The 3000 Forum

Hi,
I don't have any experience on BJ8 ride heights. This car is for sale locally. Can someone tell me how come this BJ8 has such a large gap between the top of the tyre and the wheelarch. Just looks odd! It has low profile tyres but the car still looks like it has been jacked up. Plus the rear wheels are not centred inside the wheel arch. Is there a suspension raising kit for this model?

Cheers

Barry

It shouldn’t sit that high . Without putting it on a hoist to look under the car would be speculation .
It could be something very simple and obvious to the whole rear end has been put together incorrectly during restoration .
If you are considering buying the car then have someone who has Healey experience look at the car with you and figure out what the issue is and costs to fix it .

---

That’s not an oil leak , it’s my patent pending rust proofing system .

Probably the wrong rear springs, but like Graham said, get Knowing eyes to check it out.

BJ8s, and this looks to be one, sit higher to accommodate the resonator and have a larger upper gap due to a change to the chassis that allows the rear axle to sit lower (and Austin couldn't be bothered to change the wheel well profile). It's not only too high, but the rear wheel appears to be too far forward. Front wheel should be centered laterally as well (I've seen that effect with a car that supposedly had a Jule frame). A look at the underside of this car would be interesting, to say the least.

Hi Barry,

I have a late 1967 BJ8. And, as Bob said, they sit higher than earlier cars. I realize many people prefer the smaller wheel gap of earlier cars. And, some of us like the added ground clearance and suspension travel of later cars.

Having said that, the rear wheel opening in the picture you posted looks odd, even to me. This is most curious since my car was rebuilt using a Jule frame. Although, having seen a few cars with Jule frames, I do not know why that would matter?

It can be fairly difficult evaluating a car with only pictures. Included with this post is (i) one picture showing typical BJ8 rear wheel openings, (ii) a second picture showing the wheel opening of a Jule framed car owned by some unfortunate individual (it has relatively low profile tires) and (iii) a third picture showing the measured gap between tire and wing of a Jule framed BJ8. You can see (hopefully) the wheel openings of a Jule frame car are not appreciably different than the average factory framed BJ8. The Michelin tire has a rounded profile and the distance from the top of the profile to the rear wing is approximately 2.625-inches. I would think this distance would not be unusual for a BJ8 with good springs? Maybe this helps you?

Camera location and height can make a significant difference in wheel opening and fore and aft wheel spacing optics in pictures. Have you been able to inspect the car in person? And, how low profile are the tires? Cars with rounded profile tires like the Michelin 180HR15 (designed to work better with older car suspensions) will appear to have larger tire gaps than cars using modern wider tires with a more squared off profile.

Austin-Healey was trying to update their cars and improve road performance and the BJ8 frame/suspension was revised to increase ride height and suspension travel. For example, earlier cars had 4" of rear spring deflection (or less depending on date and model), while the BJ8 was designed to permit up to 5.5" inches of suspension travel. BTW, It is my understanding a BT7 has the earlier, lower suspension/frame and DH said he stopped production of the Big Healey rather than modify it to meet US safety regulations. The changes were made to improve an aging design.

As should be expected, increased ride height and suspension travel resulted in a larger gap between the tires and wheel openings (especially at the rear); which some people find extremely disquieting. Although, this becomes more pleasing to them as their cars aged and sagged a little. A recent restoration with new springs might sit a little higher. As mentioned, wheel openings also look better if you install larger tires under the car. So, there is some hope for a nicer look.

In defense of Jule frames in case someone reads this and infers Jule frames are problematic, the Jule frame was designed to BJ8 specifications using BJ8 frame blueprints. But, the Jule frames are more accurately jigged and welded than were factory frames. Their higher quality one piece tubing has a wall thickness of 0.125-inches instead of the weaker two piece stamped and welded C-channel factory tubes with 0.072-inch wall thickness. Jule used closed tubing since the welded C-channel seams can open with (flexing) and water intrusion can cause interior rusting that increased sag. The Jule frame also provides better sump protection since the sump does not extend past the frame rails, as do factory cars; and the shock towers and other critical areas were all reinforced.

Unfortunately, you can find poor restorations with poor wheel openings on cars using factory frames, Kilmartin frames and Jule frames. The problem is the restoration and not necessarily the frame.

The Jule frame also used revised rear spring geometry to reduce axle wrap and wheel hop. And, some of us like the fact that the Jule frame is more ridged than the factory frame with much greater torsional strength (140% greater at 1,550 ft-lbs/degree of twist instead of only 635 ft-lbs/degree of twist).

