The 100M & the Le Mans Kit & all that rot

[HealeyRick]

The "Green Zone" cars seems just crazy to me. I can understand the difference in value between a car fitted with the LeMans kit without high compression pistons and a car fitted at the factory with the kit and the high compression pistons (Does that mean there is room for another category called "Factory LeMans"?). But if I am reading this correctly, there are BN2s (and BN1s) manufactured before the build records started with the annotation "louvered bonnet" that are identical in every way (except when the bonnet was louvered) with the 640 cars that have the annotation? Yet those 640 cars have a higher value? That's just plain nuts. I guess Reid will say the market has spoken, but I'm reminded of a phrase about the law that I've modified a bit: "If that is the market, the market is an ass."

 

[Editor_Reid]

The "Green Zone" cars seems just crazy to me. I can understand the difference in value between a car fitted with the LeMans kit without high compression pistons and a car fitted at the factory with the kit and the high compression pistons (Does that mean there is room for another category called "Factory LeMans"?). But if I am reading this correctly, there are BN2s (and BN1s) manufactured before the build records started with the annotation "louvered bonnet" that are identical in every way (except when the bonnet was louvered) with the 640 cars that have the annotation? Yet those 640 cars have a higher value? That's just plain nuts. I guess Reid will say the market has spoken, but I'm reminded of a phrase about the law that I've modified a bit: "If that is the market, the market is an ass."

Not exactly. Yes, there are BN1 cars modified at the Donald Healey Motor Company to the same specs as the cars named 100M (all of which are BN2) that were produced before the "Louvered bonnet" notation and they are identical in every way to the BN2 cars with the "Louvered bonnet" notation ("the 640") except that:

• They are BN1 series cars.
• They were made before the name 100M was created and used.
• There are no factory records to indicate which cars were so modified.

The market values provenance and documentation. It also seems to like the separate model name that was created coincidental with the beginning of BN2 production and the new contract with Jensen to louver the bonnets before they were delivered to Austin. Some may argue that this is a case of a "distinction without a difference," but the market begs to differ. It is the reason that some unscrupulous types seek to blur the differences and award the name 100M to any BN1 or BN2 that never passed through the Donald Healey Motor Company but that has as little as a couple elements of a Le Mans Engine Modification Kit installed.

If the specs of a car - and not the history - were all that mattered, then we could remanufacture the 100M bits and install them on standard cars today, and they should be just as valuable as the ones modified at the Donald Healey Motor Company in the mid-1950s. But they're not. They'd be "clones" or "tributes" or "resto-mods" (or frauds). These cars are not merely a collection of parts that happen to be screwed together. They are historical objects.

That is why an original Picasso is worth more than an expert copy of one. Some may proclaim, "They both look the same, so what's the difference!" But of course no knowledgable historian takes such people seriously.

I agree that the premium typically paid for a 100M is high. A documented 100M is worth roughly twice what a standard car is worth, or even more. That seems like a very big difference to me, given that the performance wasn't that much different, but it's not about performance. It's about rarity (relative) and documented provenance. It may not be worth much to some, but it is worth much to others, and the people who set the market are those who buy an item and not those who refuse to buy it.

 

[magman]

Yes HealeyRick it is nuts and even though there are probably few cars in this group they should be recognized for what they are. Some of us out here think it is a travesty to perpetuate a myth.
To go along with Healey 100 and HealeyRick's postings I am going to print an excerpt from page 91 of "The Healey Story" for those that don't have a copy. I do urge them to get the book. There available used usually [unless there is a sudden run on them.]:eagerness:

 

[HealeyRick]

Magman - Your post sent me to my bookshelf to fetch my copy of The Healey Story. I find this quote from page 90 interesting as well:

"The first batches of "100M" models were produced with vehicles coming direct to Warwick where we removed the bonnets and sent these in batches to Jensen who removed the reinforcing so they could press the louvres into them. The reinforcing was refitted and the bonnets repainted and returned to Warwick by Jensen."

This would seem to me to support the argument that the 100M had already been designated as a model prior to the institution of the "prelouvering" process and that these cars, if they could be documented, would rightfully be called 100Ms. I'm assuming the bonnets that were returned to Jensen were repainted and returned to the car they came from with the same body number stamped on the hood as the rest of the body (an assumption I know, but it seems that would be the easiest way to make sure there wouldn't be any fitting problems with a bonnet that didn't match up to the shroud. So wouldn't an early BN2 with a louvered bonnet and matching body numbers be a good indicator of a BN2 that fit into this category?

