[Stanher]

A Herald that was shown to me by balaji (chanu)
Not much originality in it to start with; its actually a mk1 but fitted with a later (mk2/3) bonnet and roof, and maybe even chassis, going by the provision to fit the smaller front bumperguards.

Incidentally, I know this car, having seen it used as a wedding car earlier and again for sale once last year. It was in the same condition, except that it was painted then (roof was blue-ish grey with the rear glass intact)

Note the few original fittings (UK-made) that remain on the car still retain their shine, as opposed to the brightwork on the roof/bonnet.

I was told it is being restored! The engine and gearbox are kept away inside.

[kkr2k2]

Why does this car remind me of Gazel!! Ah may be the front part!!!

[Stanher]

Originally Posted by kkr2k2

Why does this car remind me of Gazel!! Ah may be the front part!!!

Bingo!!

'wish I could give you the car as a prize, sorry!

[Stanher]

Here's something for somewhat a surprise! Now, had I posted only the pics. in this post, most of you would've thought I should've posted in 'rust in pieces' thread..!

But make no mistake guys, this car is not a qualifier for the above-mentioned thread but for this thread only!

This early 70s Standard Gazel has just been brought today to this garage (where I'm getting the Herald done up presently), for restoration!! Yes, you read right!! And no, it is neither bought nor being restored by me! Yes, you read right again!
This is incidentally an early example (1972-73), with some of the features carried forward from it's predecessor, the 4-door (mk3) Herald, namely the forward-hinged bonnet and the 'Herald type' door handles. The fuel tank cover is an owner-added mod though.

The garage guys tell me this car is actually a 1-family owned car from new, owned by an old customer of theirs. Hence they are quite familiar with it, although it was in much better condition when they had last seen it (atleast 10 yrs ago!)

They tell me that the owner had stopped using the car after the family buying a couple of newer cars and had left it lying in the compound of their apartment building. I reckon the lack of spares/proper mechanics available was also a reason for the car's disuse. They had intended to get it 'done up' (when that was all that it had required then) some time ago, but kept procrastinating due to some construction activity going on with their building until recently. During this time, the car, which seemed to have been left unprotected and unguarded, sadly got extensively ravaged by nature as well as by vandals/pilferers!

The owner then got to know of this garage guy through a relative of his who got his car (SS80) done up here, and immediately came to them requesting vehemently that they take up this car to restore. Him being an old customer, they obliged. I'm told the owner is willing to spend any amount and do whatever it takes to get the car restored, and this is one thing I really admire, that they have still not given up hope despite the extent of damage on the car- with or without their negligence. Especially given that so many of the original fittings are lost and next to impossible to trace now, even in the scrap markets here! No question of importing them either, as the Gazel was entirely an Indian-made car.

OTOH, it sounds really ironical to think that many such cars around Hyd. in MUCH better conditions, in fact nearly pristine examples, with up-to-date documents etc. were callously sold by their owners for a pittance to the scrappies and broken to bits a decade + ago! In fact this car brings to my memory a similar early Gazel in the same colour that was near to mint condition, scrapped around 10 years ago!

The garage guys are also to be admired for braving such a daunting task they will have to undergo on this project!

I told them I'm prepared to contribute in whatever way I can, considering I do happen to have a few bits needed for this car anyways, which I'll be too glad to let them have.
The car was brought in with borrowed rims, the front one being from jai's Herald. See the pic. to see what state the ones on the car were in!












Someone actually took the time and effort to completely smash down all the glass and the speedometer and even dash switches!! They must've been really bored even of themselves!







Interesting gearbox tunnel- the Gazel normally has a metal one with no "toffee tray" provision. This tpye of fibreglass tunnel came only on the Heralds, but this one doesnt seem to be a Herald's.




Original glovebox push-down knob/handle thankfully intact, note the shape of the Standard emblem!




Engine bay seems intact but for the air-filter:




Radiator-to-waterpump hose inhabited by rats!! Ewww!






What's left of the only original hubcap- it felt ready to crumble on my touch!






