Early Austin-Healey Sprites and MG Midgets

I perviously wrote about the Austin-Healey Sprite that appeared in 1958.  In that post I mentioned that:

"When I was a young man I really, really wanted to buy a new sports car.  But being in the army and, later, graduate school, my income made that a marginal proposition.  As a grad student with teaching assistant and summer research pay, I could (barely) afford a later version of the Sprite.  I rejected getting one because I thought it was too small from a safety standpoint, not to mention its limited capacity for carrying things such as suitcases or even groceries.

"As for the first-generation Sprites, the bug-eye feature was an additional turn-off.  They made the car look cheap."

A facelifted Mark II Sprite was launched during the 1961 model year along with a badge-engineered vesion called the MG Midget.  The Wikipedia link for the Sprite is here and that for the Midget is here.

The small size I mentioned is indicated by the wheelbases of those cars throughout their production runs (1958-1971 for the Sprite, 1961-1980 for the Midget): 80 inches (2032 mm).

My thinking notwithstanding, those cars sold well.  From what I gather from the Wikipedia entries (as of December 2023), around 131,000 Sprites were built and Midget production was about 227,000 for an approximate total of 358,000.

Gallery

1958 Austin-Healey Sprite Mk. I - Barrett-Jackson Auctions photo
The original Sprite frontal styling with its "smile" grille and "Bugeye" headlights ("Frogeye" in the UK).  They were intended to be retractable, but it was decided that would add too much to the intended low price.  I think retractable headlights and a different grille would have made that design better.

1958 Austin-Healey Sprite Mk. I - BaT Auctions photo
A simple shape in profile (aside from those headlights) -- a good solution for such a small car.  Note the hood cutline.  The entire front end pivots upwards via hinges at the cowling to allow access to the motor.

1958 Austin-Healey Sprite Mk. I - BaT
Very simple.  So simple that there is no trunk lid.

1962 Austin-Healey Sprite Mk. II - Historics Auctioneers photo
The massive facelift.  Doors cutlines are retained along with the now nonfunctional one between the door and front wheel opening.  The fenderline is new and the frontal design is conventional.

MG Midget Mk. I - factory publicity photo
The Midget was marketed as an upscale Sprite.  Grille bars are vertical rather than a mesh, and that side chrome strip added some visual length to the design.

1963 MG Midget Mk. I - Hampsons Auctions photo
Hoods (bonnets) of Mk. I Sprites and Mk.I Midgets were conventional, rear-hinged.

1963 MG Midget Mk. I - Hampsons
Now there is a trunk lid.  Tail lights on Mk.II Sprites and Midgets are those also used on the new (in 1962) MGB sports car.

1963 MG Midget Mk. I - Hampsons
The facelift left the cockpit nearly untouched.  Compare this dashboard to the Mk. I Sprite's in the the following image.

1961 Austin-Healey Sprite Mk. I - Historics Auctioneers photo

Austin-Healey Sprite Mark I Walkaround

Austin-Healey Sprites (Wikipedia entry here) entered production in 1958, a run that lasted into 1971.  The best-known Sprite design (shown above) was what's now called the Mark I (of 1958-1961).  I posted about it here.

Today's post is a walkaround that offers more detail and evaluation than my previous effort.

The Sprite was an entry-level sports car where development and production costs were minimized perhaps more strongly than normal.  Maybe the best-known instance is the "Bug Eye"or "Frog Eye" headlight assemblies.

As I noted in my previous post: "... it was originally intended that the Sprite's headlights would be hidden when not in use.  They would pivot upwards when turned on in the manner of cars such as the Porsche 914.  However, this feature was rejected for reasons of cost.  Another solution would have been to place headlights on the front fenders, and this was done on the second-series Sprites."

With the passage of time, those headlights seem lovable for some folks.  But not me.  Yes, they made Sprites distinctive from a marketing standpoint, yet styling-wise, I consider them a negative.

Photos of the 1961 late-production Mark I Austin-Hearly Sprite featured below are via England's Historics Auctioneers.

Gallery

The face of the car has those prominent "eyes" and a grille in the form of a smiling mouth.  I don't know if that effect was intentional, but it might well have been.

The body has flat sides and rounded ends.  No sheet metal sculpting, no chrome trim on the sides.

Wheelwell openings are rounded, a simple and appropriate solution.

No trunk lid -- that didn't appear until the Mark IIs came along.  Note the attachment seams atop the fenderline above the tail lights.  Mark IIs were given new fenders similar to those later found on MGBs.

