Discussion
Thanks Tim -
That is a theory that some of us think is a possibility. But there are a few who don't even like that idea.
It could be that it is the most likely explanation, but perhaps the current search for facts concerning the car's origins and background remains a useful excercise.
firefox
That is a theory that some of us think is a possibility. But there are a few who don't even like that idea.
It could be that it is the most likely explanation, but perhaps the current search for facts concerning the car's origins and background remains a useful excercise.
firefox
Claire -
After initially being owned by a Bank/Stockbroker (Oppenheimer International)in London, presumably as a company car for an employee, Firefox then spent some time in the North West - firstly in Altrincham in Cheshire and then in Castleton, Rochdale, Lancashire.
The car then stayed with the next Cheshire owner from 1990 to 2003, and it is believed it had the same bodywork during this period.
The first reference to the car being labelled as a 420 SE comes in June 1988 - so presumably any change of body would have taken place between first registration in September 1986 and June 1988 when it would appear the car was still in the London area or down south, unless the employee was relocated to the Manchester area or the Altrincham purchaser acquired it from a southern location.
JJ
After initially being owned by a Bank/Stockbroker (Oppenheimer International)in London, presumably as a company car for an employee, Firefox then spent some time in the North West - firstly in Altrincham in Cheshire and then in Castleton, Rochdale, Lancashire.
The car then stayed with the next Cheshire owner from 1990 to 2003, and it is believed it had the same bodywork during this period.
The first reference to the car being labelled as a 420 SE comes in June 1988 - so presumably any change of body would have taken place between first registration in September 1986 and June 1988 when it would appear the car was still in the London area or down south, unless the employee was relocated to the Manchester area or the Altrincham purchaser acquired it from a southern location.
JJ
Andy -
Thank you for your observations.
I cannot agree with you that I want it to be an SEAC. I have always said that I will accept the car for whatever it is. It was sold to me as an SEAC, with the previous owner seemingly believeing thatit was an SEAC. It was labelled 420 SE, and I can only assume that he made the same enquiries that I have, and been told that it was listed in TVR and TVRCC records as a 420 SEAC. Because of this listing, legal eagles may say that the car is legally speaking a 420 SEAC.
We know that in the 20's and 30's Rolls Royces (and other cars) were given bodies thzat were later changed for some reason - desire, new purpose, deterioration, or downright rot. However, a RR 20HP remains a RR 20HP even if the body has been changed.
I have been lucky to have had a number of lovely girlfriends who, for some obscure reason, changed their appearance by way of hair styling, or the way they dressed, make-up etc.. But I knew of course that they were the same beautiful girls that I knew all along - prior to the changes!
As the car is recorded as a 420 SEAC when it left the factory I have been happy to accept it as a 420 SEAC that has a different body (non-SEAC) for some reason. A number of others accept it as such. There seems to be a vociferous few who, because it does not have SEAC bodywork for whatever reason, seek desperately to declaim it as one, even though the records say SEAC.
This is really what has caused the problem.
The car does have adjustable suspension, though the bottom wishbones at the front are a proprietary item - Ford Cortina/Sierra I presume. It also has the NCK engine which people seem to say is one of the characteristics of the SEAC. Also, it has been well shown that the 6 (or is it 4 only) early (pre-production?) SEACs did not have the rose jointed suspension.
Many ideas have been put forward as to why the car is different. It could be derived from the 390 'Kevlar' racers. It might be some sort of development or pre - production car. The favourite would appear to be that the car left the factory as one of the early 6 (4?) SEACs and then at some time was crashed with the result that a 420 SE body was put on it.
Information given to me says the car was used by the factory and modified by the factory. There is also tell of a crash, believed to be by the factory, and then a later incident with a bus stop. Now this could be a plain old ordinary bus stop where we wait for a bus (which is more likely) - but just thinking expansively - could it be the Bus Stop at Spa?
Just looking carefully at some of the documents relating to the car this morning, I note that the V55/3 - Application for a Licence for a New Motor Vehicle and Declaration for Registration - shows the car to be:
TVR
Tasmin
Sports Drophead
2 Axle rigid body
Metallic Black
Ch. No. SA9DH35P3GB019494
Eng. No. NCK 010
cc 3498 (later corrected)
Kg 1056
There are some other handwritten remarks which may relate to the car being used before registration that I am looking into.
