(first posted 3/20/2015) The Austin-Healey 3000, produced from 1952 to 1968, has gone down in history as one of the seminal British roadsters. It has a reputation and image as being a sports car for those who considered an MGA, MGB or Triumph TR roadster as too genteel, and insufficiently demonstrative of their abilities as a driver. It was a man’s car, and you had to be aware of that. It also had an absolute timeless elegance, and came about almost by accident.
In 1948, Austin, then an independent brand and company, introduced a 2+2 sports hardtop and convertible. Given the times and the economic state of Great Britain, it was aimed specifically at North America, in concept and perhaps crucially, in style. It was powered by the 2660 cc Austin four cylinder engine as also used in the Austin A70, and used a conventional RWD drive train set in a box frame chassis, also borrowed from the Austin A70 Hampshire saloon.
image: Robrob42 via Wikipedia
The weakest part of this car, known as the Austin A90 Atlantic, was the styling. Its Mum might have described it as attractive, but let’s be frank here, it wasn’t. It was expected to appeal to North American tastes, and was styled as if to mimic American trends, but actually looked as if it was trying to caricature them – instead of a bonnet emblem above the grille, there were two, over each front wing, for example. The Atlantic was not a success, and sold fewer than 8000 cars in four years.
But Austin had invested heavily in the engine and the Longbridge plant had a lot of equipment that was being under-utilised. One sharp eyed man spotted this, and developed a potential solution.
Donald Healey had founded and still ran a small sports car business in Warwick, south of Birmingham, using Riley, Alvis and, maybe surprisingly, Nash engines around one chassis design. The most numerous and perhaps the best known Healey was the Nash-Healey sports car, of which over 500 were built around a Nash Ambassador drive train of a Nash 3.85 L straight six and three speed gearbox.
In 1951, working at home whilst off duty to avoid any conflicts or issues with his agreement with Nash, Healey brought together the engine, gearbox, back axle and parts of the front suspension of the Austin Atlantic to create a car in the classic British roadster style, slightly larger but clearly in the same vein as the Triumph TR. Healey was responsible for the styling and links to the Nash-Healey are evident, although the body was actually built by Jensen.
The way Healey brought the components together, and the way he had been building cars previously were not dissimilar to the methods used by William Lyons at Jaguar before the war, and the result was a car that offered a lot of what Jaguar were now offering with the XK120 series. Officially, this was a private venture by Donald Healey, though some reports suggest he was provided with at least some encouragement by Leonard Lord, Chairman of Austin and later BMC. My hunch is that Healey had some pretty official clearance from Lord, if only to enable him to obtain a secure supply of the Austin components used in the car.
The car, identified as the Healey 100, was shown at the 1952 London Motor Show, which is when Lord officially saw it for the first time. The reception the car received was enough to stimulate Austin and Lord (above, with Donald Healey in the car) to formally come to an agreement (sign off on a prepared draft?) with Healey. Healey would continue to be responsible for the design; Austin would handle the production and marketing of the car, and pay Healey a royalty for each one sold, under the name Austin-Healey 100.
In the spring of 1953, the first cars, known as the BN1 series, were delivered from Longbridge, although the body was built, painted and trimmed by Jensen in West Bromwich, across the city of Birmingham. The car had the four cylinder 2660cc, OHV, 90bhp engine from the Austin Atlantic, as well as that car’s coil spring and wishbone front suspension and semi-elliptic leaf spring at the rear, with a Panhard rod to keep things in slightly better order. Slightly more unusual was the gearbox – nominally, it was a four speed transmission with synchromesh on the top three. However, the linkage was arranged such that first gear could not be accessed and an overdrive unit was fitted on the two highest gears, so the car had (effectively) a five speed, synchromesh gearbox.
The BN1, as posted on the Cohort by kiwibryce, was good for over 100mph and around 10 seconds for zero to 60mph. The wheelbase was 80 inches, so it was pretty compact, with the rear axle right up to the seats. This was a classic British roadster, strategically placed below the Jaguar XK120, above the old MG TF and the soon to arrive and much more modern MGA. Closest to it was the Triumph TR2, which also debuted at the 1952 Motor Show and went into production in 1953. Within a few years, the choice of British roadsters grew to include the MGA, Sunbeam Alpine, TR2 and the Healey 3000, as well as the Jaguar XK140. Quite a range!
