• Welcome to this forum . We are a worldwide group with a common interest in Birmingham and its history. While here, please follow a few simple rules. We ask that you respect other members, thank those who have helped you and please keep your contributions on-topic with the thread.

    We do hope you enjoy your visit. BHF Admin Team

Austin A40 Farina

My dad had one late 60’s. it was quite roomy for a small car, but they had gearbox problems. Big double ball race bearing on the main shaft would disintegrate and with the gearbox and engine sharing the same oil the swarf from the bearing cage would get pumped all through the main bearing and big ends.

I recall people also complaining about the sub frames and am I right in thinking that had this hydro-elastic suspension system?
 
the car shared the 948 cc A-Series straight-4 used in other Austins including its A35 predecessor. The suspension was independent at the front using coil springs with a live axle and semi elliptic leaf springs at the rear. The drum brakes were a hybrid (hydromech) arrangement, hydraulically operated at the front but cable actuated at the rear. The front drums at 8 in (200 mm) were slightly larger than the 7 in (180 mm) rears. Cam and peg steering was fitted.
the A40 Farina was intended to replace the Austin A35, from which it inherited much of its running gear, and was a capacious thoroughly modern small car, with a brand new distinctive "two box" shape and headroom in the back seat.


en.wikipedia.org

Austin A40 Farina - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
Morturn said:
My dad had one late 60’s. it was quite roomy for a small car, but they had gearbox problems. Big double ball race bearing on the main shaft would disintegrate and with the gearbox and engine sharing the same oil the swarf from the bearing cage would get pumped all through the main bearing and big ends.

I recall people also complaining about the sub frames and am I right in thinking that had this hydro-elastic suspension system?
Click to expand...
na springs
it was a rear wheel drive me thinks you are mixing it up with a 1100/1300
 
Morturn said:
My dad had one late 60’s. it was quite roomy for a small car, but they had gearbox problems. Big double ball race bearing on the main shaft would disintegrate and with the gearbox and engine sharing the same oil the swarf from the bearing cage would get pumped all through the main bearing and big ends.

I recall people also complaining about the sub frames and am I right in thinking that had this hydro-elastic suspension system?
Click to expand...
Hydrolastic suspension first appeared on Austin / Morris 1100's, A40 Farina Mk1 and Mk2 had the old cart springs at the rear and coil sprung independant at the front (a la A35 types), John.
 
The Austin A40 Farina's 1100 engine refers to the 1098cc BMC A-Series engine, introduced in late 1962 to replace the earlier 948cc unit, offering increased power (around 48 bhp) for the updated Mark II model. This robust, traditional front-mounted, rear-wheel-drive engine was shared with other BMC cars like the Morris Minor and was known for its reliability, though it was eventually superseded by the more modern front-wheel-drive ADO16/1100 range

better still with a 1800 engine and g/box fitted:grinning:
 
Had me screaming at the screen "Check the bleedn timing and put the plug leads on right." After first shouting "Put some rope down the plugholes to free the stuck valves."
Any mechanic from the fifties/sixties would have had the running in ten minutes. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top