So where does this weight of 1056 Kg fit in with SEACs?
Whilst I think it is probably best, and most logical, to accept the car as an SEAC with different bodywork (probably due to a crash), finding out real facts about the car could still be useful.
cheers!
JJ
Thank you for your observations.
I cannot agree with you that I want it to be an SEAC. I have always said that I will accept the car for whatever it is. It was sold to me as an SEAC, with the previous owner seemingly believeing thatit was an SEAC. It was labelled 420 SE, and I can only assume that he made the same enquiries that I have, and been told that it was listed in TVR and TVRCC records as a 420 SEAC. Because of this listing, legal eagles may say that the car is legally speaking a 420 SEAC.
We know that in the 20's and 30's Rolls Royces (and other cars) were given bodies thzat were later changed for some reason - desire, new purpose, deterioration, or downright rot. However, a RR 20HP remains a RR 20HP even if the body has been changed.
I have been lucky to have had a number of lovely girlfriends who, for some obscure reason, changed their appearance by way of hair styling, or the way they dressed, make-up etc.. But I knew of course that they were the same beautiful girls that I knew all along - prior to the changes!
As the car is recorded as a 420 SEAC when it left the factory I have been happy to accept it as a 420 SEAC that has a different body (non-SEAC) for some reason. A number of others accept it as such. There seems to be a vociferous few who, because it does not have SEAC bodywork for whatever reason, seek desperately to declaim it as one, even though the records say SEAC.
This is really what has caused the problem.
The car does have adjustable suspension, though the bottom wishbones at the front are a proprietary item - Ford Cortina/Sierra I presume. It also has the NCK engine which people seem to say is one of the characteristics of the SEAC. Also, it has been well shown that the 6 (or is it 4 only) early (pre-production?) SEACs did not have the rose jointed suspension.
Many ideas have been put forward as to why the car is different. It could be derived from the 390 'Kevlar' racers. It might be some sort of development or pre - production car. The favourite would appear to be that the car left the factory as one of the early 6 (4?) SEACs and then at some time was crashed with the result that a 420 SE body was put on it.
Information given to me says the car was used by the factory and modified by the factory. There is also tell of a crash, believed to be by the factory, and then a later incident with a bus stop. Now this could be a plain old ordinary bus stop where we wait for a bus (which is more likely) - but just thinking expansively - could it be the Bus Stop at Spa?
Just looking carefully at some of the documents relating to the car this morning, I note that the V55/3 - Application for a Licence for a New Motor Vehicle and Declaration for Registration - shows the car to be:
TVR
Tasmin
Sports Drophead
2 Axle rigid body
Metallic Black
Ch. No. SA9DH35P3GB019494
Eng. No. NCK 010
cc 3498 (later corrected)
Kg 1056
There are some other handwritten remarks which may relate to the car being used before registration that I am looking into.
So where does this weight of 1056 Kg fit in with SEACs?
Whilst I think it is probably best, and most logical, to accept the car as an SEAC with different bodywork (probably due to a crash), finding out real facts about the car could still be useful.
cheers!
JJ
Wedgers -
It could be said that I am getting a little weary of this, but I shall remain patient.
I only started this thread because the controversy was re-started with thoughts about a connection with the 390 'Kevlar' racers and the resultant thread on that subject; prompted by the article on those cars in the November 1985 issue of Fast Lane magazine.
As some contributors to that thread were making further comments about Firefox, I felt it might be worthwhile starting this thread to see if more information - facts - could be gained.
The facts are that the TVR factory information states that the car is a 420 SEAC. We do not know if the car left the factory with the SEAC body or the body it has now - but we presume the body was changed due to crash damage.
If the car left the factory identified as a 420 SEAC and had a different (420 SE) body fitted later then the car is technically a 420 SEAC with a 420 SE body. I have always been happy to accept the car as 'the odd one out', and most people seem, until recently, to have been happy to accept the car as being a 420 SEAC with diferent (non-SEAC) bodywork.
The legal position would be that which is based on fact. I know what the legal identity of the car is, but I cannot state it on a public forum for fear of jeapordising any legal action or criminal action against the seller for misdescription, deception, and/or fraud that I may wish to pursue.
