Morris Minor Owners Club

Do we know that all of these cars actually existed? Could they have built a Tourer and then added a roof to call it a second vehicle? Tax dodge???

RobThomas wrote:Do we know that all of these cars actually existed? Could they have built a Tourer and then added a roof to call it a second vehicle? Tax dodge???

2 "Cowley" assembled ones confirmed in Oz, HC says it was built as a Tourer (matching numbers) - all additional strengthening present - but a 2dr.

Tried to contact owner, but no response. Quite surprised no-one else has tried to explain the ol' LBM question.

Same as the hunt for the magnificent 700 & the red sump APJM's, has to be addressed if Ray ever does an updated OMM book, get to a stage where future restorers will think a red sump isn't original & paint it the same colour as the rocker box.

I'm doing my best with AddPk Minor's & without cab/engine numbers I can only do so much....it IS a thankless task, but it's all really down to what enthusiasts want, lots of pics with innaccurate information or a detailed reference book with period pics.

Cutting through the detail, what was the query, can we help?

Chris. How about setting up a Paypal account so that anyone you help is told that you need some 'crowd funding' to pay for publication of your book and that voluntary contributions would help endlessly. Even a tiny sum might HELP YOU collate info and publish it rather than having to fund your own internet and telephone bills. How about £1 per question? [By the way, this is not a question so I'm not gonna send you a quid!]

I find these car clubs a bit hit and miss.

on every car forum, you have around 6 people who are always on the site and give out the answer to any question you ask. this is good and what being a member of a club is all about.

on the other hand, ive been at car shows where ive talked to owners, asked questions and not got any answer because they don't want to give out info.

ive found jaguar owners, bmw owners and mg owners to be in this group. I think they come across as stuck up, pompous and look down their noses at you.

Charging enthusiasts seems mighty immoral to me, hardly going to encourage someone to restore a Minor, more likely to scare them off!

Make it voluntary and state that it just covers your phone bill etc. Imagine how much it would cost if they had to find all this data by themselves????? I wonder if insurance companies might benefit from your data in tracking down stolen vehicles.

When I've made 'stuff' for people such as Alta bits I find that they've usually been kind enough to 'round up' the figures that I show them that I've spent on the job. No great profit but it covers the small bits such as phone bills, packaging and envelopes. Just keeps me ticking along without it becoming an expensive hobby for me to be helping them out.

Info not something you can charge for, most enquiries take approx 5mins to answer anyway, would feel a rotter for exploiting enthusiasts in such a fashion.
It frustrates me when Club's promote themselves as "friendly" & "enthusiastic", but when members want to know something, NO-ONE is there...in the case of one, took 2mths to reply and even then the original question wasn't answered.

Granted, POMMReg has it's faults - doesn't have a magazine,neither does it sell mugs nor baseball caps etc - all it has is information which it is happy to impart to help/assist enthusiasts & does NOT want £30 up-front!!

Only thing it DOES need is vehicle details, trying to get these wastes so much time, so near to finding AddPk production changes....but without info I'm stuffed.

Just a thought but given the nature of things in the 1970s could it be possible that the missing 700 vehicles were invoiced to the Post Office but never actually made? Stranger things happened in the chaotic 70s.

Well, Chris, if you won't accept money...

ianmack wrote:Just a thought but given the nature of things in the 1970s could it be possible that the missing 700 vehicles were invoiced to the Post Office but never actually made? Stranger things happened in the chaotic 70s.

Nope, have their details & allocations AND used to own one...MAG5 286106F, at some point there was a "Civvy" 286106...although this didn't carry an F chassis suffix..plus PO vans had blue BL vin plates...there again WHY did the 1969 order for 1350 postal vans adopt the F suffix, whilst it wasn't until 4/70 for Civvy LCVs; 270001 & 290001 resp.

Candidates poss voided;

286750-286899 or 286750-286849
288250-288399 or 288250-288349
289000-289099
293400-293499
312500-312599
314500-314599
322000-322099

Cab nos only went up to 252xxx, so cannot be confused.

Unsurprisingly, no help from the LCV Register, about as much use as a chocolate teapot!

RobThomas wrote:Well, Chris, if you won't accept money...


25p4cbb-1.jpg

Thanks, Rob.

For all the various Minor Club's in NZ, the ONLY people who took the time to answer my query was the NZTA.

Need to encourage younger members to become historians too, once I kick the bucket they'll be NO-ONE to continue the LCV side of things, you might as well give vehicle details to a monkey rather than the LCV Register as they neither record body nor engine numbers.