I also think it's important to note that the definition of the 640 cars being the "true" M wasn't possible until the 1980s when John Wheatley got access to the build cards and found the "louvered bonnet" notation. I'd also note that AFAIK, there are no factory records that have the word "100M" on them. I have a feeling that if Healey experts in the 1970s found a car with high compression pistons and the full LeMans kit with matching body and bonnet numbers with a bent shroud brace it would have been deemed a "genuine factory M" regardless of the production date.

So with all respect to the M experts, which I readily admit I'm not, Geoffrey's book seems to support the argument that there is a category of true M's that aren't documented by the build cards and the 640 number may be an underreporting.

Is this correct, or am I missing something?

 

[CLEAH]

But Rick, I don't think that anyone disputes that there were cars built that had their bonnets sent back to Jensen. 60 years later, they are undocumented. In the market, the documented ones win. More unfortunate than the relative few that were not documented are the many hundreds of documented ones that are lost.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that in Browning and Needham's book "Healeys and Austin Healeys" which was published in 1970, they said "The '100M' could be purchased from Warwick as a factory-modified BN2, or owners could buy the 'Le Mans' engine conversion kit and have it fitted to their own cars." This must have been one of the first books devoted to Healeys and as early as that, there was the clear distinction between M's and Le Mans kits. I am not bringing this up as anything having to do with the "pre-M" issue being debated, just that we probably all have gone to our respective libraries and read all we can on this most interesting subject!

 

[Healey 100]

I agree with Hugh and Reid, the documentation of the 640 pre-louvered cars definitely carries weight and value with collectors -- with the slight caveat that Geoff Healey suggested a few of the 640 cars may not have become 100M's.

But market value is not the issue I have raised. The question is what is or is not a 100M. I think Geoff Healey's writings make clear that the 640 were not the only factory built 100M's.

 

[magman]

This is the crux of the matter as far as I am concerned. I am not trying to equate a car pricewise if it is without the valuable notation on its card, the market has spoken. Such a car would face the need to establish it credentials otherwise if it could. As to how that could be done is an open question and would depend on many factors. As HealeyRick says above "So wouldn't an early BN2 with a louvered bonnet and matching body numbers be a good indicator of a BN2 that fit into this category?" That seems to be a necessary starting point. But the first step has to be the recognition that such a class of cars exist. As far as market values go, it only reflects the "party line" and doesn't prove or disprove anything. And as Healey 100 said "But market value is not the issue I have raised. The question is what is or is not a 100M." Exactly!:wink-new:

 

[CLEAH]

Magman, is there a specific car you are aware of that has been harmed by this "travesty" as you put it earlier? And what is the remedy that you propose? By now, the argument is starting to sound like that of the unicorn--supposedly they exist, but no one has seen them. The Healeys did not keep records, or they were lost. So, at this point in time, it is not unreasonable to reserve the name 100M for the cars that are documented.

 

[judow]

I think Reid's chart is indeed fact and the continued argument of what is or is not an "M" is quite frankly, boring. As Reid says the market speaks for itself. If the BMHIT documents a Healey as a a 100 "M', then it's a 100 "M". The bottom line is it's a Healey and needs to be enjoyed for what it is. The only time the "M" designation might become important is if the caretaker/owner is willing to sell it. As for me and Agatha, I am hopeful that she will be a part of me until I am no more and then my daughter will carry on (or not).

 

[HealeyRick]

This is an interesting discussion and I'm not trying to muddy the waters or undermine Reid's efforts to lay this out with clarity. As I said, I'm not a 100M expert, don't have a dog in the fight, but am just interested in the history. I've carefully read all the posts and understand the stated arguments. If I've made a wrong assumption, please feel free to correct it. Here's my points:

1. I totally agree with the conclusion that the only cars that can be documented as 100Ms are the 640 (more or less) that can be identified with "louvered bonnet" on the build card and as such, are given greater monetary value by collectors

2. If you use the build card notation as the lodestar of what constitutes a 100M, then no BN1 qualify as such. And given the proximity between the beginning of BN2 production with the appearance of the London Motor Show car, I believe it is a fair assumption that the "prelouvering" also began with the introduction of the BN2 and the likelihood of a BN2 100M that was not prelouvered is likely slim to none (this is not what I posited earlier, as I overlooked how close to the beginning of BN2 production the 100M appeared.

