[Healeys] Recent 100M on BAT

Sat Dec 16 07:46:42 MST 2023

Some feel that since DMH knew he was going to change over to a new car (the
100-6) he figured out a clever marketing ploy to get rid of what might
otherwise have become a less-than-desirable inventory of late production
100's by outfitting some of the cars with the snazzy M upgrade.  If so it
was probably never his intention nor in his comprehension to produce what
has ironically become a very special Healey second only to the 100-S in
collectibility.

Best--Michael Oritt

On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 1:31 AM Bob Spidell <bspidell at comcast.net> wrote:

> The M was rated at 110HP--more if you got the optional branch
> extractor--as opposed to a stock BN2's 90HP. That's a 22% increase in
> power; I'd call that significant. Also, how do you 'hang' a camshaft and
> pistons on an engine (the mechanics were supposed to pull the engine, but
> if DMH and Geoff weren't around they'd cheat and do the mods in situ)?
>
> I think at least part of the value of an M is that it made an appearance
> at the Healey factory, possibly with DMH and/or Geoff in attendance, as
> opposed to just coming off the Austin assembly line. Also, the
> modifications were, for the most part, the same as made to the cars that
> ran at LeMans in '52 ('53?) and came in 13th (or 14th) overall. When
> customers started asking for the same modifications DMH first sold a kit,
> then the complete car (anyone remember 'Race on Sunday, sell on Monday?').
>
> I'd say the market has spoken, since genuine M cars command a significant
> price premium (hence why of the original, documented 640 cars only 3,000
> remain).
>
> bs
>
>
> On 12/15/2023 2:16 PM, Michael Salter wrote:
>
> I'm not an "M" guy really because as someone mentioned there isn't that
> much to hanging the "modification " parts on any 100.
> If the "M" designation involved significant performance modifications,
> say like an "M" series BMW, which could not be easily copied, then I would
> consider them be very special.
> I understand that Mr Meade has now sold his "M" so would not be surprised
> to see the "Registry" fade away.
> Just my opinion.
>
> M
>
> On Fri., Dec. 15, 2023, 1:59 p.m. josef-eckert--- via Healeys, <
> healeys at autox.team.net> wrote:
>
>> What makes a 100M?
>> Very good question and not easy to answer.
>>
>> In my opinion, an Austin-Healey 100M, especially as the price category is significantly higher than the normal 100,
>> is a car that any modification reduces its value. A heavily modified 100M is nothing special. It's a modified 100 and
>> no longer an M. But this is my personal opinion. A new chassis would be such a major modification for me, as would a
>> conversion to disc brakes at the front or a conversion to a Weber carburettors, etc. This would be simply no longer a
>> Genuine 100M. I would then rather buy an original Austin-Healey 100 for the same money. But I have to admit, for me
>> the hype surrounding the 100M is far exaggerated for what the car is. It's a special model with a little more
>> horsepower, but not anything particularly special. Its like an Alpina BMW or a AMG Mercedes.
>>
>> Josef Eckert
>> Germany
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original-Nachricht-----
>>
>> Betreff: Re: [Healeys] Recent 100M on BAT
>>
>> Datum: 2023-12-15T18:07:16+0100
>>
>> Von: "Bob Spidell" <bspidell at comcast.net>
>>
>> An: "HealeyRick" <healeyrik at gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Note the Registry will also certify 'Le Mans Conversions,' which may be
>> what Kent's nasty is/was. Some have noted you can build a 'better M' with
>> aftermarket parts (Isky cam, alloy head, SBC, etc.).
>>
>> I don't think either Kilmartin or Jules makes a 100 chassis, but I'd be
>> somewhat more sympathetic to that, but not so much hanging an M body and
>> parts on a BN1 (a BN2, *maybe*). The main problem I see is an earnest
>> owner may sell a conversion (aka 'counterfeit') with full disclosure, but
>> an owner or two down the road the 'Tribute' tag has been conveniently
>> forgotten (I'm not all in on 'tribute' anything, be they cars or rock
>> bands).
>>
>>
>> On 12/15/2023 7:17 AM, HealeyRick wrote:
>>
>> This is all hypothesis based on speculation so take it with that caveat.
>> Let's say one had a rusty factory 100M that was so bad it needed a new
>> frame.  How hard would it be to transfer the 100M body parts over to a
>> solid BN1 chassis along with the oh-so-valuable chassis plate? The 100M
>> Registry seems to focus mostly on the original body parts and cockpit
>> surrounds to certify a car. Even cars with non-original engines have been
>> registered. I'm pretty certain Kent Lacy's Nasty M was on the registry. So
>> is the BaT car still an M?  Some pretty valuable race cars have been
>> crashed and fitted with new chassis and still bring big money at auction.
>>
>> To me, what makes an M an M is the motor.  If an M no longer has its
>> original motor, or equal replacement, it has lost its character as an M.
>> Otherwise, it's a BN2 with a louvered hood. It's almost like if a Sunbeam
>> Tiger blew its motor and it was replaced with an Alpine motor. Sure, it's
>> got the right serial number on the unibody, but it's not much of a Tiger
>> anymore. The BaT car with what appears to be non-original carbs and
>> distributor caused me concern. Who would remove those from an original M
>> motor? C'mon 100M sellers, pop the valve cover, remove the rockers and put
>> a dial indicator on the pushrods so we can see if there is still a 100M cam
>> in the lump!
>>
>> Happy Healeydays,
>> Rick Neville
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 1:05 PM Bob Spidell <bspidell at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Excellent report, thank you.
>>>
>>> I was one of the commenters on BaT--I joined BaT to comment--but, since
>>> I have a BN2/100M I'm not familiar with BN1 differences and could only
>>> point out obvious differences with my car (which was completely original as
