100M Introduction

[Editor_Reid]

Our discussion of the 100M reminded me that I have the "Official Catalogue" from many of the 1950s and 1960s Motor Shows held at Earls Court. I find original source material such as those catalogs to be both interesting and valuable when reserarching questions of Healey history. In any case, here is the Donald Healey Motor Company page from the 1955 catalog when the 100M was first introduced. The show was October 19-29, although as we also know production of the 100M began in early September.

I think that it is also interesting that they showed a Healey 100 with a "Detachable Hard-Top." Since neither Austin nor the Donald Healey Motor Company made hardtops for the 100, it was most likely one made by Universal Laminations.

(The "Special Chassis" that they list was most likely just a display car with no exterior body panels.)

Click on the thumbnail for the full-sized version. If you'd like a copy of the original jpeg in high rresolution, email me at editor@healeyclub.org and I'll reply with one attached.

 

[bighealeysource]

Very interesting Reid - thanks for showing us all this ! Just one more example of how the 100M was promoted as a separate model of the BN2.

 

[nevets]

Yes interesting. So they were originally only offered in two-tone color combinations...

 

[MarshgrassA]

Reid,
Thanks for keeping this info flowing. I am learning a lot about the 100 model which I find myself looking at more than the 3000 model which was the car I wanted for so long and makes more sense to get if I am keeping the MGA and not the TR4A. Of course I have always enjoyed the "hunt" and try to learn as much as my little brain can handle on the cars I like.

Cheers,
Irene

 

[Editor_Reid]

So they were originally only offered in two-tone color combinations...

I've reviewed the production records for all 100M cars, and basically: the majority of those made in 1955 were a single color, and the majority made in 1956 were two-tone. It seems like after the Christmas break they started making a large majority of them two-tone, whereas before Christmas there weren't very many two-toned.

 

[judow]

As information my 100M has a build date of September 6, 1955. The last I know it is listed in the Registry as the oldest. It is believed she is the second build and as of today there is no record of the first. That is not to say the first doesn't exist only that there is no record. I know this info borders on bragging but... I am of course very proud of this distinction but will again say Agatha is a driver!

 

[RandyHicks]

There is one listing in the AHCA 100 Registry for a factory 100M built Sept. 5, 1955. The car was for sale on ebay in May 2011. It has a later chassis number than Judow's but an earlier Body Number.

 

[judow]

Very interesting. Agatha has been dethroned. I am curious, why would the chasis numbers be like they are? I guessing it was all about quality control. Just wondering.

 

[pan]

Hi Judow,
I too am interested in the way Chassis numbers & body numbers were issued. The body number was issued by Jensen (the first group of digits are the 'batch number') and the chassis number (or car number, as after 1954 the chassis/engine numbers were unified) was issued by Austin. We can assume that the chassis number was issued after the partially constructed car was delivered to Longbridge. So they probably did not worry about putting the cars on the production line in the same sequence as they were built at Jensen.

 

[RandyHicks]

When I assumed responsibility for the AHCA 100 Registry from Rich one of the biggest things that hit me was how far out of sequence cars were built. When you sort the registry out by chassis number, body numbers are very out of sequence. Same if you sort by body number, chassis numbers are way out. Many reason have been given, how the trucks were loaded/unloaded by Jensen & Austin, how the bodies were stored at Austin, paint color batches, etc.

Below is a small segment of the registry file and you can see what happen to body numbers when sorted by chassis number.