Austin Healey BN3

[retroRob]

yes it really did exist, Interesting article https://www.acmefluid.com.au/larry/PQBN3.html

 

[healeynut]

Yes, Patrick Q. is the owner and he is a frequent contributor to the team.net Healey list. He is also a writer for Australia's Classic Car magazine. Great Guy, great sense of humor.

 

[john_j]

There's also this one https://www.merlinclassics.co.uk/bn3project.htm

 

[TomFromStLouis]

Whoa! That is one rough looking set of "before" pictures!

 

[Shealey]

Jeeez! that before is sooo much worse than mine! Eeek!

 

[Randy Forbes]

That's the way it's shown in Bill Emerson's book; very rough!

Any "after" pictures?

Interesting to note the longer wheelbase with the "short" doors.

 

[pan]

Interesting that the site lists BN3/4 as "THE" BN3, implying that it is the only one. This mysterious car turned up several years ago, before the passing of Geoff Healey. I understand he wasn't able to provide much information about it, but had earlier been a great help to Patrick Quinn about BN3/1. Was BN3/4 perhaps, another one of BMC's failed experiments with little input from the Healey family?

 

[Editor_Reid]

Interesting that the site lists BN3/4 as "THE" BN3, implying that it is the only one.

Yes, that is odd. Pat Quinn's BN3 is fairly well known, and has been at least twice the subject of major features in the Healey club mags I have edited over the years. Julian Aubanel would <span style="font-style: italic">surely</span> know of it.

This mysterious car turned up several years ago, before the passing of Geoff Healey.

Yes, it was actually before the passing of DMH, too. I recall it as 1986 plus or minus one year. We did a feature on it in the Healey club mag that I was editing at the time. I think I recall that it was Rick Regan or maybe Rich Chrysler - one of the well-known Canadian Healey guys - who unearthed it. I remember thinking at the time that it was going to be an extremely ambitious resto project. Better him than me!

I understand he wasn't able to provide much information about it, but had earlier been a great help to Patrick Quinn about BN3/1.

That's interesting because the Healey family had never intended for these experimental models to make it into circulation. They actually preferred to deny their existence, and even after confronted with the physical fact of their existence, were not happy about it.

Was BN3/4 perhaps, another one of BMC's failed experiments with little input from the Healey family?

I don't think that I would characterize it is a "failed" experiment. It was just an experiment. The supply of A90 engines was about to dry up, and they had to look at alternatives. The BN3(s) was/were part of the process of developing the follow-on model. The 100-Six was of course the result. The Healeys (the family) had many objections to the 100-Six, but really had little choice as BMC was by then in charge.

I also suppose that it is reasonable to conclude that BN3/2 and BN3/3 were well and truly destroyed, as had been the intention for most experimental models. How BN3/4 ever made it to Canada might be an interesting story, although likely one that we will never discover.

 

[healeynut]

This is the BN3 which they experimented with a quarter elliptic spring suspension in the back. Ugly car (when viewed in profile)as the rear fenders are longer than normal...

The worst part of it all was this BN3 was supposed to be an "economy" model with Westiminister engine and a single downdraft (Solex?) carb, all for improved fuel economy & lower production cost. Sounds more like an Austin, less like a Healey!

Apparently it was so gutless than Healey had no desire to put their name on it, and was apparently pushed out of Warwick and sold hoping no one would ever find it!

Guess what, someone found it!

 

[john_j]

To cover a few points made in the last 2 mails -

Yes, Julian does know about Pat's car, but it isn't his website, it's the restorers!

AFAIR GCH denied the existance of BN3/4 despite the photos - I don't know why!?

There is no proof that BN3/2 and BN3/3 existed; it has been assumed that becasue BN3/1 and BN3/4 exist that 2 & 3 must have also existed, but I have heard a suggestion that the 4 doesn't mean it was the 4th in a series, but that it had 4 seats.
This would be like the reason why there are Jag C, D and E types but no A & B, or why Warwick Healeys 0001 to 1500 have never been found ('cos they started at 1501 for some reason!)

Finally, I don't think BN3/4 was the prototype economy model (I'd have to check in a book about that to be sure) it was the prototype 6 cyl 4 seater.

 

[retroRob]

Thanks for all the great insight. I'm trying to learn all I can about the 100 4s and I find this facinating. Do any of you know of any BN1 or 2s that someone has successfully transplanted a Healey 6 cylinder into. (I guess a BN3 "recreation" car)?

