BT7 Handling

[Dandare]

and dont forget that lump of an engine started its life in a farm tractor

Is this a joke...cos it aint true:shocked:

Danny

 

[John Turney]

Your not looking hard enough :uncomfortableness:

I thought the same thing about my 64 .I figured all it needed was new floors and outriggers and some other minor repairs . I hadnt driven it for a long time as I had been driving my newly restored 67 and working the bugs out of it .
I decided to take the 64 out for one last spin before I took it off the road for restoration (luv the sound of the side exhaust)....I digress... It scared the living $&#t out of me wandering and snaking and dipping and diving compared to the 67 .
Well after taking the whole car apart and sending the superstructure to the body shop for repairs heres a couple of pics of what looked like a serviceable frame after sandblasting.
Thats not swiss cheese its the main drivers side frame rail
Nothing hides from the sandblaster just goes to show you visually it may look ok but ???
I havent added the pics of cracked engine and suspension mounts etc etc ..
Now The 64 is well on its way to being a rolling chassis but I still wouldnt consider upgrading any of the bushings to Polyurethane . Theres a valid reason they used rubber ....to compensate for a weak frame ...adding stronger stiffer bushings will just transfer all the bumps and bangs to an already suspect frame .Remember these cars are 50+ years old ,when they were built the technology they built them with was already 20yrs out of date and dont forget that lump of an engine started its life in a farm tractor and we all know how they handle .No amount of money will make them handle like a modern sports car , its a Healey thats the way it is .
The only upgrades I have done as far as suspension on my 64 and 67 are the heavy duty shock valves (apple Hydraulics).
Without significant modifications to strengthen the frame you are wasting your money and time and will probably make the car worse and possibly unsafe . JMHO

I do agree about verifying the frame is in good condition. I replaced and strengthened a bunch of mine. Those old frames were quite strong enough to rally/race on what we would consider off-road today. And others were modified to compete in mod-sports classes that had what are now considered grotesquely wide tires. In both cases, there was strengthening, but not an outlandish amount.

I'm not sure, but I think they used rubber because that was what was available. Even if poly bushings were available, remember, these cars were built to a price. I've only used poly bushings in the following places: the front sway-bar links, the Panhard rod, and the fore-aft transmission mount. These are the ones that really need stiffening because they are unconfined. The other mounts and suspension bushings remain Metalastik (sp?), including the sway-bar mounts to provide some compliance.

The engine didn't come from a tractor, that was the Triumph engine. The rumor is that the Austin 4-cylinder came from a truck, but the 6-cylinder was a new engine.

Plenty of owners have modified their Healeys to good effect. For normal driving, a key is to not go overboard.

 

[Healey Nut]

Is this a joke...cos it aint true:shocked:


Danny

Im sure I remember reading somewhere that the basic block of the Austin Westminster (which is the car that the engine originated from )can be traced back to agricultural vehicles .

 

[BoyRacer]

I'm going to second what John BN4, just said. I tried a rear sway bar back in the 80's after I got real serious about racing my Healey. I assumed it was the "trick" thing to do because the addition of a rear sway bar was a "racing" thing...right? Well, it definitely had a major effect on handling. It was disastrous!
A rear sway bar will tighten up the rear end and that will induce oversteer, otherwise known as getting loose. In other words... it tends to make you spin.

Having said that, if your Healey wants to plow, or understeer, as a stock Healey wants to do when you push it hard into a turn, maybe a rear sway bar will help. I don't know. I do know that I won't put a rear sway bar on any of my street Heleys...and I drive 'em hard.

 

[Frameman]

I have been following this thread for a few weeks now. The Austin Healey chassis was never structurally sound.
I have several items I wish to address- suspension mounting bushings-these are mounted in rubber for very good reason. It is to reduce road shock and lower stressing of the chassis supports. All auto manufacturers mount their suspension components in rubber insulated bushings. Road and Track and other car magazines tested Healeys when they were brand new and found the car had handling issues and suffered scuttle shake. They also suffered from doors fly open on hard cornering due to torsional loading. sound structures do not have these issues. It was not until 1965 that Healey realized if he was to toe in the rear springs the car would be more stable in the back. On the earlier cars he ran the rear springs parallel. It utilized the pan hard rod for rear end stability but because the chassis suffered from torsional loading issues softer suspension was used to control the twisting of the chassis. The end result was a car that would spin out on a corner as we have read in many articles over the years.
Rally cars and competition cars were equipped with roll cages which added rigidity to the car. These cars suffered from structural issues as well. Applying race technology to an every day driver is not a good idea because of the different environments. A race car is inspected after every race and generally torn down and rebuilt after every race. A regular car does not have this happen.
My suggestion would be to put heavier front and rear sway bars in and toe rear springs in and remove your pan hard rod. These are low cost items. I think this would provide the most bang for your buck. Keep the insulated rubber bushings and stay away from the hard bushings.
I respect the forum's members but this is an area I have a very strong understanding and was concerned when I read some of the suggestions.
Marty

 

[Dandare]

Im sure I remember reading somewhere that the basic block of the Austin Westminster (which is the car that the engine originated from )can be traced back to agricultural vehicles .

Here's some info on the C Series engine. What it doesn't mention IIRC is that on the original design team was Tadek Marek who later went on to design engines for Aston Martin. Anders Clausager, the renowned BMC/Leyland historian, claims that the first recpient of the "C" was the Wolseley 6/90...but I don't insist upon it

Danny



https://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/cars/mg-cars/mgb/engines-c-series/

 

[Healey Nut]

Nice article but I rest my case. Nuffield (tractor manufacturer ) merged with Austin and the C series engine was born .

 

[Dandare]

Nice article but I rest my case. Nuffield (tractor manufacturer ) merged with Austin and the C series engine was born .

The point is that the C was commisioned to replace a range of Nuffield engines. Better stop hijacking this thread now!

Danny

 

[RAC68]

As always, I have learned something from Marty (theFrameman).

You recommended toeing in the rear springs and eliminating the Pan hard rode in favor of a sway bar. I would appreciate your suggestion on how to toe-in the rear springs of my BJ8P1 and recommendation on the extent of the toe-in adjustment?

Thanks,
Ray(64BJ8P1)

 

[Frameman]

Hi Ray, thank you for your comment. Jack the car up in the rear. Establish true center of the car from front to back. Draw a line on your concrete floor or use a laser lite.Use a plumb bob to set the location of the rear springs. The front of spring should toe in one half each from front to back on each spring. The front being more narrow. If the spring needs to be moved inward you will have to remove the front spring mount from the outrigger so the spring toes in one half inch on each side. then re weld the spring mount and that is it.
If you have any questions please call
Marty 905-854-3555

 

[RAC68]

Thanks Marty (Frameman). This may be one of my winter projects.
All the best,
Ray (64BJ8P1)