"THE BIG HEALEY STRETCH"
or "The Car That Never Was."
Article written by Frederick Pearce, originally published in
Auto Magazine, a British automotive magazine, in August
1973.
An article on a
Healey MkIV? Everybody knows production ceased with the
MkIII. Of course, it's not a MkIV. It's not even an Austin
Healey, and it is not 3000. But it's not a home-brew custom
job, either. Healey fans would call it the car that never
was. Although the insignia on the boot lid calls it an
"Austin-Healey", that's a lie. The identification
plaque on the bulkhead reads: "Healey. Chassis no. ADO
24/1002. Engine no. F41." and the front badge is
missing. Aside from these details, the car is easily
mistaken for one of the famous breed.
What it boils
down to is, take one big Healey, split it down the middle,
weld in a 6- inch strip down the entire length, and fit a
Rolls Royce engine. Then you are quite free to call it what
you like - a Rolls-Healey, a MkIV, Healey Princess, or
whatever. The Donald Healey Motor Company never got round to
christening it, but they did build three of them (the story
that four were completed is untrue.) The one we tested was
kindly loaned to us by Frank Allenby. Lifting the bonnet
gives one quite a surprise. It requires a stretch to reach
the two, side-mounted safety catches due to the extra width,
but the sight of a Rolls Royce engine, complete with RR
badge, snuggling in the inadequate space, is heel-rocking.
An enormous air-cleaner was a attached to an old type air
box feeding the carbs and blocked the view of this
magnificent mill.
The engine is
that unit fitted to the Austin Princess R, and was chosen by
our friends from Warwick (a) because of the availability
from Rolls Royce, (b) the fact that it was being built for
Austin (remember, at this time the new car was to be a
Austin-Healey), and (c) the pending demise of the Princess.
There was, thus, a surplus of engines in addition to an
established production line. It is an unusual unit, as
engines go, for it has overhead inlet valves and side
exhaust valves. These are operated hydraulically which makes
for a very quiet engine. Maintenance is reduced also,
because obviously adjustment is taken up automatically. The
whole thing is constructed out of aluminium alloy reducing
the front end weight of the car by some 90 lbs.
The weight
distribution, in consequence, approaches that of works
competition cars and improves the handling no end. In fact,
during the road test we noticed a complete lack of the
oversteer that usually plagues the 3000.The power from the
4-litre lump is, in the words of the famous Rolls Royce
joke, adequate. The clutch is a 9-inch Borg and Beck unit
tying things to a Jaguar E-type gearbox. The gear ratios are
much more evenly spaced in the Jag box than they were in the
MkIII and that big hole between second and third has
vanished. Although the rear axle was described by Geoff
Healey as a basic BMC unit it was apparently so chopped
about that it might be better called a special one-off. The
diff is probably a regular 3000 one or an MGC one. Asking
Healeys about a car that was, officially, never built (and
that several years ago) inevitably leaves gaps in the
information. Ratio is probably 3.89:1 or thereabouts.
Wheels were
originally 5-inch, 72-spoke, fitted, possibly, with Dunlop
SP's, and these might have been XJ6 (Jaguar) wheels. Our
test model confirms this except that the wheels appear wider
than 5-inch. Tyres fitted are 185 x 15 Continentals, which
does nothing for the handling, by the way. The knock-on
wheel nuts are specially made for the job but look
remarkably like those fitted to Jaguar cars. Remember, these
vehicles were built about the time of the BMC/Jaguar link-up
so the odd Jaguar piece here and there in an experimental
car is only to be expected. However, by this very fact, the
new Healey would have been internal competition for the
E-type so was really doomed from the start. As you take the
driving pew, the extra width really hits you. The familiar
Smith dials are there, but more dashboard separates them,
and reaching across the vehicle to open the door for the
passenger means you miss the handle by 6 inches until you
get used to it. And, can you believe it, no more elbow
rubbing with your passenger. Rear seat passengers now get 2
inches of knee-room instead of the former 1 inch. The padded
indentations behind are still pretend seats, however. The
driver and passenger seats look like standard 3000
semi-buckets but are much softer. Perhaps saloon car drivers
still won't call them soft, but those of you who have driven
a 3000 will know what we mean.
Two of the
three Healeys built were given an automatic gearbox and the
other one, our test vehicle, had the manual. The gear lever,
we thought, was a shade too long; 2 inches chopped off the
top would have added sportiness and comfort. Overdrive is
there but only on top gear, and the switch is mounted on the
lever - easy in, easy out. Other switches mounted on the
dash are by Lucas, the same rocker type seen in the Jaguars.