Anyone remember the Flintstones??





Here is one of the goodies I have needed for the car! This was from the scrapped Gazel I mentioned btw, glad I picked this up back then! I also had the "STANDARD" bonnet badge, which I gave to a friend for fitting on his car.

[samsag12]

Hey Shyam it feels great to see the Gazel after a long time. The condition of this car is like the ones which are left to rot. Tyres alone have been chewed by rats, it seems. BTW i think this car can be restored with ease if the owner is not willing to put in the originality factor. Many parts can be borrowed from the other old cars. though was amazed to see the original inner door/window handle.
BTW a true contender for the yaabaa daabaa doo car

[anjan_c2007]

Shyam read through the post and was a bit saddened to see the condition of the car.Must have been in an utter state of neglect since whenever it went off the road.Its good that the owners are taking steps to restore the car.
One surprise for me was the location of the petrol tank in the rear boot.Its almost alongside the interior side of the rear left fender.
Gazels were scrapped as you rightly said and also sold for pittances till a decade back.

[Stanher]

Originally Posted by samsag12

BTW i think this car can be restored with ease if the owner is not willing to put in the originality factor. Many parts can be borrowed from the other old cars. though was amazed to see the original inner door/window handle.
BTW a true contender for the yaabaa daabaa doo car

Yes, a few original fittings can be overlooked...but what about, most important of all, the glass? The garage owner says he should have a rear glass (actually for Herald but same for Gazel) lying with him at home but not sure how easily the other glasses can be available. The demand too is quite high for these- I asked for a Herald front windscreen (for a fellow team bhpian) here and the guy is quoting 3.5k for it!!

The tail-lamps are still available (made by NEOLITE I was told), as they came on some local coach-built buses/vans as well. Luckily other parts like the bumpers, grille and dash are still intact.

And yes, you're right- Fred Flintstone would've really loved this car- all the better that it doesnt run, considering that he drives with his feet. 'not sure if Wilma would've found the interior (or even exterior) too appealing at the moment though!!

Originally Posted by anjan_c2007

Its good that the owners are taking steps to restore the car.
One surprise for me was the location of the petrol tank in the rear boot.Its almost alongside the interior side of the rear left fender.
Gazels were scrapped as you rightly said and also sold for pittances till a decade back.

Yes, good that the owners had the realisation, even if late!
Incidentally, I wonder if they came across team bhp and read my signature?! Hehe!

Um, the petrol tank is located the same way even in Heralds. Even our Gazel had it exactly the same. Only I feel, looking at the pic., that the tank on this car is a bit biggish, ie. modified and made wider. Although maybe its just the photo. 'need to take another look at it to be sure.

BTW, is anyone aware that the Gazel was the VERY FIRST Indian car ever? It was designed by an Indian in fact! Had it not been the failure that it was, it would've probably earned a distinctive place for itself in Indian automotive history for this!

[samsag12]

Originally Posted by Stanher

Yes, a few original fittings can be overlooked...but what about, most important of all, the glass? The garage owner says he should have a rear glass (actually for Herald but same for Gazel) lying with him at home but not sure how easily the other glasses can be available. The demand too is quite high for these- I asked for a Herald front windscreen (for a fellow team bhpian) here and the guy is quoting 3.5k for it!!

The tail-lamps are still available (made by NEOLITE I was told), as they came on some local coach-built buses/vans as well. Luckily other parts like the bumpers, grille and dash are still intact.

And yes, you're right- Fred Flintstone would've really loved this car- all the better that it doesnt run, considering that he drives with his feet. 'not sure if Wilma would've found the interior (or even exterior) too appealing at the moment though!!


Yes, good that the owners had the realisation, even if late!
Incidentally, I wonder if they came across team bhp and read my signature?! Hehe!

Um, the petrol tank is located the same way even in Heralds. Even our Gazel had it exactly the same. Only I feel, looking at the pic., that the tank on this car is a bit biggish, ie. modified and made wider. Although maybe its just the photo. 'need to take another look at it to be sure.

