34 replies to this topic

[Allan Lupton]

I see that there is an AC Ace being offered here
As the claimed date is two years before the Ace was introduced and ten years before the Ruddspeed version appeared there are a number of matters that seem questionable. Even the quoted chassis number seems improbable as an original AC number, since low volume manufacturers didn't need to use such complicated and long numbers. If "according to the vendor all mechanical components are early 1960's" where does the 1951 date come from?
DVLA has it as first used in 1951, but whether the registration number was on an AC that year I can't guess, but it wouldn't have been on an Ace.

I have to say that it looks the part, but an auction estimate of £120,000 - £140,000 seems a bit optimistic

[elansprint72]

I see that there is an AC Ace being offered here
As the claimed date is two years before the Ace was introduced and ten years before the Ruddspeed version appeared there are a number of matters that seem questionable. Even the quoted chassis number seems improbable as an original AC number, since low volume manufacturers didn't need to use such complicated and long numbers. If "according to the vendor all mechanical components are early 1960's" where does the 1951 date come from?
DVLA has it as first used in 1951, but whether the registration number was on an AC that year I can't guess, but it wouldn't have been on an Ace.

I have to say that it looks the part, but an auction estimate of £120,000 - £140,000 seems a bit optimistic

Reading through their blurb, I'd say they should have said 1991, not 1951 but what do I know? That is a serious amount of money. How easy is it to get FIA papers these days?

Edited by elansprint72, 29 December 2011 - 19:12.

[Red Socks]

Reading through their blurb, I's say they should have said 1991, not 1951 but what do I know? That is a serious amount of money. How easy is it to get FIA papers these days?

It is no easier or harder to get papers now than 20 years ago. The only difference is twofold, each application is peer reviwed by the FIA for correctness or at least commmon standard and secondly you no longer have to lie to get papers for a replica or a fake
For sure the papers will state year of manufacture as being something other than 1951-2010 by the look of the ad.

[Ralf Pickel]

This car has been for sale at one of the specialist dealers for a rather long time without shifting, obviously.
If it would be an interesting buy, it would have been gone by now...

[Allan Lupton]

This car has been for sale at one of the specialist dealers for a rather long time without shifting, obviously.
If it would be an interesting buy, it would have been gone by now...

This one I've been pointed to since I started this thread. Seems a much more correct description of what it is, and more believable "date" and chassis number data.
Mind you the maker's plate looks a little older.

[Red Socks]

The HTP does beg the question as to how AC got the type homologated with only 38 made as opposed to the required 100.

[D-Type]

The HTP does beg the question as to how AC got the type homologated with only 38 made as opposed to the required 100.

Presumably the FIA considered it as a development of the Ace-Bristol. As I understand it, the chassis and running gear were the same. The Cobra was a different story - the amount of beefing up for the V8 made it virtually a new design.

Even if the number dates to 1951 this car should be described as 1991, the year it was built.

[RobertE]

Well, it's obviouisly a ringer. There are certain auction houses which specialise in the vague description; naturally, that is not one of them...

[RS2000]

The HTP does beg the question as to how AC got the type homologated with only 38 made as opposed to the required 100.

Par for the course? Sometimes it seems more models failed to make their "minimum production" (or, in this case, "100 options", presumably on the 500-off minimum for Gp3) figures than did. The actual regulation was something along the lines of showing "provisions for the production of x.... number" until comparatively recently (70s/80s?) and the national body signed off on behalf of the FIA. We really must have a thread sometime on "worst homologation fiddles of all time".

[David McKinney]

I suspect Duncan is close to the real answer. The AC Ace was possibly homologated with AC and Bristol engines,perhaps as a single model, and the Zephyr-engined version tacked on as a "development". The total of all three models would easily surpass the required production total

[elansprint72]

I suspect Duncan is close to the real answer. The AC Ace was possibly homologated with AC and Bristol engines,perhaps as a single model, and the Zephyr-engined version tacked on as a "development". The total of all three models would easily surpass the required production total

Agreed.
As an engineer I can't help thinking that if these "old" cars were worth the sum of their parts then we would be living in a different world.

