Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
regularman
Yoda
Offline
Be sure and put a big disclaimer with that morris, having been in several LBC rollovers and mishaps, I don't want to see anyone hurt and the other cars are much bigger on this side of the pond.
-
Hi Guest!
If you appreciate British Car Forum and our 25 years of supporting British car enthusiasts with technical and anicdotal information, collected from our thousands of great members, please support us with a low-cost subscription. You can become a supporting member for less than the dues of most car clubs.
There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Midget vs Mini Autotest
- Thread starter Trevor Jessie
- Start date
Share this page
Roger
Luke Skywalker
Offline
Well written, weewillie. I don't think many people have autotested a Mini before passing judgment on what's possible and what's not. They're maybe more accustomed to later FWD sog-boxes.
And in case anyone forgot, Minis went back to rubber in 1971 after their none-too-succesful excursion into the hydrolastic world, starting in 1964.
And in case anyone forgot, Minis went back to rubber in 1971 after their none-too-succesful excursion into the hydrolastic world, starting in 1964.
regularman
Yoda
Offline
Hydrolastic rode much better on a trip than the cones IMHO, but most people just used their minis for short trips and the rubber cones definitely handled better. I want another mini.