Randall wrote:
>John, let me once again apologize. My post in the wee hours
was not only
>misinformed, but poorly phrased as well. I was curious to see
what the
>manuals had to say about whether Stanpart 502251 included a L494 or
some
>other lamp; and somewhat puzzled that I couldn't find any information at
>all.
Absolutely no apologies needed, Randall. If I write something in the
wee hours now, even I can't understand it - let alone anyone else. Sorry worry
not
>Actually, I have one cross reference, published by Lucas. You can see
it at http://tinyurl.com/dxs58wz But Lucas also listed the applications for
their products, sometimes
>including factory optional equipment, and I was
hoping to perhaps find the reverse lamp so listed. Something sold only as a
"Lucas Accessory" would not have had a Stanpart
> number, no?
Aha, aha, AHA!
We're talking at cross-purposes and we're looking at different
lists!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My list is as published by old Joe Lucas in Birmingham
and the other is my genuine, original, Stanpart Accessory List printed in
Coventry by WW Curtis per pro S-T.
I see that your list is 'the colonial
version' with an address in New York. Against that background 'Old Joe'
obviously did print a cross-ref for the North American market in North America
but 'Old Joe' in Birmingham UK didn't cross-refer his parts to other auto
maker numbers. So you're right - and I'm right, 'cos we're looking at
different publications. Simples!
JM
|