Advertising Last completed movie pages 1955 Hillman Husky Phase I Ep. 7.25Class: Cars, Wagon — Model origin: 
![[*]](/res/star.png){kind=small}
Background vehicle
Comments about this vehicle| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
◊ 2007-04-06 14:12 |
hillman/commer? |
|
◊ 2007-04-06 14:32 |
I'd say it's a 1954 Hillman Husky Mk.I, the Commer being a panel van-version. |
|
◊ 2007-04-06 14:57 |
circa 1951 Hillman Husky Estate,MkVIII..the MkVIII being the Minx car its based on..whereas the MkI dates from the 1940s |
|
◊ 2007-04-06 15:28 |
Here's one: http://www.britishcarlinks.com/1957%20Hillman.jpg |
|
◊ 2007-04-06 17:14 |
But Mk.VIII is the Minx, the Husky would be a Mk I since it was the first Husky-model, introduced in 1954, as far as I know... |
|
◊ 2007-04-06 17:25 |
Not "Series I" ? (as we have a 1958 Series II ...) |
|
◊ 2010-07-24 12:40 |
Ep.7.25 "Who Was That Man I Saw You With?" Affectueusement vôtre |
|
◊ 2010-09-29 01:12 |
1955 Phase 1. |
|
◊ 2011-12-22 12:01 |
An extensive search of Rootes factory literature (manuals, handbooks, advertising) has shown that Rootes NEVER called any of their cars "Phase" (even though the motoring press did). The only terms used were Mark and Series. The first iteration of a model (like the Hillman Minx) was the Mark 1, and facelifts were mark 2 etc. A major redesign became the Series 1 with subsequent facelifts being called Series 2,3 etc. Hence, this should be called a Mark 1 Hillman Husky. Interestingly, there was never a Mark 2. The Husky was based on the Minx, and in 1956 Rootes released the Audax Minx, a major facelift the first iteration of which was the Series 1. So the next Husky was also a Series 1. |
|
◊ 2011-12-22 17:06 |
To be discussed with other people who currently list them as "phase" on the site (same for the Minx), but please do not comment on each one of them as there are a lot on the site  -- Last edit: 2011-12-22 17:07:28 |
|
◊ 2011-12-22 23:37 |
I don't have a strong opinion either way for Mark vs Phase. My fairly small selection of sources refer to Mark with no mention of Phase, so supporting lemansvk's argument. Just to be clear, our use of Series is correct from all the sources I have, so this is not part of the discussion. |
Add a comment Advertising Advertising
