Looks like this is a unique piece of Healey history.? Sorry, Peter, you
need to donate this to the Healey Musem immediately.
bs
On 9/1/2017 5:38 PM, HealeyRick wrote:
> Very interesting.? Bob is right, ADO 51 and ADO 52 were the
> badge-engineered MG/Austin-Healey products that were to replace the
> Austin-Healey BJ8.? ADO 51 was to be the Healey variant until DMH put
> the kibosh on it.? A picture is attached. It was supposed to be the Mk
> IV, although after ADO 51 was dumped, the Rolls-Healey became known as
> the Mk IV.? ADO 52 went on to being the MG-C, which evidenced DMH's
> foresight in?canning it as the next Healey.
>
> I'm surprised BMC got as far along with the project to start producing
> replacement gasket sets under the ADO 51 numbering.
>
> I've written an article on the end of big Healey production that goes
> into greater depth on why the car ended production when it did, and it
> wasn't US safety regs as most of us have always thought.? You'll have
> to wait until the Nov. issue of Healey Marque to read it, though.
>
> Rick Neville
>
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Bob Spidell <bspidell at comcast.net
>
> I think the AH 3000 'Mk. IV' was going to be a badge-engineered
> MGC, until DMH put the kabosch on the idea, no?? Maybe the gasket
> co. jumped the gun.
>
> Bob
>
>
> On 9/1/2017 12:27 PM, Peter Caldwell wrote:
>> I am about to list on eBay a head gasket set with unusual
>> packaging, I think.? Adds confusion to the comparison of Healey
>> and MGC engines?
>>
>> Peter C
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://autox.team.net/pipermail/healeys/attachments/20170901/5dd31501/attachment.html>
|