Welcome to the Austin Seven Friends web site and forum
As announced earlier, this forum with it's respective web address will go offline within the next days!
Please follow the link to our new forum
http://www.austinsevenfriends.co.uk/forum
and make sure, you readjust your link button to the new address!
I think it's a little early to be arrow, but I'm not saying that absolutely. My inclination is that it's a well-built homebrew.
Location: Herefordshire
Agree with Dave. And '26 models never had '29 headlamps originally either. Cheers. Bill in Oz
Location : Somewhat South of Sandy.
Its not an Arrow but some aspects of the body are similar to the later Arrow.
I think it is simply a very well proportioned replacement body built by someone who knew what they are doing!
The cowled scuttle is probably a 1930's fashion rather than 1926?
Looks like a nice car for someone, sporty yet practical.
Location : Somewhat South of Sandy.
Hello Bill, I would suggest that the headlamps are Lucas R510 or CAV which are correct for 1926 and not R47's which were fitted in 1929.
Regards
Stuart
Location: Staffordshire: the creative county.
It's on the Register as an AD tourer.
It's a nice-looking body, but definitely more '30s than '20s.
Location: Herefordshire, with an E not a T
Looks to me that it is an AD chummy body with cut down doors and a remodeled scuttle and bonnet
Location: NZ
The windscreen is a modified Chummy one
thank you jonE for confirming the numbers age.
would be a good car to rebuild back into a chummy.
mind you if that shinny thing on the bulkhead is the horn. then someone wants shooting.
and are the headlamps R50s they look huge.
some interesting cars coming onto the market at the moment.
should be some new lucky owners.
should be plenty of, how do i put my car right questions coming up.
tony
Location: huncote on the pig
Hello Tony - I'm still convinced the headlamps are Lucas R510's their prominent position makes them look large - if they were R50's you wouldn't see the radiator!
BTW the sidelights are Butlers usually fitted to tractors and military vehicles.
Enjoy Hershey and don't eat too much chocolate.
Regards
Stuart
Location: Staffordshire: the creative county.
BTW the sidelights are Butlers usually fitted to tractors and military vehicles.
Enjoy Hershey and don't eat too much chocolate.
Regards
Stuart
Hi Stuart,
Just looking at the reflector on the drivers side. If it was a CAV or early 510 it should go back parallel, then taper to bulb fittings.
This one could even be in two parts. Makes it look like IAN suggests an R40.
Picture 5 makes them look so big, I thought they might be R50.
And yes I'll stay of the chocolate, it's the 14 night eating and drinking out that do the damage. Plus with 4 nights in New Orleans I've got to try the srimp.
Although with 25 miles of autojumble at Carlisle and 30 mile autojumble at Hershey. It should counteract something. With all that walking.
Tony
Location: Leics
If I may rejoin the discussion - it's fairly obvious that the lamps used are not the original scuttle-mounted type, I agree, as Tony says, they are far too large. Doubtful if the ones shown would have fitted on the windscreen pillars without being clobbered by the doors/sidecurtains on the original car. or fouling the scuttle. As the mechanicals we can see and the engine number quoted are all Pramhood early 1926, there's no way the car would have been originally fitted with R510 Lucas lamps. The appropriate period 7 would have CAV (C.A.Vandervell) lamps (type AP) fitted or H & B (Howes & Burley). Lucas R510 lamps were first fitted about the same time as Lucas ignition came as standard - October 1926. The R510 utilised the same acorn-shaped shell as the AP, the exception being a twist-in-and-out rim as opposed to the CAV's screw-on rim, plus reflectors were different. Both these lamps had a 4 1/2" lens. The lamps shown fitted are a different body contour to the AP/R510, and the prominent badge in the photo is far larger than a CAV recessed one. The changes of brands came about because Mr.Austin personally disliked Mr.Lucas, so he originally hadn't fitted out Sevens with the other man's equipment. Presumably because H&B couldn't supply enough for the Sevens' rising production, later in the year Austin was given no choice but to start using Lucas equipment on his Sevens. Lucas further upset Herbert by buying out BLIC (Birmingham Lighting Ignition Company, a subsidiary of Vickers, (who he also didn't like) in 1927, so Herbert had to start using other brands of magnetos. You'll recall that Sevens were fitted with Rist horns. Herbert Austin would have been further upset had he'd known that Lucas had secretly acquired Rist in 1927 and it wasn't revealed until 34 years later! To make matters worse, the man who negotiated to secure Rist horns for Sevens was also a Director of the Austin Motor Company. Apologies to those old-timers who've read some of this nonsense before, but I hear so many strange theories about Austin Seven electrical equipment. Cheers, Bill in Oz.
Good morning all. I have contacted the seller and asked if they would be good enough to measure the diameter of the lamps to give a definitive answer.
I greatly appreciate Bill's commentary on the Lucas/Austin relationship as without re-telling snippets like this can be forgotten.
Regards
Stuart
Location: Staffordshire, the creative county
Apart from all the issues regarding electrical equipment and the body, I have to admit, I thank it's a cracking little car and I would find it very difficult to decide whether or not to convert it back to a Chummy.
I agree with what Tony said about the horn though, that would look better of a 50's DeSoto!