 

[pan]

Reid, thanks for your detailed response to my post. I agree, "failed" was overstating the case, but BMC did so many experiments that never saw much of the light of day. Not much different to other large motor manufacturers, really.
John J, BN3/1 is a four (or two plus two) seater.
I have seen several references to the "economy" model Healey six as the BN5, but never any proof.
Personally, I have always doubted the existence of it. The Sprite, introduced in 1958 was designated AN5. The way the Austin Motor Co allocated model numbers is explained in most of the books: B indicates an engine of at least two litre capacity, N indicates a two seater and the numeric indicates the sequence. This formula was not strictly adhered to as the later models came along, but we do have a sort of logical sequence for a while: BN1, BN2, (BN3), BN4, AN5 (where A indicates a 1 litre motor), BN6.
I believe that the Jaguar C-Type started out as the Jaguar XK120C where the C stood for "Competition".

 

[pan]

RetroRob, I found a 100 (can we please stop calling them 100/4s?) in Brisbane once, with a Healey six installed. This car was later returned to standard when it was restored. There was also a 100 fitted with a 3.5 litre Jaguar running around Brisbane in the late sixties. I rode in it once, fantastic acceleration!
One of the two 100 Coupes had a six installed. This car still exists and is featured in Emerson's "The Healey Book".

 

[john_j]

(can we please stop calling them 100/4s?)

I know what you mean, but if we do that don't we have to stop calling any Mk1 a Mk1 as they weren't called that until the Mk11 came out, so we would have to say Sprite for a non-square car, 3000 for the one between the 100/6 and the 3000 mk11 and so on ;-) Confusion would reign!

And, while we're on the subject of mis-naming please can you all stop calling your cars Healeys as that will save me repeatedly having the 'I have a Healey', ''Ah, Austin-Healey', ' No, it's a HEALEY; if it was an Austin-Healey I'd have said so wouldn't I' conversation

 

[zblu]

And my BN1 has an "austin of england" badge on the boot lid, not an "austin healey" badge!

 

[healeynut]

Yes yes, we all now know you are a "Healey" god, we are mere Austin Healey slags!



It is nice when you come down from Mt. Olympus to visit us!

 

[zblu]

settle petal!

 

[Randy Forbes]

Reid, thanks for your detailed response to my post. I agree, "failed" was overstating the case, but BMC did so many experiments that never saw much of the light of day. Not much different to other large motor manufacturers, really.
John J, BN3/1 is a four (or two plus two) seater.
I have seen several references to the "economy" model Healey six as the BN5, but never any proof.
Personally, I have always doubted the existence of it. The Sprite, introduced in 1958 was designated AN5. The way the Austin Motor Co allocated model numbers is explained in most of the books: B indicates an engine of at least two litre capacity, N indicates a two seater and the numeric indicates the sequence. This formula was not strictly adhered to as the later models came along, but we do have a sort of logical sequence for a while: BN1, BN2, (BN3), BN4, AN5 (where A indicates a 1 litre motor), BN6.
I believe that the Jaguar C-Type started out as the Jaguar XK120C where the C stood for "Competition".

You've got to love the exceptions...

"... B indicates an engine of at least two litre capacity..."
The MGA began at 1-1/2 litre, the MGB at 1798cc; both B Series engines (I believe the first were nearer to 1.1 litre in small saloons).

"... N indicates a two seater and the numeric indicates the sequence..."
Unless you include the BN4, actually a two crush two (four) seater.

You can rationalize the British Motor Industry nomenclature all you want, but we all know there isn't any (rationale, that is :wink: ).

As far as declaring what type Healey one is referring to, BN1, BN6, BJ8, etc., has always worked for me. However, I wouldn't know an AN3 from an AN4, even if I stepped on one; and what were the Midget counterparts designated anyway (knowing that they were always a "MK" behind, never having had the Bugeye version)?

Better still, just post the picture:

 

[Silverghost]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:] However, I wouldn't know an AN3 from an AN4, even if I stepped on one; [/QUOTE]

Might I suggest sitting in them versus stepping on them? You might upset the owners by doing the latter.... :laugh:

 

[Randy Forbes]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:] However, I wouldn't know an AN3 from an AN4, even if I stepped on one;

Might I suggest sitting in them versus stepping on them? You might upset the owners by doing the latter.... :laugh: [/QUOTE]

At 5'7"/150#, I consider myself too big to sit in them.

You have to understand, I grew up in MGBs, and their interior is HUGE compared to the Spridgets.