[Healeys] 100-4 Trafficator Info

[Ronald J. Ray]

Bill,

My not so clear point was, that just as the AH 100 did not become the 100-4
until the 100-6 was introduced, the AH 3000 did not become the 3000 MK I
until the MK II was introduced.

If one becomes upset when another uses the term 100-4, is it just as
legitimate for one to become upset when another uses the phrase 3000 MK I?

Ron



-----Original Message-----
From: healeys-bounces+ronald-ray=sbcglobal.net at autox.team.net
[mailto:healeys-bounces+ronald-ray=sbcglobal.net at autox.team.net]On
Behalf Of Mr. Bill
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 11:19 AM
To: healeys at autox.team.net
Subject: Re: [Healeys] 100-4 Trafficator Info


Nope, not at all, Ronald,

There were 3000's MK I, MK II and MK III.  They all had the same engine
blocks, just different carbs.   There were also MK III's and  MK
IIIa's, as well, but I do not profess to know where the "a" nomenclature
came from denoting the different body style with the additional running
lights as required by USA regulations.  (As the Colonies were DMH's
prime market.)  Come on Concours guys, Patrick and Alan, help me out
here!  :-)

Bill

Ronald J. Ray wrote:
> so then, is using the term 100-4 like using the phrase 3000 MK I?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: healeys-bounces+ronald-ray=sbcglobal.net at autox.team.net
> [mailto:healeys-bounces+ronald-ray=sbcglobal.net at autox.team.net]On
> Behalf Of Mr. Bill
> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 8:48 AM
> To: healeys at autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: [Healeys] 100-4 Trafficator Info

> Also, thank you for saying 100s instead of 100-4s!  Nothing raises my
> hackles more than that term created, to my knowledge, by parts dealers.
> If anybody can cite a reference of that term used by DMH, feel to flame
> away and I will sincerely apologize!
>
> Bill Barnett