t mean much when you’ve paid your good hard-earned and the bumper falls off and they won’t fix it, let alone that 50K miles reduces it to nil value.
Again, oh dear.
Unpleasant as it may’ve been, the Starlet you didn’t buy is probably still hobbling along somewhere as I write this.
https://www.amazon.com/Rolls-Royce-Foulis-mini-marque-history/dp/0854292004
I’ve long had a low-key interest in old Rolls-Royces, probably because my dad’s coworker owned a ’34 Rolls-Royce, and I got to go for a ride in it when I was a young kid. As a result of that latent fascination, I bought this book on Rolls-Royce history (auto and aviation), and it’s been one of my few interactions with Setright’s work. Interesting guy, and not a bad book if you like the subject matter. He does have an esoteric style, but he’s pretty straightforward once you get used to it (Roger’s article is certainly clear, except for the already-noted mention of “insidious creep,” which is an interesting enough way of putting something even if it floats over the head of most readers.). I’ve had some of his later compilation books on my radar over the years, but haven’t gotten around to them…maybe now’s the time.
I owned both the original Mini and Cinquecento (2 of both, as a matter of fact) and I will always prefer the Fiat, specially in the sporting version it is a great little car.
The Cinquecento made profits for FIAT, the Mini was seldom profitable for BMC it’s successor companies. If we ask ourselves why cars are made, the Cinquecento was the better car.
I briefly had access to a Cinquecento, it was a fantastic little car, even if it was unstable when overtaking HGVs though.