A Big Healey History: The Austin-Healey 100, 100-6, and 3000

THE HUNDRED BECOMES THE AUSTIN-HEALEY 100

In October, Healey entered the prototype Hundred in the 1952 International Motor Show at Earls Court in London. Shortly before the show, Donald Healey had an attack of last-minute second thoughts about the design, particularly the front end. Since it was too late to make any more changes, he positioned the prototype on its stand so that the nose pointed toward a row of ornamental shrubbery, making it difficult for spectators to get a close look.

1953 Austin-Healey 100 front
The Austin-Healey 100’s grille was a stylistic evolution of Healey’s earlier cars, which had grilles of a similar shape. Donald Healey had many doubts about this grille, so it underwent a host of revisions between its initial conception and the final product.

Healey needn’t have worried. Once he was persuaded to move the car into the open, the Healey Hundred became the hit of the show. The prototype’s styling was much praised; Coker, understandably gratified, was both flattered and bemused that many observers assumed the design was Italian. John Bolster’s glowing write-up in Autosport, published a few days earlier, probably added to the general enthusiasm; Healey arranged for reprints of that article to be handed out at the show.

Healey initially announced that the Hundred would be built in Warwick with bodies by Tickford and a base price of £850 (£1,323 14s 5d with purchase tax), not including overdrive. However, throughout the show, he had a series of meetings with Austin executives about the possibility of offering the car on a much larger scale. Austin’s Leonard Lord, who had recently become managing director of the newly formed British Motor Corporation, pointed out that with the reception the Hundred had received, demand would greatly exceed the capacity of Healey’s tiny factory. Lord proposed that they make the Hundred a co-branded product, built by Austin from Healey’s design.

1953 Austin-Healey 100 rear 3q right
Gerry Coker’s initial conception for the Healey Hundred included vestigial rear fins, but Donald Healey ordered their deletion before the first prototype was complete. Both Coker and Healey later said the fins had been a mistake and agreed that the car looked much better without them.

Healey, Lord, and BMC chairman Lord Nuffield negotiated an agreement over drinks on the evening of October 21. Afterward, Healey asked Coker to design an “Austin-Healey” badge, which was made by a local jeweler and hastily added to the prototype.

LAUNCHING THE HUNDRED

Healey’s agreement with BMC called for the first 20 Hundreds to be built in Warwick, which would also be responsible for competition and special projects. Austin’s Longbridge factory would take over production in the spring of 1953, but all cars would still be built to Healey’s specifications. There were very few changes to Coker’s original design, but the grille was reshaped to assuage Donald Healey’s ongoing doubts while the front fenders were raised to satisfy U.S. requirements for headlamp height. (Coker performed both modifications himself.)

Originally, the body shells were to come from Tickford, but Jensen Motors in West Bromwich won the contract after Dick Jensen convinced Lord that Jensen was capable of much higher volume than was Tickford. The Healeys, however, were never entirely satisfied with Jensen’s work, annoyed by what they saw as attempts to bolster profit margins by cutting corners. Coker was dispatched to Jensen many times to address these problems, putting him in the awkward position of communicating the Healeys’ displeasure in some diplomatic way.

1953 Austin-Healey 100 boot badge
The earliest Austin-Healey 100s had “Austin of England” badges on the rear decklid, replaced by an Austin-Healey emblem in mid-1954.

One significant mechanical change to the production cars was the gearbox. Concurring with Bolster that first gear was useless, Healey decided to simply block it off, effectively making the transmission an all-synchro three-speed. To compensate, Laycock de Normanville overdrive became standard equipment, providing a total of five forward speeds. This was not an entirely satisfactory solution; the resultant shift pattern was very peculiar and the A90 gearbox proved troublesome and somewhat fragile in service.

The first few cars were built for the U.S. auto show circuit, where the Hundred was just as well received as it had been in London. Adding to its appeal was its U.S. price, a reasonable $2,985 POE. As Healey had intended, that put the Hundred about halfway between the MG TD and the Jaguar XK-120, leaving it — albeit briefly — with no obvious competition. (In fact, the Hundred had inadvertently stymied plans to replace the aging TD with a more modern sports car; Leonard Lord canceled MG’s EX175 project three days after the Healey deal.)

1953 Austin-Healey 100 dash
The Hundred’s dashboard was very basic, including a speedometer, tachometer, oil pressure, water temperature, and fuel gauges. The switch on the steering wheel hub controls the Trafficator (semaphore-type) turn signals.

