morris cooper wrote: Carlton Grey with dark red interior, reg COH800C I think. The same Microcell? seats and the same trim pattern, from a big Healey?
Bill
I saw the grey car at the Pride of Longbridge in 2012.
Back on the Enzo car. I still think the two metallic cars are different, and going by the registration of the what is now red car being 1965 this would add to it. The picture at the petrol station is dated 1964.
Also has anyone else noticed the door bins on the red car match those on the second Enzo shot.
Mmm... plus the first car is registered 96441 MO and the red car is 116703 MO , the two car theory is looking more likely, the red one being the second and slightly later car.
Nevsmini wrote:.... They are South African mk1 mini doors which match the date..
I don't think the doors on the red car are South African. The SA doors were supplied from Australia, and are similar to those, but not quite the same. Australian doors have full length door pockets, the lock mechanism is enclosed inside the door and they have a larger stainless steel piece in the lower front corner.
I'm sure that body number just creeping into shot on the slam panel will reveal more Although the car may have been slightly early for hydro you'd have thought that BMC/Issigonis would have preferred to have sent such an important car with the latest suspension ?
Pete wrote:
I'm sure that body number just creeping into shot on the slam panel will reveal more
Well spotted = so fair chance it retains its original front panel
Pete wrote:
Although the car may have been slightly early for hydro you'd have thought that BMC/Issigonis would have preferred to have sent such an important car with the latest suspension ?
Agree, most likely, especially for a person like Enzo.
Isnt it possible that the original front was cut up, on Enzo,s car when this change arrived ?
I am sure a BMC service sheet / memo will turn up one day, regarding this .
Last edited by JC T ONE on Wed Feb 26, 2014 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nevsmini wrote:.... They are South African mk1 mini doors which match the date..
I don't think the doors on the red car are South African. The SA doors were supplied from Australia, and are similar to those, but not quite the same. Australian doors have full length door pockets, the lock mechanism is enclosed inside the door and they have a larger stainless steel piece in the lower front corner.
Tim
I did have a close look at those doors when I first saw that pic, but I own two cars with Aussie doors in South Africa and they match the specs that Tim mentioned. The bins on Aussie doors in SA are about half as deep as the one in the pic and run the full length of the door. They have a hole through the bin (hole normally covered by kick plate) that goes into the door so you can use a socket on an extension to tie up the bottom rearmost hinge nut. The lock on the small triangular window is also positioned further back on the Aussie doors we have here.
Here are a few facts about this fascinating car based on what is in the Production Record for this chassis number.
It was built in week two of September 1964. Painted Tartan Red Monotone and with standard trim it wasn't despatched until two months later which is quite a delay, even for an export car, as 1275 S's were in much demand at the time. It was despatched to Milan but not as a Personal Export and no mention of Ferrari however the despatch code is in an usual format. Cars that went elsewhere for work to be done quite often have this recorded in the records as is the case for cars built for 'special' people such as BMC directors, Paddy Hopkirk etc.
There is no mention in the Production Record of hydrolastic suspension and the car is rather too early for hydrolastic, BMC had, officially at least, only built one hydrolastic S by this date which was for a specific purpose. Would BMC have retro fitted it? I doubt it, whilst the shell would probably have all the hydrolastic brackets, surely it would have been much easier to take another car off the line?
One says probably for the hydrolastic brackets because there is no sign of a hole for the courtesy light switch which I would have expected to see on a car built at this time even if the switches were not present - a very original car which is 38 body numbers earlier and built the same day does have the hole with a rubber bung in. If they fitted hydrolastic suspension surely they would have fitted the courtesy light switches as well? Of course a lot can happen to a car in fifty years and it has been sprayed at least twice. It looks to have its original front panel as you can see the corner of it in the engine bay shot - it would be interesting to know what that body number is.
Neither is there any mention of any special factory modifications which would normally be the case if the work was done in house; however the door furniture does look very BMC - 1100 door pocket? Morris Minor handles? It did have factory fitted EFT, oil cooler, sump guard and 4½" rims. 4½" rims are clearly visible in the period photograph, the correct type of sump guard is still present and it seems it has an EFT and oil cooler of some sort.
