In it shown a Mercedes M163 being demonstrated. Who owned the car, was it the one which ended up at Indianapolis or a Mercedes factory demonstration and why did they pick that meeting for the demo?
Edited by JtP1, 27 February 2012 - 14:56.
Posted 27 February 2012 - 13:51
Edited by JtP1, 27 February 2012 - 14:56.
Posted 27 February 2012 - 14:24
Posted 27 February 2012 - 14:32
Posted 27 February 2012 - 14:40
In it shown a Mercedes M163 being demonstrated. Who owned the car, was it the one which ended up at Indianapolis or a Mercedes factory demonstration and why did they pick that meeting for the demo?
Posted 27 February 2012 - 14:59
Posted 27 February 2012 - 15:00
Posted 27 February 2012 - 15:02
Posted 27 February 2012 - 15:05
Posted 27 February 2012 - 15:08
Yes, I believe it was Posthumus who made the initial mistake in period, which everybody else followedHave fixed link. Have followed the theories on the M154/163 indentities. They all seem to start as M154 chassis in 38, but are fitted with the M163 engine and body work in 39. Clutton,Posthumus and Jenkinson from my reading of it describe it as a M163.
Posted 27 February 2012 - 16:02
Posted 27 February 2012 - 18:00
Sorry, I meant Pomeroy. My apologies to Cyril Posthumus.THe car was probably W154/12 which was raced only once pre-war, by Seaman at the 1938 Italian Grand Prix, and by LAng in the 1951 Argentine campaign. I think it had an M163 engine but I'm not sure.
I don't think that Cyril Posthumus was first to use the W163 designation. Pomeroy used it in the Grand Prix car and Cameron Earl referred to the M163 car in his post-war report. THere was a thread in which we tried to determine the originator of the term, but I don't think we reached a firm conclusion.