okay, but explain this: my mk. II is titled as a '64. now, you could sell
a '66 as a '67 if you sold it in '67, but how did he get that comm. no. in
'64? the numbers on the title match up, and the other little mk. II
things are there--but weren't the first mk. IIs late '65?
On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Joe Curry wrote:
>
> Andrew,
> It just could be that it is because your car really is a 1966 model.
> According to the BMIHT (keeper of the Triumph production records), the
> first Mk2 built in 1967 (yes there are 1967 Mk2's) was FC88565. Since
> your car is FC81359, it would have been built sometime before the end of
> 1966.
>
> In those years Triumph was still using the calendar year to designate
> year models, so yours is indeed a 1966 model. Probably, the car was
> originally sold in 1967 and registered as that year by the dealer. That
> was a very common practice back then.
>
> The Commission number would not have that 67 prefix from the factory.
> If the plate indicates that, it was added sometime after the car left
> the plant (probably by the dealer to help justify the change in model).
> However, if the car was sold in the US, it should have an "L" at the end
> to signify Left hand Steering.
>
> Also, as you suggest a car that came from the factory with overdrive
> would bear an "O" as a suffix to the commission number.
>
> So, You are not crazy, just a victim of creative salesmanship!
>
> Regards,
> Joe Curry
>
> Andrew Holmes wrote:
> >
> > Why is it that virtually every spitfire website or publication, or even
> > folks generally knowledgable (ie: half the british parts folks I've dealt
> > with) always tell me that I am wrong about my car?
> >
> > I have a 1967 Mk II. Everbody tries to tell me that I must be mistaken, and
> > that by 1967, only mk III cars were made. But I have a 1967, VIN 67FC81359L
> > (I have since added overdrive - I understand that cars with factory OD
> > usually had that indicated in the VIN?).
> >
> > Are these rare? Why do so many british car "experts" think I don't have
> > what I say I have?
> >
> > I even have an 1147 engine - could it be that this is actually an earlier
> > car that took awhile to first register? How can I find this out? I have
> > the original plates (it's a black-plated California car), so my registration
> > has been continuous, but it shows 1967 on the paperwork . . .
> >
> > Somebody please tell me I'm not crazy . . . or confirm my wife's diagnosis
> > of me!
>
> --
> "If you can't excel with talent, triumph with effort."
> -- Dave Weinbaum in National Enquirer
>
|