Rear bumper protection is skimpy.

Note the hood cutlines.  The entire body front pivoted upwards from hinges on the firewall -- a massive hood.  This too was changed on the Mark IIs.  Aside from the headlights, the side profile is simple.  But not totally so, as there is subtle curving of the fenderline/beltline.

The cockpit with its simple, Spartan dashboard.

The Mark I Sprite's design is basically pretty good, considering its intended price-point.  It would have been better if: (1) headlights were retractable as originally planned; (2) a different grille shape was used, perhaps a rectangular theme as found on the Mark IIs; and (3) there was a trunk lid for practical, not aesthetic reasons.

Austin-Healey's Original Sprite

Here in the States we called it the Bug-Eye, and over in England the label was Frog-Eye.  It could have been a thin line between affection or derision, and I came down on the derision side in those days.  The car in question is the original Austin-Healey Sprite (produced 1958-1961), intended as an entry-level sports car.  Wikipedia's take on its development is here.

When I was a young man I really, really wanted to buy a new sports car.  But being in the army and, later, graduate school, my income made that a marginal proposition.  As a grad student with teaching assistant and summer research pay, I could (barely) afford a later version of the Sprite.  I rejected getting one because I thought it was too small from a safety standpoint, not to mention its limited capacity for carrying things such as suitcases or even groceries.

As for the first-generation Sprites, the bug-eye feature was an additional turn-off.  They made the car look cheap.

From various sources including the above link, it was originally intended that the Sprite's headlights would be hidden when not in use.  They would pivot upwards when turned on in the manner of cars such as the Porsche 914.  However, this feature was rejected for reasons of cost.  Another solution would have been to place headlights on the front fenders, and this was done on the second-series Sprites.

In summary, the Sprite was designed under extreme cost restrictions, its shape greatly influenced by engineering and production considerations.  The Wikipedia names two designers who had to work under these circumstances, so it seems that the Sprite was not a total product of engineers.

Like a number of cars considered odd in their day, surviving Sprites have affectionate owners and fan clubs.

Gallery

A British advertising card showing key aspects of the design.

Seems to be more than one boatload worth of Sprites here.  Why weren't they in dealers' hands?

Publicity photo taken in England, but the car has left-hand drive.

Three views of a 1958 Sprite for a Barrett-Jackson auction.

Austin-Healey 100: 1950s British Sports Car Styling at Its Best

It seems that the Austin-Healey 100, to my mind the most successfully styled 1950s English sports car, came from the pen of body engineer Gerry Coker with kibitzing by Donald Healey.  That and other details of the genesis of the AH 100 can be found here.  Additional information can be found in this Wikipedia entry.

The focus of this post is the original "large Healey," produced 1953-1956.  Later versions were lengthened, extra seating space added, different engines installed, and the grille and other details revised

Styling was cleanly done with nice touches such as a character line crease from the front fender (wing) across the door to the rear wheel opening that subtly helped to reduce potential visual bulk on an otherwise plain side.  The standard-for-the-times fender flow with an upkicked rear fender line was used, but treated more successfully than on the slightly later MGA (a near-competitor) and the small Triumph Spitfire.

An unusual touch was that the car had a backwards-leaning aspect rather than a forward-thrusting one, something one might expect for a sports car with good performance.  This styling stance was due to the slope of the grille and frontal part of the hood (bonnet) that was echoed by the front and rear cut lines of the doors and the windshield slope.

Gallery

A sales photo of a 1954 Austin-Healey 100.

Rear 3/4 view of a 1955 from Dusty Cars.

Side view of a 1955 100 from Goodman Reed car sales.

I used this image of a 1957 MGA here to illustrate my contention that "The front fender seems a little too long and bland, virtually featureless.  But in the area around the rear of the cockpit, we find a busy set of details -- the rear cockpit curve, the door cut-line, the transition to the rear fender, the rear fender itself, and the wheelhouse and rear wheel.  All this attracts the eye, making the front part of the car seem too long.  It also gives the rear a sort of tacked-on look." Compare the MGA to the AH 100, which has a similar English sports car seating position.  The key differences are the character line noted above and that the MGA has a distinct rear fender whereas the 100 has the fenderline flowing over the rear wheel opening.  The AH also has the advantage of better basic proportions, in part due to a slightly shorter wheelbase -- 90 vs. 94 inches (2.286 vs. 2.388 m.).