Location: Near Bicester.
if it really is 'steeped in history', it would seem complete sacrilege to re-create another bog standard car, when that is a comparatively an easy option to achieve... there are plenty around which are unlikely to deteriorate again now they have vintage value. This probably has 50-60 years of its own history and adds a bit of interest and richness to the whole affair. If the horn has been there from the 50's, leave it be!
I did think when I first sore the advert. Steeped in history?
If there is plenty of history, why not state what it is. And gain more interest and value in the car.
The suggestion of putting it back to a chummy, is more the fact that it looks to be a special make from a very correct car. Numbers seam to match, it looks to have all it 6 inch stuff etc etc. if there was an early 26 body available, wouldn't you do it.
JonE you say there are plenty of bog standard cars out there, if you think about it. You don't see that many 6 inch brake ones for sale.
You could also look at it the other way, ( there are plenty of specials out there ).
Tony
Location: Leics
It's new to the Pram Hood Register, however the Chassis & Engine numbers match and the Registration Number is correct for early 1926. The D bodies came in from Chassis No. 17331, so this is one of the earliest of them, dating from March 1926. As there seem to be hundreds of genuine (& repro) D Tourers running around, it would be a great shame to destroy it by turning it into just another one. I hope that the new owner enjoys it as it is (although personally I would change that horn...).
Very tempting!
David
David - you say the D type body came in at chassis 17331 but I think thereon there was an overlap with some earlier bodies being fitted as well. I thought I'd sent you the details years ago, but I have the remains of Chassis 17330 (original donk M17415, and that car mentioned in Wyatt etc) It had a type C body, plus I think there are a few complete cars still around on even newer chassis fitted with original C bodies? This would give licence surely to fit the earlier body, and the flat-top-scuttled cars (like yours) are not as thick on the ground? (And in my opinion, more attractive, but then again I may be biased!). Cheers, Bill in Oz
Addendum : Apologies, but I left a little out of above. I thought the curved-top-scuttle D body production started a month before the two chassis numbers mentioned above. Didn't they start at chassis 17074? If so, there was some mixture for a while, and it would be nice to see that car restored to it's plausible original. I'd change my mind if the special did have a reasonably important history in it's current form. I love Specials, but as Tony said, there are plenty of specials around. Cheers, Bill in Oz
Location : Somewhat south of Sandy.
R - I got that chassis number from the Wyatt book. It said the intro was in February. Presumably that info came from the Index cards in the first place? To back-up the introduction date, Sammy Davis & friend set off for a tour, in an Austin Seven, to the Riviera and return, their ship leaving at midnight on February 27th, 1926. Davis claimed that there was nothing special about the car except the addition of a windscreen wiper and a radiator thermometer. He didn't say the 7 was a new model, but mentioned the new rigid, folding side-curtains - which would suggest the D model body. This is confirmed by about a dozen photos, and the curved-top scuttle is quite evident, along with doorhandles etc that the C bodies didn't have. All this will no doubt be of little or no interest to the buyers of the For-sale special! Cheers, Bill in Oz
Hi bill,
With your huge knowledge.
How lage or small run of cars would there have been with 6inch brakes on AD body's.
I have a lot to remember with parts supply and dating, so retain less on manufacture details.
I would have thought this model only lasted 4 to 5 months. Before 7 inch brakes came inn.
The rearity I find in these cars is, that many of the survivors have been put onto 7 inch brakes. To uprate them.
It would also be interesting to see the dash on this car, to see if it retains the original dials.
Tony.
Location: Leics
Hello Tony. Difficult to tell. If the AD was intro'd in February 1926 but ACs were still being sold in March, we might only know from the factory Index cards as Ruairidh suggested. What makes it more difficult is, as you say, many cars were converted to 7" brakes once the latter became available later in the year. Then you would have to deduct the production difference between February and September, less again a guessed handful of the aforementioned superseded ones also sold? Further, unless Longbridge also had index cards that showed actual brake conversions, it all becomes speculation I suppose. I do know there are heaps of claimed '26 models here in Oz, but very few have 6" brakes, possibly the same at yours. Please let me know if you ever work it out! Cheers, Bill in Oz
The Longbridge card index puts the introduction of the Type D body from Car No. A2 7074 (except A2 7092 and A2 7110).
7" brakes were fitted from Car No. A3 3727, Chassis 24001 (except on A3 3747, A3 3763, A3 3764, A3 3800, A3 3801, A3 3826 and A3 3839).
All the information found in the card index is to be published, hopefully in early 2016.
Dave Martin
Sorry Bill, my mistake - I have it noted that Chassis No. 17331 was when the thin-rimmed wheels were introduced. However, this information dates back quite some time, so, as Ruairidh says, we'll have to wait until the card index is published.
The first D body that I have recorded is on Chassis No. 17507 and the last C body is on Chassis No. 16471.
David
As Morris were assemblers of parts manufactured by others it is probably quite authentic! 
Location: NZ
Interesting looking car. For a SWB chassis with an MG type body it actually looks quite well proportioned.
The rad shell has me foxed. Surely nobody would build a one off shell but what is it off? My intial thought was a Vale Special but the rake is wrong.
Suggestions?
Charles
Ah, yes. He is known to me.
Good idea.
I'll see what he thinks it might be.
