Subject: Re: [Healeys] Phase 1

From: Jackson Krall <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:50:05 -0700 (PDT)

Also, by the mid-60s the DC3 tail-dragger look was a dated look. I appreciate it more today than I did then. I had a 100-6MM at the time with the usual bottoming isues and when I discovered that perked up tail on the MKlll I wanted one. I also liked the resonated exhaust note. Still powerful sounding but more civilized. Eventually I found and bought a 65 phase 1.5.
Best
JK

------------------------------
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 9:59 AM EDT Michael Salter wrote:

>My first Healey was a '64 MkIII which I restored from a VERY rusty wreak
>way back in the mid '70s.
>Although it was a fun car I was never able to fully sort out the rear
>suspension and that was in large the reason for eventually selling it.
>Even with the rear resonators removed to increase the rear ground clearance
>I was never able to come up with a spring rate combined with a ride height
>that prevented either the diff housing banging on the frame when running
>light or the car bottoming out when fully loaded. I believe that that was
>the reason for the rear suspension redesign so soon after the BJ8 was
>introduced.
>
>Michael S
>http://www.netbug.net/blogmichael/
>
>
>On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Richard Kahn <[email-masked]>wrote:
>
>> We haven't had any controversy for a while....so.  I have a BJ8 phase 1
>> (made
>> in Nov 1963). There were few made (just over 1400 and only 850 exported to
>> the
>> US) and yet they bring less money than the phase 2. I like the lower look
>> and
>> the single glass bee hive lights. I like the way the tires center in the
>> wheel
>> wells. Why the difference in price compared to other BJ8s?
>> Rich Kahn
>> _______________________________________________

>-- 
>Michael Salter
_______________________________________________
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive

[email-masked]
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/healeys