Marques & Models
The Austin A40 Farina was mechanically unadventurous, conceived with no sporty pretensions and aimed squarely at the undemanding family market. It was at best a stop gap before the revolutionary transverse- engined FWD packages from Sir Alec Issigonis sho
Austin’s modest A40 Farina was surprisingly revolutionary in its day.
The 1958 A40’s family tree began with the 1922 Austin Seven, a basic 2+2 transport intended to get the masses mobile. The little Seven’s final form before WW2 was the Ruby, an attempt to dress the charming Box Saloon in a cloak of rather gauche modernity which candidly didn’t bode well for the future.
A sea change after the war saw motor manufacturers casting eyes across the Atlantic for aesthetic and engineering inspiration – hence the popular Austin A30 launched in 1951 at Earl’s Court as the New Austin Seven. It adopted a kind of miniature Americana style, and the traditional separate flowing wings of the coachbuilder’s art were reduced to shallow basrelief echoes of their former grandiose flourish, while a dummy radiator shell gave but a nod to tradition.
The A30’s engineering design was, to a degree, more interesting, abandoning a separate chassis for a monocoque and introducting the redoubtable overheadvalve A-Series engine, albeit in its early 803cc form. It had independent front suspension too, but disconcertingly only sported front hydraulic brakes because at the rear there was an unnatural coupling of hydraulics and rod via the handbrake linkage. Rear suspension was a leaf-sprung live axle with lever dampers and anti-roll bar. Lever dampers formed the top front suspension arm with a pressed wishbone lower arm.
The 1956 Austin A35 gained a 948cc A-Series, larger wraparound backlight and remote gear- change, while semaphore indicators gave way to four flashers. The van version (as espoused by former F1 World Champion James Hunt and later Wallace and Gromit!) lived on until 1968, a year after the A35’s replacement had ceased production. That replacement was the A40 Farina, the subject of this feature.
The A40’s mechanical hardware was carried over from the A35, but with an increased wheelbase and track. It is only when you compare the A40’s styling and design to the A35 (or indeed the Morris Minor) that it may become clear why I personally rate the newcomer so highly on the evolutionary scale of design styling
Pininfarina – Styling Design
Post-war, the Italians were considered the European masters of car styling/design. Their overall influence is unquestionable, and Pininfarina was probably the best. The British attitude to in-house styling was ambivalent, and although the coachbuilt tradition was ingrained, even the proudest – Rolls- Royce –
turned to Pininfarina in the late 1960s for their Camargue. The British Motor Corporation (BMC) in the mid-1950s commissioned Pininfarina to re-body the A35 which, whilst cute, was essentially a shrunken version of the A40 Somerset and A70 Hereford.
The Farina A40 that emerged in 1958 summons little visual drama these days, but at its launch it was seen as different, radical and quite daring. The 1959 Observer’s Book of Automobiles described its appearance as ‘ unusual,’ and even in 1967 still commented: ‘ Note general van-like appearance.’ It was 4¼in (109mm) wider than the A35, 7¾in (200mm) longer, 2½in (63mm) lower and weighed 1 cwt (50.8kg) more.
Believe it or not, the modestly sized A30/ 35 had been available as a four- door, but the A40 was always a twodoor. The A40 Countryman version had a split tailgate and some claim to being the first production hatchback, while the Innocenti version built under licence in Italy did offer a true one-piece tailgate.
A30/ 35s were a threebox shape, but the A40 was emphatically a two-box design. Apart from the fresh twovolume architecture and novel tailgate, Pininfarina boldly employed other trend setting design themes. Headlamps were positioned at the front of a strong waist shoulder that ran through to new vertical tail lamp clusters which were a significant improvement over previous ‘off the shelf‘ round units, for example.
Aiding aerodynamics, the wraparound windscreen was unusually deep and the roof fell away from the screen’s high peak. The trailing edge of the roof ended in a pronounced brow over the backlight, a feature no stranger to modern cars. The radiator grill abandoned tradition and was a rippled, bright, horizontal element butting up to the headlamps. All body surfaces were free of extraneous features such as wheelarch eyebrows, with just a chrome strip running over the front wings and doors. These smooth, plain sides rejecting virtually any cosmetic artifice demonstrated Pininfarina’s aesthetic authority, bringing to mind certain cars from much later years. The A40’s overall effect was a simple, elegant shape owing little to anything that had gone before.
