XK150 vs Healey 3000

[RAC68]

Hi All

XK150 vs AH3000, an intriguing comparison.

Although I admire and appreciate the timeline technologyencased within the early XK models, for the most part and because of XK150’s highcost and attention to driving comfort, I still feel it is one ofthe nicest "Banker's Sports Car". This is not to diminish theXK in any way and, from my perspective, places it in a category populatedwith such cars as Mercedes SLs (after the 300SL), and a number of otherexpensive mass produced sports cars.

In concert with seeing the XK150 as a Bankers Sports Car, I have experiencedits owners more apt to have financially arrived and more incline to ask"Who does your work?" Please don’tmisunderstand, I love the Jaguar XK and although some of its elegant characteristicshave been approached by the interior design of the BJ8, I see my Healey more asa British hot rod and, as such, owner involvement is a given.

My comparison,
Ray (64BJ8P1)

 

[Keoke]

I love the ad for the 1957XK150 FHC built in 1959.

Well John:
Thats kinda like the 1967 BJ8 built in 1968-----:highly_amused:

 

[Michael Oritt]

Not to rain on this parade, but....

In their marches towards obsolesence both Jaguar and Healey devolved from relatively pure British roadsters to Boulevard Sports Cars. The addition of creature comforts such as roll-up windows and convertible tops came at the cost of performance and economy and for a while both companies were able to sell sizzle in the place of steak.

It is not a coincidence that both cars fell by the wayside just about the time that more modern vehicles such as the Porsche 911 and Datsun 240 Z hit the streets. BMC scrapped the Healey and tried to stay in the market without making any real changes by offering the MGB. Jaguar started from a clean piece of paper with the E series. But, as with similar virtual monopolies in the performance bicycle and motorcycle markets, the British Auto industry lost its way and never regained its once-dominant position. Technology trumped tradition.

Don't get me wrong--I love to own and drive older LBC's and fortunately or unfortunately I have four of them. But while the Jaguar and BMC were concentrating on interior and exterior trim and substituting displacement for development the world kept spinning. Both of these cars were at their best when they were first introduced and, like that great looking high school cheerleader, neither aged very gracefully.

 

[shortsguy1]

I agree and disagree with Michael all at the same time. Clearly later Healeys were not technological wonders. I have a late 60s entry level Mercedes sedan, and with its 4 wheel disc brakes and independent suspension, it is technically quite a bit more advanced than my similarly aged BJ8. But since the focus for later Healeys was on aesthetics, I think they have aged rather well. Most people I know still consider them a very attractive car.

 

[Keoke]

I agree and disagree with Michael all at the same time. Clearly later Healeys were not technological wonders. I have a late 60s entry level Mercedes sedan, and with its 4 wheel disc brakes and independent suspension, it is technically quite a bit more advanced than my similarly aged BJ8. But since the focus for later Healeys was on aesthetics, I think they have aged rather well.

Most people I know still consider them a very attractive car.

---Me TOO--"N" The 240 Z Used a Healey for a model----:highly_amused:

 

[Michael Oritt]

I only used the 240 Z as an example of where the British missed the boat--or perhaps fell overboard--but in any case the Z had four-wheel independent suspension and a SOHC engine, both of which were significant advancements over the pushrod/live-axled Jags and Healeys.

And if we are talking only about styling I will stick to my guns and say that BOTH the Healey and Jaguars slid down the aesthetic pole. I have never heard anyone say they preferred the looks of the later cars even as they rolled up the windows and pulled the convertible tops into place.

 

[Keoke]

Well Michael in support of you----:highly_amused:

Today in the AZ Republic news paper a "cars at casa" show in Chandler AZ is being held which will feature European exotics and pre 1975 foreign muscle cars such as ----.Lamborghini Avendor

OH: we have a poster from Tucson he may go and let us know if any Healeys showed up we will see???

1954 Austin-Healey 100 Lemans Now that is

 

[LarryK]

By the time the 240Z came out Jaguar was all IRS. Even Triumph had IRS in the 70s just not multiple link. Austin Healey had moved on. Closest to the English would be the Toyota 2000GT but still after in dating.

 

[shortsguy1]

... I have never heard anyone say they preferred the looks of the later cars even as they rolled up the windows and pulled the convertible tops into place.

My understanding of the history may be wrong, but I was under the impression that Donald Healey preferred the styling of the later cars. Supposedly, he disliked the front end of the original model enough that they debuted the car at the Earls Court car show with its nose against a pole or wall. I also thought that was why the front grill on the 100S didn't match the earlier cars.

 

[DerekJ]

Donald did have some concern about the shape of the grill, but that was all. The 100 was a masterpiece of style and was unanimously praised at the show with no negative comments about the grill. Jerry Coker then came up with a very nice solution to accommodate the 6 cylinder engine and four seats, which looks even better in the 2 seat format. The BJ7/BJ8 was maybe a step too far. It did not prove possible to fully integrate the folding top and wind up windows without compromising the pure shape of the earlier models. The Phase 11 rear suspension didn't help the looks either. Style wise the comparison would be the Series 1 E-Type compared to the V12 model.