>>> far as I can tell, except for extensive body work). One thing that was
>>> somewhat disturbing to me is that the Registry certified this car, while
>>> noting some major anomalies (the carbs, for instance, looked to be new and
>>> didn't have the hand scribing like my car).
>>>
>>> The other thing that interested me is, how do you value this car? Yes,
>>> it's a very nice car, probably a good driver but, IMO, its value
>>> *should* be less than a comparably restored, original BN1 or BN2. And,
>>> what did the previous owner know, or should have known about this car? How
>>> do you present it for sale; as a BN1 with 'M bits?' It would need the
>>> proverbial asterisk alongside the page title.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/14/2023 8:15 AM, S and T Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> If you were following it recently,  you might find my observations
>>> interesting.  So I went down to Michael's motor cars to help him determine
>>> if the 100m indeed has a BN1 chassis. Here is what I found.
>>>
>>> It has the BN1 inner fenders with the rolled pressings. It has the BN1
>>> front brake hose frame mount the is less pronounced welded BN1 bracket, as
>>> the later cars have a bolted on bracket. The front shock towers have no
>>> evidence of being replaced and show the factory welds. The gearbox mount
>>> shows non-original/factory welds as if it were replaced to accommodate the
>>> BN2 mount.
>>>
>>> What I found most interesting is that where a BN1 has two OD relays
>>> mounted under the dash, it took shining a light it different directions to
>>> just make out the slight evidence of filled holes (4 of then for the two
>>> relays). And I was able to reach inside the vent just below that area with
>>> my fingers and feel the welds and welding wire that was used to fill those
>>> 4 holes. I can tell you someone took great care to try and make those holes
>>> seem as they never existed.  Along with that, where a BN2 would have the
>>> single OD relay attached to the firewall with machine screws screwed into
>>> welded captive nuts on the firewall,  you can see plain sheet screws were
>>> used to mount it in what would be a BN2 relay position.
>>>
>>> I also feel the engine tag is a repo because of the lighter stamping.
>>> Originals tend to have the numbers/ letters stamped with a deeper end
>>> result.  I took my repo engine tag along to compare, and they appeared
>>> identical in the stampings. The body/ bath tag and VIN plate appear
>>> original. Now that doesn't mean that the engine isn't the correct M engine,
>>> because there could be many reasons why the engine tag was replaced. Anyone
>>> who drove a stock 100 compared to a 100M can attest to the difference in
>>> power, and Mike stated that it indeed has that M power.
>>>
>>> The boot lid shows no evidence of the stay bracket being swapped off
>>> another lid, and if you look closely you can see that the boot shows some
>>> previous age/life. I'd believe it to be original. I could not make out any
>>> evidence of the bonnet number being sliced in from a M bonnet, but I will
>>> say that the underside of the bonnet seemed suspiciously clean and
>>> prestine. I couldn't detect any age like the boot, but that would be for
>>> someone else to decide.
>>>
>>> Mike had asked me if the cold air box was original,  and I simply don't
>>> have that experience to know. I have anyways heard if it looks old, it's
>>> original.  It does indeed look to have some age, so?
>>>
>>> I feel at some point in this car's life someone went to some effort to
>>> try and conceal that these 100M parts were reinstalled on a BN1 chassis.
>>> Another interesting note is that there was an attempt to fill the holes
>>> where a BN1 chassis plate is fitted on the frame rail. Perhaps the person
>>> didn't realize that the holes continued over to the BN2's, and thought they
>>> were erasing evidence of a BN1 chassis?
>>>
>>> With all that said, Mike is simply trying to represent the car
>>> correctly. The car is a very nice car! Paint is very nice, car is straight,
>>> and gaps look good. Interior is very nice, and looks to be a very good car
>>> all around. I didn't drive the car, but Mike has years of experience under
>>> his belt, so I'd trust his opinions on that. With the quality of the
>>> restoration,  it is surprising that the front frame to shroud brackets were
>>> not welded to the frame. Chrome looks good, and I'd think winning some
>>> trophies at a popular vote car would not be an issue.
>>>
>>> The Millers
>>>
>>> "Always drive them, but remember each drive in an antique car is a test
>>> drive."
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
>>> Suggested annual donation  $12.75
>>>
>>> Archive: http://www.team.net/pipermail/healeys
>>> http://autox.team.net/archive/healeys
>>>
>>> Healeys at autox.team.net
>>> http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/healeys
>>>
>>> Unsubscribe/Manage:
>>> http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/healeys/healeyrik@gmail.com
>>>
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
>> Suggested annual donation  $12.75
>>
>> Archive: http://www.team.net/pipermail/healeys
>> http://autox.team.net/archive/healeys
>>
>> Healeys at autox.team.net
>> http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/healeys
>>
>> Unsubscribe/Manage:
>> http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/healeys/michaelsalter@gmail.com
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
> Suggested annual donation  $12.75
>
> Archive: http://www.team.net/pipermail/healeys
> http://autox.team.net/archive/healeys
>
> Healeys at autox.team.net
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/healeys
>
> Unsubscribe/Manage:
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/healeys/michael.oritt@gmail.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://autox.team.net/pipermail/healeys/attachments/20231216/d29fe389/attachment.htm>