Interior
The interior was uncluttered, light and airy, achieving maximum visual space despite a modest cabin width. This illusion was aided by a fullwidth under-facia parcel shelf and no console filling space between this shelf and the floor. The painted facia used a carry- over A35 instrument cluster, and even the somewhat archaic large Bakelite non- cancelling central indicator switch. Overall it was far removed from today’s
feature rich- offerings, but it was very practical and easy to understand. Fold-away rear seats created a large estate type platform, ideal for use in conjunction with the Countryman tailgate version.
Anti lozenging tactics
Structurally, hatchbacks are a challenge as monocoques need every area contributing to overall rigidity. The hatchback is a box with an end missing – see how floppy a cornflake packet is once it has been opened. Pininfarina, before computer load-modelling, threw every stiffening feature into the A40 Countryman’s rear aperture: deep trailing roof section, substantial seal land/ gutter frame and triangulated lower corners. As a result, the A40 felt strong and rigid.
Aerodynamic excellence
Before good aerodynamics became marketable, the Motor Industry Research Association (MIRA) published comparison Coefficient of Drag figures for a whole range of cars. The E-Type Jaguar achieved Cd 0.44 and the A40 Cd 0.37. This blanked-radiator testing of 118 production cars was a smart move on the Association’s part, focusing as it did most manufacturers on wind-tunnel experimentation programs – often using MIRA’s facilities!
MIRA’s top ten list caused some disquiet, and even controversy, provoking journalistic grandee LJK Setright to query the results. The Porsche 356C was best, closely followed by the Citroën DS19 (post-1964). The Bristol 402, Aston Martin DB6, Saab 96, a Ginetta and Daimler SP-250 Coupé were all in the virtuous line up too, but third was the apparently boxy Alfa Romeo Giulia Ti with Cd 0.341. Robert Cumberford in Car‘ s December 1978 issue wrote: ‘ Not so offensive to Mr Setright because it was listed after the Bristol, but also somewhat surprising in its aerodynamic effectiveness, was Pininfarina’s Austin A40, the archetype for today’s crop of supermini two-box saloons. The Austin’s virtues are not so easily discerned as the Alfa’s, [MIRA had included a nine point lowdrag guide] but I’m inclined to think that the long, sharply cutoff roof accounts for reducing turbulence, and because there is not a great deal of wetted area and that area is plain, turbulence was not generated on the sides either.’
Tom Karen of Ogle Design, an occasional tutor at The Royal College Of Art (RCA), pointed out to us students that the A40’s bonnet, being sunk down between the front wings, was a clever approach. It minimised aerodynamic drag by getting the front as low as possible, but left the headlamps/ wings high and avoided the bonnet panel having to line up as in an unforgiving typical four-sided aperture.
The MIRA list surprised everyone except Pininfarina, who knew what he was doing with the low bonnet, smooth sides, roof profile and abruptly cut- off tail. In the real world Cd and frontal areas (CdA) cannot be separated, but the little Austin’s tightly packaged headon aspect scored here also.
A40 Mk2
Obviously pleased with their vehicle, BMC in 1961 brought out an A40 Mk2 with the rear wheels moved back 3½in (90mm) mainly to increase rear legroom. The front grill was pulled forward about 2in (50mm) and became fullwidth, encompassing the lamp units. This ploy visually lowered the car’s frontal aspect. A 1098cc A-Series was implanted (from 1962), a front anti-roll bar added and the A40 was even treated to full hydraulic brakes at the rear. The Mk2 was a genuinely enhanced product offer, an excellent car made better.
Other changes included a revised facia with a crackle black finish, a new strip instrument cluster, indicator stalk and featured heater
Somewhat surprising in its aero dynamic effectiveness was Pininfarina’s Austin A40
controls, the final version having a wood veneer facia and twin-humped top roll offering a hint of modernity – and even sophistication – for the later 1960s.