Experience with the early Hundreds revealed a number of deficiencies, which led to various minor modifications before regular production began at Longbridge in May. Chief among those was the decision to trade the vulnerable aluminum bodywork for heavier but more durable steel panels, although the aluminum bonnet and decklid would survive into 1954. The switch to steel may have contributed to another welcome change: a £100 decrease in the list price, to £750 ex works, £1,063 12s 6d with purchase tax. (The U.S. list price was not changed.)

LE MANS AND BONNEVILLE

Four of the early production models were lightweight “Special Test” cars, intended for competition and record attempts. All had Birmabright aluminum panels, aluminum bumpers and radiators, and specially built engines with nitride-hardened crankshafts, hotter cams, and various tuning changes. In place of the jerry-rigged A90 gearbox, the Special Test cars were fitted with the heavy-duty unit from the FX3 taxi, which had a much stiffer, slower action, but was considerably stronger.

Three of those cars went to France in June 1953 for the 24 Hours of Le Mans. One car was driven by Gordon Wilkins and Marcel Becquart, a second by John Lockett and Maurice Gatsonides, with the third intended for practice. Although the event was fraught with problems, including a traffic accident that badly damaged one of the cars before the race, Lockett and Gatsonides managed 12th place overall, Becquart and Wilkins 14th. Both were a few paces behind the Nash-Healey of Leslie Johnson and Bert Hadley, which came in 11th overall.

1953 Austin-Healey 100 wheel
All Austin-Healey 100s had Dunlop wire wheels and 11-inch (279mm) drum brakes, although the stock brakes were painted silver. Lightweight Al-Fin brakes were optional, although Geoff Healey said there were reservations about their strength. The early Special Test cars used cast iron Girling brakes with heavy-duty Mintex linings.

Although the modified engine acquitted itself very well throughout the race, output was still only about 100 hp (75 kW). After Le Mans, Healey requested a more powerful version, which was developed by Austin engineer Don Hawley (who would go on to design Triumph’s slant four and Stag V8) using a new high-compression, four-port head designed by BMC consultant Harry Weslake. The changes raised output to a healthy 132 hp (98 kW).

One of the four-port engines was installed in the fourth Special Test car, which received modified bodywork (designed by Coker) to improve its aerodynamics. In September, that car ran went to the Bonneville Salt Flats, where Donald Healey drove it to speeds of up to 142.6 mph (229.6 km/h). Although the engine blew during a subsequent trial and had to be replaced, the car nonetheless captured a host of U.S. and international Class D speed records.

Such achievements did wonders for the Hundred’s image, particularly in the U.S., where the car became available in quantity that fall. The press reaction was very favorable. The Hundred was no all-purpose GT — the folding windscreen tended to rattle, weather protection was meager, and engine heat soaked into the cabin — but reviewers praised the fast steering, neutral handling, and strong performance. The Hundred was quick for its era and the big four’s low-end torque made it far more flexible than most small sports cars. Late in the year, owners could also order a kit to modify their engines to the same level of tune as the Le Mans cars, using larger S.U. H6 carburetors, a cold-air intake system, and a high-lift camshaft. (Some of these kits were fitted in Warwick prior to delivery to dealers.)

1953 Austin-Healey 100 tonneau
The factory claimed that the Austin-Healey 100 could reach 60 mph (97 km/h) in 10.5 seconds with a top speed of 110 mph (176 km/h), although the fine print noted that the latter figure was achievable only in proper tune with the windscreen folded and the tonneau cover in place. Contemporary road tests recorded 0-60 mph (0-97 km/h) in the 11- to 12-second range, with top speeds between 103 and 106 mph (165 and 170 km/h).

The Austin-Healey now had a serious rival in the new Triumph TR-2, which was about the same size, had a very similar power-to-weight ratio, and cost a full $500 less. Nonetheless, the Hundred was the most successful Healey to date. More than 1,200 were sold through the end of the year — very close to the total number of cars built in Warwick since 1945.

44 Comments

Add a Comment
  1. Excellent story Aaron I never managed to get a Healey always wanted one having owne a few mechanical donors in the shape of Westies and an Isis which were good fast comfortable sedans in their day. Healeys pretty much mirrored Westminsters for new developments.

  2. The Healey was, to my mind the most beautiful of 1950’s production sports cars. I never found the TR3 attractive,and the MGA looked nice, but nothing was as instantly appealing as the Healey, especially with the two-tone paint. I went to a lot of SCCA races in the late 50’s and early 60’s, and they were quite common on the tracks. And, now a correction; the driver mentioned is Maurice Gatsonides, not Gastonides. Beyond his motorsport career, he is infamous for his invention, the “Gatso” speed camera, which all sporting drivers hate.