3. So here's another topic of discussion: I don't consider the "louvered bonnet" notation to be necessarily dispositive. Jensen was merely the builder of the body. They had no role in naming the car the 100M. In fact, nowhere on the build card does the term 100M exist. It was, from what we can read in The Healey Story, Donald who named the car the 100M. The best evidence of what was considered an M would come from Donald himself. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, there is no such evidence. And certainly there are no internal memos that have ever been shown that would establish when DHMC started using the term 100M. But that's not to say they didn't exist, it only means they were probably destroyed with the dissolution of Healey production.

4. But this is interesting. Gary Anderson wrote an article entitled "The Heritage of the 100M" in the September-October 2012 issue of the Austin-Healey Magazine which states:

The Le Mans Modification Kit
. Following Jaguar’s lead with its own modified cars, DMH introduced a kit of tuning parts in late
1953 called the Le Mans Modification Kit, which was marketed under part number P.280 through BMC dealers. A two-page brochure was made up that advertised the Le Mans
Modification Kit. .....
Ever the marketer, soon after the kit was designed, DMH had begun a nice sideline business at his own dealership in Warwick. . Not only did he install the Le Mans Modification Kit on customers’ cars, but he also offered some options, including louvering on the bonnet and a neat little M badge that could be affixed with integrated wires to the 100 flash on the grille. At some point, DMH also began offering high-compression pistons, with a smaller dished area in the face of the piston, as an additional tuning option to further increase power. Testing of the kit with the high-com-pression pistons indicated a yield of 110 horsepower.

Unfortunately, Gary doesn't give a citation for the information that the M was being fixed to cars by DMH "soon after the kit was designed" and on cars with low compression pistons.

And with that, I'll butt out.

 

[CLEAH]

Rick, I'm not sure why Gary Anderson says it that way in that particular paragraph because later he makes some pretty definitive statements, not least of which is: "Since that time, those BN2's that were modified during the production process--the only units that build records suggest might have been completed as 100Ms without rewriting history since the term didn't exist until October 1955, and then was only used for cars sold from BMC with the modifications already installed--have taken on almost mythic significance." (Emphasis mine.)

 

[magman]

Cleah: " Magman, is there a specific car you are aware of that has been harmed by this "travesty" as you put it earlier? And what is the remedy that you propose? By now, the argument is starting to sound like that of the unicorn--supposedly they exist, but no one has seen them. The Healeys did not keep records, or they were lost. So, at this point in time, it is not unreasonable to reserve the name 100M for the cars that are documented."

I don't know of any car that has been harmed. That has nothing to do with the discussion really. The point is the claim that only the 640 cars with the notation on their card are 100Ms and that this is all that were ever built. If you wish to ignore Geoffery Healey that is for you to decide. I think that is a wee bit strange considering who he was and what his involvement with the issue was but its a free country. Donald also wrote some on this and it agrees with Geoff's statements. Whether there were very many cars that would qualify as 100Ms that could be excluded by the 640 number and whether any have survived is not really relevant. It is about honestly looking at the available information that we have and trying to come up with a rational decision on what squares with the written record. It is obvious that opinions differ. Some say this is boring, fair enough, don't read this thread. To others it is interesting and to a few of us it is important. As to unicorns, I am of the opinion they are a beautiful mythical creature. 100Ms do exist, we just disagree on the head count.

In some of the above post I see a bit of confusion creeping in. DHMC started modifying customer cars in August 1953. Little by little over the next two years parts were developed and added to the mix. In 1955 they created the Le Mans kit P.280. At the same time the 100M came to be and also the BN-2. No 100Ms were BN-1s except a prototype. All 100Ms had to be converted prior to sale, period. You could buy a car and order it modified at Warwick and have all the same work done but it is not a 100M. Geoffery has been known to call all modified Healeys with the kit installed 100Ms but that is not correct for the way we now use the term. For one thing 100Ms have more than just the kit. And yes, only a car that can be documented should be recognized as a 100M. This discussion is about what qualifies as acceptable proof. Certainly that notation on the job card trumps just about anything else.

