What is this a design proposal for, in what year, and who drew it?
is this richard arbib,s work ?
No, not a Richard Arbib work.
Keep on movin'...
is this american ?
Not American.
citroen based?
No Citroen connections.
british?
Yes sir, it is British!
is it a concept car?
Austin ?
Bristol?
Neither an Austin nor a Bristol, and not a concept car either, but rather a design proposal for a potential future model.
could this be a station wagen-type proposal for bentley?
No Bentley connection.
new alvis, future proposal?
Not an Alvis.
Is it a well known car co., that the proposal is for?
Yes, a very well-known British car company.
Rover ?
Rollsroyce?
Jaguar E new style?
Neither a Rover, Rolls-Royce nor a Jaguar.
Triumph?
Sunbeam?
Not Triumph nor Sunbeam.
Looks like a Jensen-Eric Neale drawing.
Not quite the name I have, but getting closer ;) Keep on trying.
It also could be a Michelotti drawing looking at it again.
Sorry, not a Michelotti project.
Vignale?
Not Vignale.
Ghia?
Not Ghia.
If its not a Jensen it could be a Bristol.
Not a Bristol.
Aston-Martin
Not Aston Martin.
Daimler ???
Not Daimler!
Ford Consul Mk1, 1950?
Not a Ford!
AC ?
Lanchester?
Not an AC nor a Lanchester.
Could this be a mini-based proposal for a large car, for a change?
Sorry, but not Mini-based.
Bond?
As in 007? ;D Sadly, not a Bond.
Reliant?
Not Reliant.
Argyll?
Gordon-Keeble?
Not an Argyll, nor a Gordon-Keeble.
Jensen
Not a Jensen.
Damiler?
Not a Daimler.
Ascari?
Is the intended manufacturer still in business today?
Was this for AC?
Ah, thanks.
Could it be a proposal for an Allard?
Yes, the intended manufacturer is still around today, but it is not Allard nor Ascari.
Vauxhall ?
Not Vauxhall.
Lea-Francis ?
No Lea-Francis.
Not many left.... Lotus ?
Agreed, not many left, but not Lotus!
Well... Invicta ?
Not Invicta.
Ginetta ?
Not Ginetta!
Pffff.... TVR ?
We're really running out of options now! Not TVR, as sadly no longer with us as a car maker (but now good at building wind turbine blades! :-\).
Morgan ?
Not Morgan :-\
I realise MG haven't been mentioned yet, so MG ?
Ah ha, at last! Yes, it is MG! So, now to answer the original question in full, what is this a proposal for, when was it sketched, and so on. Locked to you mekubb for your perserverance until your next reply.
I have absolutely no idea for which MG the proposal was meant for.... couldn't find any info.
I found it was an MGB 2+2 proposal drawn at the end of 1956 by Pete Neal
He based his design sketch on an earlier one done by Syd Enever
Oddly the drawing has MGC on the Licence plate and on the side of the car, but apparently it was an MGB proposal.
Very well done Wayne B, you got there in the end with a comprehensive answer.
This is the MGB 2+2 (badged MGC) proposal by Syd Enever and Peter Neal, drawn in the MG Abingdon design office in 1958 (not '56), according to my records. A well-deserved point to you.
This is the article I got the info from.
<<< link removed >>>
It was written by Pete Neal himself and indicates that the drawings were started in late 1956.
He comments on the MGC 58 license plate on the car in the drawing saying no credence is to be placed in it!
WayneB:
Posting links in the puzzle threads is against the rules - please read:
http://www.autopuzzles.com/forum/index.php?topic=20153.0
This is your first warning.
Sorry, I know nothing about this design, and neither I'm an expert of MG history, but I feel strange that in 1958 someone could have the idea of a 2+2 based on MG B, as this car has been produced only since 1962. Could you explain me how it has happened?
I had the same feelings myself, but having found the original article I understand now that's a very early proposal for what would have been the future (and very different) MGB.
Quote from: targhediferro on February 12, 2013, 02:02:07 PM
Sorry, I know nothing about this design, and neither I'm an expert of MG history, but I feel strange that in 1958 someone could have the idea of a 2+2 based on MG B, as this car has been produced only since 1962. Could you explain me how it has happened?
The gestation period for cars in those pre-computer days was an awful lot longer than it is today.
It could easily take 4 years from conception to production by the time they'd finished trying to get it right...
Quote from: Otto Puzzell on February 12, 2013, 04:33:54 AM
WayneB:
Posting links in the puzzle threads is against the rules - please read:
http://www.autopuzzles.com/forum/index.php?topic=20153.0
This is your first warning.
I had no idea it was not allowed after the puzzle had been solved.
Very Sorry it wont happen again.
:thumbsup: