1960_Austin_A60_(AU)_01.JPG All British Day Brisbane, QLD. AU 230412 bytes

In article >, lid writes
>
>
>
>
>[ A UUEncoded file (1960_Austin_A60_(AU)_01.JPG) was included here. ]
>
Hi, Ron

I know there were various differences between the UK and Australian BMC
cars, but isn't this an A55 Mk II? The A60 had revised tailfins and
grille, and a slightly longer wheelbase (not really visible). The
dashboard was also different, and the engine upgraded from 1489 cc to
1622 cc.
--
Regards

Leroy Curtis

Please replace "nospam" with "baram" in my address if you wish to
reply by Email

Leroy Curtis > wrote in
:

> In article >, lid writes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>[ A UUEncoded file (1960_Austin_A60_(AU)_01.JPG) was included here. ]
>>
> Hi, Ron
>
> I know there were various differences between the UK and Australian BMC
> cars, but isn't this an A55 Mk II? The A60 had revised tailfins and
> grille, and a slightly longer wheelbase (not really visible). The
> dashboard was also different, and the engine upgraded from 1489 cc to
> 1622 cc.

Hi Leroy,

from: http://users.bigpond.net.au/wolseley/austin_a60.html

THE AUSTIN A60

Late in 1959, the Austin A60, Morris Oxford Series V and Wolseley 15/60
were introduced to the Australian market. The cars differed little from
their British counterparts, the main difference being the size of the
engine - 1622cc rather than 1489cc; the use of Zenith carburettors
instead of SU and changes to the suspension.

The Australian Austin A60 was the local version of the UK's Austin A55.

The cars were priced similarly to the contemporary Holden and the newly
introduced Ford Falcon, both of which had 6 cylinders and 3-speed
gearboxes. Australians had a definite preference for 6 cylinders, and
these types of cars accounted for around 70% of the market.

The 1.6 litre Farina range did not sell as well as BMC Australia had
hoped, and it wasn’t long before the Australian management decided to add
an extra two cylinders to the 1622cc engine making it into a 2433cc six.

Thus were born the Austin Freeway and the Wolseley 24/80. The gearbox
used on the new cars was an adaptation of the metropolitan gearbox, with
3 speeds and a steering column change.


Cheers,
Ron
BTW, they also had larger wheels than the UK A55

In article >, Ron
> writes
>Leroy Curtis > wrote in
:
>
>> In article >, lid writes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>[ A UUEncoded file (1960_Austin_A60_(AU)_01.JPG) was included here. ]
>>>
>> Hi, Ron
>>
>> I know there were various differences between the UK and Australian BMC
>> cars, but isn't this an A55 Mk II? The A60 had revised tailfins and
>> grille, and a slightly longer wheelbase (not really visible). The
>> dashboard was also different, and the engine upgraded from 1489 cc to
>> 1622 cc.
>
>Hi Leroy,
>
>from: http://users.bigpond.net.au/wolseley/austin_a60.html
>
>THE AUSTIN A60
>
>Late in 1959, the Austin A60, Morris Oxford Series V and Wolseley 15/60
>were introduced to the Australian market. The cars differed little from
>their British counterparts, the main difference being the size of the
>engine - 1622cc rather than 1489cc; the use of Zenith carburettors
>instead of SU and changes to the suspension.
>
>The Australian Austin A60 was the local version of the UK's Austin A55.
>
>The cars were priced similarly to the contemporary Holden and the newly
>introduced Ford Falcon, both of which had 6 cylinders and 3-speed
>gearboxes. Australians had a definite preference for 6 cylinders, and
>these types of cars accounted for around 70% of the market.
>
>The 1.6 litre Farina range did not sell as well as BMC Australia had
>hoped, and it wasn’t long before the Australian management decided to add
>an extra two cylinders to the 1622cc engine making it into a 2433cc six.
>
>Thus were born the Austin Freeway and the Wolseley 24/80. The gearbox
>used on the new cars was an adaptation of the metropolitan gearbox, with
>3 speeds and a steering column change.
>
>
Well, you learn something new every day. Thanks, Ron. I knew about the
6-cylinder developments, but didn't realise that the Farina cars had the
1.6-litre engine form day one in Australia.
--
Regards

Leroy Curtis

Please replace "nospam" with "baram" in my address if you wish to
reply by Email

Leroy Curtis > wrote in
:


> Well, you learn something new every day. Thanks, Ron. I knew about the
> 6-cylinder developments, but didn't realise that the Farina cars had
> the 1.6-litre engine form day one in Australia.

