From: Paul Ewins, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:04:45 +1000
Subject: Re: [imps] Imp owners have to hate Minis
>What is it that makes everyone assume that since I'm an Imp owner I
>have to automatically hate Mini's.
That always struck me as odd too. Often it comes across sounding like sour grapes, as if the Mini was solely responsible for the failure of the Imp as a mass market car.
> when you look at the whole picture the
>Mini was the better car... ...but these cars were designed to be the
> shopping trolley's big brother. In this respect the Imp had far more interior
> space but is a couple of feet longer....
I think that comparing the Imp to the Mini is a bit misleading. The Morris/Austin 1100 is probably the car closest to the Imp in size and market positioning. Remember the Mini was designed in the 50's as a response to the bubble cars and its only competitor in size would perhaps be the Fiat 500 or the sub 500cc Japanese tiny tots. Try (mentally) compressing an Imp into a length of 10 feet (and 1/4 inch) and you'll see what a good packaging job the Mini is.
The two are the classic chalk and cheese comparsion. The Imp is almost the culmination of the old style small car that began with the Beetle while the Mini was basically the protoytpe for the modern small car. The best part of the Imp is the engine while it is the worst part of the Mini (and was the only part that wasn't designed from scratch). As to why the Mini is still being made 40 years later (and surely the golden jubilee of the A series engine can't be too far away) and the Imp is now part of the 'classic car' scene only, well I guess fate and the vagaries of the Brtisih car industry have more to do with it than the strengths and weaknesses of the individual designs.
Having said all that, I retain my right to heap scorn and derision on all rear engined Volkswagens. :-)
From: Kristian J
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 15:57:39 +0200
Subject: [imps] imps and minis
Dreams!
If I was in charge of the of the Rootes company in the early sixties a careful analysis of the whole project would make me stop the whole affair. Or am I just wise after the event.
As rear-engine car it is certainly a clever design, but there must have been some doubt about the whole idea. Imagine the same engine (in 1100 c.c size) with gearbox in front of a car of the Imp size.
Not as exiting as the Imp but maybe profitable in the long run.
Could it have extended the life (kept Chrysler away) of the company some extra years?
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 16:26:00 +0100
From: Jason / JaseDaRace
Subject: Re: [imps] imps and minis
I think that there were various factors that didn't help the imps cause.
Being assembled in Glasgow when the rest of the Rootes group were based in the Midlands, for one.
The imp was an advanced design in its day; aluminium head, rear engined, spacious... maybe too advanced for the market of its time.
but perhaps the biggest killer was all the strikes in the Glasgow factory. And various design flaws. Well, not design flaws, exactly, but overlooked things which caused delay in production. I believe the front indicator/sidelight units were too low for legislation at the time, for example.
I think the fact that Chrysler stepped in could have *helped* the Imp to continue its troubled production run, bearing in mind that the Hunter was a Chrysler entity ISTR.
Bear in mind also that the British workplace was dominated by the Unions (and I am *not* getting into that argument) and the 60's-70s saw the downfall of various vehicle manufacturers - whether it was cars or motorcycles.
And as for the Imp/Mini argument, having owned both... they are two completely different vehicles, so comparison is difficult.
Certainly the mini had a better turning circle, made more use of the available space ... I always found that the mini seemed to have more passenger space, certainly at the front, than the imp ... and more, erm, cosy than the Imp.
The Imp, rear-engined aluminium head and all, was prone to overheating, which can be disasterous with an Al head. Mind ewe, I managed to break all the engines to my cars (apart from the 1725 Rootes Hillman I had, and Volvo (Renault engine) 1400, and, so far, my current Hunter), mini included, and the Imp was the easiest to fix! Even at 3am in the middle of nowhere!
Anyway, I diverse.
Certainly I reckon the fact that the Rootes group at the time decided to go for a rear engined layout may have been a technological achievement and not quite what the public were waiting for, it was by no means the main cause (certianly not the only cause) of the downfall of the Imp, and the Rootes company in general.
In my opinion, o' course.
From: Kristian J
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 18:14:13 +0200
Subject: Re: [imps] imps and minis
Transporting cars and parts over the country, set up a new factory far away, new technique,etc.
As I said, a careful analysis could have stopped the whole adventure
From: Nick
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 07:16:34 EDT
Subject: Re: [imps] imps and minis
> I always found that the mini seemed to have more
> passenger space, certainly at the front, than the imp ... and more, erm,
> cosy than the Imp.
well, being 6 ft 5 myself, i can't agree. i can't even drive a Mini properly, sitting like a frog :-)