    1. Thanks for the correction — I’ve amended the text. I had no idea he developed the Gatso cameras, although that will certainly help to remember the proper spelling of his name.

  3. Nice article – but a couple of errors in 100S caption. All 100 cars had the swage line – from the BN2 on it continued behind the rear wheel. And the standard 100S colour scheme was Old English White over Lobelia (dark blue) not black.

    1. Thanks for the clarifications. The paint color issue had puzzled me a bit: the lower color looked like dark blue to me, but the paint combination chart in Anderson and Moment’s restoration guide described it (for whatever reason) as white over black. Since each of my computer monitors tends to render colors differently, I was wondering if it was an optical illusion or if it was just a particularly bluish shade of black. I have several print references handy, but unfortunately all their photos of the 100S were in black and white…

    2. Excellent article, well researched and written however, actually Anderson and Moment do have the 100S colour correct in their book [i]Austin – Healey 100/100-6/3000 Restoration Guide[/i].
      Page 14 center column.
      [i]Most of the cars were painted in “United States” racing colours of white over blue, using a distinctive Lobelia Blue for the lower panel.[/i]

      1. Ahh — I was looking at the color chart and missed that reference. In any case, I’ve corrected the text.

    3. The swage line on the side did not extend past the rear wheel of ALL BN2s but came on stream well into that production. Since most four cylinder cars were BN1s the full swage line is thus a rarity before the six cylinder cars. More importantly is the front fender opening, cut much higher on the BN2 for a more rakish look with additional clearance for the wheel in turning. Healeys were slim sided relative to their tread width and that wheel stuck way out when steered.

  4. This article led me to look up more info on the FB60 engine, which I’d been somewhat aware of. I was really intrigued to learn that it was an F-head. Does anyone know why it was?

    The other F-head that came to mind for me was the Willys “Hurricane” engine, which Barney Roos designed by making an existing flathead engine into an F-head. In that case, he was trying to get more power on a very tight budget. A full OHV engine would have been ideal, but given the tight budget, moving the intake vales into the head was more cost-effective than moving the exhausts.

    Rolls-Royce was presumably working on the FB60 some years after Roos was designing the Hurricane, and they wouldn’t have had his cost constraints.

    I also can’t help thinking that the MGC would have been much better with the FB60.

    You mentioned that Healey wasn’t happy with Jensen’s quality control, an issue that also came up with the Volvo P1800.

    1. This is a very interesting question, and it led me to do some additional research and make a small addition to the text (about the abortive ADO30 project, which was also slated to use the FB60).

      The FB60 was developed around 1958. Around that time, Rolls-Royce apparently started being interested in doing a smaller, cheaper (relatively speaking) luxury car, probably to be sold primarily as a Bentley. At the time, Rolls was still using IOE sixes in its other cars (although the V8 was already in development), as well as the B40 and B60 engines used in various trucks and military vehicles. My assumption is that Rolls conceived the FB60 as a smaller, lighter engine that could use at least some of the existing tooling. Since the point of the exercise was to make a cheaper car, not having to invest heavily in new equipment would have been desirable, even for Rolls-Royce.

      I don’t know exactly how much architecture the FB60 shares with the B60 used in earlier Rolls and Bentley passenger cars. It has the same bore, a much shorter stroke, and an aluminum block (the B60 already had an aluminum head). While the FB60 may depart from the earlier engine in other respects, it seems pretty clear that the B60 was the starting point for it.

      Incidentally, Rolls and BMC considered a bunch of possible Bentley-branded smaller cars, including the Bentley Java (which would have been quite similar to the Princess 4-Litre R and probably inspired the styling of the latter), the Bentley Bengal (based on the Austin 3-litre), and a coupe called the Bentley Alpha, based on the ADO30. All would have used the FB60 engine.

    2. The web has someplace a long article on Rolls Royce engines by one of their principals in the engineering ranks. In it there was a statement that the FB alloy F-head was dimensionally close and sometimes identical to the last 4.25 liter RR iron six. Of course, Rolls had already forsaken sixes for their huge V8. Perhaps this explains the retrograde F-head being found on the units being supplied to the Princess?

