spridgets
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Roadster vs Convertible terminology

To: spridgets mailing list <spridgets@triumph.cs.utah.edu>
Subject: Re: Roadster vs Convertible terminology
From: Robert Duquette <RobertDuquette@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 09:07:24 -0500
Reply-to: Robert Duquette <RobertDuquette@compuserve.com>
Sender: owner-spridgets@autox.team.net
The Morgan that "British Car" magazine referred to as a roadster is a four
seater.

Robert D.
'65 Sprite

Message text written by "Steve Byers"
>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>