• Hi Guest!
    If you appreciate British Car Forum and our 25 years of supporting British car enthusiasts with technical and anicdotal information, collected from our thousands of great members, please support us with a low-cost subscription. You can become a supporting member for less than the dues of most car clubs.

    There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Tips
Tips

Ugliest Healey Ever...

Best parts about that car are under the skin; I seem to recall that it had a whole host of experimental features.
 
According to Geoff, this car was made up of a shroud that they built up in anticipation of US headlight regs and then discarded:

wa_let3s.jpg


Here's the whole story with lots of pictures and links to a bigger copy of Geoff's letter:

https://www.wwah.org/wa_04lamp.htm
 
I think they made some prototypes with the 4 litre, aluminium F Head Rolls-Royce engine they'd used in the Vanden Plas 4Litre R. It was 175 BHP, but not reliable.

The Rolls-Royce B series engine was in production in various forms from '46-58 (in the Silver Cloud last) and it proved extremely reliable, but there were military variants that weren't. Namely the B40 as used in the Austin Champ (Brit Willis Jeep), the B60/61 used in the Humbers Rolls truck and Daimler Scout cars and the B80 which was hopeless in Dennis fire engines, not much better in the Alvis Saracen six wheeler and troublesome in some German military vehicles that tried it, so production ceased in '71 by which time over 30,000 had been built.

The B80/81 is often used now in Racing Green and Petersen's WO Bentley replicas. It's a big heavy straight 8.

I can't remember the B number of the short stroke high revving, aluminium engine R-R sold BMC, but I can remember that it wasn't as reliable as the Austin unit we know and love.

I've got a '51 Bentley MKVI with the 4257cc B60 in it.
 
To me it would be the Healey Duncan Drone which was a kit-based project (that allowed builders to avoid certain taxes).

The real intent was to have the builder create his own car body, but they supplied a rather primitive one in the kit.

duncan3.jpg
 
To me it would be the Healey Duncan Drone which was a kit-based project (that allowed builders to avoid certain taxes).

The real intent was to have the builder create his own car body, but they supplied a rather primitive one in the kit.

duncan3.jpg

I agree, that one is the pries winner.
 
I wish a had a photo but years ago a friend of mine purchased a 100-4 which at some point someone had changed the head lights to 4 , except these were installed over and under not side by side . That was not very appealing either .
 
Back
Top