That's a good question. I am sure your surmise is correct -- it was based
on the American convention of new "models" (mostly just new sheet metal
and/or trim) for each year, announced in the summer and going on sale in
September. I couldn't say how much the British auto industry had adopted
this concept for domestic purposes in the 60s (I imagine it is pretty
much universal at this time). This convention was doubtless codified in
various US forms and regulations, but I suspect it was the marketing
conventions ("New for '62! with Extra Style and Pizazz!") that had the
most impact on MG. The US was their biggest market by far, and if their
US dealers wanted a "new" model every September in order to compete, by
gosh they were going to give it to them. I imagine that as the production
runs got larger, too, with the A and B, Abingdon itself felt it needed
some kind of regular break or changeover date at which major
modifications could be introduced into the line without unnecessary
disruption. And this changeover, if you look at Clausager's timeline,
generally occurred in late summer. I guess it would be tempting fate to
change the production line in the middle of the Christmas holidays! which
is where the calendar year would have it. So you can see why the Moss
catalog list notes that "calendar year build dates are of historic
interest only". For whatever reason, the model year rollover was sometime
in the "previous" year, although it varied from May to December,
apparently.
One interesting point is that Clausager's timeline doesn't mention the
concept of "model year" until the 1969 model year. Up to that point each
change is just listed by date. Even the major change to the Mark II
specification for 1968 didn't get this label, and in fact Clausager gives
a different date than the chart in the Moss catalog (November rather than
October). That aside, it would seem to be evidence for the idea that
compliance with US regulations (which began in 1968 for the most part)
had something to do with it.
Perhaps someone who has one of the history of MG volumes might have
further insight.
Bullwinkle had this to say:
>Years ago, I thought MG's went more by the model: K, J2, etc. The
>year of production was not that important. Changes made were
>noted by chasis not date of production. If one did talk about a
>year, it was the actual year the car was made not the 'model
>year.'
>
>When did this model year hype get going? Was it something we
>Americans tacked on because of our domestic producers or when MG
>had to comply with federal standards? Just curious.
>
>Blake
>
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the red one with the silver bootlid.
|