[David Birchall]

Par for the course? Sometimes it seems more models failed to make their "minimum production" (or, in this case, "100 options", presumably on the 500-off minimum for Gp3) figures than did. The actual regulation was something along the lines of showing "provisions for the production of x.... number" until comparatively recently (70s/80s?) and the national body signed off on behalf of the FIA. We really must have a thread sometime on "worst homologation fiddles of all time".

Come on!! The Bristol engine went out of production so AC had to find an alternative-there was no attempt to deceive anybody-at least none that has ever surfaced before this thread was started.
Thirty seven-or so-cars were built with the Ford engine, some of them Aces some of them Acecas.
This is a certified copy of a Ford engined Ace-no more or less. You pays your money and takes your chances...

[lanciaman]

Come on!! The Bristol engine went out of production so AC had to find an alternative-there was no attempt to deceive anybody-at least none that has ever surfaced before this thread was started.
Thirty seven-or so-cars were built with the Ford engine, some of them Aces some of them Acecas.
This is a certified copy of a Ford engined Ace-no more or less. You pays your money and takes your chances...

I am ignorant of the nuances of this argument, but wasn't the car in question actually built in 1991 by some fellows who had no connection with the original Ace constructors? If so, what is the question?

[RS2000]

If so, what is the question?

The question I was responding to was: "how could the model (the model, nothing to do with any specific car) have been homologated if only 37 were built?"
Those who have quoted my reply since seem to be on a different question, or a different context of the word "homologation". It seems "unusual" for a different engine from a different manufacturer to have been accepted as a (100 off) "option" in Gp3 of the then Appendix J but, if it was, gaining homologation at the 37 quantity build point would not have been unusual - there were far worse examples.

Edited by RS2000, 22 December 2011 - 16:28.

[David Birchall]

My response was prompted by the tone I thought I detected in the thread-and not just from RS2000-that AC had somehow committed fraud back in the early sixties. They were in the same boat as all the other specialist car makers-Morgan, Marcos, Lotus, TVR, etc, etc who were dependent on the major manufacturers to supply engines. The Bristol engine went out of production, AC's own engine was of ancient design so they substituted a proven six cylinder engine so they could continue selling their car-no subterfuge there.
I realise the thread was about this replica-which it obviously is-rather than the engine issue but the thread was adopting what I found to be a disapointing tone.

To get back to the original post on this thread, surely the "1951" is a typo and should obviously have read 1961? If we get excited about every typo we are all in for a busy but brief life. If the chassis plate shows an odd number at least that is a wake up call for any potential purchaser. Not quite in the same class as the "Birdcage Maserati" of recent fame--yet...

[lanciaman]

The question I was responding to was: "how could the model (the model, nothing to do with any specific car) have been homologated if only 37 were built?"

Sorry, RS, I meant the larger question about the car's authenticity, not just the homologation. It would seem the description in an above link would put paid to any thoughts of the car being original.

[RS2000]

Sorry, RS, I meant the larger question about the car's authenticity, not just the homologation. It would seem the description in an above link would put paid to any thoughts of the car being original.

I wasn't going to comment on the wider issue.... I was particularly interested in homologation. Appendix J homologation doesn't respect original build as a specific complete car. A built up vehicle using homologated parts is fine for that in period (or later, using historic spec, if no other paperwork is required).
Checking Gp3 for 1961 shows "minimum production" of 100 cars (not the 500 that applied later or 100 "options" within that). No alternative engines but one production change in carburetter type (and number!) allowed. If the Bristol engined car was already homologated, by the standards of the day (and much later too), the Zephyr engined car could very possibly have achieved homologation as a separate model on qty 37 of a "planned" 100.

Edited by RS2000, 22 December 2011 - 21:09.

