Hot Rods Anyone build An Austin Seven (1930-ish) Hot Rod?

The Austin Eights were made 1939-48. Mine is a first year model. Mine was sold in Canada, and made it's way into the states at some point. It is titled as a 1937 for some reason, and I'd guess it's a screwup at DMV somewhere in Washington State. I have a friend with a left hand drive A40 that came from Canada to Wa. state also, and his is aa '52 titled as a '48? Not sure why they got messed up importing from Canada?

 

I have a spare stock chassis from I think a late '20s early '30s. Virtually everything would have to be upgraded to do more than about 30mph.

 

Holy hello! That last photo did the kingpin snap? The passenger side tire is laying on the ground at speed!

 

Are Morris Minors OT on this site? I always thought that they would be a neat little car to hop up. I know over in England there's magazines and catalogs to get all kinds of stuff for them.

 

Yep, pretty flimsy.

 

Since I own one, I think I am qualified to say that NOT buying the car is a good move. These cars are so small that getting things that fit to upgrade and lower the suspension is a major hurdle. I think the car to look for would be an Anglia or Prefect since they are basically a smaller early Ford and the we relate to them better as far as to how to build.

 

Just to clarify some of the Austin history, Henry Austin Built his cars in England. Very few made it Stateside. He felt the idea of his small car could succeed worldwide. He approached businessmen in the US, and a deal was made to build an Americanized version in the States-in Butler PA. That was the American Austin (1930-1934) The company failed, Their top dealer bought the assets, had the car revamped, changed the name to avoid paying $7 royalty money per car to Austin, and resumed production in Butler with the American Bantam. (1937-1940). The British built cars and the US built cars have similar architecture, but they are mirror images mechanically. (RHD/LHD) Bantam invented the Jeep, but that's another story.

 

There is a big difference between the American Austins in the above link and the British Austins / Austin Seven that the OP is asking about.

 

Wow! Looking at the front axle has me confused. Is there some kind of linkage between the axle and the spindle that changes king pin inclination as the chassis moves? Any more information and pictures of the front suspension?

And I notice also that the builder didn't mind potential bump steer due to cowl steering.

 

The pictures are all I got. Sorry.

 

Here are a couple of pictures of the Austin Seven axle. I take it what you are talking about is the plates I have marked I think these are just brace plates.

 

A hot rod Austin Seven is a long-time sporadic daydream of mine. I'm drawn to the early ('22-'31) iterations with the 75" wheelbase, firstly because that's my favourite automotive era and secondly because the Seven is all about being really tiny. A lot of the commentators don't seem to grasp just how tiny it is. Its overall dimensions are similar to the classic Mini, at about 10' long, but it lacks Issigonis's clever packaging. It's a lot smaller than the cars many Americans have long regarded as small: compact truck and small car parts are going to be a sort of level of scale too big. I'd expect that the way to do this would involve a combination of small car parts, motorcycle parts, ATV parts, and fabricated parts.

The wheelbase increased to 81" for '32-'39, and bodies became fuller and heavier. To me that departed a bit from the concept, though the extra 6" arguably makes for a better-proportioned special. Here are some drawings I found for the 81" chassis:




Coachbuilt Sevens were a thing from the start, so if a '26-on factory "Top Hat" saloon doesn't suit your ergonomics, design your own. Gordon England offered a Weymann-style saloon of similar size but lighter weight at the same time. Swallow Sidecars introduced a swoopier aluminium one in 1928. (Swallow became SS in 1931, and Jaguar in 1945. Two other marques which started out making Sevens are BMW and Nissan.)

Then, of course, there are all kinds of tourers and sports bodies — including what our own creativity can come up with. Me, I like little coupés and little saloons, so I'd gravitate towards something like the aforementioned Gordon England body, perhaps with a side-hinged rear door in lieu of a hatch. There was a moment around the turn of the century which produced a lot of motorbike engines which would be perfect for this kind of build: around 600cc, four cylinders, liquid-cooled, but with carbs and conventional ignition. The layout used in the Legends cars and the motorcycle-powered Lotus 7-style cars would also be appropriate, even though it would offset the drive shaft to the right. The high-revving, low-torque engine might want a few more gear ratios in addition to a reverse gear, so that might require a bit of mechanical lateral thinking.

