BJ7 Mark II with BJ8 Dash

[Jersey]

Does anyone know if any of the BJ& Mark II's were outfitted with the glove compartment of the later BJ8? I bought the BJ7 from a guy who said it was the original dash and that sometime Healey would use the next models' parts if they ran short of the part for the prior model. I could see that happening with engine fittings and hardware, but not the basic interior.

I am dubious and about to set about getting the dash restored the BJ7 "open shelf" look.

Anybody ever heard of this happening in a BJ7 Mark II?

Jersey

 

[HealeyRick]

Nope, Nope, Nope, Nope, Nope.

At best, there might be some minor leftover parts,like emblems (and maybe BN1 fenders on BN2s IIRC), from a previous model used but I can't see how they'd be using parts from the next model. I've learned to say never when it comes to Healeys, but I think someone is telling a tale. That said, some folks did convert their BJ7s to the later dash and console.

 

[RAC68]

Hi Jersey,

As I understand, a few very early BJ8 Phase 1s were put out as 3000 mark 2 BJ7s. Although I am not secure this is correct, I do remember the confusion at the dealer when I ordered a BJ7 and a BJ8 Phase 1 was delivered. However, since my serial number is 26618L, it appears my BJ8 was manufactured close to the end of the Phase 1 run and could not have been one of these late BJ7 mark II transition models.

Although your BJ7 could be one of these scarce transition models, I would contact Steve Byers - BJ8 Registry (byers@cconnect.net) and/or Tom Blaskovics - BJ7 Registry (tomkayb@verizon.net) to validate the existence of this transition BJ7/8 model and the possibility that you have one. However, I would not put too much hope in this being your answer as it is even more probable that a previous owner installed some BJ8 interior components in the BJ7.

Good luck,
Ray (64BJ8P1)

 

[CLEAH]

Jersey, are you saying you have a vinyl covered dash on the left, and a wood faced dash with the glove box on the right? If so, there is no way the factory did that. In any event, a picture would be informative.

 

[Jersey]

I have wood on the left and right, but I suspect this is a conversion. Thanks to all who responded ...I will check with the registry.

Jersey

 

[vette]

Jersey, One tell tail might be if you look at the wiring behind the dash. Some of the switches and such in the Bj8 dash are in a different position than they would be in a BJ7. If so then to install the BJ8 dash in a BJ7 would require splicing out and extending some wires to reach the new locations of the BJ8 dash. If your wiring harness looks like it has been spliced and extended to certain switches with a less than factory looking appearance, then I would suspect that the dash was installed sometime much after the car left the factory.

 

[CLEAH]

I'd also order up a BMIHT certificate to see if there are any special notations.

 

[BJ8Healeys]

Hi Jersey,

As I understand, a few very early BJ8 Phase 1s were put out as 3000 mark 2 BJ7s. Although I am not secure this is correct, I do remember the confusion at the dealer when I ordered a BJ7 and a BJ8 Phase 1 was delivered. However, since my serial number is 26618L, it appears my BJ8 was manufactured close to the end of the Phase 1 run and could not have been one of these late BJ7 mark II transition models.

Although your BJ7 could be one of these scarce transition models, I would contact Steve Byers - BJ8 Registry (byers@cconnect.net) and/or Tom Blaskovics - BJ7 Registry (tomkayb@verizon.net) to validate the existence of this transition BJ7/8 model and the possibility that you have one. However, I would not put too much hope in this being your answer as it is even more probable that a previous owner installed some BJ8 interior components in the BJ7.

Good luck,
Ray (64BJ8P1)

All of the Phase 1 cars (chassis 25315 through 26704) are accounted for, and none of them were issued as BJ7s. I have personally seen more than one BJ7 that has had a BJ8 wood dash retrofitted. I have also seen one of these whose owner claimed it was that way from the factory, but he was not the original owner and had no proof of it. Just today I came across another BJ8 with the VIN and body plates from another car. There are just simply an incredible number of Healeys today that are not what left the factory, usually a surprise to the current owner.
By the way, Ray, "byers@cconnect.net" has been obsolete since 2003. My new e-mail address (since then) is sbyers@ec.rr.com. I do appreciate it when you direct someone my way whom you think I might be able to help. Thanks!

 

[Jersey]

That settles it..I have a conversion...HBJ7L23134 is the serial number...clearly outside the range of the Phase I cars.

Thanks all.

Jersey

 

[pan]

G'day Jersey,
Regarding Cleah"s suggestion about a BMIHT certificate, I wouldn't put too much faith in the accuracy of that document. I saw one recently for an obviously 1954 built 100 and the despatch date was listed as March, 1953.
Longbridge production did not commence until May '53 and this car was definitely not one of the "first twenty" Warwick built cars.
Your photo shows un-matched instruments as well.
We have a BJ7 in the Queensland AH club that was fitted with a BJ8 dash sometime after market. That car was imported to Australia from California about twenty years ago, so we can presume that such an update was not unheard of.
Cheers,
Alwyn

 

[SideShifter Tri-Carb]

I believe the reason he has mismatched instruments stems from the mechanical tach that is stock on the BJ7. To use the BJ8 tach, he would need some inductance output from the distributor. Just an assumption, but I'm guessing that the dizzy on a bj7 is a DM6A like the earlier cars. I know the BJ8 dizzy is different.

 

[BJ8Healeys]

G'day Jersey,
Regarding Cleah"s suggestion about a BMIHT certificate, I wouldn't put too much faith in the accuracy of that document. I saw one recently for an obviously 1954 built 100 and the despatch date was listed as March, 1953.

As a part of the BJ8 Registry, I collect BMIHT certificates for a car whenever they are available. There are 897 of them currently in the collection. I have many certs that were obtained by different people at different times for the same car, and the data is not always the same (e.g., the same optional equipment is not always listed, the same engine is listed for two different cars, etc., etc.). Errors, typographical and otherwise, are made on the certs far too frequently considering what BMIHT is asking for them now. They say that they will replace a certificate for no charge if the mistakes are shown to them, but many people would not recognize the errors unless they had something to compare them with.

It is good to have BMIHT as a resource, and certainly better to have access to the original manufacturing details than not. However, "Trust, but verify".