      1. In the late fifties and early sixties, Rolls-Royce seriously considered doing one or more cheaper Bentley models as a way of boosting sales volume and making up for slower sales of the ‘senior’ cars (analogous to Packard’s move with the original One-Twenty in 1935). There was the Bentley Burma, which I believe ended up being more or less the ancestor of the Silver Shadow, followed by the Bentley Java (based on the Austin Princess 3-Litre) and the Bentley Bengal, which would have been a Bentley version of the Princess 4 Litre R.

        As far as I know, the rationale of the FB was to give these cheaper cars (at least the latter two of which would have had a lot of BMC hardware) proper Rolls/Bentley engines without the expense of tooling a new ‘small’ engine for those cars. The F-head six might have been retrograde technologically, but it compared pretty well with contemporary OHV sixes in terms of output and the DOHC version, which never got past the prototype stage, would have given the Jaguar XK engine a run for its money. So, it made a fair bit of sense.

        Of course, for various reasons, none of the Bentley cars ever materialized and a lot of Rolls-Royce’s FB capacity went unused.

  5. -One of the first cars I drove, illegaly, of course, was a friend’s 100-4. It had a three speed transmission with electric overdrive that was supposed to make it a five speed.
    -The shift pattern was also reversed from US normal, that is, second and third

    1. Yes, the shift pattern on the BN1 cars was very odd. I think they resolved that with the BN2, with the taxi gearbox.

    2. . . . . . because, at age 17, it was the first antique auto I helped restore (I didn’t have my own antique car for another year) and the beginning of my 45 year involvement with antique vehicles (cars, motorcycles and bicycles). I still remember the car, helping the owner sand down the primer for painting.

  6. Very interesting as usual Aaron. I suppose it would improve with familiarity but the 4000 prototype looks ‘odd’, really time for a new bodystyle even if it was only an early prototype. There was a car built locally with a Rover V8 (from memory) that had a similar body widening mainly to fit wider tyres, I think they might have altered the grille a bit to keep it more in proportion.

    1. Well, the initial prototype was created by essentially slicing a BJ8 body in half and splicing in a 6-inch section. If it had made production, I suppose they might have come up with a new grille — it would probably have been relatively cheap to do. Still, it’s hard to avoid the feeling that the 1953-vintage design had been nipped and tucked a few too many times by then.

      1. Hi Aaron, the above comment was mine.

        Last weekend I actually saw the featured 4000 prototype, as well as Lance Macklin’s Le Mans NOJ 393 a replica of one of the streamliners amongst dozens of other A-H’s at a car show. I’d say the 4000 looks better in the flesh, but it is still a significantly wider car that would not have the same sporty feel of the original.

        1. The people who’ve driven it tend to say the same thing. It was reportedly a lot more comfortable than the 3000, with a better driving position and more elbow room, but felt and sounded less sporty, particularly with the automatic. Perhaps too civilized for its own good.

  7. Another excellent article – just wanted to say how much I appreciate the effort that goes into this and the skill at presenting it in an interesting and cogent manner.

    And no, I don’t want to borrow any money.

    thanks

  8. Aaron,

    Will you be moving forward with this amazing historical portrait, looking at the Jensen Healey?

    1. I will, although I decided that three Healeys in a row might be a bit much.

  9. Familiarity with early Healey Hundreds suggests there were at least two front wheel arches during their production. The red one depicted, a BN1 is a very much chunkier section than the BN2. It might have fouled the tire (tyre) at steering lock at least with the tall spec tires of the era. The car officially got a larger valence that looked sleeker as a running change. The difference in height causes problems in terminating the two toned flanks which are often found on LeMans replica cars. The swage line does not truly intersect the top of the arch on early ones but requires a looped return, which anyhow works out okay in practice.

    1. Thanks for the info. There are a lot of minor details that I’m only able to touch on in these stories.

      1. I’d hope I had mentioned once before referencing a Mustang article, but will enjoy doing so again. Your monographs are amazingly concise distillations of complex stories, done with great adherence to, and respect for facts. I recommend them to all my friends.

  10. The “Haldane” was a rather proper looking replica Hundred out of fiberglas with Ford Kent motivation, differing only in a lower hood line. The “Harrier” was an upmarket effort with Rover V8 and independent suspension that I believe Geoff Healey was pleased to endorse. Both were better looking, or at least more authentic appearing than the 4000 prototype with the half a foot widened body shell. Sad that larger customers and side impact requirements dealt such a blow to the original aesthetics of the first car. Look to the Ford GT to understand how an enlargement if required should be undertaken in EVERY dimension so that proportions that initially delighted can be maintained.
    One must mention in passing the Saxon and Sebring kit cars that hint of the Healey legacy in rather unconvincing ways.