[mikeC]

...To get back to the original post on this thread, surely the "1951" is a typo and should obviously have read 1961? If we get excited about every typo we are all in for a busy but brief life. If the chassis plate shows an odd number at least that is a wake up call for any potential purchaser. Not quite in the same class as the "Birdcage Maserati" of recent fame--yet...

Hmmm... That was my first thought, but I would suggest that the registration number KDF 616 is an early 'fifties number; perhaps it is more likely that the vehicle has 'adopted' the identity of a 1951 2-litre saloon to avoid the stigma of a 1991 registration number and date?

[D-Type]

To be fair to Bonhams, the description states that the car is a built up replica which is sufficiently authentic to obtain FIA "papers".

The 1951 date is the only question. It is either the date of the original AC car whose identity this one has "adopted" (possibly the date of the chassis plate?) or it is a typo for 1961, the date the Ace-Ford was first produced or it is a typo for 1991 the date construction of this replica started.

The key point is that unlike the Halselec, Maserati and McLaren that have recently been discussed her, and the less recent Healey, there is no suggestion that the car is what it is not - or that the car is anything other than what it is.

[Allan Lupton]

To be fair to Bonhams, the description states that the car is a built up replica which is sufficiently authentic to obtain FIA "papers".

The 1951 date is the only question. It is either the date of the original AC car whose identity this one has "adopted" (possibly the date of the chassis plate?) or it is a typo for 1961, the date the Ace-Ford was first produced or it is a typo for 1991 the date construction of this replica started.

The key point is that unlike the Halselec, Maserati and McLaren that have recently been discussed her, and the less recent Healey, there is no suggestion that the car is what it is not - or that the car is anything other than what it is.

To be fair to Bonhams. it's Coys whose description I linked to!
The chassis number seems to be as unlikely as the 1951 registration so far as any link with a real car goes. Real AC numbers seem to be two or three letters and up to four digits
As someone has said, it's a straightforward special made (quite nicely) in the main from AC parts by a workshop that has no direct connection with the AC company.
The price seems, as I wrote above, rather optimistic for what it is.
As I also linked this rather more straightforward advertisement which claims a rather less unusual chassis number.

Edited by Allan Lupton, 22 December 2011 - 21:53.

[D-Type]

Whoops! I meant Coys.

(My apologies to Bonhams regular historian for even implying that he would get it wrong).

[Jagjon]

To be fair to Bonhams. it's Coys whose description I linked to!
The chassis number seems to be as unlikely as the 1951 registration so far as any link with a real car goes. Real AC numbers seem to be two or three letters and up to four digits
As someone has said, it's a straightforward special made (quite nicely) in the main from AC parts by a workshop that has no direct connection with the AC company.
The price seems, as I wrote above, rather optimistic for what it is.
As I also linked this rather more straightforward advertisement which claims a rather less unusual chassis number.

KDF 616 is from October 1950 on.

[Jagjon]

To be fair to Bonhams. it's Coys whose description I linked to!
The chassis number seems to be as unlikely as the 1951 registration so far as any link with a real car goes. Real AC numbers seem to be two or three letters and up to four digits
As someone has said, it's a straightforward special made (quite nicely) in the main from AC parts by a workshop that has no direct connection with the AC company.
The price seems, as I wrote above, rather optimistic for what it is.
As I also linked this rather more straightforward advertisement which claims a rather less unusual chassis number.

KDF 616 is from October 1950 on.

[Derwent Motorsport]

it seems to be that quite a few of the descriptions on Coys list are perhaps "generous" to say the least, or even perhaps a little "vague"? The MGB race car is descibed as a "works" car which it is surely not. It may have been modded by BMC Comps and then supplied to a dealer and it does presumably have period race history. If it was a genuine works car we would be looking at a far higher price.
The same with the "Ashley" A35. Read the blurb carefully and it is a recent modification. Did Ashley do any A36 mods in period? I only remember them for their plastic bodies on Midgets/Sprites.