In two years, to 1955, Longbridge built over 10,000 copies of the Austin-Healey 100; Lord’s backing of Healey over the Atlantic was paying off.
Healey (seen above at a BBC recording) was always keen to use motorsport to promote his cars and indeed to participate as well. Before the war, he had been an accomplished and successful rally driver before he joined Triumph as chief experimental engineer, and later as Technical Director, and indeed whilst he was working at Triumph. It is therefore no surprise that the first development of the Austin-Healey 100 was the 100S, with a revised cylinder head, disc brakes, alloy (rather than steel) panels, and no bumpers, windscreen or hood. This took the 100S, obviously intended as a track car, to around 120 mph. 50 were built, and most were exported from the UK.
In 1955, the car was refreshed as the BN2, with a new four speed gearbox, still with overdrive but now with some very gentle styling changes. Many of these were converted by the Healey factory to 100M specification, with a 110bhp version of the same four cylinder engine and some go faster details, such a leather bonnet strap. But after just one year, the car moved to the next level, as the Austin-Healey 100-Six.
The four cylinder engine from the Atlantic was replaced with a 2639cc version of the BMC (actually Morris designed) C series engine, with 102bhp, over 90hbp previously, although the performance was pretty much unchanged in standard tune. Something that did change, however, was the weight of the car – it went up by 270lb, mostly over the front wheels. The wheelbase was also increased by 2 inches, to give a very cramped 2+2 (or occasional four seater as BMC called it) layout at the expense of a reduction in boot space, as the spare wheel was relocated.
Production moved to BMC’s Abingdon factory, historically the home of MG, in 1957 and power was raised to 117 bhp to give a speed of 111 mph.
BMC seemed to move in a strange way at many times, with many products, and the Austin-Healey was no exception for in 1958, the car was available again as a classic two seat layout, although on the longer wheelbase. Now known as the BN6 series, the spare wheel went back to its old spot, the tonneau cover was re-profiled and the car was sold alongside the BN4 2+2, until 1959, when perhaps the definitive ‘Big Healey’ was born.
image: Paul Niedermeyer
The Austin-Healey 3000 actually had a 2912cc version of the C series engine, with 124 bhp and 162lbft of torque. This was an engine that majored on torque, changing the nature of the car somewhat even if it looked practically identical and was little, if any, faster outright than before.
Front disc brakes now came as standard. It was again offered as a 2+2 seater and as a 2 seater, although 80% were sold as the 2+2. The feature car is a 1960 3000 Mk1, in 2 seat form, and very nicely kept it is too. Used, not abused or cocooned, and cared for properly. The colour choice on this car is a classic – attractive, somehow appropriate and pretty well unique to the Austin-Healey.
From 1961, the car had a remote gearchange as well, rather than the awkward looking arrangement in the feature car.
From this point onwards, the car’s development was very similar to that of the Jaguar XK120 to the XK140 and finally the XK150 during the 1950s. It moved, in two steps, to a much more comfort oriented car. The screen was larger, there were real side windows, not detachable sliding side screens and a much more substantial hood, rather than the very basic one previously supplied. All cars were now the 2+2 variant.
The 1964 Mk3 had an increase in power and the first new interior for 10 years. This itself showed the change in the car better than anything else – gone was the functional and slightly spartan interior in favour of something with wood veneer, leather trim and centre console storage. Power was up 148bhp, and so was the weight – now 2550lb, or around 450 lb more than the original 1953 car.
Production ran on to 1968, and in total over 70,000 cars were built. Its slot in the BMC range was nominally taken by the MGC, though the Triumph TR6 could make a claim for the spot as well, after the BLMC merger.
The 3000 is fondly remembered now, and usually referred to as the “Big Healey” to separate it from the much smaller and lower power Austin-Healey Sprite (the Frogeye or Bugeye). It was always seen as a fairly muscular car, not a fashion roadster – MG offered that much more closely. Perhaps the closest recent car to it was the 3.0 litre BMW Z3 or even something like the (absolutely British) TVR Griffith. A top condition 3000 can now command over £50,000 (say $70,000), and is undoubtedly still a car with a personality and charisma that says something about the driver, and his approach to classic motoring. A true classic car, in every way.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the Big Healey made a significant impact in motorsport, with many circuit race victories and titles to its name in the 1950s and 1960s. More evocatively (to me at least) were the road rally successes in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
In the Big Healey and the Mini, BMC probably had the two most surprising and most surprisingly successful rally cars of the period. The rally cars had over 200bhp, even if they were pretty unwieldy in a tight corner and ground clearance was always an issue. The Big Healey is always a popular draw at a classic rally, 50 years later.
