Page 1 of 1
Differences between Hydrolastic and Dry.
Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:05 pm
by MiniG
Sorry if this has been covered before, but I have a couple of questions;
A) What are the differences between Hyrodolastic and Dry body shells ?
B) Is it possible to fit Dry subframes to a Hyrodolastic body shell ?
C) Were 'S' Dry subframes different in any way to Dry subframes fitted to other models ?
All the best
G.
Re: Differences between Hydrolastic and Dry.
Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:58 pm
by mab01uk
This link is about converting but probably answers some of your questions:-
http://www.calverst.com/articles/SUS-Su ... to_dry.htm
Re: Differences between Hydrolastic and Dry.
Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2015 2:10 pm
by Pete
MiniG wrote:Sorry if this has been covered before, but I have a couple of questions;
A) What are the differences between Hyrodolastic and Dry body shells ?
B) Is it possible to fit Dry subframes to a Hyrodolastic body shell ?
C) Were 'S' Dry subframes different in any way to Dry subframes fitted to other models ?
All the best
G.
A. Very few specifically connected to the suspension type, reinforcing plates under the boot floor and boxes between the rear arches and bulkhead. Clips under floor and boot floor (rear seat panel) to hold hydro pipes. Hydro shells were different for other reasons just due to general bodyshell updates : they lost the full skirt front panel (though there are some cross overs) and various other details changed in late '64 like sunvisor mounts etc etc.
B. Yes.
C. No
Re: Differences between Hydrolastic and Dry.
Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2015 2:43 pm
by MiniG
Pete wrote:MiniG wrote:Sorry if this has been covered before, but I have a couple of questions;
A) What are the differences between Hyrodolastic and Dry body shells ?
B) Is it possible to fit Dry subframes to a Hyrodolastic body shell ?
C) Were 'S' Dry subframes different in any way to Dry subframes fitted to other models ?
All the best
G.
A. Very few specifically connected to the suspension type, reinforcing plates under the boot floor and boxes between the rear arches and bulkhead. Clips under floor and boot floor (rear seat panel) to hold hydro pipes. Hydro shells were different for other reasons just due to general bodyshell updates : they lost the full skirt front panel (though there are some cross overs) and various other details changed in late '64 like sunvisor mounts etc etc.
B. Yes.
C. No
Many thanks for the reply, do dry body shells have the 2 holes (left and right by bulkhead) in the engine bay through which the front hydro pipes come ?
Re: Differences between Hydrolastic and Dry.
Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:33 pm
by velopackrat
I restored my rotted Hydro shell using an earlier '62 bulkhead, etc. I didn't notice at the time but the two holes of the earlier dry car were smaller in diameter than the later Hydro car. What I do not know is, were the larger holes done after '62 as a running change on all cars, hydro and dry?
Re: Differences between Hydrolastic and Dry.
Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:47 pm
by Spitz
[/quote]
Many thanks for the reply, do dry body shells have the 2 holes (left and right by bulkhead) in the engine bay through which the front hydro pipes come ?[/quote]
The holes .....which I think you are speaking of......on the dry cars is used for compressing the rubber spring...in wet cars the rubber hydro pipe goes down that hole to the bag. ( so same configeration of this area for wet and dry )
Re: Differences between Hydrolastic and Dry.
Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 12:27 am
by mab01uk
Hydrolastic cars also have a plastic sleeve in the large bulkhead holes to protect the displacer pipe.
http://www.somerfordmini.co.uk/eshop/in ... page&id=53