On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:32:45 +0100, Richard Porter
<dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote:

>The date being 26 Apr 2008, Chris Bolus  
>decided to write:
>
>> One of my Minis is going to get a K series in the near future. Nothing
>> to do with its taxation class; I happen to have the car, it needs a new
>> lump, and I want a reasonably straighforward auto conversion in it (the
>> A-series auto is dire).
>
>Austin Rover did produce a K-series Mini prototype. I think it was 
>called Minki. 

There were several, the development story at
http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?r50storyf.htm is quite
fascinating. There is more along the same lines at
http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?ado15storyf.htm

>Actually I quite like the AP box even if it does soak up 
>the power.
It's not just the inefficiency. It's fairly fragile; I'm on my third in
under 10k miles, and the parts to repair it are virtually unobtainable.
I also converted one to manual due to a failed gearbox; I didn't really
want to, tried everything I could think of short of replacing the 'box,
but as the car is eventually destined you my younger daughter to learn
in, that seemed pointless.

It is unpredictable, being inclined to slip if driven hard, and if it's
cold it's slow to drive or change. Sharing the oil with the engine means
that the oil grade is critical and it wasn't designed for modern oils.

Issigonis himself, in his retirement, worked on developing a "gearless"
version of the Mini. I think he would have approved of the CVT used in
the Metro!
-- 
Regards,  Chris    (Please take out my car to reply by plain text email)     
------1967 Riley Elf------1978 Mini 1000------1971 Mini Clubman------
--1972 Mini Clubman estate--1979 Ford Capri--1984 VW Type 25 camper--

"Chris Bolus"  wrote in message 
news:3hq814lmi2snrfrqrmvlkof8bjtg2ij032@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:32:45 +0100, Richard Porter
> <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>>Actually I quite like the AP box even if it does soak up
>>the power.
> It's not just the inefficiency. It's fairly fragile; I'm on my third 
> in
> under 10k miles, and the parts to repair it are virtually 
> unobtainable.

It was never that fragile whilst in production!

<snip>
>
> It is unpredictable, being inclined to slip if driven hard, and if 
> it's

I never found that and we used to purposely drive them hard on road 
test, at worse the change up could be a bit harsh - a bit like 
dropping the clutch.

> cold it's slow to drive or change. Sharing the oil with the engine 
> means
> that the oil grade is critical and it wasn't designed for modern 
> oils.

Then don't run it on modern oils, nothing wrong with a good old 20/50 
[1] or even one of the (then) specified straight grades, and don't 
skimp on oil and filter changes. It sounds to me if you have a serious 
valve block issue, or possibly a worn oil pump - IIRC it used to be 
possible to take a oil pressure reading from the gearbox.

[1] the same went for the manual box, they didn't like anything other 
than plain vanilla flavoured oils, we used nothing but 20/50 in them.

In article <fv21t2$1h7$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
   :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:

> "Chris Bolus"  wrote in message 
> news:3hq814lmi2snrfrqrmvlkof8bjtg2ij032@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:32:45 +0100, Richard Porter
> > <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> >>Actually I quite like the AP box even if it does soak up
> >>the power.
> > It's not just the inefficiency. It's fairly fragile; I'm on my third 
> > in
> > under 10k miles, and the parts to repair it are virtually 
> > unobtainable.

> It was never that fragile whilst in production!

My memory says they were. A relative had a new VDP 1300 with one which
gave lots of problems. And the trade weren't surprised. Sharing engine oil
and auto fluid seemed a daft idea to me at the time since autos like clean
fluid.

> <snip>
> >
> > It is unpredictable, being inclined to slip if driven hard, and if 
> > it's

> I never found that and we used to purposely drive them hard on road 
> test, at worse the change up could be a bit harsh - a bit like 
> dropping the clutch.

That's because it didn't have a torque convertor but a fluid flywheel
instead - doesn't cushion changes as well, as many an old Rolls or Merc
owner would testify too also.   

> > cold it's slow to drive or change. Sharing the oil with the engine 
> > means
> > that the oil grade is critical and it wasn't designed for modern 
> > oils.

> Then don't run it on modern oils, nothing wrong with a good old 20/50 
> [1] or even one of the (then) specified straight grades, and don't 
> skimp on oil and filter changes. It sounds to me if you have a serious 
> valve block issue, or possibly a worn oil pump - IIRC it used to be 
> possible to take a oil pressure reading from the gearbox.

> [1] the same went for the manual box, they didn't like anything other 
> than plain vanilla flavoured oils, we used nothing but 20/50 in them. 

