Talk:Austin-Healey 100

100-6 Engine

I always thought a AH 100-6 had a 2.6 litre C series as per the Austin Westminster of the time, not 3 litre. Surely the upgrade to 3 litre is what caused the name change to AH 3000? Jhnmurphy (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It did. Article corrected. Malcolma (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

100 MPH

The "100" name comes from Donald Healey, who named it after the fact that this was one of the few cars of the era which could achieve 100 mph (160 km/h)...

Huh? There were many cars produced in the 1950s that could exceed 100 MPH. Almost all American vehicles of that era with an OHV V-8 would top 100 MPH with ease (though it was dangerous to drive most of them that fast). The fuely Corvettes of the late 1950s could touch 140 MPH in some cases. The 1957 Buick Century I drove while in high school in the early 1960s was powered by a 364 cubic inch engine rated at 300 horsepower, with a speedometer calibrated to 130 MPH—and the needle would go there, to more-or-less quote Ken Purdy. I question the allegation that Healey named it the "100" because of its top speed.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Remember, this car was developed in 1952, so it's not really fair to compare it to late 1950s Corvettes... But I think your edit is worded better than it was previously anyway. I added a citation for it being named for a top speed over 100 MPH. Here is the quote from the back cover of Austin-Healey 100, 100-6, 3000 Restoration Guide by Gary G. Anderson and Roger Moment: "Donald Healey saw an opening in the middle of the market, an opening that he filled with the Austin-Healey 100, a beautiful sports car that could top 100 mph, hence its name". Mojoworker (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely true that the 100mph ("the ton") capability was not a great selling point in the USA, while it was news in the UK. And it's not hard to see why; 100mph was available in relatively popular and affordable cars in the USA long before the late 1950s Corvettes, and for the simple reason that the USA is physically a lot larger then the UK, so there was somewhere to drive them! While some of these early US V8s were available in the UK, they sold poorly, and for the same reasons: Their handling and braking, like that of all cars of the time, were simply not up to doing 100mph or any high speed for that matter on British roads of the time. So the straight-line performance wasn't much of a selling point, and if you had the money to pay it anyway you probably were in the market for something a lot more luxurious.

On the other hand, it's no coincidence that the last 100/4 was the first production car anywhere in the world with four-wheel disk brakes, and this in a car which was built and sold as an "economy" sports car.

And that's probably why the 3000 was renamed from being a "100" despite it being a relatively small model change compared to that of 100 to 100/6: To appeal to the American market. But that's all WP:OR of course, and doesn't belong in the article unless we can source it to someone citeable.

But I hope it answers the question. There's no reason to query Donald Healey's reasons for initially choosing a name that was more relevant to the British than to the Americans. He was after all British. Andrewa (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

British vs. American English

I see that the word color has been changed to colour and back several times. Per WP:ENGVAR "color" was initially used on 18 March 2008 at rev 199176525, so American English would have precedence. It could be argued that there are "strong national ties" to British English for the topic, however Austin-Healey exported nearly 90 percent of their cars to the United States, so I dunno. Mojoworker (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The AH 100 an American car? Give it a break! You could similarly argue that Scotch Whisky is an American drink, or that the Beatles were an American band. Andrewa (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I notice that it's currently British spelling, and it also talks of bonnet not hood etc.. IMO it should stay that way, but it's really not worth us fighting about. If some Americans wish to discredit their image in this way, then I'm afraid it's up to other Americans to stop them. And it could even save American lives if they do, but probably won't if others do. Seriously, look at State University and ask yourself, if you were a student at a non-US State university, what would that indicate to you about America?

Note that I'm not for one moment disputing the fact that the Big Healeys were all aimed at the American market. The initial run of hand-built 100s were all left-hand drive. It's still a British car. Andrewa (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Split out 100-6?

I am considering splitting out the 100-6 into a new article. It seems that it's really more similar to the 3000... Mojoworker (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree in some ways, but what would you then call the article on the original 100? Its common name was and is just Austin-Healey 100, but that title includes the 100-6. So perhaps best as is.

Alternatively, perhaps merge with the article on the 3000 and call it Big Healey or similar? That's the only common name I know that covers both the 100-6 and the 3000, but it includes the original 100 too. Andrewa (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, still considering this. The 100-6 had the same engine, wheelbase, body styling (the general less-roundness as well as the obvious airscoop). windshield (non-folding), as the 3000. They're the same car with an engine capacity upgrade. The 100-6 is on the other hand a complete redesign of the original 100. So the current article split is a bit messy, but it does follow the official branding. The spridget name engineering was even worse! Andrewa (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The more I think of it the more the split makes sense. There were three models of The Big Healey: the 100, the 100-6 and the 3000. There's no justification for lumping the first two together and not the third, but it's going to be difficult to come up with a good name for an overview article, so why complicate things? Let's just have three articles. Unless someone either objects or does it first, in time I will. Andrewa (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Some cleaning up still to do, but the named references are sorted out I think (that's what took the most time) and the articles both now in better overall shape than before. Andrewa (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy you did the split. I was waiting for feedback and then just forgot about it. Mojoworker (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead rephrase

Lead read The Austin-Healey 100 is a sports car built between 1953 and 1956 by the British Motor Corporation (the following model, named the 100-Six and built from 1956 to 1959, is a different car even though it shares the name "100"). Messy, misleading and POV. It's a bit problematic, as the 100-6 has more in common with the 3000 than with the original 100, but the fact is that the 100-6 was and still is called a 100-6, not a 3000, and the content of this article includes the 100-6.

Perhaps the answer is to have three articles, as proposed above, or one. But meantime, the lead needs to match the title and content. Andrewa (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Finished for now I think. It still may not be completely logical, see above, but it's a lot more logical. Andrewa (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

And I've now on further reflection thrown most of that work away as part of the split, see above. Ah well! Andrewa (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Factory designators

From http://www.gbclassiccars.co.uk/healey%20designation.html retyped and reformatted to avoid copyvio problems:

• 100/4: 2-seat
  • BN1: 3 speed +OD, 1952-55
  • BN2: 4 speed +OD, 1959-56
• 100M: 2-seat
  • AHS: 1954-56
• 100/6
  • BN4: 2+2, 1956-1959
  • BN6 2-seat. 1958-1959
• 3000 Mk I
  • BN7 2-seat. 1959-61
  • BT7 2+2, 1959-1961
• 3000 Mk II
  • BN7 2-seat, 1961-1962
  • BT7 2+2, 1961-62
  • BJ7 2+2, 1962-63
• 3000 Mk III
  • BJ8 Phase 1 2+2, 1964
  • BJ8 Phase 2 2+2, 1964-68

Obviously there's a lot of information still to add from other sources. Andrewa (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

See also

• http://www.gbclassiccars.co.uk/austin_healey_100.html
• http://www.gbclassiccars.co.uk/austin_healey_100_6.html
• http://www.gbclassiccars.co.uk/austin_healey_3000.html

for some of these details. Andrewa (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)