In 1960, Pat Moss, Sir Stirling Moss’s sister and wife of Swedish rally legend Erik Carlsson, won the gruelling Liege-Sofia-Liege (that’s Belgium to Bulgaria and back) in a Austin-Healey 3000 and in 1964 Rauno Aaltonen and Tony Ambrose (above, in one of the most atmospheric photos I’ve shown on CC) won the same rally again– four days and nights with no scheduled sleep breaks. At one stage, Aaltonen reportedly slept whilst Ambrose drove 77 miles in 52 minutes, over cobbles.
Rallying has certainly changed a lot, even if the Big Healey never really did.
Another great piece Roger. Like your Bristol article, a great go-to for help discerning models and interesting tidbits. I believe the Le Mans SR resided in oz for quite a while. Question: was the 100/4 name given to the 4cyl model only after the 6 had been introduced?
100/4 was a retrospective designation. 100/6 is actually 100-Six to be pedantic
Thanks Roger. We anoraks thrive on being pedantic.
The engine was from the A90 six so the name makes sense in that regard.
I had never seen a rear view of the Atlantic before, it’s interesting how the front end is so gaudy while from the windshield back it’s so simple…almost elegant. Sort of like a stately matron wearing a LOT of (cheap?) jewelry “over” a very simple, floor-length, evening gown.
When I was in high school there was this kid I really disliked. He was good-looking, athletic, smart, and his father made a LOT of money….so that their family had a Pontiac Catalina wagon, an RS Camaro convertible, AND an A-H 3000. All 3 cars were great but the sound that BRG Austin-Healey made at any speed above idle….
It’s a mashup of beautiful details that not make a cohesive whole. It’s like they ran into a shop and just grabbed all the present styling cues they could hold. I especially love the frenched rear lights. I don’t know how much “frenching” was spread to the mainstream scene? Besides the ’50 Lincoln, it was a styling cue very much picked up from the customizing scene. And it’s interesting the English of all people picked up that particular trend. They were early in that way…
Ingvar, the very first Morris Minors used similar taillights. I’ve never seen them on a Minor, only in photographs. I’d guess they were a stock Lucas item.
That Atlantic was a strange beast. Sort of Buick-oid front fenders, Pontiac silver streaks, ’35 Hupmobile windshield, fabric-covered roof like a Chrysler Town and Country hardtop with extra added round-the-corner windows, I’d add third headlight like a Tatra, but I don’t think out own T87 would be happy, so I’ll say ‘like a Rover 75’ instead. A grille like nothing on earth, thankfully. And all on a diminutive wheelbase, shorter than even the prewar Willys.
You can imagine Leonard Lord rubbing his hands with glee. “Just the thing. The car of the future – today. Load it up with all the electro-goodies Lucas can cook up for us. Let’s price it to sell against their oversized mid-priced convertibles, but made in Britain – with all that that implies! What could go wrong?”
Indeed.
As a child I thought these were strange beasts, on the (very) odd occasion I saw one. Fast forward sixty years and they’re even stranger.
Interesting and comprehensive article, Roger. As always. You must put a lot of time and love in writing these articles.
A country with a lot of rain built the most memorable roadsters, that’s great. Popular and sought-after, these classic UK roadsters. Drive around on a sunny sunday and you’ll see them; mostly in a stunning (restored) condition. In a period correct setup and color. Excuse me, that’s colour…
This type of classic British roadsters has its own loyal and large following, just like US pony and muscle cars. Worldwide, I assume.
Who builds this type of cars these days ? I mean pure roadsters with 6 (or more) cylinders. I only know the Mercedes R231, the current SL-class, with a 3.5 liter V6 as its smallest engine.
I would regard the SL as too large to be comparable, but the SLK or Z4 fit the bill.
I’m about one (1) week away from celebrating the thirty-seventh (37th) anniversary since buying my Austin-Healey 100/6 2-seater.
