State Policy on Vehicle Year.
Most State Department of Motor Vehicles list a car "year" as stated by
the manufacturer, or US importer, unless grossly misleading statements
are made by the distributor. Generally, in the cars made in the US, the
"Model Year" is in the fall period, when all the new "models" are
introduced for sale.
English car manufacturers did not have such stringent rules. Many
introduced their new "up-coming year" line at different European Auto
Shows. Actual delivered design depended on the supply of the changed
parts by supplier. You can see the "cross-over" year models of the
Tiger in TBON, and a re probably familiar with the gradual changes to
the bonnet, door, and trunk corners from rounded to square were no
related to a specific "changeover date", but rather to availability and
stocking bin supply.
In England, in the 50's, things changed so slowly that the car year
differences were, more or less, a mixed flow of pieces that eventually
got to look alike.
As an example, my 1967 Sunbeam Alpine S5 had Tiger Mk II rounded end
headlight rims from the factory (not chrome).
In California, cars sold after October were listed as the next year
model, regardless of when they were actually made, to to the above
items, and the slow shipping times.
If there were Major Changes, like the Mk II Tiger, they are all going to
be 1967, and probably fit the production period as well.
Of course there are no Federal Standards on this, nor on changing
registration ID, etc., that are common across the country. Note the
differences in allowing removal of VIN tags.
Steve
DJoh797014@aol.com wrote:
>66 or 67? That is the question My B382002668 was built
>in December 1966 accoording to the BON. His would have
>been built in December 1966 also. Probably came over on
>the boat with mine and unloaded in Texas sometime in
>early 1967.
>
>In most states a 2005 model Ford made in November 2004 but
>sold in 2005 is considered a 2005 model. Likewise even
>though my car was made in 1966 I consider it a 1967 MK IA.
>But that my humble opinion.
>
>I don't fault the seller for calling it a 1967. He is not
>selling it as a 1967 MK II. The only ones that would object
>probably own a MK II.
>
>Dave
>
>
>
--
-----
Steve Laifman
Editor
http://www.TigersUnited.com
|