[Red Socks]

Presumably the FIA considered it as a development of the Ace-Bristol. As I understand it, the chassis and running gear were the same. The Cobra was a different story - the amount of beefing up for the V8 made it virtually a new design.

Hmmm but this discounts the inconvenient fact that the Ace Bristol was homologated in May 1963-10 months after the Ace Ford.
Shelby on the other hand homologated first the 4.2 -in 1962 and did indeed use the 4.2 build number to get the 4.7 into the system.
AC never homologated their Cobra which is one of the reasons that the Holley carbed car is not accepted for FIA papers.

Edited by Red Socks, 28 December 2011 - 13:15.

[D-Type]

Curious: an Ace-Bristol won the 2.0 litre GT class at Le Mans in 1959. But the ACO may well have had its own definition of GT at the time.

[RS2000]

As posted by Red Socks above, the FIA list (which should not always be considered as gospel as it does contain the odd error on first homologation dates) confirms two quite separate vehicles were homologated:
The AC "Ace 2.6Litre" (2553cc) on 13/7/62
The AC "Ace Bristol" (1971cc) on 9/5/63
The then Appendix J was sufficiently vague about bodywork changes to probably have allowed the Aceca to be counted under those homologations.
My recollection is that both engines were catalogued as available for Ace and Aceca for some time in parallel in UK new car listings/brochures.
As already mentioned, both could easily have been recognised/homologated at actual production figures as low as 37, given the detailed wording and conventions of the time (and much later), rather than the "100 in 12 months" above all the small print.

Edited for one figure date mistype.

Edited by RS2000, 28 December 2011 - 18:51.

[D-Type]

Totally OT - How should you pronounce "Aceca"? I've often wondered.

[Red Socks]

Curious: an Ace-Bristol won the 2.0 litre GT class at Le Mans in 1959. But the ACO may well have had its own definition of GT at the time.

Le Mans always had, indeed still have, their own rules.
As to the May 63 homologation I have always assumed someone wanted to run one at Le Mans or some such and realised that it was not homologated when by 1963 the rules had become quite stiff. Ironically the FIA accept the car as a pre 1962 despite the homologation date.

Edited by Red Socks, 28 December 2011 - 17:14.

[Red Socks]

Totally OT - How should you pronounce "Aceca"? I've often wondered.

AH-SEE-CA

[David McKinney]

With the stress on the middle syllable

[elansprint72]

Car is for sale with Rod Leach and is advertised in Octane magazine. The description is almost as posted by Alan on Dec22 but additionally it now says "Chassis and registration are from a 1951 AC saloon".

[Sharman]

Come on!! The Bristol engine went out of production so AC had to find an alternative-there was no attempt to deceive anybody-at least none that has ever surfaced before this thread was started.
Thirty seven-or so-cars were built with the Ford engine, some of them Aces some of them Acecas.
This is a certified copy of a Ford engined Ace-no more or less. You pays your money and takes your chances...

Back in 1960 when I bought my TVR (Downton B type) I was offered a full race Ace Bristol at the same money, I've kicked myself ever since. However, one thing I have always thought would be a fantastic car would be a modern repro Ace with a BMW 6 in it. Natural progression if you think about.

[Allan Lupton]

Car is for sale with Rod Leach and is advertised in Octane magazine. The description is almost as posted by Alan on Dec22 but additionally it now says "Chassis and registration are from a 1951 AC saloon".

Interesting idea that the chassis of an AC saloon could in any way be transmogrified into one that was suitable for an Ace. I think they have to say it is the same chassis and quote the 1951 date to claim the registration number.

[elansprint72]

Interesting idea that the chassis of an AC saloon could in any way be transmogrified into one that was suitable for an Ace. I think they have to say it is the same chassis and quote the 1951 date to claim the registration number.

Allan- makes no sense to me. However, I've just been reading that a 100% brand-new "Mercedes" W125 replica is eligible to run in "historic" racing. That I really do not understand.

btw, apologies I left you short of a letter "l" in your name..