Thames Ditton Mk III Cobra?

[rstainer]

Ross Henry’s SLABSIDE thread has interesting Cobra terminology points. This thread, which follows on, is solely to establish whether there is any authoritative evidence, previously not available to historians, that AC Thames Ditton considered producing or produced a Mk III Cobra.
   
   The authoritative period evidence available to the ACOC is as follows:
   1.   After starting coil spring production, AC referred to the leaf spring car as the ‘Mk I Cobra’.
   2.   AC headed the coil spring Shelby ledger ‘Cobra Mk II’.
   3.   Shelby American called the leaf spring car the ‘Cobra I’ and the coil spring car the ‘Cobra II’, but this designation was short-lived.
   4.   AC called the coil spring 289 model the ‘AC 289 Sports’.
   
   No authoritative evidence has ever been seen that AC Thames Ditton considered producing or produced a Mk III Cobra or cobra-type vehicle.
   
   The available evidence was last published in ACtion in 2003. As no new period material has emerged in the last ten years this string is a call to see whether anyone has anything authoritative hidden away.

[SJ351]

I saw a 'MK111' drawing several years back at AC Heritage when my car was being repainted.
   I popped in to view progress and Steve Gray was sorting out his archive on a Saturday afternoon. He invited me to view a selection of original Thames Ditton drawings he had spread out over the bonnet of a Cobra.. ' MK111 Cobra' was clearly written on one of them in the title section. I remember we debated the subject at length. He really had some amazing things stowed away.
   The authoritative evidence does exist and has been seen I can assure you.
   There can be no more authoritative source than the original factory records, presumably still maintained by the custodian of the AC brand.
   We could not decide whether they were prototype drawings for a new model or, drawings of a current production car.
   The factory used 'MK111' as a designation though. Of that I am absolutely certain.

[jbottini]

The authoritative evidence exists for those willing to accept it!

[MkIV Lux]

quote:Originally posted by SJ351
   
I saw a 'MK111' drawing several years back at AC Heritage when my car was being repainted.
   I popped in to view progress and Steve Gray was sorting out his archive on a Saturday afternoon. He invited me to view a selection of original Thames Ditton drawings he had spread out over the bonnet of a Cobra.. ' MK111 Cobra' was clearly written on one of them in the title section. I remember we debated the subject at length. He really had some amazing things stowed away.
   The authorative evidence does exist and has been seen I can assure you.
   There can be no more authorative source than the original factory records, presumably still maintained by the custodian of the AC brand.
   We could not decide whether they were prototype drawings for a new model or, drawings of a current production car.
   The factory used 'MK111' as a designation though. Of that I am absolutely certain.
   

   
   I can't refrain my analytical mind to bring up the following questions:
   - was it "MK111" that I would read as Mark One Hundred Eleven or "MKIII" that I would read as Mark Three?
   - prototype or current production car: because the drawing was not dated?
   - were you able to identify the model though (coil spring ??)

[rstainer]

All a historian can do is examine the documentary evidence and listen to people who played a role in the 60s.
   
   Copies of many AC Drawing Office plans are in the public domain, all with the Office stamp setting out inter-alia:

Description  

Model

Scale

 Drawn (by)

Date

Drawing no

   No public-domain Cobra drawings have ‘Cobra MkIII’ on them, and I reiterate that there are many of them. Likewise, no one working at AC in the 60s is on record as saying that AC produced or considered producing a MkIII Cobra.
   
   If Stephen, James or Steve wish to add to the public-domain historical record, all they have to do is let an impartial historian (anyone who has produced authoritative published information, such as Ned Scudder or Rinsey Mills) have a copy of this one reported anomalous plan. It could indicate that AC were in the very initial stages of considering a Cobra MkIII.

[aaron]

quote:Originally posted by SJ351
   
I saw a 'MK111' drawing several years back at AC Heritage when my car was being repainted.
   I popped in to view progress and Steve Gray was sorting out his archive on a Saturday afternoon. He invited me to view a selection of original Thames Ditton drawings he had spread out over the bonnet of a Cobra.. ' MK111 Cobra' was clearly written on one of them in the title section. I remember we debated the subject at length. He really had some amazing things stowed away.
   The authorative evidence does exist and has been seen I can assure you.
   There can be no more authorative source than the original factory records, presumably still maintained by the custodian of the AC brand.
   We could not decide whether they were prototype drawings for a new model or, drawings of a current production car.
   The factory used 'MK111' as a designation though. Of that I am absolutely certain.
   
   
   Steve certainly has a great archive , I have trawled through some of it myself, you could spend weeks going through it all !
   

[BBK]

Perhaps this is a silly question then, but why did Brian Angliss call the Mk. IV the Mk. IV, unless he was creating a successor car to the Mk. III coil sprung Cobra?

[Jam2]

quote:Originally posted by BBK
   
Perhaps this is a silly question then, but why did Brian Angliss call the Mk. IV the Mk. IV, unless he was creating a successor car to the Mk. III coil sprung Cobra?
   

