Full Skirt Front Panel

26 comments

  1. I'm sure JP will have looked into this for the new book, but i noticed that the change listed in his old book, is May-Jul 1964

    My 970 was built 1 Oct 1964, and has the old full skirt.

    I thought we could try to pin the date down better, so anyone who has a car built round this time, tell us your body number, date built, and front panel type.

    Really only interested in cars that can more or less be proven to have left the factory with a certain type of front panel.

    OK, so mine is body No 31443, 1 oct, full skirt.

    [IMG]http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj106/ka2s4/IMG_8825.jpg[/IMG]

  2. imported post

    I think it's all too random to really pin it down. My mate used to have an original 1071S built in the last batch – and had Hydrolastic pipe clips on the floor and dry subrames obviously. He bought the car in 1976 and the numbers matched up including the body number. From memory it also had the later front panel.
    It was a B plate car.

  3. imported post

    [font='Times New Roman'][size=3]James,[/size][/font]

    [font='Times New Roman'][size=3][/size][/font]

    [font='Times New Roman'][size=3]October 1964 is also after the nominal change point to hydrolastic suspension, so I am interested to know if your car is also still a dry suspension model, as I donâ€'t recall (probably incorrectly) ever having seen a hydrolastic car with a full skirt. Or is this just another example of BMCâ€'s seemingly haphazard introduction of the numerous details changes around this time?[/size][/font]

    [font='Times New Roman'][size=3][/size][/font]

    [font='Times New Roman'][size=3]Nick[/size][/font]

  4. imported post

    [b]618AOG wrote: [/b] “I think it's all too random to really pin it down. ”

    I'm with James here, the difference between his car having an original full skirt front end (Oct 64)and the date quoted in the JP's Bible(May – July 64)is minimum of twoand max offour months, even by BMC's standards that's a very random length of time to introduce a majornew body pressing,it would be interesting to see if any more later cars emerge.

  5. imported post

    Another dry October '64 970 with seemingly a full skirt, not known whether this is original. Worth asking the owner though.

    [url=http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=270292503920]http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=270292503920[/url]

  6. imported post

    Gray wrote:
    “mines a bit later: 970s

    4th Dec 1964

    later style skirt

    Thanks Gray,

    So if the change was black and white (and i'm not saying it was) then it was some time between early Oct and early Dec 1964.

    J

  7. imported post

    NickD wrote:
    “[font='Times New Roman'][size=3]James,[/size][/font]

    [font='Times New Roman'][size=3] [/size][/font]

    [font='Times New Roman'][size=3]October 1964 is also after the nominal change point to hydrolastic suspension, so I am interested to know if your car is also still a dry suspension model, as I donâ€'t recall (probably incorrectly) ever having seen a hydrolastic car with a full skirt. Or is this just another example of BMCâ€'s seemingly haphazard introduction of the numerous details changes around this time?[/size][/font]

    [font='Times New Roman'][size=3][/size][/font]

    [font='Times New Roman'][size=3]Nick[/size][/font]

    Hi Nick,

    Mine is dry sus, and says so on the Heritage Cert.
    According to 'Original Mini Cooper', the first hydro 970 was 10 cars before mine, but hydro was officially introduced 85 cars after mine. So it appears there were about 95 970S cars that could have had either type.

    My shell is a hydro one, and it even had the hydro type brackets for holding the non-existant hoses on the engine bay crossmember.

    The photo was taken in 1970, just after he painted it BRG.

    [IMG]http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj106/ka2s4/IMG_9013.jpg[/IMG]

    Ignore the master cylinders, they are wrong
    [IMG]http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj106/ka2s4/IMG_9015.jpg[/IMG]

  8. imported post

    i have a july 64 built car with cut outs,and the panel is the original,without a doubt

    seems the phase in of these was a bit hit and miss??

  9. imported post

    The red & black 970S I recently finished was built in November 1964: originally hydrolastic and supposingly with later type front panel. Don't recall the numbers…

  10. imported post

    Here's an early vented car, sister to my 970, but built 1 month later.

    Body number 32473, 4th November.

    [IMG]http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj106/ka2s4/4289Puke3.jpg[/IMG]

  11. imported post

    richy59driver wrote:
    “i have a july 64  built car with cut outs,and the panel is the original,without a doubt

    seems the phase in of these was a bit hit and miss??

     

    Yes that is very odd.

    It seems wrong that it should be so random.

    J

  12. imported post

    Top left Pg 18:

    'Full skirts were used until around July 1964…(Pg 55 says May-Jul)
    The erratic change over to the later type may have even extended until August 1964'

    I can say that the change extended until at least Oct 1st[i][/i]

  13. imported post

    Glen Ponder wrote:
    “Another dry October '64 970 with seemingly a full skirt, not known whether this is original. Worth asking the owner though.

    [url=http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=270292503920]http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=270292503920[/url]

    Shouldn't this car have the vertical stiffener behind the grille?
    This angled one is post Jan'66?

  14. imported post

    just seems like a typicakl bmc parts bin special as usual,just like the seat belt anchorage change points too,thease were a bit hit and miss too,werent they?

    same as the 59 morris seating pattern and colour,and one hole glass scenario in late 59?

  15. imported post

    Yes James it should have a vertical oil cooler and stiffener. I suspect it's had a front panel then ? I did cheekily ask the question but got no reply.

    I can understand BMC phasing in such new pressings as the front panel over weeks but not months as you say, yours is still the only late one we've found, surely there's more but when these cars are forty odd years old there's not going tobe many still with an original front panel.

  16. imported post

    Picture the scene back in 1964,

    The mini production line is very busy with demand for the cooper high after therecent motorsport successes andline managers keen to see no interruption in production. Therefore its makes sense to have a good stock of all the panels needed. Some slightly different front panels come through and are put together with the original type. The guys welding the bodyshells together pick up the front panels from the top of the pile not knowing of any changes. This goes on for a couple of months before someeagle eyed manager notices that there are some of the old type panels left!After b*llicking his workforce about their error he makes sure that all the old panels are usedup as quickly as possible. The manager goes home that night worrying about anybody finding out'his' production error so the next day back at work he arranges all the cars built with the old type panels are put in the 'export only' line thinking that all those foreigners wouldn't notice.:)

    He obviously didn't reckon on James and theMCRsome forty four years later:D:D

  17. imported post

    Yes Bob, senarios like that have been running about in my head too:D:D

    My heritage cert has a note:

    Although the records indicate that this car was originally built for the home market, it was subsequently transferred to export sales.

    Because it had the wrong front panel :dude:

  18. imported post

    James,

    Slightly off-topic, but as your shell is so close to the 31484 change point, does it have the earlier centre-mount sun visors or the later end-mount ones? I'm curious to know how accurate some of the other change points are.

    Nick

Leave a comment