Leroy,

Here is one that unfortunately never saw the light of day!

****************
BMC Australian Engineering Department always recognized that the Farina-
styled body of the ADO9 range of cars (Austin A60, Wolseley 15/60, Morris
Oxford V, etc.) from which ADO40 (Austin Freeway and Wolseley 24/80) was
developed, suffered from a lack of width when compared to their
Australian competitors, as the following table shows:

Dimension ADO40 YDR9 Holden Falcon Valiant
Overall Width 63.5" 68.5" 66.03" 69.96" 70.5"

The reason for the narrow width of ADO9/40 probably lies as much in the
car’s A50/A55 ancestry as to narrow domestic garages and driveways found
in much of urban UK . In many cases, they were put in at the side of the
house to accommodate a motor-cycle and side-car.

In a round table discussion one day, probably in about January 1961,
Chief Engineer Bill Serjeantson was lamenting the lack of width in these
cars and remarked that it was a pity that we could not split the car down
the middle and add about 5 inches into it. Experimental Manufacturing
Engineer Reg Redfern, who was in on the discussion said “OK, we can do
that”. Bill gave the go ahead thinking that perhaps a body shell centre
section might be cut down the middle to illustrate the point never
dreaming that Reg would take him literally. Little did he know that
within no more than ten days, Reg and his band of skilled tradesmen as
well as with unofficial co-operation and advice from Mechanical Engineer
John Hamilton and Body Engineer Graham Hardy, produced a Complete
Driveable Motor Car, substantially to ADO40 specification! (I think Bill
Serjeantson must have been on holiday for part or all of the time that
this was under way, otherwise he must surely have noticed that nothing
else was being done!)

And what a remarkable job it was. They took a complete ADO9 body, (don’t
ask where they got it from) and cut it down the centre from one end to
the other, including the bonnet and boot lid, and added approximately 5”
into the width. Certain areas such as the dash were redesigned to improve
the strength and the Heater was moved to a position inside the car. The
windscreen and backlight were genuine toughened glass. How Reg got such
things done in such a short space of time by an outside supplier remains
a mystery.

On the mechanical side, it appears that the front cross-member was
extended on both sides, outboard of the engine mountings, as these appear
to be in their original locations. The engine used was an early UK origin
2 7/8” bore prototype, which had come in one of the prototype cars, and
was no longer needed. The gearbox was a manual 3-speed. Because of the
difficulty in extending the rear-axle housing and axles, they used an
Independent Rear Wheel Suspension (I.R.W.S.) assembly that had been
salvaged from a prototype car designated as ADO25. (This was in fact a
D.O.1115 (Morris Major II) which had been built with I. R. W.S in UK for
assessment, by UK and us. But that is another story, and another Car That
Never Was.) This arrangement used fabricated trailing arms with the
final-drive mounted in a sub-frame to the underfloor. Springing was by
laminated torsion bars. (To illustrate the involvement of other senior
people in the YDR9 project, Reg Fulford and I still remember John
Hamilton berating his assistant Dolphie Leu because he had made an error
in calculating the rate of the new torsion bar springs!) Final drive
assembly was of A-series origin and was 3.9 to 1 ratio as was ADO25.
Fortuitously, this was also the final drive ratio adopted for ADO40.
Wheel size was 14 inch, as ADO40.
When the car was completed, a number of company people, particularly from
Body Tooling and Press-shop areas were invited to view it and asked to
express their opinion on the feasibility of such a project. It was
generally agreed that it could be done, and that such a thing had been
done before with the Morris Minor. (Apparently, only weeks before the
Morris Minor MM was due for production, Alec Issigonis decided that it
was too narrow, and added 4 inches to the width. It was said that this
was the reason that an MM had a two-piece bumper bar with a filler piece
in the centre. Production quantities of one-piece narrow bars had already
been received into store, and rather than chuck them away, they were
reworked by cutting them in half and adding the filler.)