Regards, Bill

Edited for clearer pictures, the wheel gap measurement and Jule frame information.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-06 04:43 PM by WHT.

Not sure what's going on with your car but this is what a BT7 with 195-65-R15 tires looks like.

Good luck,
Peter C.

Here’s my now sold 64 BJ8 and 67 BJ8 both after ground up restoration both with original frames .
Also attached my in progress 62 BT7 TriCarb rally recreation on a Jule Superstructure with Jule rear springs
All cars are on 15 inch rims with 185/ 65 profile tires .

Note the RED/OEW 64 sits a bit higher than the BRG 67 , the 64 had only done maybe 250 miles since restoration where the 67 had significantly more mileage post restoration so had settled more on its suspension etc .

---

That’s not an oil leak , it’s my patent pending rust proofing system .



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-06 05:29 PM by Healey Nut.

,,,,,,,, Bug eye lights on a big Healey?

It’s a works rally recreation (or my interpretation thereof )

https://www.britishcarforum.com/community/threads/tri-carb-project.120805/page-8#post-1204901

---

That’s not an oil leak , it’s my patent pending rust proofing system .

Thanks for all your replies.

I went to examine the car but as it was being kept at a showroom I did not have access to a hoist. Turns out the road height was the least of the car's problems.

The car was purchased sight unseen by a Classic car dealer during covid lockdown. The previous owner was an 88 year old gent who had owned the car for forty years and said it had been restored. When the car arrived the dealer said he was shocked at how rough it was. So to get a quick turnover he had it repainted. But quite frankly the car still needs proper restoration work by someone who knows his way around a Healey.


The rear wheels have 5" clearance above the tyre. Possibly had truck weighted leaf springs fitted and the Healey doesn't have enough weight to push them down.
The rear wheel alignment looked suspicious with different horizontal dimensions between the inner wheel arch and the tyre. So either the rear wings were badly made or the axle is not square on the chassis.
The tyres were 195 65 15 but could not be changed to a larger tyre as the rear wings didn't have room fore and aft to accommodate them because of the height problem.
The soft top didn't fit properly and was missing the classic Healey BJ7/8 front edge detail with the metal end caps.
Interior trim was tatty in places with small tears in the front and rear seats.
The new paint job was average and is starting to delaminate in places.
Rear bumper bubbling with rust
Front valence missing
Soft top cover poorly made and did not cover the entire soft top when clipped into place.
B post chrome trim very poorly fitted. The rear shroud needs to be lowered at the B - post to fix this.
wing beading poorly fitted and raised in places
Trunk handle and latch loose
Windscreen frame chrome fading
engine bay paint was rough with patches where the paint had flaked off exposing black primer
Rubber grommets painted over
horns were not matching
Front grill top cowl is a poor fit against the shroud opening.


However, it was when I took the car for a test drive that I truly realized how bad it is. Now the only Healey I have ever driven is my own so I was quite looking forward to comparing my car with another one to see how well my car performs.

Firstly, I noticed how hard the suspension was and I felt every bump in the road. The dealer said he had had a new clutch fitted but I struggled to find any gear. The gear shift was sloppy and from a standstill it was hard to know if you were in 1st or third until you lifted the clutch. Reverse did not have a dog leg and was in the second gear position, so driving away from the showroom was somewhat farcical.

Third. Oops! 1st, reverse ( graunch). Second. First, Oops! ( graunch) 3rd, then finally 4th. Overdrive took a long time to engage and once the car was up to 80 mph the steering started to shake uncontrollably like I was firing two machine guns Rambo style. I have never driven a car with such a violent steering shake. I felt the front wheels were coming off. So I braked to pull over only to find they didn't work very well either.

Clearly the gearbox, overdrive, suspension, steering and brakes all need an overhaul.

I took the car back to the showroom and told the dealer the car was unsafe. He offered to have the car assessed and repaired by the mechanic who set up my car which is good news but I still wouldn't know what is hidden under that shiny new paint.

I would not recommend anyone buy a top dollar classic car without seeing it and driving it for yourself.

Cheers

Barry

I've never liked the higher look of the later 3000's unless they were set up as a dedicated rally car. My road racing '57 100-6 MM has a fully road racing suspension which is lowered 1.5" from stock.

You can fit the earlier springs to a BJ8, as I have, and add lowering blocks.
No problem