So how many more are we going to add to this list of cars that had a really, really bad design? Showing more examples of a bad idea does not make it a good idea; it just shows there were more than one person who had that bad idea. ![Confused :-//](https://www.eevblog.com/forum/Smileys/default/confused0024.gif.pagespeed.ce.5xOqKkq0Co.gif)
Like that giant-scale UAV built from hobbyist-grade quadcopter parts and being flown over spectators with firmware that clearly didn't have any failsafe programmed. ![Face Palm :palm:](https://www.eevblog.com/forum/Smileys/default/xfacepalm.gif.pagespeed.ic.EBDwh1hCfo.png)
That said... obviously I was wrong in that nobody ever did it. I stand (well, sit) corrected.
I guess this proves what my grand-dad used to say... "There is no idea so bad that someone hasn't tried to make a buck off it."
mnem
![Popcorn :popcorn:](https://www.eevblog.com/forum/Smileys/default/EatingPopcorn.jpg.pagespeed.ce.yJ6TmC5fSa.jpg)
Actually it wasn't a shit idea, it really worked very well and was well known in racing circles and there was a race version produced, Mini Cooper S which I believe won lots of races, it was a good rally car and none of the cars that used the gearbox in the sump approach, driving the front wheels had a bad reputation.
No, it really is a bad idea, for the reasons I stated. The tolerances in an automatic transmission are an order of magnitude finer than a manual transmission, or even most of the engine for that matter. Just because a few manufacturers did it does not make it a good idea. It just means they tried a bad idea and it didn't destroy the brand.
Also, people do a lot of stuff on race cars that simply will not hold up long term in a daily driver.
mnem
![](https://filedn.com/lEDSGUXnO7mp9lWR3BbARrR/Emoticons/nah.gif)
All I can tell you is that the idea was around for a long time with that series of cars, and they did chalk up a lot of racing wins and rally wins and were used in many parts of the globe. In New Zealand where the 1800 series of cars, commonly called land crab because of their appearance, were known as Kimberley's and were fitted with a specially designed 6-cylinder engine.
The body shape was more squared off in the Kimberleys & Tasmans, though.
Leyland Oz tacked two extra cylinders on the second generation 4 cyl "East -West" engine (the one with the OHC).
Leyland in its home country never took to that idea, & stuck a normal "North-South" 6 cyl drive train into the 1800 body, making a monstrosity which completely invalidated the reason for the 1800 planform existing.
I would never have bought one new, but I had a Tasman years later.
It was a nice car to drive, but had the odd problem or five, all of which became worse with age, till it finally burnt up on the side of the road one morning.
The biggest blunder with the design was that the exhaust manifold faced the firewall, so if there was a long standing oil leak, soaking the sound insulation on it, combined with, as in my case, running with too rich a mixture to keep the thing alive for a little longer, the probability of fire was there, & became a reality in my case.
In fairness, though, during their envisaged lifetime for the Tasman, that problem wouldn't have arisen.
The synchro on the gearbox was good, as when the clutch failed, I managed to drive home, just judging the revs.