As mentioned above, there are some people who appear to be busting a gut to prove it is NOT an SEAC, and they seem to be quite happy to twist perceptions and interpretations that have been held true and understood for decades in the motoring world to suit their own ends.
I continue to be interested in hearing any further information about the car. Factual information only can take us to the final conclusion as to the identity of the car.
I look forward to hearing further information.
Thank you.
firefox.
It could be said that I am getting a little weary of this, but I shall remain patient.
I only started this thread because the controversy was re-started with thoughts about a connection with the 390 'Kevlar' racers and the resultant thread on that subject; prompted by the article on those cars in the November 1985 issue of Fast Lane magazine.
As some contributors to that thread were making further comments about Firefox, I felt it might be worthwhile starting this thread to see if more information - facts - could be gained.
The facts are that the TVR factory information states that the car is a 420 SEAC. We do not know if the car left the factory with the SEAC body or the body it has now - but we presume the body was changed due to crash damage.
If the car left the factory identified as a 420 SEAC and had a different (420 SE) body fitted later then the car is technically a 420 SEAC with a 420 SE body. I have always been happy to accept the car as 'the odd one out', and most people seem, until recently, to have been happy to accept the car as being a 420 SEAC with diferent (non-SEAC) bodywork.
The legal position would be that which is based on fact. I know what the legal identity of the car is, but I cannot state it on a public forum for fear of jeapordising any legal action or criminal action against the seller for misdescription, deception, and/or fraud that I may wish to pursue.
As mentioned above, there are some people who appear to be busting a gut to prove it is NOT an SEAC, and they seem to be quite happy to twist perceptions and interpretations that have been held true and understood for decades in the motoring world to suit their own ends.
I continue to be interested in hearing any further information about the car. Factual information only can take us to the final conclusion as to the identity of the car.
I look forward to hearing further information.
Thank you.
firefox.
Claire -
Thank you for your post.
I tried to email you but without success. I'll see if I can paste that email here:-
Hello Claire -
Thank you for your submission to the thread.
As your father is one of the old stagers at TVR I wonder whether he might be able to canvass information from one or two of the others who have been there many years regarding 'Firefox'. Of course he might know something about the car himself.
Specification and numbers is as shown on the thread.
I would be most grateful for your help.
cheers!
JJ.
That seemed to work - hope to hear from you.
JJ
Thank you for your post.
I tried to email you but without success. I'll see if I can paste that email here:-
Hello Claire -
Thank you for your submission to the thread.
As your father is one of the old stagers at TVR I wonder whether he might be able to canvass information from one or two of the others who have been there many years regarding 'Firefox'. Of course he might know something about the car himself.
Specification and numbers is as shown on the thread.
I would be most grateful for your help.
cheers!
JJ.
That seemed to work - hope to hear from you.
JJ
Well Johnathan -
I agree with your comments re Rolls Royces. If a 20HP with saloon body by Barker is then rebodied with touring coachwork by Gurney Nutting then it becomes a 20HP with touring bodywork by Gurney Nutting - similarly if it were to be given (as has happend) at a later date, Speedster bodywork by Bish Bash and Sons of Greater Wallop!
Therefore my car when it left the factory as a 420 SEAC with SEAC bodywork would have simply been known as a 420 SEAC. As it has had a bodywork change it has become a 420 SEAC with 420 SE body.
The identity of a car does not derive from the body but from the chassis. Note rebodied Ferraris etc..
The above is convention and generally accepted throughout the motoring world - and has been used in court cases where the identity of a vehicle has been in dispute.
I will therefore say - in quotation marks:-
"Without prejudice - the TVR 420 SEAC registration number D659 YLP, identified as a TVR 420 SEAC by TVR Engineering Limited and the TVR Car Club via information obtained from the factory, with the aforementioned chassis number and engine number is a TVR 420 SEAC with TVR 420 SE body, the latter described body having been fitted for reasons unknown."
There - I have had to think hard about how to make a statement about the car without prejudicing any action I may wish to take.
That is the position. Some of you may not like it. I suggest you learn a little more about cars and chassis numbers, and brush up on English Law.
