• 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

Big Healey trivia

Share this page

Bob Claffie

Bob Claffie

Jedi Knight
Country flag
Offline
Back in 1959 I bought my first new car and it was an AH BN7. I purchased the car mid April but I was unable to take possession until late June. The reason was that I bought one of the very first 3000's in the country, actually before the public introduction (which I believe was July 1st) and dealers weren't allowed to sell them yet. If only I had the foresight to write down the S/N somewhere.

The trivia part of this post concerns the markings. Although it was a 3 liter with disc brakes (no dust shields), the emblems on both the grille and deck lid were 100/6. At the time I didn't think it unusual but in retrospect maybe so. Could this be a case of "using up the leftovers" ? Bob
 
Could this be a case of "using up the leftovers" ?

_________________________Well Bob, it sure could be as they were known to do that.--Fwiw--Keoke
 
Hi Bob,

In the same vane, was the short run of BJ8P1s a way to use up the BJ7 panels or was the BH8P2 the result of continuing development? This also falls in line with Keoke’s contention.

Ray (64BJ8P1)
 
Phase 2 is the result of government intervention. Raise the car and bigger corner lights. Not so much development as the higher car caused higher center of gravity and then the suspension had to be tightened to compensate. But I guess you could call less exhaust drag an improvement.
 
Germany required the quieter exhaust system while the US required the increase in car height and the addition of the amber turn signal lamps TH.--Fwiw--Keoke
 
I agree with all said, however, my thought is that all the P2 modifications could have been ready for production and introduced in the P1 but would have left a number of prior-production parts unused (rear shroud, lights, reflectors, suspension, calipers, etc.). Consistent with Bob’s contention, the P1 could have been the interim model to test the market and use up parts inventory that would have been replaced.

Ray (64BJ8P1)
 
It could certainly be the case of using up old stock. Equally valid -- and not to be underestimated -- is the fact that mistakes are regularly made in automobile plants. In 2003, I bought a Mustang Mach 1, which was based on the Mustang GT and were build on the same assembly line, but in much smaller numbers. There were no end of mistakes. I had a friend who had a Mach 1 with standard GT rear seats, and another friend who had a car with a Mach 1 rocker panel on the driver's side, and a Cobra panel on the passenger side. There was a list on a popular Mach 1 forum about all the mistakes that cars exhibited. If computerized Ford could make such obvious mistakes in 2003, I have no doubt that cash-strapped BMC -- with its total reliance on hand-building -- made more than its fair share of mistakes. Perhaps on the day your car rolled down the line, the chap who was in charge of filling up the bin with badges grabbed the wrong box.
 
Well Bob, without the vin numbers it's hard to say. However, I too owned a AH BN7 '60 model and the numbers were H-BN7-L/5423 and it was produced November 1959. I did have the correct 3000 tags both front and rear. With the intro of the new 1960 3000 models my guess would be BMC wouldn't make such a mistake. Just my IMHO.
 
Johnny, the only point I was making was that my car was a legitimate BN6 sold to me in May of 1959, predating the introduction of the 3000 by a month or two but it was equipped with the 3 liter engine and disc brakes. The emblems were just a "curiosity". Bob
 
Back
Top