 

[Michael Oritt]

Shortsguy is partly correct in that the 100's initial grille design, which had a slight peak in the center of the the top arch, was not to Donald Healey's liking. The change, though slight, seemed to have done the trick and the rest is history.

As to the progressive (?) development of the car's design--what Derek says.

 

[shortsguy1]

Thanks, guys, for clarifying. Somehow, in my mind, I had morphed DH's dislike of the grille peak into a dislike of the entire shape.

 

[HealeyRick]

I think we're forgetting market demands in the evolution of the Healeys. The 100s and the Bugeye were certainly the purest of the sports car concept and are the most prized now that they are used for enjoyment rather than primary transportation. But the Bugeye evolved to have a trunk and wind up windows because that's what consumers wanted. Same thing with the four seater and convertible Healeys. BMC thought they could sell more with +2 seating and for those of us living in colder climates the idea of having wind up windows and a more weatherproof top were a huge attraction. For those of you who've never driven a side curtained Healey through a snowy, cold winter, it's an experience to be forgotten. I think it would have been tough for Healeys to compete with MGBs and TR4s unless they evolved with "modern amenities."

 

[glemon]

Nother to pick too much at nits here, but Donald didn't like the original grill (which echoed the kite shape found on the pre Austin/BMC Healeys). Coker revised it, Healey liked it better, but still had reservations.https://www.hemmings.com/hsx/stories/2007/09/01/hmn_feature2.html

When I was younger I always liked the later oval grilled cars better, in fact not far from where I grew up there was a house with half a dozen or so derelict rusty Healeys, being young, car crazy, and relatively poor, I looked on this lot with youthful enthusiasm and hope everytime I drove by. Anyway, a couple of the cars had what I at the time thought were funny looking grills, I knew about 3000s and later learned the "funny looking" cars were 100s. As I said they have since grown on me, a lot.

As far as the design and engineering, the British were at the top of their game in the 50s. The XK120 offered style and performance you could only get elsewhere for twice as much money, the TR2, when first tested, would out drag any stock American car to 60 mph, or so the road test said. The AH100 must have looked like a spaceship compared to the square rigged MGs and tall bulbous American cars that were it's contemporaries. By the 60s American cars had gone through a revolution, with compact, cheap, and relatively light V-8s offering 300 plus horsepower. British designs mostly just evolved slowly, with, for example, the Triumph TR range and big Healey line shaving at most a couple of seconds off of their 0-60 times in their many years of production, and were eventually selling on drop top fun, quirky charm, and past glory.

I love the cars as much as anybody, but as the cost of designing and tooling new cars increased dramatically from the seat of the pants engineering of a few talented blokes and a shed that created the Healeys and TRs and went to complicated uni body construction (there is a reason the MGB soldiered on forever) the low volume British car industry didn't have the capital it needed to invest in modern design and tooling.

 

[Michael Oritt]

I think we're forgetting market demands in the evolution of the Healeys. The 100s and the Bugeye were certainly the purest of the sports car concept and are the most prized now that they are used for enjoyment rather than primary transportation. But the Bugeye evolved to have a trunk and wind up windows because that's what consumers wanted. Same thing with the four seater and convertible Healeys. BMC thought they could sell more with +2 seating and for those of us living in colder climates the idea of having wind up windows and a more weatherproof top were a huge attraction. For those of you who've never driven a side curtained Healey through a snowy, cold winter, it's an experience to be forgotten. I think it would have been tough for Healeys to compete with MGBs and TR4s unless they evolved with "modern amenities."

Rick--

I agree 100%, and perhaps because the Brits had such a hold on the US foreign car market it was a victim of its own success: In order to stay attractive to US buyers Triumphs, Healeys, Jags, etc. all went down the same road adding more creature comforts but not much more. By the time the Brits started making innovations--IRS, OHC engines, etc--the Japanese and Germans had come up with cars that were just as comfortable but more innovative. The same thing happened on an even larger scale in the motorcycle market. In the 50's and early 60's it was Triumph and BSA with Norton, Ariel and a few others taking the crumbs. A few years later Honda, Yamaha, etc. came along and simply knocked the British out.

Maybe the lesson is that while chasing the competition it is always good to look at who is at the back of the pack gaining on you. Our auto industry suffered badly from the same myopia and only when it decided to compete in the world market did it start making good cars.

I apologize for hijacking this string and I guess my point is simply that styling changes and roll-up windows alone meant nothing in the big picture.

 

[stuntflyr]

I always preferred four seat late model Healeys because of my age, I think. I was 6 years old in 1965 and saw them new, liked the back seats and thought they looked like a flying saucer with a hardtop.
My parents had a 140 FHC and it was a big TR to me, but with a ton of power. I liked E-Types, must be the age thing again.
My mom bought a new 65 MGB and I bought it from her, I think I still have it because of its balance of sport and practical features. My buddy had a TR-3 and he sold it to buy a new Fiat 128 to go to school, I drove the MG. It was just that much more practical than a side curtain car, or a frame on car with all of their various directional differences during operation.��
Chris...