Gary,
I am surprised that you as an editor are using assumptions to make
your case, but since I am not, I think I will. I should start off by
saying that I am a "have-not" and deeply suffer from the rivet envy
because of the emphases placed on it from the "haves". While mine is
without, it is still a NOS high quality chrome OEM part that is a
correct fit and as it has the same part number as the lucas
replacement parts list for a 60-61 year model, which also matches the
62-67 part number on 2 different Lucas catalogues that I have in my
possession. So, if they got it wrong, they got it wrong on at least 2
accounts.
With that said, I have since learned that the convertibles may have
been supplied with non riveted rims, which would demand a different
part number. It makes sense that the replacement catalogues would
consider issuing an "updated" part if it fits an earlier model. But
why not make this the same for the 100/6 and the early 3000s that have
a different part number? Maybe there is something on these cars that
will not fit with the newer rims. In researching the part numbers for
the other components tied to the rim, I have found the following:
The 1960- do not have a dust excluder
The light retaining plate (which I believe is where the rim is
affixed) is the same for the 100s and 100/6 and pre 60 3000s, but
different for the 60-61 cars and yet different again for the 62- cars.
It is the latter finding that substantiates why the pre-60 cars may
need a different rim to fit "properly", hence the different numbers.
Or maybe they fit properly with all other parts changed since the
shrouds were interchangeable.
I should also add that from the "Mechanical Service Parts
List" (series BJ7 and BJ8) there are 6 pages front and back dedicated
to headlamp assemblies. And for the North American models, BMC lists
a different part number for the rims (57H 5018) as the others (37H
5530). Since I do not have a parts list for the BN7 and BT7 series, I
would inquire for someone to fill in this blank.
So, on behalf of the other "have-nots", I am making the following
appeal for concourse revisions:
When judging for the rivet, the pre 60 cars should have one, yet the
60-67 cars should be given a bye to either "have" or "have-not" unless
someone can prove differently as there was most obviously a transition
point that no-one has yet to define. And if that occurs, you still
have to give credence to the fact that pulling boxes off the shelf
could have gone in any assortment until all riveted stock was depleted.
Olin Brimberry
61 3000 MKII
BT7 Sideshifter TriCarb
healey@hunterbane.com
www.hunterbane.com
_______________________________________________
Healeys@autox.team.net
Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
Suggested annual donation $12.75
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
|