Great car, and never fails to attract admiration from other motorists.
Once you do a piece on the BMW ///M Roadster, you’ll have covered everything I have in the garage__you’ve already done my ///M Coupe, and now the Healey!
Good job!
Clearly, the most beautiful of all the British sports cars. There’s one of these in that same color combo near where I live, and it sure is a sharp car. I would like to get a closer look at it someday.
In the early Seventies, I worked for a guy who had a ’66 Mk III and a gorgeous ’65 Pontiac Grand Prix. He was in his early forties, the owner of a prosperous garage and gas station. With those two cars and a stunning blonde girlfriend, that dude was livin’ the life. Occasionally he’d let me commandeer the GP for a parts run, but never his beloved Healey.
Nice writeup. I love big healeys, got a ride in one when I was a kid and there is a nice 100-6 in town.
They aren’t on my short list though, mostly because they’re so darn expensive compared to other British sports cars.
The only classic sports car I’ve spent some time driving. It’s funny that it was almost a luxury GT when new, as it seemed so raw to me in the early ’90s. It was a ’65 that I don’t believe had syncros? Or was the mechanism just worn out?
I agree with everyone’s comments on its beauty, although I actually see it as quite feminine. The TR6 looks like the groom, the big Healey the bride.
Absolutely gorgeous cars! As Howard K mentioned, one of the sexiest exhaust notes in the automotive world.
Theres a guy who lives close to me in a different string of townhouses with one of these in a stunning medium turquoise color. He has a habit of vanishing around a curve or being out and about when I have somewhere to be…
CC effect strikes again! I saw one yesterday in the parking lot of the hotel in which I’m staying. Good to see a top-dollar collectible car actually being driven!
Nicely done, Roger! I had no idea of the Atlantic roots of this car. The Atlantic seemed to combine the worst styling elements of both British and American cars of its era.
I am another with a soft spot for the big Healey. In the mid 80s, a fellow law student owned a navy blue 1967 model, and it was considered a desirable classic even then. He was from a well-off family and told us that it was an expensive car to own. He joked that one of the ownership costs was the 1967 Oldsmobile Ninety Eight that was needed for the days when the Healey would choose to not start.
Somehow, I never got a ride in his Healey (or anyone else’s, for that matter.) They do sound delightful from the outstide, though.
A beautiful car with a wonderful exhaust note and another splendid read from Roger thank you.What a shame it wasn’t developed further or a replacement built,they pulled the plug and it was over.
Agree, despite being unexotic, that engine sounds great in the video.
Footage likes that reminds me of how vital light, quick steering is, so you can recover from slippery S-bends etc. Even with this, you can tell how hard the driver is working to stay on that narrow track. This is why I appreciate cars with engine behind the front axles, to keep weight distribution even & steering effort down, esp. when power steering was rare. The Corvette is the only current US production car to preserve this not-too-space efficient layout.
I thought that red BN1 looked familiar it wasnt at this years wheels on Windsor but an Atlantic was, parked among other Austins it is a truly ugly car compared with its bretheren. Ive owned several Austins A90 and A110 Westmonsters and A40 Farinas I’d never consider an Atlantic as a purchase.
Fun factoid, the factory race shop developed an aluminum cylinder head for the big six cylinder engine, solely to improve the car’s handling.
Geoffrey Healey was quoted as saying “the Austin Healey 3000 engine needed 3 men to lift … the cylinder head”.
The Healey shares its engine and gearbox with the Austin Westminster it weighs 7CWT or 784 pounds, Ive done a couple of Westy engine swaps you need a real strong lifting beam.
If ever there was an engine that needed an aluminium block, it was the C-series. Even the redesign for the MGC and Austin 3 litre was amazingly heavy.
I’ve always thought the original 100 was more attractive than the later 3000s, but I think I’m in the minority. Beautiful cars, but I’d still take a TR2 or TR3. Better yet, I’d take a 100 AND a TR2.
I always thought Gerry Coker was responsible for the styling ( which I loved).
The early cars, and the 100s in particular, were the best looking. I sat in an early 100/6 at the Earls Court Motor Show once, and was shocked at the long “un-sporty” gearlever – this was eventually improved.
The re-creations which are now available (for big money) are slightly wider, to make the car more modern.