   
   When I was involved with Cobra's in the 1970's / 80's ordinary members always refered to Mk1 Cobra's as the 260 engined cars, Mk 11 as the 289 cars and Mk 111 as the 289 coil sprung cars. So it was quite logical to us that Anglis called his cars Mk 1V.   I now know from the information on the forum that this was not the correct description, but at that time there didn't seem to be much confusion.

[TLegate]

I agree with Jam2's comments. I started work on a book about the Cobra circa 1978 and back then my (only!) source of information was the Shelby American Automobile Club in the USA. They sent me magazines, photos and anything I requested which was more than generous. I noted their use of the terms MkI, MkII and MkIII which was a simple way to deliniate the three different engines used in the Cobra. This made perfect sense as virtually everyone knew which version was being discussed or sold or 'found in a scrapyard'. It might not be technically accurate but in the real world it helped people know what was what. And the majority of folks in the Cobra world still use the definitions as they make sense. I really don't think the average Cobra enthusiast is greatly bothered about what was written on the bottom of the technical drawings produced in Thames Ditton. This somewhat pointless dicussion (using the polite term) is reminiscent of the Ford GT40 saga since there never was a 'GT40' just a Ford GT. The use of the GT40 name amongst the press and public led to Ford to making use of it (which is why Ford never registered the copyright)

[rr64]

When I was trying to find and buy a Cobra (leaf spring car) in the mid 1970s into the start of the 1980s, the common U.S.A. use by various clubs and car dealers of MKI was for cars with worm and sector steering and MKII was rack and pinion cars. Somewhere in time common use changed to be associated with engine size.  The very first time I wanted to buy suspension and brake service parts after buying a Cobra the parts places (back then Bill Kemper and Cobra Restorers were the main parts by telephone or mail order places in the U.S.A.) needed your chassis number to insure that correct parts were sent.
   
   I am in no way a Ford GT (a.k.a. GT40) expert but the VIN tags images shown as examples in the latest SAAC Registry show chassis numbers with GT40P prefixes.  Refer to page 960. It shows a "FORD MOTOR COMPANY" chassis tag with a "GT40P" chassis number prefix, a "FORD ADVANCED VEHICLES LTD" tag with a "GT-40P" number prefix, and the "holman and moody inc." tag for a car they  modified that starts with a "GT 40 P" number prefix.  Unless the published SAAC information is false, Ford put "GT40" on the cars when new even if they did not advertise them that way.

[TLegate]

I was referring to the beginning of Ford's attempt to win at Le Mans when the prototypes were called 'Ford GT' before the PR people picked up on the height of said vehicle. I am aware that when full production began, the cars carried an appropriate chassis plate. Just sayin' it wasn't Ford's intention to call the car GT40 when the project was taking shape. Unless I've been misinformed, or I recall the Car & Driver articles incorrectly (it was a while ago...)
   
   More on the art of splitting hairs - taken to a logical extreme, was there ever a Cobra MkI? The AC Chassis Register lists every 260/289 as 'AC Ace Cobra' and the technical drawings were titled '3.6 Ace'. I know this as I have a drawing beside me and that, I am quite sure, is what it says....unless my tired old eyes deceive me

[SunDude]

quote:Originally posted by Jam2
   When I was involved with Cobra's in the 1970's / 80's ordinary members always refered to Mk1 Cobra's as the 260 engined cars, Mk 11 as the 289 cars and Mk 111 as the 289 coil sprung cars. So it was quite logical to us that Anglis called his cars Mk 1V.   I now know from the information on the forum that this was not the correct description, but at that time there didn't seem to be much confusion.
   

   
   It's my understanding that MkI referred to the worm-and-sector leaf-spring Cobras, MkII were the rack-and-pinion leaf-sprung cars, and MkIII were the coil-sprung cars.  Engine size was not the defining characteristic.  Even if these were common references, not official factory labels.

[Mark IV]

quote:Originally posted by TLegate
   
 This somewhat pointless dicussion (using the polite term) is reminiscent of the Ford GT40 saga since there never was a 'GT40' just a Ford GT. The use of the GT40 name amongst the press and public led to Ford to making use of it (which is why Ford never registered the copyright)
   

   
   While Ford did not register the GT40 trademark (a whole 'nother story)the story that the cars were only "Ford GTs" is questionable when the production cars have "GT40" cast into many of the parts as well as the "GT40P" VIN. I postulate(and therefor it will be true fact from here on)that the cars morphed from mere "Ford GTs" to "GT40s" in both the press and the Yovil Road works at some point. That all of the parts shown in the manual are numbered "GT40" also lends credibility to Ford deciding that the cars were "GT40s" and not just "GTs".
   
   Personally having seen some of the AC "records" I am half surprised that they just didn't call the models "Reg", "Alf" and "Paddy"!!!!

[rstainer]

This thread has only one aim: to establish whether there is any hitherto unseen evidence concerning AC's 60s use of the 'Mk' terms.
   
   Stephen James helpfully refers to a drawing (date known?) but doesn't know whether it's for a new model prototype or a production car. None of the other posts appear to address the 60s evidence question.
   
   I'd be grateful if anyone interested in 70s and later usage would use that subject's separate string.
   
   Thanks
   
   Robin Stainer