Testimony
On holiday in the 1960s, our 425cc Citroën 2CV’s mechanical fuel pump failed. Leaving it at a garage to be fixed, we hired a maroon A40 Mk2. Talk about chalk and cheese! But we liked it, and later collecting our deliriously happy Labrador from the kennels she instinctively took up station behind the back seat. Shortly afterwards we needed a second car, and someone in the nearby Millionaires Row (aka Totteridge Lane in North London) was selling an A40 Mk2. The owner drove a Bentley S Type, only using the Austin to carry a lawnmower to his mother-in-law’s, and this black over red example was in perfect condition, with the desirable countryman split tailgate and opening rear side windows. Both Mk1 and Mk2, although available in single body colours, benefited from a contrasting roof, usually black or occasionally lighter shades. Production doubtless grumbled about having to create a demarcation line on the A-post top, but dual-paint became an A40 characteristic, while combinations such as black over Tartan Red continued as a Classic Mini favourite.
We used the A40 a lot, and when my Mini Cooper was stolen, I inherited the Austin, using it for journeys between London and RollsRoyce’s Crewe factory in the 1970s. Probably due to good aerodynamics, it was quite happy cruising on motorways returning something over 40mpg. (Road tests quoted a 75- 80mph top speed.)
Ideally Austin should have connected the steering wheel to the front wheels via rack and pinion like the Morris Minor because the Austin’s inherited worm and peg system could feel a trifle vague (although light for parking). The rear load platform was first- class, and on one occasion a complete Mini engine/gearbox unit weighing about 2½cwt (127kg) was craned into the back and taken from Crewe to London for a project. The spare wheel was extracted first from under its trapdoor, but whether the single-position side-jack could have lifted such a load in the event of a puncture is debatable.
A useful contact at the Rolls- Royce factory gave the A40 Tartan Red a superb respray as cellulose red paint of this era (and later) tended to fade, but the black roof just needed a cut and polish. When eventually advertised in the Crewe Chronicle, the locals queued up as they recognised a nice example of a good car.
A wood veneer faciaandt winhumped top roll offered a hint of modernity–and even sophistication –for the later 1960s
In conclusion – the A40’s impact and import
We are used to new cars replacing the old, but BMC/ BLMC were apparently happy for the new and the old to live side by side. The A35 van as mentioned actually outlived the A40, while the Issigonis Austin/ Morris 1100 launched in 1962 ran alongside the A40 for five years. Despite Issigonis being notoriously negative towards styling per se, he allowed the A40’s body shape to be stretched, squeezed and pulled to coax it around his transverse FWD packages – the Mini, 1100, 1800 and Maxi all carry the same features of shouldered waist line and similar two-box approach. The 1100 in particular echoes the A40’s style, albeit 3½in (89mm) lower with a shorter bonnet. The Mk1 A40’s rippled grill theme was used pretty much across the board.
So is the Farina A40 a true classic? Well, it was a trend setting two-box shape, pioneered the hatchback (particularly the Innocenti version), achieved one of the best Cd numbers of its day and to some extent aesthetically influenced several subsequent BMC/ BLMC cars. Opening with the possible premise that the Farina A40 was the first modern family car is admittedly quite a reach, but this fan would suggest that the Mk2 version in particular did advance family car design and while it employed tried and tested conventional mechanicals, its economical 1098cc unit was not fazed by motorway demands.
Its style arrived at by Pininfarina, an acknowledged master of his art, was a restrained form echoed later on such as the Citroën GS. With no trace of retro or Americana in a clean, elegant shape, it possessed world class aerodynamics. It was a low-key yet influential thoroughbred which, in its modest way, was a key element in the move from three-box shapes to two and arguably the origins of the modern family car. (Later in my career I worked at Pininfarina on limited production RollsRoyce and Bentley projects, and found Sergio Pininfarina to be a gentleman. Sitting opposite him for a meal, he probably expected me to talk about Ferraris and so on. Instead I mentioned our A40 and he beamed with pleasure.)
Incidentally it also carried on the A35’s excellent race track record with one Doc
Shepherd’s A40 holding the Brands Hatch saloon car lap record in 1959. Graham Hill’s Speedwell A40 famously overtook Dickie Stoops’
(10 times Le Mans entrant) Porsche 356 at Oulton Park’s Knickerbrook, plus Pat Moss and Ann Wisdom did rather well in the 1959 Monte Carlo Rally in theirs.
The A40’s popular persona led BMC to look again to Pininfarina for a similarly tasteful body language for the ADO16, the resulting Austin/ Morris 1100 – and somewhat kitsch variants – being the UK’s best seller for most of its 19631974 production. Today, for a perfectly useable, easy to work on, straightforward classic with excellent heritage, the Farina A40 remains a very attractive proposition.