 

[RandyHicks]

No 100Ms were BN-1s except a prototype.

Can you give me the specifics on that "prototype"?

Randy

 

[RandyHicks]

And yes, only a car that can be documented should be recognized as a 100M. This discussion is about what qualifies as acceptable proof. Certainly that notation on the job card trumps just about anything else.

I have only seen one car (blt. 20 April, '55) with documentation of Le Mans modifications built before the 640. On the original sales invoice it states, under Model, "LeMans" -"Factory Installed". This car was not a 100M but a "Le Mans". That is how they were know in the day and to call them anything else is absurd.

Does anyone else have any documents to back up a Le Mans Kit upgrade done by the DHMC? I would love to see the wording.

I do have a couple cars in the Registry that are noted as being fitted with Le Mans kits at Warwick, (as early as Feb. 1954), but have not seen any hard copy.

Randy

 

[Editor_Reid]

Geoffery (sic) has been known to call all modified Healeys with the kit installed 100Ms but that is not correct for the way we now use the term. For one thing 100Ms have more than just the kit. And yes, only a car that can be documented should be recognized as a 100M. This discussion is about what qualifies as acceptable proof. Certainly that notation on the job card trumps just about anything else.

Very glad to read that you now agree with at least some of what I have been saying all along.

I have been trying to describe the results of my research that reveals that the first use of the term "100M" is in the 1955 London Motor Show Official Catalogue. I welcome citations of earlier use of the name, but until we have those, I do not choose to retroactively bestow the name 100M on cars that were made before the name was created. I am only trying to record accurate history.

It seems clear to me that when Geoff used the term "100M" in his 1996 book, that he was using it somewhat carelessly by including all of the cars modified to the 100M spec before the name 100M came into use. (By the way, Geoff passed away in 1993 and the book published in 1996 was completed by his wife and daughters. One really must look beyond and beneath the face value of statements - particularly those based on 40-year old recollections - if you want to do scholarly research to establish accurate history. If you want to accept everything that someone says as the last word on a subject and close your mind to additional facts, then you're not a scholar, you're just a celebrity devotee and serious people will not take you seriously.)

Here are some additional facts to consider for those who care about such things and enjoy sorting out historical riddles:

• There are 640 job production cards (all for BN2s) with the "Louvered bonnet" notation. I accept that these are 100M cars.
• There is a primary source (I use the Princeton University definition of primary source) in the form of a poster titled "Healey History" that was included with the November 1967 edition of Safety Fast magazine (the BMC publication for the MG and Austin-Healey Clubs, when the clubs were operated by the factory), and on that poster it states that the 100M was built 1955-56 and that there were "Approx. 1200 built." It describes the 100M as, "Le Mans conversion, available either as a Donald Healey modified BN2 or as an engine conversion kit which could be purchased and fitted by owners." So this poster does not differentiate between a car with the full M conversion done at the Donald Healey Motor Company and a car that is merely fitted by the Le Mans Kit by an owner. We no longer accept this all-encompassing use of the name 100M and reserve it for those cars that received the full 100M spec (more than just the Le Mans Kit) and that it must have been done at the Donald Healey Motor Company. What I find interesting, however, is that they state that these cars (a) are all BN2 models, and (b) that they were made 1955-56, which would correspond to the time frame that the BN2 was made. Of course it also includes early 1955, when the BN1 was still under production, and the poster says that "approx. 1,200 were made, so one could infer that approx. 560 (1,200 minus 640) BN1s were modified to the 100M spec. But wait, the poster also said that all of them were BN2s. No theory I have heard reconciles the differences, so we might logically conclude that there is an error there, and it seems most likely to be the figure "Approx. 1,200."
• In the back of Geoff's less-often quoted book from 1978, there is a table in the back that states that 1,159 100Ms were made 1955-56. So if there are 640 BN2s made into 100Ms, you might deduce that there were 519 BN1s modified to the 100M specification in the January-July 1955 time frame when BN1 were still being made and before the BN2. But wait, that same table states that all 1,159 of those 100Ms were BN2s. Well, we now know that there were 640 BN2s made into 100Ms. So perhaps the figure 1,159 is just - dare I say it? - an error in Geoff's book? Or perhaps it means something else completely? We don't know Geoff's source for the figure 1,159, but we do know that it is wildly inaccurate as the number of BN2/100M cars modified at the Donald Healey Motor Company 1955-56.
• Could there be other errors in Geoff's book? Other imprecise generalizations, such as calling all cars modified at the Donald Healey Motor Company "100M" including those made to the M spec before the name was created? This is why we have to look at all of the available facts, what their source is, when they originated (when the cars were being made, or 40 years later), and correlate them and draw reasonable conclusions. I could cite several other errors in Geoff's books (such as, he stated that all 100Ms were two-tones), but my point is not pick on his books, it is to illustrate that his books are but one source, and they were written decades after the events and they sometimes do not correlate with primary sources. If your attitude is, "Geoff wrote it and that's the end of the story," then you are cordially excused from the research team; you're fan, not a researcher.

