SP250 100374

migray
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:31 pm
Location: Bakewell

SP250 100374

Post by migray » Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:50 am

SP250 in Rhode Island for sale on bring a trailer https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1963-daimler-sp250-5/

Says 1963 but I presume 100374 is an A spec? Also chassis plate looks more like 100347

Looks sharp with lots of upgrades including 5 speed Toyota box. $10000 at the moment with a few days to go.

User avatar
John-B
Site Admin
Posts: 942
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:10 pm
Location: Salisbury, UK
Contact:

Re: SP250 100374

Post by John-B » Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:21 am

I don't think it is A spec as the seat cover design is different (a large band around the edge; A spec seams continue to the edge) and there is no depression behind the external door handle.

User avatar
Vortex O'Plinth
Posts: 685
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 8:15 pm
Location: Gloucestershire

Re: SP250 100374

Post by Vortex O'Plinth » Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:40 am

....and if you look carefully, this picture...
Capture.JPG
...shows outboard 'pontoons', so maybe a 'B' or 'C' spec, or possibly an upgraded 'A'?
Nick

Pas d'elle yeux Rhône que nous.

User avatar
Mike0Ryan
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:12 am
Location: Vancouver, WA USA

Re: SP250 100374

Post by Mike0Ryan » Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:06 am

The BAT seller is "roncavallaro", and Ron Cavallaro is in the pasSPort as the owner of chassis # 100374. The index of modifications includes the transmission change and the dual master cylinders, but nothing else. The BAT write-up mentions some other modifications (e.g. rack and pinion steering) so perhaps more unmentioned work was done. Still hard to believe this example started of life as an 'A' spec. I also note that the underside of the bonnet does not seem to have the ribs that my 'A' spec has. A tantalizing mystery. ;)

User avatar
#100910
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 2:32 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: SP250 100374

Post by #100910 » Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:32 pm

This vehicle is definitely 100347, so unless Ron also owns 100374 this vehicle has been incorrectly recorded in Laurence's records + pasSPort.
100347.PNG
Only very early A-specs had the door handle recesses.
("1st Condition" as described in the parts catalog.)
Those also had no door-top chrome trim around the window apertures.

In a June 2010 old forum topic titled- "Bunk Bed SP250s" - user 'guardian' has Chassis #100089, which has door handle recesses, and Chassis #100129, which has no door handle recesses. He postulates: "Perhaps that first run of doors was for 100 door pairs. It's a good, round number."

Laurence Jones adds:
"It seems the 'door scallops' may have run out by the end of Jan 1960 - but this is just a guide. There isn't a note in the files. Also there are a number of early (SP) bodies about that are 'light weight' in their construction and can be identified at/by the inner wheel panel. Regards Laurence"

Like the door handle recesses, bonnet and boot lid ribbing went away during the first A-spec batch. Not sure if those were only fitted to the light weight bodies. I recall there being another old forum thread trying to determine where that change point occurred

The images also show A-spec door card pockets.
Evidence supports 100347 having been upgraded to B-spec seats.

1st LHD Batch - (mostly to US)
===================
1959 September
1961 June
===================
100011-100569 = 559 cars

--Edited--

Failed to consider that early RHD cars would've been using doors with handle recesses too, so guardian's guess of 100 pairs might be low. More old forum research to be done.

1st RHD Batch
===================
1959 October
1960 June
===================
100570-100759 = 190 cars

User avatar
John-B
Site Admin
Posts: 942
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:10 pm
Location: Salisbury, UK
Contact:

Re: SP250 100374

Post by John-B » Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:54 pm

My car -100587 - has all the A spec. features, Mid November 1959 RHD.

migray
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:31 pm
Location: Bakewell

Re: SP250 100374

Post by migray » Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:20 pm

If you look at the copies of the car's papers which form some of the photos it gives the chassis number as 100374. This is the same as in passport. But the number on the chassis itself looks like 100347. Perhaps a transcription error that has been repeated.
Why doesn't Laurence Jones give information on this forum? He could probably advise.

Patersoncm
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:20 pm
Location: Rugby

Re: SP250 100374

Post by Patersoncm » Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:28 pm

Seems to show a low oil pressure on cold start up video (30psi). Curious as there are recipes indicating an engine rebuild.

Big Col
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:45 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: SP250 100374

Post by Big Col » Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:41 pm

Let’s hope you anoraks don’t get too bogged down.
The good thing about darts is individuality . The one or two truly originals are a joy to behold. The rest are hopefully being enjoyed for what they are, quality that is a bliss to drive.
Colin,
I may be slow but I’m rough as well !

User avatar
Mike0Ryan
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:12 am
Location: Vancouver, WA USA

Re: SP250 100374

Post by Mike0Ryan » Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:00 pm

In a June 2010 old forum topic titled- "Bunk Bed SP250s" - user 'guardian' has Chassis #100089, which has door handle recesses, and Chassis #100129, which has no door handle recesses. He postulates: "Perhaps that first run of doors was for 100 door pairs. It's a good, round number."
Without getting too bogged down :) , my chassis # 100139 'A' spec has the door handle recesses. It is interesting that the presumably earlier chassis # 100129 that 'guardian' has does not have door handle recesses. Perhaps production was a bit haphazard and SP250's weren't actually all completed in chassis number order? Decades back, Barry told me my SP250 was finished on January, 29 1960 (but was registered in Wisconsin as a 1961). It would be interesting to see the list of chassis #'s versus their finish dates. Maybe my SP250 darted past his in the production line.

The more I have learned about these cars, the better I appreciate Colin's observations about each example's individuality.

Post Reply