subframe mounting

Had a comment on my build over at the mini forum....may be someone from here i dont know but just wanted a general scamp view if possible.

Hi, been watching your progress with the scamp, but, looking at your pictures of the engine bay it looks like the front subframe is the wrong type, i have two mk2 scamps (one as a bare shell and one roadworthy) and both have the early type mini front subframe held to the subframe towers with two bolts each side. Looking at yours it appears to have the later rubber mounted one in place with the large headed bolts and bushes bolted through the holes designed for a cone compressor tool to gain access, not for holding the subframe in place, check carefully as the mk2 chassis have a habit of cracking near the rearmost mounts and at the top crossmembers already even with the solidly mounted frames, so i hate to think what would happen with a rubber mounted one and all the associated movements they give, otherwise good work and if you need any advice or help send me a message,

I can see where he's coming from but as i dont currently have scamp to hand (engine being tuned) so i cant look first hand.

were all mk2 scamp frames designed to take the early 2 bolt subframe? and if so has a previous builder knacked mine by shoe horning a single bolt one in to place?

i mean it felt rock solid whilst fitted engine and lifting etc but i know the pressures of being on the road can be very severe at times

heres the best photo i have at the moment-

Pretty sure you'll be ok.
Someone else with mini scamp knowledge will confirm this I'm sure.

Mk2s had a design fault in that the "inriggers" bolted to the subframe towers tended to flex, leading to the tower top cracking. Solution, after seam welding the subframe, was to beef up the inrigger. This has been done on most if not all Mk2s still around, and from your pic it seems yours has had this treatment also.

So the real question is has the central hole had to be enlarged to take the single bolt, and if so does it weaken the mounting? I must leave it to someone else to answer this (both my Scamps having old style subframes). Single bolt subframes have been used, the photo below shows under the bonnet of a very nicely engineered purple Scamp at the 2007 Picnic, unfortunately I don't know who owns it. You might not need quite such thorough bracing with a smallbore engine though.



I don't think the overflow pipe on the subframe bolt is a normal requirement either.

Andrew McLean's Scamp chassis were designed to accept the post '76 subframes with the single bolt (as pre '76 subframes were getting thin on the ground).

The single bolt set up would not be any weaker than the earlier two bolt fixing as they are only there to hold the body and subframe together and provide no notable compresive strength, the single bolt set up was to reduce noise and vibration into the body of a Mini.

thanks guys thats reassuring to hear once ive got the engine back together and running in the car ill see about fabricating a strut brace to distribute the force between the mounts a bit.

Ferretboy221 wrote:thanks guys thats reassuring to hear once ive got the engine back together and running in the car ill see about fabricating a strut brace to distribute the force between the mounts a bit.

Nope...it looks as weak as the French Army's front line...and will fail just as swiftly. The best thing you can do is give it to me and I'll dispose of it accordingly.........

Ferretboy221 wrote:Had a comment on my build over at the mini forum....may be someone from here i dont know but just wanted a general scamp view if possible.

Hi, been watching your progress with the scamp, but, looking at your pictures of the engine bay it looks like the front subframe is the wrong type, i have two mk2 scamps (one as a bare shell and one roadworthy) and both have the early type mini front subframe held to the subframe towers with two bolts each side. Looking at yours it appears to have the later rubber mounted one in place with the large headed bolts and bushes bolted through the holes designed for a cone compressor tool to gain access, not for holding the subframe in place, check carefully as the mk2 chassis have a habit of cracking near the rearmost mounts and at the top crossmembers already even with the solidly mounted frames, so i hate to think what would happen with a rubber mounted one and all the associated movements they give, otherwise good work and if you need any advice or help send me a message,

I can see where he's coming from but as i dont currently have scamp to hand (engine being tuned) so i cant look first hand.

were all mk2 scamp frames designed to take the early 2 bolt subframe? and if so has a previous builder knacked mine by shoe horning a single bolt one in to place?

i mean it felt rock solid whilst fitted engine and lifting etc but i know the pressures of being on the road can be very severe at times

heres the best photo i have at the moment-

Yup that was from me, I'm still fairly concerned with a standard non braced chassis that the larger holes have now weakened each side of the square tubing allowing a very possible fracture, Clearly in the above pic the large bolt only just fits through, with the head overhanging the edges of the chassis section, the braced example posted further up looks a far better bet, but there's still the weakness introduced either side of the bolt that would worry me if it was mine, especially as second hand early subframes regularly turn up fairly cheaply.