Once you get to know where everything is, operating causes
no hardship. Always in pairs, the two to the right of the
steering wheel are the side and headlights. Beneath them sit
the panel light and heater fan switches. Immediately below
the dash on the right hand side is the bonnet latch. (NB.
Right hand drive vehicle) Single speed wiper and electric
washer switches are in a pair to the left of the steering
wheel. A steering column stick operates the indicators.
Production cars would have had a more thoughtful layout and
the non-parking windscreen wipers substituted with
self-parking units, but to criticise these minor points
would be unfair. It is an experimental car, after all.
As far as the
pedals are concerned, like the 3000, driving in Wellys (=
rubber boots) would have been difficult there being too
little room in the foot well. A good hard push on the clutch
pedal can bring about dipping the headlights but that is
nothing unusual. Roadwise, the Healey hardly compares with
the 3000 at all. Gentle acceleration produces such a soft
purr never before heard from a sports car and, even
travelling fast, one can listen comfortably to the radio. A
radio in a sports car! In this case, a hundred pounds worth
of Blue Spot stereo. This car is undoubtedly a high speed
cruiser. The ride itself is true blue Healey liveliness
unlimited. Every bump in the tarmac was felt where the body
bends but this was not uncomfortable. The car stayed on its
solid path with only a little sideways movement on a
particularly lumpy bend, all due to the very live axle. Gone
was the traditional sucking sound that unnerves the
first-timer in a 3000. Gone was the conspicuous fan whirr.
Twin electric fans cool the radiator so releasing a few
horses to the back wheels instead. But, all in all, the
engine was a little disappointing. To be fair, Rolls Royce
are not racing engine manufacturers and we should not expect
racing performance from them. Bottom end torque was lacking
and the engine did not seem to come into its own until 3,000
or 3,500 revs were showing. Even at the lower speeds the
smoothness is something the hotted up Austin truck engine
could never aspire to.(The Healey 3000 engine was originally
used in the Austin tipper/dump truck!) To give and idea of
the smoothness, we slowed the car right down, in top, to see
when snatching began. The first snatch set in at 1,500 rpm.
From this engine speed, without changing gear, we then
accelerated. It pulled away quite comfortably with no sign
of strain.
Up through the
range, acceleration was smooth but hardly exhilarating until
3,500 when someone seemed to push on the rear bumper. At
5,000 revs a gap, an almost imperceptible cough - perhaps
they stopped pushing. And then on she would have gone to
infinity, but we must not be naughty, we've got speed limits
in this country. There was never a hint of running out of
revs but it would be safer to keep to, say, 6,000 red line.
The top speed would appear to be about 120 -125 mph - not
much faster, in fact, that the 3000 but consideration must
be given to increased wind resistance due to the extra 6
inches of width.
Although we did
not have the opportunity to time the acceleration, the
figures would barely exceed the 3000 times. It would
probably be a little faster to the ton (=100mph) , thanks
mainly to the more evenly spaced gear ratios, but 0-40 would
favour the 3000 because of more low end torque. Wiggling the
car down a country lane provided less excitement than served
up by a 3000, and an extra degree of safety. Road holding is
much improved. The steering is neutral. The wider track
stopped even the slightest hint of unmanageability, and, as
previously mentioned, weight distribution cut out steering
problems. It did feel a little spongy and if those
Continentals had been replaced with a set of SPs or Zxs even
that could have been eliminated.
Brakes were not
to our liking, but here the problem might have been purely
maintenance. The standard Healey braking system has always
proved effective, and one would have thought that the
Girling double braking system (split front and rear) with a
direct acting servo would have been admirable. It stopped
the car okay but did seem a little spongy. Perhaps it was
the tyres, again. Wandering around underneath car gave the
answer for the super-quiet exhaust. A standard 3000 system
had been used to humour the Noise Abatement Society. Two
boxes down the side and two across the rear must have cut
out more than noise. Here, too, one could see the widening
job done on the chassis. Standard members are used with
longer cross pieces to make room for the engine and gearbox.
However, any mechanic expected to work in the confined space
would tell you that another 6 inches would not have gone
amiss.
There can be no
question that the car would have proven popular had
production been started. The combined names of Healey and
Rolls Royce could have made great advertising material, and,
where long distances are the way of life, such as in the
United States, the character of the new Healey would have
attracted a good following. Smoothness, comfort and handling
added to traditional Healey performance and looks; it
couldn't have failed.
|