Re: lightweight coupe/ur-q boot lids...

["Jim Haseltine" <Jim_Haseltine@email.msn.com>]

From: Phil Payne <quk@isham-research.demon.co.uk>
>Don't.  OK?
>
>Just don't friggin' don't.  Period.  Life is bad enough with friggin'
>flywheels and cam belt tooth numbers without anyone bringing up
>friggin' GRP bootlids.  And as fer early vs late engines - are you
>referrin' to the 14xx shift in the cam belt and flywheel, or the
>134x shift in the plumbin'?


Either. Or both.
Sorry Phil, but this sort of thing happens. As you probably know, if there
is a specification change during a production run, old spec parts get left
unused. If at a later date the supply of newer spec components runs short
any old spec that fit get used and nobody is going to advertise the fact.
Just think of the fiche notes -
At VIN HA900123 part #123 456 78A (boot lid metal) was superseded by part
#123 456 78B (boot lid GRP). (See note 1).

Note 1. Except VIN JA900728, KA900445 & MA900056 which were fitted with #123
456 78A because we ran out of #123 456 78B and wanted to get the cars
finished before we went home.

OK, so I'm joking, but it happens. BTDT myself. Many years ago I saw a BL
car (can't remember the model) that was being used as an example of poor QC.
It had been built on the cusp of a change between drum and disc front
brakes, but it was only at a dealers pre-delivery inspection that somebody
noticed that it had a drum on the right and a disc on the left.....

Jim Haseltine.