JJ
I agree with your comments re Rolls Royces. If a 20HP with saloon body by Barker is then rebodied with touring coachwork by Gurney Nutting then it becomes a 20HP with touring bodywork by Gurney Nutting - similarly if it were to be given (as has happend) at a later date, Speedster bodywork by Bish Bash and Sons of Greater Wallop!
Therefore my car when it left the factory as a 420 SEAC with SEAC bodywork would have simply been known as a 420 SEAC. As it has had a bodywork change it has become a 420 SEAC with 420 SE body.
The identity of a car does not derive from the body but from the chassis. Note rebodied Ferraris etc..
The above is convention and generally accepted throughout the motoring world - and has been used in court cases where the identity of a vehicle has been in dispute.
I will therefore say - in quotation marks:-
"Without prejudice - the TVR 420 SEAC registration number D659 YLP, identified as a TVR 420 SEAC by TVR Engineering Limited and the TVR Car Club via information obtained from the factory, with the aforementioned chassis number and engine number is a TVR 420 SEAC with TVR 420 SE body, the latter described body having been fitted for reasons unknown."
There - I have had to think hard about how to make a statement about the car without prejudicing any action I may wish to take.
That is the position. Some of you may not like it. I suggest you learn a little more about cars and chassis numbers, and brush up on English Law.
JJ
Hi gf350 -
Thanks for your comments.
I have no desire to get any lawyer to say the car is something it isn't. I phrased the above statement in 'legalese' in order to basically state what the car is and to protect my position in case information comes to light that may require me to take legal action against the seller.
I know that the car does not look like an SEAC, and I also know that a number of people will not accept it as an SEAC, albeit with a different body. That is something that I am prepared to tolerate and have done so far. Similarly those that accept the car as an SEAC with 420 SE bodywork can put up with the intransigence of others who refuse to recognise the car for what it is.
I think we have had all the '...it's not an SEAC because......' opinions by now, and we need to look for facts. Of course, I cannot prevent, not would I wish to prevent, the dissemination of opinion - this is a discussion forum after all. However hard facts will get us closer to the detailed history of the car - which I think might just be interesting to know.
Do please continue to contribute - all of you.
JJ
>> Edited by firefox1712 on Sunday 10th October 21:21
Thanks for your comments.
I have no desire to get any lawyer to say the car is something it isn't. I phrased the above statement in 'legalese' in order to basically state what the car is and to protect my position in case information comes to light that may require me to take legal action against the seller.
I know that the car does not look like an SEAC, and I also know that a number of people will not accept it as an SEAC, albeit with a different body. That is something that I am prepared to tolerate and have done so far. Similarly those that accept the car as an SEAC with 420 SE bodywork can put up with the intransigence of others who refuse to recognise the car for what it is.
I think we have had all the '...it's not an SEAC because......' opinions by now, and we need to look for facts. Of course, I cannot prevent, not would I wish to prevent, the dissemination of opinion - this is a discussion forum after all. However hard facts will get us closer to the detailed history of the car - which I think might just be interesting to know.
Do please continue to contribute - all of you.
JJ
>> Edited by firefox1712 on Sunday 10th October 21:21
Cheers Mike!
Well chilled, though no pints consumed. May have to stay in for several days, so please email several pints of Abbot, Directors, Old Peculier, Owd Roger, Deuchars, Youngs Special and any others I've missed out. All will be lovingly consumed.
Good to hear you're enjoying Wedge motoring with your new toy.
JJ
Well chilled, though no pints consumed. May have to stay in for several days, so please email several pints of Abbot, Directors, Old Peculier, Owd Roger, Deuchars, Youngs Special and any others I've missed out. All will be lovingly consumed.
Good to hear you're enjoying Wedge motoring with your new toy.
JJ
blah blah blah!
chatter chatter chatter!
whinge whinge whinge!
Any more juicy snippets?
Any actual factual information?
Any more thoughts along the lines of typographical errors?
Did you know -
In A J Ayer's book 'An Introduction to Philosophy' he puts forward the theory that as we are all dependent upon the information provided by our senses, we could all well be just the figment of our own imagination.
Now the desk I am writing this on is there because I can see it, touch it, hear it if I knock it, taste it if I put my tonge to it, and possibly smell it if I scratch the wood and put my nose to it.
However - the perception that it is there is merely an interpretation of the information as perceived by my senses - so it could in fact NOT be there at all but my senses are telling me something!
