spridgets
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Roadster vs Convertible terminology

To: <samesq@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Roadster vs Convertible terminology
From: "Steve Byers" <byers@cconnect.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 08:34:44 -0500
Cc: "spridgets" <spridgets@triumph.cs.utah.edu>
Reply-to: "Steve Byers" <byers@cconnect.net>
Sender: owner-spridgets@autox.team.net
O.K., good point.  The Mk IIs and Mk IIIs, which are the ones BMC calls
convertibles, do have rudimentary rear seats.

Steve Byers
Havelock, NC USA
'73 Midget GAN5UD126009G  "OO NINE"


----------
> 
> Steve Byers wrote:
> 
> > All that may be true.  But why, then, does my BMC Workshop Manual show
a
> > picture of a Healey 3000, with the caption "Austin-Healey '3000' Mk. II
and
> > III Sports Convertible..."   The 3000 was never designed or built with
a
> > fixed roof.
> 
> I am not as familiar with the big Healey's as I am with the Sprites, but
> doesn't the 3000 series have a back seat?  Roadsters by definition have
only
> two seats, no back seat at all.  They sort of half way fit into the
definition
> of a roadster, so I guess they chose to call it a convertible....
> 
> Steve.
> 
> --


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>