Finally, Bill Serjeantson (RWS) decided that it was time to invite Bill
Abbott, at that time Director of Engineering and Manufacturing, who had
probably been away on holiday, down to have a look, thinking that Abbott
(RLA) would be very interested in what had been done in such a short
time, and might at least treat the whole thing as a serious possibility
for future development. Alas, it was not to be. RLA, normally a placid
bloke who always showed an interest in all things engineering, took one
look at it, and ordered that it be cut up forthwith! He took RWS to task
for wasting Company resources, and generally gave all concerned a huge
tongue-lashing. Even people who had known RLA for many years had never
seen him so angry, in fact, had never seen him angry. What caused RLA’s
uncharacteristic outburst? Did he know something we didn’t? Was he having
a bad day? Was it because a seemingly major project was being done
without his approval? Possibly it was a combination of all these things.
(In 1992, in response to a question from author Gavin Farmer, relating to
this project, RLA had this to say: “A styling exercise only to show sort
of body space we needed in a big car. It was not a runner.” Even after 30
years RLA never found out what had been done, but obviously still
remembered the incident.)

Nevertheless, John Hamilton decided that, as he had not been advised
officially that the project had been cancelled, he and Dolphie Leu would
proceed with their plan to road-test the car that night, which they did,
probably accompanied by Ken Bates, Experimental Workshop Foreman. John
was anxious to try out the effect of I.R.W.S. on a larger car. (It is
interesting that 40 years on I.R.W.S. is only now being offered by our
competitors.) Next day, cutting-up commenced.
Fortunately, the day before this drama, I had Jimmy Zammitt, the Company
Photographer come down and take pictures of the car, little thinking that
these would be the only tangible evidence that the car ever existed. If
nothing else, the car did show how important it is for a manufacturer to
get the dimensions right, and what a big difference can be made by just a
few inches.

What problems would we have encountered? First of all, we probably would
have had a weight penalty of about 8%, which would have given a kerb
weight of approx. 2780 lbs., an increase of about 210 lbs. Already ADO40
was heavier than both Holden and Falcon by about 100 lbs., our
performance advantage only being gained by superior engine power. A
proportional increase in engine power with the as yet to be introduced B6
engine would have been seen to be difficult. A weight reduction program
on the body could have been undertaken, but would have required a lot of
development work to ensure that body durability was not compromised.
(Cracking in the dash area had already been noted on ADO9 and ADO40.) In
the market-place, it would have given us a sales advantage over all of
our competitors, but with our limited resources, could we have done it in
the 12 months available? RLA’s decision was probably right, but it would
have been nice to have been able to show UK what could have been done.


(Article written as well as photos supplied by Roger Foy who worked in
the BMC Experimental Department from 1957 to 1974.)
From: http://www.bluestreaksix.com/pb/wp_a...a5002cc2.html?
0.9157100137527276

In article >, Ron
> writes
>Leroy Curtis > wrote in
:
>
>
>> Well, you learn something new every day. Thanks, Ron. I knew about the
>> 6-cylinder developments, but didn't realise that the Farina cars had
>> the 1.6-litre engine form day one in Australia.
>
>Leroy,
>
>Here is one that unfortunately never saw the light of day!
>
That's amazing! Thanks, Ron
--
Regards

Leroy Curtis

Please replace "nospam" with "baram" in my address if you wish to
reply by Email

In article >, Ron
> writes
>Leroy Curtis > wrote in
:
>
>
>> Well, you learn something new every day. Thanks, Ron. I knew about the
>> 6-cylinder developments, but didn't realise that the Farina cars had
>> the 1.6-litre engine form day one in Australia.
>
>Leroy,
>
>Here is one that unfortunately never saw the light of day!
>
That's amazing! Thanks, Ron
--
Regards

Leroy Curtis

Please replace "nospam" with "baram" in my address if you wish to
reply by Email