Now interestingly, this car was still owned by BMC in 1965 as it is annotated as being included in the 1965 stock take; and to muddy the waters slightly, there is a note in the production records that the car with the next chassis number was on loan from BMC to Ferrari in July 1966. That was a French car so it may be someone has simply written this in the production ledger on the wrong line.
I'll leave you to cogitate on the above.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who do not possess it.
Simon776 wrote:Here are a few facts about this fascinating car based on what is in the Production Record for this chassis number.
It was built in week two of September 1964. Painted Tartan Red Monotone and with standard trim it wasn't despatched until two months later which is quite a delay, even for an export car, as 1275 S's were in much demand at the time. It was despatched to Milan but not as a Personal Export and no mention of Ferrari however the despatch code is in an usual format. Cars that went elsewhere for work to be done quite often have this recorded in the records as is the case for cars built for 'special' people such as BMC directors, Paddy Hopkirk etc.
There is no mention in the Production Record of hydrolastic suspension and the car is rather too early for hydrolastic, BMC had, officially at least, only built one hydrolastic S by this date which was for a specific purpose. Would BMC have retro fitted it? I doubt it, whilst the shell would probably have all the hydrolastic brackets, surely it would have been much easier to take another car off the line?
One says probably for the hydrolastic brackets because there is no sign of a hole for the courtesy light switch which I would have expected to see on a car built at this time even if the switches were not present - a very original car which is 38 body numbers earlier and built the same day does have the hole with a rubber bung in. If they fitted hydrolastic suspension surely they would have fitted the courtesy light switches as well? Of course a lot can happen to a car in fifty years and it has been sprayed at least twice. It looks to have its original front panel as you can see the corner of it in the engine bay shot - it would be interesting to know what that body number is.
Neither is there any mention of any special factory modifications which would normally be the case if the work was done in house; however the door furniture does look very BMC - 1100 door pocket? Morris Minor handles? It did have factory fitted EFT, oil cooler, sump guard and 4½" rims. 4½" rims are clearly visible in the period photograph, the correct type of sump guard is still present and it seems it has an EFT and oil cooler of some sort.
Now interestingly, this car was still owned by BMC in 1965 as it is annotated as being included in the 1965 stock take; and to muddy the waters slightly, there is a note in the production records that the car with the next chassis number was on loan from BMC to Ferrari in July 1966. That was a French car so it may be someone has simply written this in the production ledger on the wrong line.
I'll leave you to cogitate on the above.
Very interesting Simon. So some inconsistencies in the story then considering the car was supposedly already in Italy by 1965 according to Jeroen's information :
"the car, an Austin Cooper 'S' with chassis number 552189, was imported to Italy on 12 December 1964. It was issued on a Modena number plate '116703-MO' on 29 January 1965. The price for which it was sold was 1.825.000 Italian Liras and the owner is clearly described as 'Ing. Ferrari comm. Enzo' at an address in Modena. The car kept the Modena number until 14 March 1970 when it was handed over to the next owner who paid 500.000 Liras for it. As far as I can see there is no mention of a paint colour"
..not to mention the suspension etc but some things about it look and smell right.
Mark, I don't know how to post pictures on here, but will send you the one where you can see the sump guard, so you can post it.
Simon has seen it, too, and confirms it's of the type Longbridge fitted as an optional extra.
Simon776 wrote:
Now interestingly, this car was still owned by BMC in 1965 as it is annotated as being included in the 1965 stock take; .
as probably the only person on here who has the 'pleasures' of yearly / monthly / weekly mini part based stock takes, just the though of having to count 'every thing' than bmc owned gives me the fear
due to the size of the plant and the amount of stuff moving around (never mind the losses through the endemic theft) I bet it was a proper thankless task - you do wonder if this car was even on site, or if some faceless bored member of staff just ticked the paper work as it was easier than actually going to look for it!
Simon776 wrote:
Now interestingly, this car was still owned by BMC in 1965 as it is annotated as being included in the 1965 stock take; .
due to the size of the plant and the amount of stuff moving around (never mind the losses through the endemic theft) I bet it was a proper thankless task -
you do wonder if this car was even on site, or if some faceless bored member of staff just ticked the paper work as it was easier than actually going to look for it!
Although the car may have been slightly early for hydro you'd have thought that BMC/Issigonis would have preferred to have sent such an important car with the latest suspension ?
