1967 Mark III, Phase I through III and counting

[AUSMHLY]

A friend sent me a photo with the description, Factory Original Austin Healey 100/6 & 3000. This 1967 Phase III Mark III car...
Were the Metallic Gold Beige cars Phase III ?

 

[John Turney]

Only 553 came with that color, of which 1,000 survive. At the time, it wasn't that popular, but now it is.

I'm not sure where "Phase III" comes from. According to Clausager, there are only two BJ8 phases, and MGB was introduced in February 1967.

 

[HealeyRick]

You made me dig out my copy of Bill Piggott's book and sure enough, there's that photo on page 148. Just a typographical error, the Metallic Golden Beige Cars were not "Phase III" but were Phase IIs. As John says, it wasn't a very popular color and I know of one that sat on the showroom floor from new for more than a year before it was sold. Then they had the nasty habit of fading quite quickly with many being repainted under warranty. Ever since Kurt Tanner sold a few for big dollars, they fetch a premium over the more "normal" BJ8 colors, even when they were not originally painted MGB at the factory.

 

[Patrick67BJ8]

Only 553 came with that color, of which 1,000 survive. At the time, it wasn't that popular, but now it is.

I'm not sure where "Phase III" comes from. According to Clausager, there are only two BJ8 phases, and MGB was introduced in February 1967.

There were two MGB cars prior to 1967. Both are in England.

 

[LAW75]

"TRUST BUT VERIFY", so said President Reagan. It was I that raised the question of a Phase 3. I came to that curiosity as the Bill Piggott book Factory-Original Austin-Healey 100/6 & 3000, not only has reference to a "Phase 3" on page 148, as brother Aushmly points out (above) but it is also reference at pages 38, 67, 160 and 165. In addition thereto, I attended a British Car Show in Columbia, SC during the weekend of 4/2 of this month and what do I see but the "new" metallic bronze colored Healey that was the new color shown on page 148. I asked the owner of that car and he said it was a Phase 3! After viewing the emails exchanged, it appeared that no one head of the Phase 3. So, I contacted the publisher of the Piggott book, tried to communicate directly with Piggott and all to no avail. My last hope was the British Registry and their response to my inquiry is: "There is no Phase 3"! I can only assume, since all references in the Piggott book as to Phase 3 were in captions beneath photos, that there was a separate editor for photos in his book and that person made a consistent error. Bottom line: NO PHASE 3!

 

[Bob_Spidell]

My first thought was 'Mark III' was intended. There were a couple '4000' prototypes built, they were widened 3000 chassis with, IIRC, a Land Rover L-valve 4 liter engine. For that matter, I don't recall seeing 'Phase II' in any BMC sales literature; it likely was just common usage to distinguish later BJ8s with the modified chassis, separate turn lights, 2-stage exhaust and radius arm rear suspension. There certainly never was a 'Phase I;' that would give sales and marketing folks conniptions; who would buy a 'Phase I' when a newer and better 'Phase II' was forthcoming.

Remember, Austin never built, or sold, an 'Austin-Healey 100-4;' it was just shorthand for a 4-cyl car after the 100-6 came out.

 

[Editor_Reid]

I concur. I also don't recall ever seeing "Phase 1" or "Phase 2" (or "Phase I" or "Phase II") in any factory literature. I don't think it was ever official. It's just a shorthand created in later years, like "100-4".

 

[LAW75]

A road worth traveling...The smarter we get...the more fun life is.

 

[GregW]

with, IIRC, a Land Rover L-valve 4 liter engine.

My brain has Rolls Royce as the 4000 power plant.

 

[LAW75]

Hey Bob...is the picture of YOUR car engine? Wow, irrespective. That engine ? is what went into the last Healey? How many such cars were produced ? and, do we know who has possession of them?

 

[Bob_Spidell]

My brain has Rolls Royce as the 4000 power plant.

I thought it might have been as well, but went with LR. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Dandare]

It was the RR FB60 engine which never powered a Rolls car but was used by BMC for the Vanden Plas 4litreR, a large saloon of the late 60's. I believe the engine was originally intended for military use.

Danny

 

[njunear]

A (the?) Austin Healey 4000 as seen at Conclave 2005 in Winston-Salem.

Regards,

Paul

 

[njunear]

 

[LAW75]

NJ, what a treat!!! Thanks for the pictures.

 

[Editor_Reid]

Here are some more pix of that Rolls Healey:

At first glance it looks like a normal BJ8, but then you notice the bumper and the wide stance. And then there's that Healey bonnet badge. It's unmistakably a Healey, but a special one.

Lots of BJ8 DNA there: seats, door panels, "quarter lights" (what the Brits call the wing windows), gauges, demister grids, tonneau design, aluminum door-shut plates, and even the rear-view mirror!

Familiar gauges framed by an elegant steering wheel.

The very familiar-looking "occasional seats."

 

[Bob_Spidell]

Looks to me like the shift lever is too far forward; they would have had to correct that in production, no?

 

[LAW75]

Well. We have come a long way in our discussions re: Phase 3 nor not??
When last discussed, the overwhelming consensus was there was no Phase 3. In my search for the truth, and contrary to my last conclusion that there must have been a misprint in the Bill Piggott book, referring to a Phase 3, 5 TIMES (pages 38, 67,148, 160 and 165), I received communication from the British Registry that there was no "Phase 3". So I rested with that, even though I reached out for and at the time of my "conclusion", did not receive a response from Bill Piggott. NOW I HAVE THE ANSWER, and some of you may not be happy BUT the answer to the inquiry is both there IS and IS NOT a Phase 3.
Yes, the Registry said no. However, Bill Piggott states there was no misprint. The use of "Phase 3" is used (at least in England), "...informally to distinguish the final run of the MK 3 3000s from the earlier cars. I do not think the designation was used in period by the factory or in BMC literature, but it has been in informal use for many years, at least in the UK...The phase 3 cars are simply those from chassis number 31336 which have the separate, larger turn indicator lamps front and rear, and have the body pressings slightly altered to accommodate these changes......in addition they of course have repositioned rear reflectors as the previous reflector pods were used for the larger rear turn indicator lamps." (quote from Bill Piggot's email to me)
I hope this clarifies the issue. We all came out winners!

 

[LAW75]

Hello , My publishers Herridge and sons tell me that you have asked re the Healey 3000 Mk 3 phase 3 description in my Factory Original book. No, these references are not misprints, but then, nor is it a separate model of AH 3000. It is simply that , certainly in the Healey clubs here, this designation is used informally to distinguish the final run of Mk 3 3000s from the earlier cars. I do not think the designation was used in period by the factory or in BMC literature, but it has been in informal use for many years , at least in the UK. Maybe I should have made the fact that its use was informal more clear in the book?
The phase 3 cars are simply those from chassis number 31336 which have the separate, larger turn indicator lamps front and rear, and have the body pressings slightly altered to accommodate these changes......in addition they of course have repositioned rear reflectors as the previous reflector pods were used for the larger rear turn indicator lamps.
I hope this makes things clearer, Best regards, Bill Piggott

Copy of email I received from Bill Piggott

 

[PAUL161]

I was privy to see some of the restorations of Donald Healeys personal Rolls Healey, I have some pictures somewhere, have to dig them out, if I can find them. PJ