MA200 Issues
It is very good indeed to see the restoration of MA200, the underpinnings of which looked, in 2006, to be near the point where serious attention was needed if the car was to remain roadworthy.
There has long been much conjecture surrounding this car, and AC's intentions. The following are the facts as I understand them, with some additional personal analysis.
The car is recorded in the AC Factory Production Ledger as 'AC Drophead 289 V8 Ford Engine' with chassis number MA200. The chassis and suspension design is, to all intents, unique (see below). The final drive and inboard rear brakes look similar to the first Cobra, and the windscreen is thought to be from a Jaguar E-Type.
According to early owner Jeremy Davidson, the car's first engine was a Ford V8 260 (as per the first 75 Cobras?) and the second a High Performance Programme 289 unit donated by Ford in exchange for services rendered (presumably the concurrent Cobra programme?). In point of fact, the MA200 engine number shown on the Chassis Plate, and in the Production Ledger, is consistent with the numbers on the Hypo 289 engines that AC imported directly from Ford and fitted to production leaf-spring Cobras, for Europe, in late 1963/early 1964.
The greatest conjecture surrounded the intention or otherwise to fit ACs embrionic Flat-6 engine to MA200. On one hand, Chief Designer ZT Marczewski always insisted that was the case. As late as 1984, and long after he had left AC Cars, Marczewski produced a side elevation drawing showing such an engine fitted in a Coupe version of MA 200. Whilst that was some 21 years after MA200 was first registered, a note on the drawing suggests the origins of that design date back to April 1963. Intriguingly, the rocker-arm front suspension of MA200 is similar to that fitted to one AC Greyhound, which had an experimental AC Flat-6 engine in 1961.
On the other hand, according to Jeremy Davidson, Derek Hurlock equally insisted the idea of fitting a boxer engine was dropped very early in the Project. But, does that not imply the idea was given some thought?
Further more conclusive evidence emerged circa 1986, when Jeremy reported he had carefully measured MA200 and a Flat 6 engine. This proved beyond doubt that, with the car in its finished form, a Flat-6 would not fit in MA200's engine bay - by a substantial margin.
On this engine issue my own view is that, up to about 1961, it would have been entirely logical for AC to consider fitting the boxer engine to any new model. With over 12 years development work under their belt, on both 4- and 6- cyl versions, AC had invested heavily in the programme, which was close to entering production. It is well known too that AC were looking for their next generation car design, and new engine(s) to replace the obsolete AC and Bristol units. The extent to which the boxer was considered for MA200 probably depends on when that car's design work started and, as we now know, things rapidly took a quite different turn when, in 1961, Carroll Shelby knocked on AC's door!
Regarding MA200 styling, the recent comment in the Forum re the relationship to the AC428/Frua is the first time I have seen such a direct connection made. Post WWII the manufacture of all body panelling for AC's was contracted out, that for MA200 being formed by Brownlows. I can find no evidence of the identity of the MA200 body stylist - from 1930 AC used both in-house and contracted people. Regarding any design transfer to Frua, intriguing as it might seem, given Frua's then resources, reputation, and track record it does seem unlikely.
Turning now to the production potential of MA200, in terms of a target market the concept is undoubtedly much closer to the 428 than to the Cobra. It is hard to imagine that AC's Directors committed all the resource and expense of designing and building MA200 without having some longer term intention in mind. So, what happened? Available evidence suggests events unfolded something along the following lines.
With the arrival of Carroll Shelby in 1961, the resultant Cobra programme soon completely dominated car work at Thames Ditton, with production of every other AC car model suspended. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume the Board would still have had one eye on developing the next model line.
At some stage - some evidence suggests as late as mid-1964 - a decision was made to shelve the expensive and still quite high risk boxer engine programme. Given the then recent success of the Ace 2.6 and Cobra, it made sense to instead adopt much cheaper and proven bought-in engines across any future AC model range.
Undoubtedly, the MA200 design was signed off with a V8 engine. This would have certainly been no later than early 1963 in order to complete the car in the autumn of 1963, and probably well before. In those days, and subject to a Board decision to proceed in late 1963, production could have been underway by mid to late 1964.
But, by late 1963, demand for the Cobra was so high that, even had it been AC's original intention, there was no possibility of putting MA200 into full production in parallel. Two years later, in 1965, when the first signs of falling demand for the Cobra would have been evident, the new Cobra 427/AC 289 coil spring chassis had been fully developed and in production for some time. This hugely capable chassis (by 1965 standards) was a tremendous legacy from the Cobra programme, and it was quite logical for AC to adapt it for the underpinnings of their next model. The AC428 was the outcome, and had there been any lingering thoughts of putting MA200 into production they would surely have died for good at that point.
For anyone interested, ACtion Archive of August 2006 featured MA200 in some detail, including road impressions from the passenger seat!