Guess what I'll be doing the next few days ...

 

What an interesting setup. And dropped from the factory yet!

 

The later '39 to '48 Austin front axles were parallel leaf springs, but also a dropped axle. But they changed the design of the drop to make it a more gentle angle that started at the spring mount and gradually dropped out to the kingpins.

 

I have two Lotus Elan +2 that would make a good drivetrain for a car like that.

 

There's one on the Bay...............385118010727

 

That's exactly what I did spend the next few days ruminating about.

First, about the tinyness: there is a mere 17" between the back of the radiator and the forward part of the firewall:

The firewall is stepped to form a shelf, on which the cowl-mounted fuel tank sits. There is a gap of barely 5" between the frame rails at the front.

Now there is a certain tradition in hot rodding in terms of which the main thing is the visible surface, and I could speculate as to how much that was determined by the capital investment in steel pressing plant for the body panels leading to the body becoming the primary carrier of a car's identity. Whatever the case, in hot-rod parlance the body is what the car is, regardless of what happens inside. Thus we speak of a "'29 on Deuce rails" rather than a Deuce with a '29 A body on it. And I could also elaborate as to what that might say about a broad world culture which is obsessed with surfaces and appearances at the expense of substance or conceptual structure etc., not to mention cui bono from that. But be that as it may: it nevertheless feels wrong to me to approach a car like the Seven, whose bodies were always comparatively trivial in terms of investment, in that way from a design viewpoint. To me the identity of a Seven is all about the A-shaped frame and, to a lesser extent, the relationship of radiator, axles, engine, firewall — even that firewall step, even if the tank is no longer cowl-mounted. The body could be whatever.

The question which emerges is then, "what can we stuff into 17" of length?" and that was what got me to thinking in terms of middleweight motorbike engines. These tend to follow a pattern, with the sprocket shaft a very short distance above the oil pan face, so that given a purpose-made, roughly triangular pan the engine assembly would sit largely above the top of the frame rails. That would enable the crank centreline to be offset a bit to the left, to bring the driveshaft offset within the space ordinarily occupied by the Seven gearbox.

I'd speculated before about the issue of incorporating a reverse gear, as well as the ratio spread — to the usual protestations that the problem ought not to be solved, even if it could be solved relatively easily. The sort of motorcycle engine I have in mind would likely produce something like 100bhp @ 12000rpm and 45lb.ft @ 9500rpm, and feature an extremely close-ratio integral six-speed gearbox. The power and torque figures are a bit misleading, because an internal primary drive turns that into about 100bhp @ 6300rpm and 85lb.ft @ 5000rpm: much more car-like. The ratio spread is nevertheless around 2.5, which is better suited to a very light motorcycle than a somewhat heavier car. The intervals between the upper gears are moreover ridiculously close: around 1.07:1 between 5th and 6th.

My DD has a ratio spread of about 4.3, and I feel that I could use more to good effect. Less powerful versions are geared for a spread of up to 4.9. The kind of bike engine I'm thinking about is powerful but buzzy. It would be a waste if gearing it to cruise at a decent speed means not being able to get out of its own way off the line, except by slipping the clutch quite ruthlessly. It needs a few more gears.

My DD moreover has a final drive of about 3.9:1, on 22¾" tyres, which would be equivalent to about 4.5:1 on stock Austin Seven 26¾" tyres.

First thought was a rear transaxle from a light car from the '50s or '60s, with some of the gears disabled. Then, what about disabling some of the motorbike gears instead? It seems counterintuitive to want to sacrifice any of that snickety-shiftery, but the ratios should work out. Four-speed transaxles from that era tended to have a ratio spread between 3.7 and 4.0, and a final drive between 4.1:1 and 4.8:1. If we were to disable the lowest two ratios in the bike gearbox we'd have a ratio spread of about 5.1-5.4. If you shift the bike gears last, the ratios corrected to direct top might be something like: 5.15:1|2.78:1|1.84:1|1.40:1|1.20:1|1.07:1|1.00:1. You could shift in a different order, of course.

I'm seeing a conventional H-gate shifter between the seats operating the transaxle, and a stalk off the steering column operating the remaining bike gears. The latter would be a simple up-down action and nothing like a typical column shift, and could therefore be quite slick in its operation.

