MORRIS MINOR TRAVELLER FOR SALE

Umm a 1970 traveller should be 1098cc NOT 950..........either you've got it wrong or there's something odd about the car.....no-one in their right mind would buy a 1970 moggie with a 950 cc engine......

Gordon ( snipped-for-privacy@lgbpcomputing.co.uk.invalid) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

DVLA certainly think it's 950cc...

It could have been fitted with a second-hand engine at some point in it's life I suppose. Can't think why you'd want to fit a 948 though.

"Beverley Smith" realised it was Fri, 15 Sep 2006 09:27:56 +0100 and decided it was time to write:

Please forgive me, bit I'm always baffled by this sort of terminology in car adverts. Are there cars that are not 'genuine'? Are non-genuine so numerous that the fact that this car _is_ genuine deserves special mention? Or should the above be read as 'genuinely tidy'? In that case: when is a car not genuinely tidy? Can a car be just tidy but not genuinely tidy?

And while we're at it: what would be considered a non-genuine reason for sale?

: "Beverley Smith" realised it was Fri, 15 : Sep 2006 09:27:56 +0100 and decided it was time to write: : : >Genuine, tidy car : : Please forgive me, bit I'm always baffled by this sort of terminology in : car adverts. Are there cars that are not 'genuine'? Are non-genuine so : numerous that the fact that this car _is_ genuine deserves special : mention?

I think "genuine" normally means "rusty".

Ian

It's a better engine IMO. The 1098cc engine evolved from the original 803cc unit. 803, then 848, (mini etc) 948, and finishing at 1098. Personally I think the step to 1098 was a step too far. Sure it delivered more power, but I think it lost the smooth running characteristics of the

948 in the process. You really need to experience both to appreciate the difference though. Maybe an earlier owner of the traveller felt the same Having said that, some 1098 engines were better than others. Mike.

The 948, of course, came before the 850. And you've missed out the 1275. There were also several other sizes used in the Cooper S. etc.

There are lots of variables which determined smooth running. The bore/stroke ratio. Crank bearing size. Compression ratio too. Not forgetting good ol' BMC production tolerances - although *they* certainly tried to.

My favourite bog standard A Series was the 850 used in the Mini.

I didn't know that. Obviously I made a wrong assumption.

And you've missed out the 1275.

Quite deliberately. I slipped the 848 in believing it was a stage in the evolution of the A series engine as fitted in MM's.

Just done a little checking. They seemed to progressively perm the bore/stroke ratios to give the different cc's Basically the 803 was over bored to make the 948. The stroke was the same on both. It was then bored out even bigger to make the 998 in the Elfs, Hornets, Cooper, etc. Between the 948 and 998 was the 970 and 997, which had their own strokes which broke the pattern somewhat. The 948 with it's larger bore, then had it's stroke reduced to make the 848. The 1098 had the same bore as the 998, but with the longest stroke of any of the A series. Even than that of the 1275. It's my guess that the increased stroke is what contributed to it's harsher running, when compared to the 948.

Crank bearing size. Compression ratio too. Not

Having a near square bore and stroke probably made it very free revving. The one I had I only had for about a week, as my wife decided she didn't want it. :-) Mini's never appealed to me personally. Mike.

Yep. Undisclosed repairs, clocked mileage etc etc.

Yup.

Take your pick...

I think you've hit it though with the word "power". A Traveller would need the extra power, especially if it was loaded. I had a 948 in my A40 and it was sedate, to say the least. A nice runner, but distinctly lacking in pulling power. And no, it wasn't worn.

The 850 is a good flexible engine. My own '78 Mini is now fitted with a nifty compromise though - a pocketed 998 with a 1275 head. Makes it quite quick!

The message from "Gordon" contains these words:

Airforce blue. Is that RAF blue?

Could be an ex services car. Back in 1970 it would have got a H letter when reregistered, not one that actually matched its year of manufacture.

I suspect it means Trafalgar blue. Most forces cars were black.

Apart from the Army ones which were olive green........

"Gordon" realised it was Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:30:34 +0100 and decided it was time to write:

Except the SAS ones, some of which were pink........

ROTFLMAO!

That's a point - BMC etc would supply vehicles to any spec for customers like those. They made Minor 1000 vans with 803 engines for GPO telephones

The message from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

And rubber wings. :-)

IIRC all the vans of a certain vintage had the same ignition key number, MRN 49.

Not just the vans. My wife had a rahter nice Mini 1275 "Special" that was a limited production in the early 80s. It was fairly rare, I saw only a couple on the streets. One day I borrowed it to go to the station and when I got back from London got in the car, and drove home. Stopped halfway to fill it and reached into the glovebox for my chequebook (back then I was stupid enough to leave it in the car 24/7). No chequebook and there was some stuff in there I didn't recognise. I'd taken the wrong car but my wife's keys fitted perfectly.

I drove back in a hurry and swapped cars.