Thread: 1954 Royal Review 47160049

Originally Posted by 123rover50

Wonder how many were built.

The numbers are on this link.

Land Rover FAQ - History, Production, Sales - Production Data

Originally Posted by wrinklearthur

The numbers are on this link.

Land Rover FAQ - History, Production, Sales - Production Data

Except that site is not correct in regards the 81" prototypes. There were no 81" prototypes. What there were is a batch of thirty three production 80" model vehicles taken from the MoD motor pool and sent for conversion as trials test beds for the Rolls Royce B40 series engines.

Were there 2 centre steer prototypes in 1947, what about the prototype #1 on a Jeep chassis which was the first built and wasn't centre steer. The forty eight pre-production vehicles, didn't that include the centre steer and were one consecutive series?

the first 1949 was #8663001 and last 1949 model was #8667920, leaving only 4920 built?

If the FAQ has those errors, how many others are there?

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Except that site is not correct in regards the 81" prototypes. There were no 81" prototypes. What there were is a batch of thirty three production 80" model vehicles taken from the MoD motor pool and sent for conversion as trials test beds for the Rolls Royce B40 series engines.

Wasn't there a necessity to rebuild the chassis to accommodate the larger Rolls Royce engine?

Were there 2 centre steer prototypes in 1947, what about the prototype #1 on a Jeep chassis which was the first built and wasn't centre steer. The forty eight pre-production vehicles, didn't that include the centre steer and were one consecutive series?

And not all chassis numbers were for completed bodied Land Rovers, what about the chassis - firewall sets, that tends to mess up the numbers as well.

the first 1949 was #8663001 and last 1949 model was #8667920, leaving only 4920 built?

Sorry, I am not that old to have been on the assembly line at that time and be counting .
Is there a more accurate source of figures?

If the FAQ has those errors, how many others are there?

Definitely not accurate, but still is a good guide to follow until someone produces the next set of figure that can be verified.
.

Originally Posted by wrinklearthur

Wasn't there a necessity to rebuild the chassis to accommodate the larger Rolls Royce engine?

Yes, there was a need to modify the chassis. The point is that it was done by modifying 33 already built production models after they were delivered to the MoD. I will give you the chassis numbers after I get home tonight.

Originally Posted by wrinklearthur

And not all chassis numbers were for completed bodied Land Rovers, what about the chassis - firewall sets, that tends to mess up the numbers as well.

If you look at your chassis you will see two numbers, one the build number is stamped by the chassis fabricating factory. What we call the chassis number which correlates to the Car Number is stamped when the component assemblies are fitted together and the almost completed vehicle rolls along the production line.

Chassis that make their way to the spare parts chain don't have the car/chassis number stamped. Even the CKD kits delivered to distributors like Grenville's or Annand and Thomson arrived in Australia with only the build number stamped into the chassis. This is the reason that A&T assembled vehicles have their chassis numbers in different places to those assembled at Regent Motors or Grenvilles.

A point of interest is that the other component assemblies like gearboxes and axles have their serial number stamped as they are built up into completed assemblies. This is why Land Rover's engine and gearbox numbers etc are similar to but not the same as the car number, where in marques like Jaguar all the numbers are (or were) the same.

Originally Posted by wrinklearthur

Sorry, I am not that old to have been on the assembly line at that time and be counting .
Is there a more accurate source of figures?

Yes the dispatch books at Gaydon and for the 80" our mates LRO53 and 260AC. Unfortunately CKD assembly factories like PMC make even the gaydon records deficient. e.g. the Gaydon records do not record any 6cyl RHD CKD SIIB (prefix 332), yet I own one and there are at least 140 332 numbers after my 33200327F. Probably making about 3,000 SIIB instead of the 2305 recorded by LR FAQ

Originally Posted by wrinklearthur

Definitely not accurate, but still is a good guide to follow until someone produces the next set of figure that can be verified.
.

Always happy to have good reliable sources of information.

It is why the demise of Classic Land Rovers in Norway, lost us their VIN calculator which was more accurate for forward control Land Rovers than Clifton CalVIN, was such a shame.

Pulled the head. Pots full but perhaps lucky 2 up and 2 down.
Gearbox and T box full too.
Eng no 47103609
G box 47103588

First photo shows all the rusty stuff in the back Any 101 owner want the plates?
Had a win with the bakelite Steering wheel centre. Did not know that was there.

Originally Posted by 123rover50

Pulled the head. Pots full but perhaps lucky 2 up and 2 down.
Gearbox and T box full too.
Eng no 47103609
G box 47103588

First photo shows all the rusty stuff in the back Any 101 owner want the plates?
Had a win with the bakelite Steering wheel centre. Did not know that was there.

Time for a cup of diesel or penetrene to sit in each of the bores.

At least the engine is the correct prefix for your vehicle even it it is about 3,600 serial numbers too high.

I've had a look and the engine does not appear in the Grenville books, but engine numbers of a similar century were fitted to vehicles sold during March and April 1954, about the same time your vehicle was carting Betty Windsor about!

BTW: All 1954 86" RHD were fitted with 4710???? or 4711???? engine numbers. The 4710 prefix relates to 1954 86" RHD Home (UK) market vehicles, so there are likely a lot of vehicles in the UK and Europe but very few 4710 would have made it out to Oz.

The 4716 number is 1954 86" RHD Export market (UK assembled) vehicles, so you would find a lot in Africa and New Zealand, but not so many in Oz.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Originally Posted by wrinklearthur

Wasn't there a necessity to rebuild the chassis to accommodate the larger Rolls Royce engine? ...

Yes, there was a need to modify the chassis. The point is that it was done by modifying 33 already built production models after they were delivered to the MoD. I will give you the chassis numbers after I get home tonight.

The following (1950) vehicles from MoD contract 6/VEH/3569 are confirmed as being shipped to and converted by (Detroit subsidiary) Hudson Motors of West London:

• R06104331 MoD Tag 11BC75
• R06104333 MoD Tag 11BC77
• R06104336 MoD Tag 11BC80
• R0610**** MoD Tag 11BC98
• R0610**** MoD Tag 12BC09
• R0610**** MoD Tag 12BC13
• R0610**** MoD Tag 12BC15
• R0610**** MoD Tag 12BC17
• R0610**** MoD Tag 12BC41
• R0610**** MoD Tag 12BC42

It is likely that some of the missing 23 vehicles were from the vehicles between these known units.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Time for a cup of diesel or penetrene to sit in each of the bores.

At least the engine is the correct prefix for your vehicle even it it is about 3,600 serial numbers too high.

I've had a look and the engine does not appear in the Grenville books, but engine numbers of a similar century were fitted to vehicles sold during March and April 1954, about the same time your vehicle was carting Betty Windsor about!

BTW: All 1954 86" RHD were fitted with 4710???? or 4711???? engine numbers. The 4710 prefix relates to 1954 86" RHD Home (UK) market vehicles, so there are likely a lot of vehicles in the UK and Europe but very few 4710 would have made it out to Oz.

The 4716 number is 1954 86" RHD Export market (UK assembled) vehicles, so you would find a lot in Africa and New Zealand, but not so many in Oz.

Have to make do. The only other siamese I have is this. 47109443
Its in worse condition and even later

Keith