Yes, and I know this very well. My parents did buy the S1 Rapier when it came
out because there where no Minx then. (except the old Mk model). Otherwise they
should probably taken the Minx.
Kristian J
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Johnson <keiths55@bigpond.net.au>
To: <RootesRooter@aol.com>
Cc: <alpines@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Baby 'cuda]
> NO NO NO
>
> You have it all wrong. :-)
>
> The Rapier came first.
> The Minx is almost identical to the Rapier, just two extra doors.
> Series I Rapier released 1956.
> Series I Minx released 1957.
>
> Keith
> 55 Californian
> 57 Rapier
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <RootesRooter@aol.com>
> To: <alpines@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [Baby 'cuda]
>
>
> > In a message dated 9/10/03 12:32:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > jan.eyerman@usa.net writes:
> >
> > << True, but the Rapier hardtop was essentially a Hillman Minx convertible
> > with a
> > roof welded on (the Rapier Convert was almost identical to the Minx
> > convertible). Most body components will interchange between a Series
> Minx
> > and
> > a Series Rapier. The same is true of almost all mechanical parts. The
> > Fastback Rapier differed more from the Arrow then the Series Rapier did
> from
> > the Minx.
> > >>
> >
> >
> > I seem to remember a magazine interview with Rootes designer Roy Axe from
> 6-7
> > years ago, who said much of the body structure was shared by Hunters and
> > Rapiers, even though they were obviously different from outward
> appearances. An
> > example was the inner rear wheel wells - not what the fastback-body
> designers
> > wanted to use (apparently because they wanted to use a different rear
> > suspension design for the long-tailed fastback), but costs dictated that
> they share as
> > much as possible.
> >
> > Dick Sanders
|