Strangely most BMC 'boxes work rather better on Dexron. Of course you
couldn't use this on a Mini, etc.

-- 
*A snooze button is a poor substitute for no alarm clock at all *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:16:15 +0100, ":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID>
wrote:

>
>"Chris Bolus"  wrote in message 
>news:3hq814lmi2snrfrqrmvlkof8bjtg2ij032@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:32:45 +0100, Richard Porter
>> <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>
>>>Actually I quite like the AP box even if it does soak up
>>>the power.
>> It's not just the inefficiency. It's fairly fragile; I'm on my third 
>> in
>> under 10k miles, and the parts to repair it are virtually 
>> unobtainable.
>
>It was never that fragile whilst in production!
>
><snip>
>>
>> It is unpredictable, being inclined to slip if driven hard, and if 
>> it's
>
>I never found that and we used to purposely drive them hard on road 
>test, at worse the change up could be a bit harsh - a bit like 
>dropping the clutch.
>
>> cold it's slow to drive or change. Sharing the oil with the engine 
>> means
>> that the oil grade is critical and it wasn't designed for modern 
>> oils.
>
>Then don't run it on modern oils, nothing wrong with a good old 20/50 
>[1] or even one of the (then) specified straight grades, and don't 
>skimp on oil and filter changes. It sounds to me if you have a serious 
>valve block issue, or possibly a worn oil pump - IIRC it used to be 
>possible to take a oil pressure reading from the gearbox.
>
I never run it on modern oils. 20/50 is all it ever gets. Engine oil
pressure is fine; I have a capillary oil gauge which does react when it
changes gear. My current 'box is from an '88 model. The previous one was
admittedly cheap and of unknown provenance, but the one before that had
allegedly been reconditioned.

Even in the Mini forums, very few people have many good things to say
about the auto box. The fact remains, you can't get the parts to repair
them, so nobody will recondition them, so there's no way to guarantee a
good one.

-- 
Regards,  Chris    (Please take out my car to reply by plain text email)     
------1967 Riley Elf------1978 Mini 1000------1971 Mini Clubman------
--1972 Mini Clubman estate--1979 Ford Capri--1984 VW Type 25 camper--

The date being 27 Apr 2008, "Dave Plowman (News)" 
 decided to write:

> My memory says they were. A relative had a new VDP 1300 with one which
> gave lots of problems. And the trade weren't surprised. Sharing engine
> oil and auto fluid seemed a daft idea to me at the time since autos
> like clean fluid.

My parents has a vdP (Princess) 1300 and it was pretty reliable. There 
was a small problem towards the end when it would change up a bit late 
and with a jerk.

>> I never found that and we used to purposely drive them hard on road
>> test, at worse the change up could be a bit harsh - a bit like
>> dropping the clutch.

> That's because it didn't have a torque convertor but a fluid flywheel
> instead - doesn't cushion changes as well, as many an old Rolls or Merc
> owner would testify too also.

I thought we'd nailed that one before. The AP box most certainly does 
have a three element torque converter. I could drive it in fourth in 
slow moving traffic using only the torque converter. You can't do that 
with a fluid flywheel. They were normally used in cars like Daimlers, 
Lanchesters and Rileys with preselector boxes.

-- 
Richard Porter
ricp@ / www. minijem.plus.com
"You can't have Windows without pains."

Richard Porter wrote:

> 
> I thought we'd nailed that one before. The AP box most certainly does 
> have a three element torque converter. I could drive it in fourth in 
> slow moving traffic using only the torque converter. You can't do that 
> with a fluid flywheel. They were normally used in cars like Daimlers, 
> Lanchesters and Rileys with preselector boxes.
> 
And the Rover 105R

Jim

In article ,
   Richard Porter <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote:
> > That's because it didn't have a torque convertor but a fluid flywheel
> > instead - doesn't cushion changes as well, as many an old Rolls or Merc
> > owner would testify too also.

> I thought we'd nailed that one before. The AP box most certainly does 
> have a three element torque converter. I could drive it in fourth in 
> slow moving traffic using only the torque converter. You can't do that 
> with a fluid flywheel. They were normally used in cars like Daimlers, 
> Lanchesters and Rileys with preselector boxes.

A fluid flywheel allows that if the selector mechanism does. In a similar
way as you can start a manual Mini in top gear by slipping the clutch.   

 The original description of the AP box stated it had a fluid flywheel
instead of torque convertor to reduce losses - and hence the use of four
speeds when all other TC autos of the time had three - or less.

-- 
*Why is the word abbreviation so long?

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.