Curbside Classics: 1971 Mini

Paul Niedermeyer
by Paul Niedermeyer

Out of adversity arises creativity. Alec Issigonis’ brilliant Mini was conceived in the depths of the oil import embargo brought on by the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956. Just like our energy crises gave birth to the Chevette and the Cavalier. Ok, no more GM references. This is the Mini’s fiftieth birthday, and it deserves our undivided adulation. Well, at least from a safe distance, anyway.

Get a little closer, like inside, or actually drive one, and the reality that the Mini prototype was completely designed and built by Issigonis, two engineers, two students and a couple of draftsman becomes obvious. The un-adulterated clarity of a single bright vision comes through loud and clear, especially when that SU carburetor sitting practically in your lap starts sucking air. That big round center speedometer is there for a reason; it doubles as the carb’s air cleaner housing. There’s definitely the whiff of carriage house-baked about the Mini.

Don’t get me wrong; I love the Mini, you love the Mini, we all love the Mini. And how could we not, with all the associations it conjures up? Mini skirts, for starters (yes, they were named after the car). And Paddy Hopkirk’s Rally Monte Carlo winning Cooper S bedecked with half a dozen Lucas Flamethrowers. Now that’s a name almost as iconic as the Mini’s. How I used to obsess on them in my youth: Flamethrowers and mini skirts.

Issigionis’ marching orders were to seat four in a package ten feet by four feet, leaving 80% of the space for the occupants. And given that BMC was not in a position to develop a new engine, the old A-block four needed to be turned sideways, with the gearbox incorporated into the sump and sharing the engine’s oil. Well, someone has to be the guinea pig.

Thankfully, the hydrolastic suspension didn’t make it into the early Minis, and just as well. It was eventually dumped after a few years anyway, in favor of the rubber cone springing units used at the start. They were a key part of what gave the Mini its go-kart handling (and harsh ride). Conceived as an Issetta-fighting ultra-economy car, the Austin and Morris twins found their fame and glory as a sports car masquerading as a four-passenger economy car: the Mini Cooper S.

More significantly, the Mini broke out of the shit-box segment by becoming a hot fashion item. In swinging mod London during the mid-late sixties, driving a Mini in a mini was way groovy. Even more so if it was a Radford Mini de Ville, with a Rolls Royce-grade interior and Flamethrowers built right into its maxi-cute grille.

BMC’s own upscale Mini-variants, the Wolsely Hornet and Riley Elf never escaped their self-conscious efforts to be up-class, and thus were rejected by the mod set. With their grafted on trunk and thirties grill, they’re comical, ridiculous actually. I’ve spotted an Elf in Eugene, and I’m determined to flush it out of its shoe-box hiding place.

The Mini presented huge challenges for its maker, and ultimately contributed to the demise of BMC and subsequently British Leyland. There is the endless debate as to whether the Mini was sold at a loss. BMC claims they made at least thirty pounds (on each, or on all 5.4 million units made?), and made good profits on all the options, such as seat belts and Flamethrowers, as well as the higher-end versions. But that’s only part of the problem.

The Mini started a transverse-FWD-hydrolastic revolution at BMC, with a whole line of ever-larger cars with the same configuration: compact Austin/MG 1100 (aka: America); mid-size Maxi; and the Euro full-size 1800. It was a bold attempt to reshape BMC’s lineup from the musty old RWD saloons of the fifties. No other major manufacturer except Citroen had such an advanced lineup. And like Citroen, BMC paid the price of being a technology pioneer.

The Hydrolastic suspension wasn’t as complicated as Citroen’s nightmare, but had its (expensive) bugs. And just like with the Mini, BMC couldn’t afford modern engines, so the whole line suffered from the noisy old long-stroke shakers. And their complexity was an endless drain on ephemeral profits.

Originally, the FWD cars were to be made and sold equally by Austin and Morris. But their fragility increasingly made them

untenable in export markets, and even in Old Blighty, some of the loyalists became wary. So starting in 1970, Austin and Morris began a product split, with Morris reviving coarse and crude RWD sedans, beginning (and ending) with the execrable Marina. British Leyland really was doomed right from the get-go. And no wonder Japanese cars have their highest European market share in England.

A comparison of Europe’s three most iconic post-war small cars is revealing: the profoundly solid and well-sprung Teutonic VW Beetle; the quirky but brilliantly practical and efficient French Citroen 2CV; and the British Mini. All three were highly advanced, at least in their early years. But the VW and 2CV were more adaptable, durable and roomy; they were the vehicles of choice for generations of European students heading off to the Sahara or India. Nobody in their right mind would have done that in a Mini; it would have high-centered (or just disappeared) in Turkey’s first big pothole, if the Prince of Darkness hadn’t already ended the trip.

The Mini’s transverse-engine layout transcended the mortifications of its quick-rust body, and became immortal. But the Mini’s real legacy lives on its three spiritual successors today, with more on the way: the Smart, the MINI, and the Fiat 500. All fashionable, trendy and tiny city mobiles, the cars of the future. And as such the Mini is rightfully the most influential compared to the VW and 2CV, if not of the whole post-war era. Who would have thought that a noisy, cramped, hard-riding, unreliable shoe box on ten-inch wheels would pull that off? Fashion trumps practicality, once again.

More Curbside Classics Here

Paul Niedermeyer
Paul Niedermeyer

More by Paul Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 24 comments
  • Ddavidv Ddavidv on Jun 11, 2009

    Ever since I walked past one on my way to school back in the 1970s (the family doctor's son had one) I've lusted for one of these. About 4 years ago I finally obtained one, a grandma edition 1979 850. Hardly comparable to a Cooper S, but I have to say this car has exceeded all my expectations from my youth. That is a pretty amazing feat, when you think about it. This car never fails to delight with the driving experience. Razor sharp reflexes make it completely engaging to drive, while the lack of power teaches judicious use of generated momentum. The design really is brilliant, once you start looking and working on it. Yeah, the build quality is abysmal, panel gaps colossal, and rust resistance a total failure, but you don't care. I only wish I'd had this cheeky little device back when I was single. My God, how the women love it. Most fun car I've ever owned (and it is one of fifty so far).

  • UnclePete UnclePete on Jun 12, 2009

    There were also the variants made in other countries under license. I used to own a 1970 Innocenti Mini Cooper, made for the Italian home market. I imported it into the US via the antique car law, and had a blast with it for a few years. Innocenti modified the dash a bit and cleaned up the wiring loom (I think I had 6 or 8 fuses instead of 4!). It was 998cc of fury! The funny part was the complete 10 inch wheel were slightly smaller than the rims of my Chevy truck. The Inno was also just a hair too wide to ride in the back of the Chevy as a spare :)

  • Redapple2 Love the wheels
  • Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Off-road fluff on vehicles that should not be off road needs to die.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Saw this posted on social media; “Just bought a 2023 Tundra with the 14" screen. Let my son borrow it for the afternoon, he connected his phone to listen to his iTunes.The next day my insurance company raised my rates and added my son to my policy. The email said that a private company showed that my son drove the vehicle. He already had his own vehicle that he was insuring.My insurance company demanded he give all his insurance info and some private info for proof. He declined for privacy reasons and my insurance cancelled my policy.These new vehicles with their tech are on condition that we give up our privacy to enter their world. It's not worth it people.”
Next