Hi Uncle Mellow,
where I said “Healey was responsible for the styling” I should have made it clearer that I meant the Healey Company and therefore Gerry Coker, rather Donald Healey himself
Late one night in 1974, my mother was driving me back to boarding school in her deeply unreliable Mk II Capri. Something failed, I can’t remember what, and we ended up in some rural garage waiting to get sorted out and sent on our way.
To the rear of the garage was a separate timber lean-to, looking very much like the repro nostalgie garages we see at Goodwood each September. In the middle of it was a big Healey in BRG with red leather seats.
I’d never seen an Austin-Healey before – hell, I was only 13. It was love at first sight; it was, and still is, my dream car. Fast-forward 40 years – and I’ve still never even sat in one…
Kudos to 10cc, FWIW, for including a Healey 3000 on the cover of their album “How Dare you!”. Still dreaming of being an executive with two Trimphones!
I lived in Ithaca NY in 1980. Even though from New England, I had never seen so much salt on roads. Imagine my surprise at seeing someone driving a very nice out-of state Austin Healey, the same blue and white as pictured in your article, throughout the winter. Judging from a Sunbeam Tiger I once saw in Maine, one season is enough to bring the body to a sad state indeed.
Back in the early 60’s when I was growing up in Oakland there was a sports car shop on E14th. St. near High St. I remember looking in the windows and seeing a couple of cars parked inside. I’m guessing there was an MG or Triumph or a big Healey. There were some exhaust systems, wire wheels and tops on display. I couldn’t have been more than 7 or 8 years old. I was amazed to see these “little” cars so different than the Chevies my Dad and other people drove. I asked my Mom what kind of cars these were. She told me that they were “sports cars”, wow, these were cars that you drove just for fun. What an amazing idea. Fast forward five years or so and I was visiting my Grandma in Berkeley when my Uncle Fred shows up in a used red Austin Healey Roadster. My uncle was in his mid twenties and was still young enough to buy such an impractical car. My brother and I got in, of course being the younger brother I was relegated to the back seat. My uncle took us for a ride up University Ave. and around the UC campus and up into the hills. I decided then that when I started driving I wanted to own a fun car too. To me the Healey personifies the essence of the British sports car. It was a macho machine but beautiful to behold. I remember when one of these would have been affordable. I also remember when an old XKE could be had for a grand. There was a convertible Jaguar parked in the Merritt College parking lot with a for sale sign in the window in the Spring of 1973. I was intrigued but not enough to try to scrape up the money.
Thanks, Roger for a great read.
Thanks for a very informative piece on one of my favorite (once owned a ’57 100-6 2+2) cars of all time.
I spent a good bit of time riding around in several 3000’s in the 60’s. My dad had a shop that specialized in British cars and one of his younger employees had a 3000. It was one of the few that had the three-carb set up. I don’t think it produced any more power, but it looked fantastic. All in all, mesmerizing for a youngster coming of age.
Roger ;
A great detailed article , full of good info .
My favorite self service junkyard had a complete 100/6 in the for sale section a year or so ago ~ it was rust free but had dents everywhere and tiny little foot prints of the children who’d played on it’s bonnet , boot and so on….
It wasn’t there long and never made it into the rows so I imagine someone ponied up the $3,000 for it .
-Nate
Sweet looking car! I’ve always liked the 2nd generation Austin-Healey 3000. I’ve never seen one in person, I’ve only seen pics of them. It’s unforgivable that the British Motor industry let themselves deteriorate to the point they did.
A gentleman’s sports car, then and now. Just beautiful!
I’ll just park this one here. 🙂
Healey was born in Perranporth Cornwall and his first garage was there. It’s now a line of shops, one of which is an off license where my father used to buy his weekly bottle of Scotch.
An acquaintance bought a Healey 3000 recently, had the body removed and the chassis shot blasted and found he owned a colander. Fortunately for a mere £4k you can buy a new chassis. Turning into a rather expensive acquisition.
Did Austin Healeys after the early 100Ms ever win circuit races? I’m familiar with their rally exploits, and that a 1953 100S prototype driven by Lance Macklin was the launch ramp for the Le Mans tragedy of 1955, but I’ve never seen evidence of 100-6s or 3000s serving as successful racing cars. They’re kind of awful from a handling perspective. They also would have been categorized with cars that did ever so much more with three liters of displacement.