Two more questions for those who know vintage cars!

It very much depends on the model. The most common one was perhaps the Ruby, and you'd get a perfectly usable one for 2-3 grand. A rare early tourer in excellent condition could be more than 3 times this.

I bought one with a pal while still at school for 12 and a half quid. You could fill the tank - just - for a pound. ;-)

But a loaf of bread was only 2d. and you could feed a family of 10 for the week on a quid...

I once baught a bullnosed Austin 7 Swallow for £30. God knows what you'd pay for it now Twas a boat tailed 2 seater convertible. Not the ugly saloon with the round rear and an overhanging roof over a vee w/s. One of the first cars made by the Co that later became Jaguar Cars Ltd. Mike.

WTF were SS cars doing putting bodies on Austin 7's...

:::Jerry:::: ( snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

?? Eh?? Erm, Jerry, dearie - you are 'avin a larf, aren't you?

That's what that young Lyons lad did... He started off with William Walmsley's sidecars, then moved onwards and upwards to bodies for Austin Sevens, then bodies for Standard chassis, then his own chassis with Standard engines - the "Standard Swallow" or SS1.

Swallow became SS, then those initials became a little bit redolent of the beastly hun, so "Jaguar" was chosen.

were

But there is a difference between putting a body on a chassis and making a car though, as you well know. It most certainly was not "One of the first cars made by the Co that later became Jaguar Cars Ltd.", it might well have been 'One of the first bodies made by the Co that later became Jaguar Cars Ltd.'...

Didn't SS originally stand for Swallow Sidecars?

:::Jerry:::: ( snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they :::were saying :

Furry muff, but the Swallows were a cut above the normal scrape'n'slap body replacement outfits.

Besides, Standard built the chassis for the SS1 & 2, albeit to Lyons' design.

Dave Plowman (News) ( snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Possibly, but they seem to have still been selling as "Swallow" until after they'd moved away from Sidecars.

Bit before my time, though... The Jag link I posted seems to reckon "Standard Swallow".

They first started making Swallow cars, based on Austin, Morris,Fiat, and Standard chassis in Blackpool in 1927. The Swallow Coachbuilding Co were still making sidecars as well. In 1928 they moved to Coventry and in 1931 produced a Standard based car, which they called the SS1. The Jaguar name appeared in 1936.

There appears to be a little controversy about what SS actually stood for. Standard Swallow, seems to be the most likely though. Mike.

The first Lotus was a rebodied Austin 7 with a tuned engine. Later cars were similar but fitted with a Ford 10 engine. So when did Colin Chapman first produce a genuine Lotus car?

It most certainly was not "One of the first

No. Swallow cars were a product of the Swallow Coachbuilding Co Ltd. Many early Co's accepted as car makers in their own right, did not engineer complete cars. Early Reliants for example, were simply rebodied Raleigh 3 wheeler vans. So does that mean they didn't make Reliant cars?

I don't think many car buffs would accept your arguement, that because car makers like Swallow, Lotus, and Reliant rebodied existing cars, that they shouldn't be recognised as car makers in their own right. How much has actually got to be manufactured 'in house' before you think they qualify? Mike.

Probably never, given that most would think that involves the engine, and Lotus only ever modified existing designs until well after Chapman had departed.

Of course, I doubt there's a car in the entire world that doesn't share some parts with others of a different make.

They were not. The SS cars came later. Mike.

Dave Plowman (News) ( snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

When he built his first full car, until then he was modifying / tuning.

A car manufacturer designs and builds (although they might out-shop for parts), a company that builds a body on to another companies chassis is nothing more than (to use an old phrase) a coach-builder. Most 'car buffs' who know anything about the subject would accept that difference, in fact many early cars are referred to as a 'vehicle make' with a 'coachworks name' body.

But until SS cars they didn't make cars, they were coachbuilders, so if it was the first car made by what became Jaguar Cars Ltd it must have been SS cars ! Just putting a body on a chassis is not building a car, just the coachwork, think about it...

I accept that. Anyone would. What I don't accept is your dismissal as a car maker, of any car that was based on the chassis of a different car. By that criteria many of todays cars wouldn't qualify as being made by the Co whose badge they carry.

I don't think many would agree with your very narrow interpretation of a car 'maker'. In any case, it doesn't alter the fact that the Co that produced the Austin

Lotus Elite !

But you don't ! See below...

Because all they have done is build the coachwork.

There are very few coachworks building bodies on to a separate (car) chassis anymore, shells that are used for 'badge engineering' are either part or a large multi brand company - such as BMC, MG, Worlsey or Audi, Skoda, VW etc. Or are part of a development collaboration schemes - such as Rover Group and Honda etc. They all build a complete vehicle, that is the point and not just modify or build a different body to fit the (separate) chassis.