Thanks for responding Max in a meaningful and logical manner. I don't know
how the rest got immediately off on a BGT/V8 tangent...wow, quite remarkable
what this Email toy will do.
It makes sense that the numbers line up into probably early March or so
1966. The ownership document is the only thing that says anything about the
car being a '65. Being that this slip is a government produced item, it's a
small wonder that it's not accurate. One of these days I'll put together the
funds to send to the Heritage Trust for the actual documentation. But at
what I understand to be $40. U.S. funds which in my poor Canadian currency
equals about $60., I will probably wait a while until I at least have some
of the other priorities such as all the rot cut out and the new metal welded
in. Meanwhile I'm having fun with the project, whic is what it's all about.
BTW, I'm on the lookout for an early MGB gearbox & overdrive unit along with
all the related bits, relay, vacuum switch, driveshaft, etc. I'm in Southern
Ontario, If there's someone out there who can help.
Thanks again.
Rich Chrysler
Max Heim wrote:
> Hmm, interesting. Clausager states that serial #77774 was the first GT
> built in January 1966. This seems to indicate that 84510 would have come
> off the line around March 66. By the time it shipped to the states, it's
> hard to see how it got registered as a '65, except as some kind of tax
> dodge (?). GT body numbers began with 101 in 1965, with 524 produced in
> the calendar year (bringing it up to 625, presumably). 10,241 were
> produced in 1966, so number 2450 would be an early 1966 car, which
> corresponds to the serial number calculation above. So it seems definite
> your car was built in early calendar year 1966. Anyway, since GT
> production didn't begin until September 1965, which was the beginning of
> the 1966 *model* year, I don't see how any GTs could be termed 1965
> models.
>
> About the production and assembly history you mention, Clausager does
> describe a change in the body assembly & trim location, but seems to
> imply that all final assembly was at Abingdon. But there is room for some
> interpretation there.
>
>
> RL Chrysler had this to say:
>
> >Hi folks,
> >I just got on this list today, and am eager to try to be a helpful
lister.
> >I'm in the early stages of a full restoration on what I believe to be a
> >rather early MGB/GT. Her ser. no. is GHD3L84510, and the body no. tag is
> >002450P. It seems to me that most of the early GT's were registered as
1966
> >cars, ie.by the time they were produced, dispatched from Abingdon, and
made
> >their way over the pond to North America, and were sold to their first
> >owner, the paperwork recognised them as '66's. Mine is registered as a
1965,
> >therefore I'm assuming the car is fairly early.
> >Another pont of interest; I read in a mid 1980's issue of the NAMGBR
> >magazine that the earliest BGT's were not produced at Abingdon at all for
> >the first while. Anybody know where they were assembled, and how long
this
> >took place before Abingdon took them on as per usual?
> >Rich Chrysler
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Max Heim
> '66 MGB GHN3L76149
> If you're near Mountain View, CA,
> it's the red one with the silver bootlid.
>
>
|