So, it could be that the great almighty (if there is such a being or presence) might just have made a typographical error and we all don't exist at all. Maybe HE was having a Monday morning experience - we all know HE had Sunday off so He probably had a blast! Six days non-stop work would make anyone thirsty! On the other hand, HE could have made a typographical error and managed to omit the engines we should all have been fitted with in the first place - in which case we should all be TVR 420 SEACs with the larger of us being TVR 450 SEACs.
The only problem here is that in reality HE has equipped us with an enquiring mind; a mind that disputes that which is not obvious on first sight and disputes that which is different from what is programmed to be normal.
But then we don't actually know that HE exists - but it has been said it is better to accept that HE does exist because you stand a better chance of going to heaven if you do.
Thinking about the typographical error - it could be that there was a typographical error on the build instruction sheet for Firefox, and the letters 'AC' were left off so a standard 390/420 SE body was fitted to a 420 SEAC chassis!
Wow! - If we carry on thinking like this it could have had a Chevrolet 6.6 engine fitted - but there was a typo on the build instruction sheet. What a shame! Alternatively, it was Peter Wheeler's birthday and he took all the staff out on a Friday - with the result that everyone got pissed, and when they set about finishing this car they just said - 'Oh bang that on and then throw this in. - They'll never know the difference.' On the other hand, they may have run out of certain items and couldn't be bothered to make those bits. Clearly, they didn't account for the keen analytical minds and investigative terrier-like instincts of some of the TVRwedgepages subscribers that might come along in the future!
Actually - I just thought I'd bring this to the top again in case some new information comes forward - so I may just delete the above! Felt I should make it a little entertaining for you.
Felicitations and Jollifications!
chin chin!
JJ
>> Edited by firefox1712 on Friday 15th October 13:18
chatter chatter chatter!
whinge whinge whinge!
Any more juicy snippets?
Any actual factual information?
Any more thoughts along the lines of typographical errors?
Did you know -
In A J Ayer's book 'An Introduction to Philosophy' he puts forward the theory that as we are all dependent upon the information provided by our senses, we could all well be just the figment of our own imagination.
Now the desk I am writing this on is there because I can see it, touch it, hear it if I knock it, taste it if I put my tonge to it, and possibly smell it if I scratch the wood and put my nose to it.
However - the perception that it is there is merely an interpretation of the information as perceived by my senses - so it could in fact NOT be there at all but my senses are telling me something!
So, it could be that the great almighty (if there is such a being or presence) might just have made a typographical error and we all don't exist at all. Maybe HE was having a Monday morning experience - we all know HE had Sunday off so He probably had a blast! Six days non-stop work would make anyone thirsty! On the other hand, HE could have made a typographical error and managed to omit the engines we should all have been fitted with in the first place - in which case we should all be TVR 420 SEACs with the larger of us being TVR 450 SEACs.
The only problem here is that in reality HE has equipped us with an enquiring mind; a mind that disputes that which is not obvious on first sight and disputes that which is different from what is programmed to be normal.
But then we don't actually know that HE exists - but it has been said it is better to accept that HE does exist because you stand a better chance of going to heaven if you do.
Thinking about the typographical error - it could be that there was a typographical error on the build instruction sheet for Firefox, and the letters 'AC' were left off so a standard 390/420 SE body was fitted to a 420 SEAC chassis!
Wow! - If we carry on thinking like this it could have had a Chevrolet 6.6 engine fitted - but there was a typo on the build instruction sheet. What a shame! Alternatively, it was Peter Wheeler's birthday and he took all the staff out on a Friday - with the result that everyone got pissed, and when they set about finishing this car they just said - 'Oh bang that on and then throw this in. - They'll never know the difference.' On the other hand, they may have run out of certain items and couldn't be bothered to make those bits. Clearly, they didn't account for the keen analytical minds and investigative terrier-like instincts of some of the TVRwedgepages subscribers that might come along in the future!
Actually - I just thought I'd bring this to the top again in case some new information comes forward - so I may just delete the above! Felt I should make it a little entertaining for you.
Felicitations and Jollifications!
chin chin!
JJ
>> Edited by firefox1712 on Friday 15th October 13:18
Gassing Station | Wedges | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff