Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dbug]

I love the TR's

I have always had a soft spot for the Mk2 Cav Convertibles

Thats a nice TR5 in the third pic down - only TR I've never owned (apart from TR7/8 which imo are not true TRs)

[Bent valve]

...............and yes my memory was not playing tricks.

The same shell was used for the Morris, Austin, MG, Riley, and Wolsley; five in all using the basic BMC shell, but attaching on their bonnets, wings, badges, engines, and internal fittings like the seats and dash boards.

This owners site for the Wolsley 15/60, as in the OP's picture, is interesting:

http://www.co-oc.org/1560.html

PS Jereboam I can understand how you confused the smaller 15/60 model with it's larger brothers, as they looked similar at a distance.  My father in law had a Austin Westminster version of those and it was gorgeous 8-) 8-)

Its a 16 /60 not a 15/60. look at the rear wings

Thanks BV, here is the picture reproduced:



Now compare the one off the 15/60 owners site:



I am trying to see the difference :-/ :-/

The rear wings on the 15/60 point skywards whereas the 16/60 wings are more toned down. also the rear quarter bumper is longer on the 15/60

[Lisa]

gilbern invader mk3

Spot On Lisa.....I did not expect a mere woman to know that....

[Lizzie_Zoom]

.............this is a 16/60:




Is there much of a difference, apart from the engine and transmission? :-/ :-/

[Lizzie_Zoom]

...............and yes my memory was not playing tricks.

The same shell was used for the Morris, Austin, MG, Riley, and Wolsley; five in all using the basic BMC shell, but attaching on their bonnets, wings, badges, engines, and internal fittings like the seats and dash boards.

This owners site for the Wolsley 15/60, as in the OP's picture, is interesting:

http://www.co-oc.org/1560.html

PS Jereboam I can understand how you confused the smaller 15/60 model with it's larger brothers, as they looked similar at a distance.  My father in law had a Austin Westminster version of those and it was gorgeous 8-) 8-)

Its a 16 /60 not a 15/60. look at the rear wings

Thanks BV, here is the picture reproduced:



Now compare the one off the 15/60 owners site:



I am trying to see the difference :-/ :-/

The rear wings on the 15/60 point skywards whereas the 16/60 wings are more toned down. also the rear quarter bumper is longer on the 15/60

Right, thanks BV!

We are into real car buff stuff here 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

[Bent valve]

...............and yes my memory was not playing tricks.

The same shell was used for the Morris, Austin, MG, Riley, and Wolsley; five in all using the basic BMC shell, but attaching on their bonnets, wings, badges, engines, and internal fittings like the seats and dash boards.

This owners site for the Wolsley 15/60, as in the OP's picture, is interesting:

http://www.co-oc.org/1560.html

PS Jereboam I can understand how you confused the smaller 15/60 model with it's larger brothers, as they looked similar at a distance.  My father in law had a Austin Westminster version of those and it was gorgeous 8-) 8-)

Its a 16 /60 not a 15/60. look at the rear wings

Thanks BV, here is the picture reproduced:



Now compare the one off the 15/60 owners site:



I am trying to see the difference :-/ :-/

The rear wings on the 15/60 point skywards whereas the 16/60 wings are more toned down. also the rear quarter bumper is longer on the 15/60

Right, thanks BV!

We are into real car buff stuff here 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

No problem all the 1500 engined Farinas had tailfin style rear wings, when the 1622 engined models were introduced they were toned down a bit across the range.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

...............and yes my memory was not playing tricks.

The same shell was used for the Morris, Austin, MG, Riley, and Wolsley; five in all using the basic BMC shell, but attaching on their bonnets, wings, badges, engines, and internal fittings like the seats and dash boards.

This owners site for the Wolsley 15/60, as in the OP's picture, is interesting:

http://www.co-oc.org/1560.html

PS Jereboam I can understand how you confused the smaller 15/60 model with it's larger brothers, as they looked similar at a distance.  My father in law had a Austin Westminster version of those and it was gorgeous 8-) 8-)

Its a 16 /60 not a 15/60. look at the rear wings

Thanks BV, here is the picture reproduced:



Now compare the one off the 15/60 owners site:



I am trying to see the difference :-/ :-/

The rear wings on the 15/60 point skywards whereas the 16/60 wings are more toned down. also the rear quarter bumper is longer on the 15/60

Right, thanks BV!

We are into real car buff stuff here 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

No problem all the 1500 engined Farinas had tailfin style rear wings, when the 1622 engined models were introduced they were toned down a bit across the range.

Yes, thinking about it that particular Farina styling was evident, albeit on a smaller scale, on my 1960 Farina bodied A40.  It had these cute rear wings 8-) 8-) 8-)

[hotel21]

The 15/60 and 16/60 differences are similar to the A55/A60 Cambridge/Oxford styling changes.  The earlier models had the slightly raised /higher tailfins as said whilst the 'later' models were more parallel, if you follow....

[SJKOO01]

Not a single Morris Minor, I'm very disappointed!

7th photo down Lee.
It's hiding to the left, dressed in police colours 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

The 15/60 and 16/60 differences are similar to the A55/A60 Cambridge/Oxford styling changes.  The earlier models had the slightly raised /higher tailfins as said whilst the 'later' models were more parallel, if you follow....

Yes I now understand H, thanks

It is quite amazing thinking back how BMC so often used the basic floor pans and body shells for so many variants, with sometimes minute differences between models of each marque.  The Mini range, 1100 range, the Maxi range, the range of this discussion, and the large Wolsley / Austin / Riley /MG cars, just off the top of my head, all were of the same basic mould but was replicated (expensive mistake?) across the marques.  So poor basic, old fashioned designs, were repeated and kept going way beyond their sell by dates by BMC.

Then British Leyland produced the Allegro, Marina; I will not go on as it distresses me too much!!    I, and thousands / millions of others were driven over to buying Ford's as a result!!  

[VXL V6]

Lovely pictures Optimist!!

Personally I love the Vauxhall Victor and the Austin Seven the most, but they are all gorgeous! 8-) 8-)

Is it true that the mk3 cavalier was called that and not called the vectra A as it was in Europe, to avoid association with the Victor?

I really do not know Lisa, but no doubt someone on here will know!

All I can say is that there was a good 30+ years between the Victor and the Mk3 Cavalier

Yep last Cavalier was known as the Vectra A in other countries.

[Marks DTM Calib]

Yup Mk3 Cavalier was the Vectra A
Mk2 Cav -  Ascona C
Mk1 Cav -  Ascona B

[Bent valve]

Yup Mk3 Cavalier was the Vectra A
Mk2 Cav -  Ascona C
Mk1 Cav -  Ascona B

I had a pale blue 1600 Ascona B. Brilliant car, so much better looking than the Cavalier.

[Lisa]

Yup Mk3 Cavalier was the Vectra A
Mk2 Cav -  Ascona C
Mk1 Cav -  Ascona B

Thanks I heared that it was called Cavalier in the uk, to avoid being compared to the victor. Do you know if thats true?

[Marks DTM Calib]

Yup Mk3 Cavalier was the Vectra A
Mk2 Cav -  Ascona C
Mk1 Cav -  Ascona B

I had a pale blue 1600 Ascona B. Brilliant car, so much better looking than the Cavalier.

You wanted the US spec one......fuel injected!