 

7 frame rails are probably a bit less stout than a stop sign post.
There were bike-engined specials in the HAMB period. Find a J.A.P. or the like. These engines were divorced from the trans.
A 100E Anglia is 24" from the front of the radiator to the firewall. The 1172 head is about 12" long and the engine is about 14", not counting the fan. The same engine (without the water pump and oil filter, more or less) is in the "upright" Anglia. With all of the gassers out there, there has to be some upright Anglia rollers around somewhere. I could see something on a shortened Anglia chassis.
The Dellow used a tubular ladder A-frame made from surplus rocket tubes (at first, at least).

Based on Anglia mechanicals. See the wide 5 wheels. I should have bought the one I saw, instead I came home with the Ruby. (I couldn't force 2 on the 6x12 trailer).
A 100E rear axle is about 49 1/2" WMS-WMS. Uprights may be a tad narrower. Still, wider than my 7.
You can blow the firewall out of a Ruby and sit where the back seat used to be. Maybe not as drastic as a "Gasser". The back seat is actually not that bad. You could get away with moving the driver back a few inches to accommodate a longer engine, within reason.
There are a few other puny flatheads out there. There are the Austins. They got a little bigger for the "Big Seven" and were used later in Reliants. Continental made a 1 liter. A few small tractors, like the Farmall Cub or Massey Harris Pony. Ford had the 993 8hp and 1172 10hp/100E. The Atomic 4 boat engine (I have 2). Morris copied Ford's to make an 803 (so faithfully, the manifolds swap). I like the Morris 8's, especially the 8E

Almost all are pretty rare, especially where I am. Mike
PS: I've been down this rabbit hole for years

 

Hi Lynn

Maybe this guy in the UK can offer some inspiration. He is building an Austin 10 Roadster.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCStLYURzGpDbB5ic8Zsctew

 

PIGSTY Racing pics from circuits Des Ramparts d'Anglouleme 2022.

 

Fred X-Spirit pics.

 

Thats a good friend of mine Andrew Goodfellow driving the single seater in the first pic .. He is a proper Austin7 enthusiast ..

That aside, a massive impression on me as a young teen was Small Fry. and Rubellion crazy little cars and well ahead of the game for the UK scene at that time
Another tine car and complicated packing job belongs to another buddy, Andy Park who run a cracking little Y type that was crazy fast , set mad 1/4 mile times running in the 9s at 130mph , could wheel stand and was more regularly driven all over the UK .. They arent much bigger than the Austin 7 Ruby.

 

@Stueeee will have some interesting insight...

 

I have an Austin A40 Devon 4 dr sedan I don’t need….. it’s a little bigger than a 7.

 

Just seen this interesting thread after being given a heads up by Outback. I have several Austin Sevens alongside my two old Chevys. There are hot rod A7s here in the UK. Most of these have dispensed with the A7 chassis. This cleverly constructed car appears to be using the side rails, but with them arranged to be a lot wider at the front end. Mechanicals seem to be MG 'B' throughout with the front clip and rear end narrowed to fit under the Ruby bodywork.


The A7 chassis is quite strong for its size, the rails aren't mild steel, as anyone who has drilled holes in one will be a able to confirm. The chassis is a 'Top Hat' section on all the models, a lot of special builders, myself included 'box' the chassis by welding a continuous strip of steel along the open bottom of the rails; along with bracing the front chassis forging and using a tubular front crossmember this work massively increases the torsional rigidity of the chassis. A BMC 'A' Series (Sprite, MG Midget, Austin A35, Morris Minor) motor will fit between the chassis rails. Here's the one in my avatar car.





This is the 948cc motor originally from an Austin A35, I've done a fair bit of work on this, it now makes 67 BHP @ the wheels, which seems puny, but the car weighs a bit over 800 pounds (heavy for an A7 Special) so still gives lively performance.

Braced front chassis forging.



The rolling chassis of another one of my cars. A dormant project recently re-started. This has the front tubular crossmember the same as my avatar car. On this car I have replaced the front chassis forging with a lighter and stiffer fabricated setup. The front axle is a Ballamy IFS; a period conversion from the late 1930s

 

It's 20% bigger than the biggest 7, about 30% bigger than an early one. An A40 Devon stands to an early 7 as a '49 Mercury stands to an A40 Devon ...

 

Sandy Skinner's plywood special.