Newbie Info

Don't you just hate it when someone blows your theories away? Sorry to say this but some Series IIa's have headlights in the wings too :-)

I'm sure somone will be along in a minute to explain all :-)

Regards Steve G

Try this -

SteveG wrote on Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:20:48 GMT:

Argh! It get's worse. Ok, so I'll wait for a definitive answer then. Cheers!

PDannyD wrote on Sun, 29 Feb 2004 12:13:56 GMT:

Ah brilliant, thank you.

Nice to see it's still on the road, but it has changed colour from it's original cream.

Thanks again,

On or around Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:45:01 +0000 (UTC), Abaddon enlightened us thusly:

try looking it up on that RAC thing...

On or around Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:03:20 +0000 (UTC), Abaddon enlightened us thusly:

series I: 80, 86, 88, 107 in. wheelbase.

80" from 1948-54 I think, 86" from 54 onwards until 1957, very few 88", the extra 2" is for the diesel engine

small, lights in centre, no "modesty panels" underneath the doors, flat body sides.

Series II: 88, 109. in wheelbase

1958 (I think) to about 1968/69 ish, headlights in centre, barrel-shaped sided and deep panels under the doors (about 4").

Series IIA: as above but lights in wings.

Series III: 1971 onwards, lights in wings, "modesty" panels got shorter, only about 2-3" deep. New plastic dash with speedo etc in front of driver.

that's about it for the basics. There are many variants, though :-)

Twas Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:07:42 +0000 when Austin Shackles put finger to keyboard producing:

errm, what's a "modesty panel"?

-- Regards. Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.) ___________________________________________________________ "To know the character of a man, give him anonymity" - Mr.Nice.

mrniceATmrnice.me.uk 110 CSW 2.5(na)D___________________________________________________________

Austin Shackles wrote on Sun, 29 Feb 2004

16:07:42 GMT:

[Cut]

Brilliant, many thanks for your help.

On or around Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:37:02 +0000, Mr.Nice. enlightened us thusly:

the bit along under the doors that hides the chassis.

not there on series I. Mind, they shortened in on the SIII which made it less effective.

Twas Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:58:35 +0000 when Austin Shackles put finger to keyboard producing:

Sill surely?

-- Regards. Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.) ___________________________________________________________ "To know the character of a man, give him anonymity" - Mr.Nice.

mrniceATmrnice.me.uk 110 CSW 2.5(na)D___________________________________________________________

I always thought that the majority of IIA's had the lights in the centre? I know mine certainly did.

On or around Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:16:07 +0000, Mr.Nice. enlightened us thusly:

not in the same sense as cars, no. And you can remove it on a LR if you want, it literally does nothing except hide the chassis.

On or around Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:40:13 +0000 (UTC), "SimonJ" enlightened us thusly:

I'd thought that this was the reason for the IIA re-design, viz. that new regulations meant that the lights had to go onto the wings.

If I remember right, that series of articles in one of the magazines, detailing all the little changes, said that the shift of the headlamps was initially only for some overseas markets.

Didn't the Series II / IIa have the wire grill and the Series III the plastic... A good give away if its fairly standard

• the door hinges changing SIII's had flush hinges(although early SIII's had the SII hinges to use up the bits!)

Trev

On or around Mon, 1 Mar 2004 17:32:06 -0000, "trev" enlightened us thusly:

yebbut, it's the difference between II and IIA we were trying to pinpoint. Although you're right about the grille.

I think the dash is definitive too, between IIA and III.

I thought the IIa designation was primarily to denote the change from

2 to 2 1/4litre engines.

Regards Steve G

On or around Tue, 02 Mar 2004 19:36:53 GMT, SteveG enlightened us thusly:

don't think so, the 2¼ came in with the Series II, didn't it? I think some very early Series II might have still had the 2-litre IOE engine, but I know of one 1959 series II which is 2¼, and my 1961 was as well.

Oh well, that blows another theory then :-))

Regards Steve G