BTW, is anyone aware that the Gazel was the VERY FIRST Indian car ever? It was designed by an Indian in fact! Had it not been the failure that it was, it would've probably earned a distinctive place for itself in Indian automotive history for this!

Yes sir very much sir. Built/designed by a proud Indian, [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Nasir Hussein[/SIZE][/FONT] if i am correct. Though many parts were borrowed from various cars the blend came out good. BTW what was the reason for the failure of Gazel ?

[Stanher]

Originally Posted by samsag12

Yes sir very much sir. Built/designed by a proud Indian, Nasir Hussein if i am correct. Though many parts were borrowed from various cars the blend came out good. BTW what was the reason for the failure of Gazel ?

Thats what I too am given to understand, although I dont have any further info. on that person or how much further he was connected with Standard Motors.
I wonder if it was the former rallying champion, as he incidentally had a Triumph Herald 13/60. And if you see the design of the Gazel, especially theearliest ones like this, you can see how the front end was actually lifted off the 13/60, but for some minor changes!

http://www.motorbase.com/uploads/200...s_dsci0006.jpg

The rear axle, which was intended as an improvement over the Herald's fragile one, was taken from the Triumph Toledo.
Actually, from what I understand, the car failed mainly because of it's body, which was considerably heavier than that of the Herald, because of the major redesign it went through, in all the panels. And yet powered by the same 948cc engine, which apparently wasnt enough for it.
The garage guys were telling me just morning that the later models especially,
because of the conversion to the 'fixed' bonnet, required lots of soldering/welding to hold the front wings in place, resulting in lot of lead content that made the car heavier. I might add, from my personal observation, that the sheet metal used for the front wings/bonnet, especially for the later Gazels, was heavier than on the previous models.

[IndrojitSircar]

A Herald that participated last year in the rally.

[Stanher]

Originally Posted by IndrojitSircar

A Herald that participated last year in the rally.

I'd seen pics. of this same car posted by Prabal last year. This is an early ('61-62) mk1, 'said to be a 1-owner car and recently made into a convertible- I wish they hadnt done that!! Totally ruined the looks of the car!

[Prabal]

Originally Posted by IndrojitSircar

A Herald that participated last year in the rally.

I'm getting old and slow and can't keep up with your furious pace of posting, so am only responding to this one. This Herald did not participate in the rally. It was not allowed to. So the owner just came along for a ride and a dekho at the other machines.

Originally Posted by Stanher

'said to be a 1-owner car and recently made into a convertible

Shyam, I think it's been converted a long time ago, not recently. And frankly, doesn't look too bad in real. The hood mechanism is genuine maal. But then again, I'm no expert.

[Stanher]

Originally Posted by Prabal

Shyam, I think it's been converted a long time ago, not recently. And frankly, doesn't look too bad in real. The hood mechanism is genuine maal. But then again, I'm no expert.

Nope sorry Prabal, the hood is no way genuine, can be obviously made out as a locally-made fabrication! Here is what the original convertible hood would look like from the side and rear, to compare:

http://www.carandclassic.com/uploads...mph/264958.jpg

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/image.../Triumph_1.jpg

http://imcdb.org/images/166/333.jpg

Also this car presumably doesnt have the cavity made in the rear body tub for the hood to fold down into when open, so as in case of all converted Heralds, it probably sits up behind the rear seat like a cycle-rickshaw top!

[mycarhasablower]

shyam if you look at the photo carefully, the frame underneath the cover seems to be identical to the ones in the photos that you are refering to as original. It looks like just the fabric hasnt been installed properly

[IndrojitSircar]

Originally Posted by Prabal

I'm getting old and slow and can't keep up with your furious pace of posting, so am only responding to this one. This Herald did not participate in the rally. It was not allowed to. So the owner just came along for a ride and a dekho at the other machines.

After seeing this post i remebered that, that year classics below 1500cc were not allowed to participate. That year there was an Jaguar E type also that was not entered and was also brought to show by a restorer.