[ROVERNET - UK] Yet another Response to Glen
rweasel at gmail.com
Sun Mar 30 04:50:00 BST 2008
Actually, somewhere I have a letter proving that very thing happened,
the numbers were switched on 2 cars. BL basically said ignore the
plate, the VIN is what we say it is.
On 29/03/2008, phing <phing at videotron.ca> wrote:
> As I've been trying to tell you . The answer to your questions is "All of the above " Of course its equally possible that some one
> on the production line at 4 47pm on a wet Friday night in November stuck the wrong VIN number on the car , just for a giggle .
> Industrial sabotage was almost the national sport !.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Glen Wilson" <rovercar at comcast.net>
> To: <rovernet at lyris.ccdata.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 5:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [ROVERNET - UK] Response to Glen's well intended comments
> > Well, I was patiently answering questions as you can read below, but in terms of recanting...
> > Your car has a Federal 3500S VIN according to Taylors book.
> > Your car does not have Federal 3500S front wings.
> > Your car does not have Federal 3500S front bumpers (or, I assume rear bumpers?)
> > (scroll down re bumpers)
> > You did have the metal pieces at the bottom of the front fenders.
> > Your car does not have the floor dimmer mentioned in the 3500S operation manual.
> > Your car does not have Fed 3500S directional indicators.
> > Your car does not have the steering column stalks described in the 3500S manual.
> > So what are we saying, here. That your car has factory differences? That on the day your car was put together they didn't have
> > NADA bumpers, fenders, indicator lights, floor dimmer switches or column switchgear?
> > How could this car possibly be a Federal 3500S that has not been altered?
> > Sounds like a lot of parts that don't belong on a car with your VIN, Dennis.
> > Glen
> > Brooks wrote:
> >> Lots of good questions raised there Glen...I will do my best to answer most of them...
> >> "Did Canada get a hodge-podge of parts because they had less specific laws than the
> >> United States? "
> >> I don't know what the US regulations were at that time...however today the regulations seem to be even more strict here...as most
> >> US destined vehicles need to be modified to meet Canadian standards before importing.
> >> The P6B that I am refering to NEVER had under the bumper turn signals...The signals were wired into the front wing much like the
> >> 3500 that was built for the home market in England....
> > Just to be specific, the P6B you mention is a Federal 3500S, right? I'm sure there are tons of P6Bs without the bumper
> > directionals.
> >> the wings were not the same as fitted to the P6 ...however they did have a small piece of stainless (I believe) fitted to the
> >> lower portion of the wing next to the rocker panel (is this also seen on 3500 cars made for the home market ?
> > Those pieces were original to the Fed 3500S, and I'm pretty sure they were aluminum. Why they didn't just paint the fender, I
> > don't know...
> >> "Seems like some rewiring would be involved in deleting
> >> the under bumper lights"
> >> Again...not really ...as the lights were actually an addition as you noted for the NADA market....wether it was required by law
> >> is a bit doubtful when you consider the other cars sold in the same market at that time .
> > I think they just spliced in wires that ran down to the under bumper lights. I know I read somewhere that those things were added
> > to meet regulations, but I can't find where I read it, so that's hearsay! ;-) They appeared first on the TC that preceded the
> > 3500S and might have arrived along with the side marker lights which were definitely federally mandated down here. Maybe the ones
> > up top were simply not bright enough or didn't have enough visibility from an angle.
> >> I have a P6B with a unit that is completly different from any I have seen ...it's reversed to the opposite side like we have in
> >> todays cars...also it came with a high beam flash plus on the unit you have the feature of hi-lo beam switching ...not a dimmer
> >> on the floor. The floor mat has never even had the hole for the dimmer punched out in order to install the unit.
> > Now. we're cooking with gas. What's the VIN on that car? Let's sleuth it out. I'm still not clear on the setup. The '69 brochures
> > I have show the directional on the right. The left stalk will flash the high beams when pulled back if lights are off or in low
> > beam. The lights are turned on using the rotary switch on the dash. High beams by floor button. The much older 2000 manual from
> > 1964 shows the hi/low selection being done by the left stalk. If you read between the lines, it looks like they left that same
> > switch at the base of the left stalk even when they finally only using a single function of it to flash the lights. Someone can
> > check a parts manual, but it might have been pretty easy to just hook up that switch to operate like it did on the old cars,
> > especially if the wires were still in the harness. If that's the case, the dealer would not have had to change the switches on
> > the column because they never changed (just didn't get hooked up).
> >> "The directional indicators and horn are on the right side,
> >> the headlight flasher control on a stem to the left."
> >> Not true on all P6B cars...as I own one that didn't come that way...My Dad removed the unit and refitted it to another P6B that
> >> he was driving.
> > Not clear what you mean, here. If it "didn't come that way" did you have one that had the directional lever on the left and the
> > flasher on the right?
> > Again, are we talking Fed 3500S here, or just generic P6B? There's lots of P6Bs, but there are only 2000 Fed 3500S's. Did you guys
> > get any 3500 models up there before they brought the Fed 3500S over?