 

[magman]

Well Reid, for your information I have always agreed with you on everything other than the claim on your part that the 100M model name came to be with the bonnets being pre-louvered at Jensen. Actually I didn't disagree even on that at the time, I was curious about your source as I thought it was otherwise from my understanding of what I have read. I was willing to be informed and change my mind. How that gets twisted into some general disagreement on "what I have been saying all along" is beyond me. I get the feeling from all this back and forth that you took that as a personal challenge to your authority, it was not my intention. I see a certain animosity in the above post towards me personally that is unnecessary. "If your attitude is, "Geoff wrote it and that's the end of the story," then you are cordially excused from the research team; you're fan, not a researcher." That is a bit harsh and you know it is. I feel that the dismissal out of hand of what he wrote surprising considering who he was. The part of the book I posted earlier is about the creation of the 100Ms and one really needs the book to get the true feel for the context. To mix other quotes from other places just muddies the water. Geoff did use the term 100M for other than the factory built cars, he was doing it before they were even created. This is common knowledge. They were tying little "Ms" on cars at times at DHMC supposedly but that wouldn't make them a 100M by our current use of the term. It is not a very substantial reason to disregard his comments in the context that they appear in his book. To bring in the possibility that his wife or daughter might be responsible for the statement is surprising when it is seems so pure Geoff. I admit to being a fan of his, and his dad and Healey lore in general. That's why I own a Healey, love it, feel a connection to the men and times that created it. I am not ashamed of that and don't think it should be used to imply I am blind to facts and reason, or that I am a "celebrity devotee". I, on the other hand, never claimed I was a "scholar" or a "researcher" so I don't mind being kicked out of your exclusive club. Enough has been posted here to allow any interested individuals to go over it and make up their own minds or delve into it further if they wish. Opinions will vary, that doesn't mean they are wrong.

 

[Healey 100]

Reid:

All facts and sources are subject to interpretation and challenge. It is the nature of research. No doubt, there are errors in Geoff Healey's writings and most anything written about the Austin Healey. But the writings are what they are and people are going to challenge and interpret them differently. I am not into idolizing the Healey family. But I think the writings of someone who was actually there and who was a leader in the design and production process has to carry a lot of weight.

I find it odd to use the announcement at the 1955 Earls Court show as when the 100M came into existence. This is an automobile production business. Do you suppose the Mustang was introduced to the public when the name was conceived and production started? No, there were many built well before that date so that folks would actually get to buy the new offering. So Geoff Healey's statement that production began well before the motor show makes sense to me.

I have seen the number of 1159 BN2 based 100M's in several publications, including the back of Healey's book. I have not seen any rationale for it. In the 100M chapter, Healey doesn't assign any number for the early 100M's he says were built prior to the 640. He just said production was running for some time before they decided to get Jensen to pre-louver the bonnets. I suppose the 1159 number could be wrong and unsupported by any other documentation, I can accept that. I have not been arguing about numbers, except to challenge the oft-repeated statement that there were only 640 factory built 100M's.

I don't claim to be any sort of Healey expert or researcher, nor do I want to be. I just enjoy reading about the history of the marque. To me, uncertainty is part of the charm of all Healey's, a relatively low production car with fairly casual production controls. I admit that I grate on attempts to solidify a manufacturing history that was rather vague in 1955 and is still is today.

 

[magman]

To finally answer Randy's question from a few days ago........."Can you give me the specifics on that "prototype"? ..... All I know is that in "The Healey Story" Geoffrey writes the following on page 89...."We built up a prototype "M" for DMH's approval using a production BN-1 vehicle"