  11. The Healey Hundred has more shape in its flanks than people realize. It swells in width at the cockpit and is already narrowing over the rear fender. That shows Jerry’s modern three dimensional spatial thinking.
    To have gotten more width where necessary for the cockpit without destroying the lithe appearance from the three quarter view might only have required wedging out the fore-body. That would have allowed a front track perhaps 2 inches wider than the rear, whereas it is actually a half inch shy of the rear on the existing cars. At that point it would have virtually equalled the later Jag E-type series III cars track. The span of the headlamps of the Healey could have been increased without visual harm though not by a half a foot.

  12. In 1972 & 73, I worked in the service department of Donald Healey Motor Co in Warwick and was lucky enough to drive one of the manual 4000R’s The car had been re-chassed following a road accident by the then owner, a gentleman who lived in Wales, I think. I road tested the car over several hundred miles and so was able to understand the car well. I had driven a number of E-types up to that time and the comparison was most interesting. The 4000R had excellent road holding and outstanding handling. The acceleration was good as the engine revved well, the gearchange and ratios good too. Performance was good, I saw over 125mph on a number of occasions. The car braked well and overall, I enjoyed the car more than E-types. I would be happy to hear from anyone else who drove these cars and hear their views.

    1. Thanks for your thoughts, Tony. The consensus of all the accounts I’ve heard of people who’ve had the chance to drive the 4000 was that it was a definite improvement in all-around performance (although one can easily imagine the carping the automatic would have provoked at the time). I think the downfall of the car, had it made production, would have been the styling. Combining the new engine with the fixed-head coupe might have been a different story, although then the 4000 would most definitely have been an E-type rival…

  13. Aaron

    I have tried in vain to contact Tony Pomfret for the last four years and now find he has contacted you recently. As he drove my 4000 when in the UK I would love to talk to him, may I have his email or could you send him mine so we can chat please.

    Regards Peter Rowland Melbourne Australia

  14. i thoroughly enjoyed reading your well researched article and it got me thinking about some unexplained unusual features and history facts surrounding our 100/6 BN6. We recently bought her as my wife spent much of her youth around the Warwick area and she happens to be of the same vintage as the car!
    According to the build records the car was built in June ’57 but according to a copy of the original owner log book was not registered to her first owner until January ’58. This in itself is unusual as cars were generally built to order.
    This brings me to the next unusual feature that she was supplied to her first owner with Dunlop disc brakes on front and rear axles. Trying to find any documented information about the 100/6 on disc brakes seems to be a bit of a best kept secret so I am wondering if anyone reading this might have some answers?
    I recently spoke to the UK A-H Club marque model expert who said he was aware of only two other examples, both of which are BN6, here in the UK and he referred to them as being the ‘homologation specials’ of which he said approximately 40-50 cars were retro equipped by the Healey Works at Warwick and at a time in ’58 when much Works backed rallying was taking place. Are any examples of these BN6 cars known to exist in the U.S. Or other markets?
    If some facts could be brought to light, then this would make for an interesting twist to the Big Healey story

  15. What was the weight of the 2660 cc 4 cylinder engine out of the BN1 and BN2?I’am considering putting a 427 CI Chevrolet V8 into my BN2

    1. That’s a good question — I don’t think I’ve ever seen a figure for the four, and because the BN4 was also a physically larger car, simply comparing BN2 and BN4 figures doesn’t give much indication. The C-series engine was a big sucker, though (more than 600 pounds in 2.9-liter form), so even if the 2,660cc four were more than 100 pounds lighter, it may still have been in the neighborhood of 500 pounds. My very rough guess would be that an iron-head SBC would about split the difference and an iron big clock would be at least 70 pounds heavier up front than the BN4, but someone may have a more specific answer.

  16. Can anyone supply me with information (or direct me to information) on the twin cam cylinder head that was developed by Austin Canada for the 2660cc BN1 engine in the early 1950’s. I remember seeing an article on the subject many, many years ago. I understand 2 or 3 were built before management killed the project. Apparently, the performance was very impressive.

  17. Good article.

    Have actually driven a 3 carb Healey 3000 back in fall 1963. Followed by a TR3, then a couple of years later an old MGA, followed by innumerable MGBs. Good time to enter college and meet rich boys from Montreal whose Dad’s could afford to give them such things.

    The Healey had a very twitchy rear suspension, quarter elliptics maybe? Steered on the throttle. Seemed very fast, but 2 1/2 inches of ground clearance helped that illusion. The TR3 was an old brute that seemed to have almost no suspension at all. The MGA was actually not bad, and I found the later mid ’60s MGBs a bit sterile, probably because it had an actual torsionally strong unitbody and behaved itself. Preferred the Volvo 544.

