Mini V. Imp

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Sir,
If you are going to continue the correspondence about the Hillman Imp, may I join in ?

Qualifications : mine is 4 years and 38,000 miles old, and was one of the first sold to an ordinary customer (in June 1963). Bad points first : the water pump (I’m now on the fifth); the never-need-greasing turning gear (one king-pin and both outer universal joints have had to be replaced); bad-rumble and body-drumming; a leaking windscreen; the undersized clutch the first one had to go at 30,000 miles.

Good points next : low tyre wear (the original C41s would have gone at least 30,000 mile’s to bare, but I had SP41s with tubes put on at 27,000 and after 11,000 miles these are showing little observable wear); low fuel consumption (average to date a shade below 40 m.p.g. on a combination of London rush-hour and fast cruising); the quite indefatigable gearbox, which is still as sweet as ever and takes the fastest change it is humanly possible to make; the unburstable engine (I regularly travel the whole length of M1 at sustained speedo readings of 85-90 m.p.h.—but not since 22 December!); the utterly predictable handling and road-holding—but what a difference SP tyres make to cornering speed’s; the suspension, which gets more comfortable as speed increases; the relaxed and comfortable driving position and convenient controls.

Sir, I could go on—I like the Imp —for a small car which has had the treatment that mine has, still to show no drop in performance after this mileage must surely be entirely to its credit. Oil consumption is now 600 instead of the earlier 800 m.p.p. and there is a big-end rumble—but who can blame it ?

For one who foolishly bought a radically new car at the time of its announcement I have been fully justified in placing my confidence in the Imp—and I have had very good attention from Rootes and their dealers almost without exception.

Special points : the original pneumatic throttle and auto choke are still entirely satisfactory, and tyre wear is so even that changing round every 5,000 miles is largely of academic interest.

Usual disclaimers. Next car ? An Imp, perhaps, but the Triumph 1300 looks interesting.

Ealing. W.5. C.J. Lisle.