> >> "Have you definitely seen 3500S's in
> >> Canada that don't have the dimmer footswitch on the floor? To me, it
> >> seems much more likely that such a car was modified by some owner than
> >> that it was manufactured that way at the factory."
> >> Yes...I own it...and before me Ben Rogers owned it....at the time of purchase Ben told me that everything was the way he bought
> >> the car...and I can't really see anyone going to such trouble as to remove the foot dimmer hide the holes where it would be
> >> fastened ...change the wiring and replace the floor mat with one that was never cut for a floor mounted dimmer....it's just too
> >> much of a strech to make.
> > Again, share the VIN on that car.
> >> "Even in 1964, NADA P6's had foot dimmers. "
> >> I'm sure the '64 Mustang did as well...but eventually things evolve...so I am not sure what your point is ....most of the P6B
> >> cars had foot dimmers....but I have one that does not...and never did.
> > Point is that if the foot dimmer was standard on NADA cars since 1964, why would they make yours without one? Unless it wasn't
> > intended for this market...
> >> "The bumpers of a 3500S are unique to the 3500S and so are the front
> >> wings to match them. If a 3500S was shipped with non-standard front
> >> bumpers, they would have to have been 2000TC bumpers which would mean
> >> the car had 2000TC front wings, as well. How could the factory send out
> >> a car like that?"
> >> That's making a lot of unfounded presumptions Glen
> > Not if it's an NADA Federal 3500S. Why does your car have so many anomalies?
> >> ....I actually think it was fitted with a front bumper from the three thousand five....it would fit directly and would easily
> >> explain the lights in the front wings operating like the ones used in the three thousand five model as well...I also think you
> >> may find the front bumper of the 3500S is also a direct fit to the three thousand five...contrary to your statement.
> > I don't know if it would bolt onto a 3500, but the Fed 3500S bumper was unique to the model. That's a definite fact. Someone in
> > the UK or Europe would have to let us know if the 3500 had the same wings as the 2000. If so, the Fed 3500S bumper wouldn't bolt
> > onto a 3500 because it would be missing an attachment point on each side. In fact, I just looked at pictures of the 3500 and can
> > confirm what I just said. You could fit 3500 bumpers to a 3500S, but you'd have an empty hole in each front wing. If you put the
> > heavy wrap-around bumper on a 3500, the ends would not be supported.
> >> " Is it possible that the car you are remembering was a TC and not a
> >> 3500S? Maybe a non-NADA LHD 2000 or 2000TC was imported into Canada by someone."
> >> An honest question...but not even a glimer of a chance....These are not the same 3500 S units that I am noting differences ...but
> >> they are certainly not "TC" models....I've owned and driven a 3500S since 71' ....I am very familiar with the marquis and believe
> >> me there are indeed many factory differences ...for whatever reason...I can't tell you for certain ...but you are off the mark
> >> when you try to explain those differences as after market or dealer modifications.
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> "I'm not sure what you mean by finishing trims in the boot."
> >> Up until I saw the P6B that I bought fronm Quebec...I had never seen stainless steel installed along the back edge of the
> >> trunk...located just inside the lip where the carpet stops....there was a full length of stainless installed there . It was a
> >> match to the desigm used on the entry step of the main part of the car...it was not something that was aftermarket ...it was
> >> factory installed ...even the screws marched the rest of the screws used on the cars other trim pieces....
> >> ...................................................................................................
> >> "If I saw a car with a non-NADA spec headlight
> >> dimmer circuit, I would check the VIN to see if it was ever intended to
> >> end up in North America."
> >> Sounds reasonable.....43301964A
> >> Once again Glen....it stands the test....perhaps you might care to reconsider and recant....LOL
> >> .........................................................
> >> Now as a final thought....every car that came to canada had to meet standards that were put in place effective Jan 1/1968...so
> >> the bumper theory you have so clearly noted may indeed be only a theory...because if it were factual ...then please explain how
> >> the 1968 Rover 2000 was permitted to roam the streets of the USA ... Just a little food for thought :)
> > Don't confuse the Clean Air Act requirements with the new auto safety requirements that came about a year later.
> >> Regards
> >> Dennis Brooks
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rovernet mailing list
> >> rovernet at lyris.ccdata.com
> >> To unsubscribe, go to this web page, look near the bottom and follow instructions:
> >> http://mailman.nipltd.com/mailman/listinfo/rovernet
> >> Back-up list and photos at:
> >> http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Rover_net/
> > _______________________________________________
> > rovernet mailing list
> > rovernet at lyris.ccdata.com
> > To unsubscribe, go to this web page, look near the bottom and follow instructions:
> > http://mailman.nipltd.com/mailman/listinfo/rovernet
> > Back-up list and photos at:
> > http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Rover_net/
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1348 - Release Date: 3/28/2008 10:58 AM
> rovernet mailing list
> rovernet at lyris.ccdata.com
> To unsubscribe, go to this web page, look near the bottom and follow instructions:
> Back-up list and photos at:
Casta est quam nemo rogavit.
More information about the rovernet