    Then I tried the Alfa 1750 Giulietta a few years later when studying in the UK. Different and far better league altogether.

    Memories. Pretty good ones as well.

    1. The big Healeys had semi-elliptical rather than quarter-elliptical springs — it’s just that they didn’t indulge in a lot of faddish niceties like compliance or wheel travel. It’s also conceivable that the owner also delved into competition parts or aftermarket accessories; given how stiff the stock rear springs were, I suspect trying to add a rear anti-roll bar would make the car particularly twitchy.

  18. Dear Sir, could you give me some informations about the story that the original 6-cylinder Healey engine was a formel Austin Tipper engine. In that time I was working for Austin in Amsterdam (The Netherlands) and later for Leyland Vehicles Benelux in Malines(Mechelen) and we have (my memories?) used spare parts for a Healey BT7 from a Austin truck engine. Because there is a Healey museum in Vreeland (The Netherlands) and they tell the visitors all about the history of (Donald)Healey and that part is missing. In that museum we have seen an AEC petrol engine (6-Cyliner), so we could accept this truck history. Please inform us, thank you in advance for your cooperation.

    1. All the big Healeys used BMC “corporate” engines, some of which were also used in trucks — the 2,660 cc big four definitely was. I’m not sufficiently familiar enough with BMC’s commercial offerings of that period to know offhand if the 2.9-liter C-series was used in trucks, although I wouldn’t be surprised. The truck and car versions of most of those engines were not dramatically different, although I presume the truck versions had some stouter components to suit more strenuous duty. It would make sense that where possible, the Healeys would have specified the heavier-duty truck components for reasons of durability. I would have to go back and do more research on the detailed engine specs to confirm that, but again it seems plausible.

      1. Dear Aaron, thank you very much for your assistance and reply in this matter. I will follow your comments and/or reply.

  19. As a matter of interest, the Riley engine used in the Healey Tickford and Abbott was indeed a twin-cam engine, but it wasn’t a twin-overhead-cam engine. The camshafts were mounted high in the block, and the pushrods were shorter than in most engines. But it was a pushrod design.

    1. Yup — a novel approach to solving the problem of how to actuate the valves with a hemispherical combustion chamber.

  20. I owned a Healy 300 in 1968-91 a C reg car. bought secondhand from Eddy Grimsteads at his Barking showroom in Essex. (EG’s was famous for pedal bike shops and the Lamberetta scooter ) He was a local business man. I saw the big Healey in the showroom window priced at just over £i. 000. I was driving a Triumph Vitesse at that moment, but i fell in love with the red Healey. Went in and bought it on the spot part exchanging the six cylinder Triumph for £400.00. Done the deal and drove it home in complete happiness.
    New wife wondered how i went out in a blue car and came home in a red one. After 50 years she still gets confused with my instant deals. I had to sell the car when a another baby was declared on the way. It was traded for a mortgage on a new house. So i lied with the car a distant vision of happier times. Then last week (Jan 2017) i saw an advertised 1960 BT7 fitted with a rover V8 (done in 1991) engine (not really what i wanted) but for a good working price range of what i thought was OK. Car was clean had many new parts no rust , and sounded fine. So i went into the house done the deal bought it and the seller drove it to my house.
    I was happy again. Wife loves it and loves me(so she says). Moral of the story be happy . JRL.

    1. I must say, if my spouse departed in one car and returned later in a very similar one that just happened to be a different color, I would wonder if something important had broken in my head!

  21. I owned BN1L 158853, red Austin Healey 1955 – 100-4. The car was in my family, from 1964 – 1971. I sold this car to Robert David Glover Jr. December of 1971, Omaha, Nebraska USA. I still have the hard cover service manual and would like to get it to the present owner. If anyone can help me find the owner, I will give them the manual because it belongs with the car.
    Thank you.
    Anthony Q Pierce
    7528 E Torrey Point Circle
    Mesa, Az. 85207
    (712) 389 1306

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Click here to read our comment policy. You must be at least 18 to comment. PLEASE DON'T POST COPYRIGHTED CONTENT YOU AREN'T AUTHORIZED TO USE!
Except as otherwise noted, all text and images are copyright © Aaron Severson dba Ate Up With Motor. (Terms of Use – Reprint/Reuse Policy) Trademarks referenced herein are the property of their respective owners and are used here for informational/nominative purposes.