Advertising Last completed movie pages
1956 Ford Consul MkII [205E] 
Class: Cars, Sedan — Model origin: 
![1956 Ford Consul MkII [205E]](i001351730.jpg)
![[*]](/res/star.png){kind=small}
Background vehicle
Comments about this vehicle| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
◊ 2020-02-13 23:16 |
Despite the two-tone paint, it’s probably a Consul, since the distance between the back of the front wheel arch and the door shut line seems suitably short. Say Consul Mk2 DeLuxe, but I wouldn’t argue if someone thought it was a sixpot motor. -- Last edit: 2020-02-13 23:18:19 |
|
◊ 2020-02-14 12:57 |
I'm sorry John, but I think I have to disagree. The difference in the distance is only 2.5 inches. That is noticeable, but only just. Therefore I believe this is more likely a Zephyr or a Zodiac. It's very difficult to say anything specific as most identifiable items are hidden. Among those are the grille, the indicators, the rear stem and how the side strip finnishes at the rear lights. It does, however have painted headlight covers, which might point this was built the years 1956-58, as 1959+ had chromed ones. Otherwise the cast bend, that differ the two colours, was fitted as standard on some models for the 1960+ Zephyr, but was otherwise designated for the Zodiac. But the major question remains; does the two-tone paint make this a Zodiac? I'd say it most likely does, as it was fitted as standard on the Zodiac, and very few Zephyrs would have had time to get a respray at the time of filming. But on the other hand, it does have the 1961(?)+ hubcaps, which would indicate that the owner wasn't fully satisfied with the apperance. 1956-58 Ford Zodiac? -- Last edit: 2020-02-14 13:02:09 |
|
◊ 2020-02-14 13:56 |
The fact that the car is moving and therefore blurred probably rules out any slight difference. I've been comparing side views of both for the difference between the rear of the wheel-arch and the start of the door and it looks minimal as Zodiac says. Even the length of the aperture of the wheel arch appears to be longer and the front over-hang looks to be increased on the Zephyr/Zodiac. So an overall impression of a greater length of the front end is there but very subjective I think. Ford Zodiac agreed as a guess. -- Last edit: 2020-02-14 17:18:39 |
|
◊ 2020-02-14 16:42 |
Fine, it is not as if I owned my suggestion, so please call it as you think. Why would a 56 to 58 car have a lowline roof? |
|
◊ 2020-02-14 21:41 |
^...is the lowline roof because of the trim on the C-pillar? I cannot see any other detail but I know little of the lowline roof details. |
|
◊ 2020-02-14 22:57 |
It’s very unclear whether the car is a lowline or not. This was a kite-flying exercise on my part, to see if anyone else had a similar thought. |
|
◊ 2020-02-15 11:39 |
Ah! I see. I seems to have the higher roof line and the earlier rubber screen surround. Comparing it with this Consul MkI lowline from Dr. No seen in a similar position, the roofline is higher and the Dr. No car has an altogether tighter appearance (shorter) at the front end. More conjecture and ramblings... Its just possible the Consul's chrome strip above the bumper would be seen at the front if it was a Consul. The front overhang on the six cylinder models would be about 4 or 4½in longer than the Consul's, so the bumpers wrap-around (not seen here in the movie) was longer on the Zephyr and Zodiac. Again, the blurred image will distort the length but less so any height comparisons. -- Last edit: 2020-02-15 12:16:09 |
|
◊ 2020-02-15 11:56 |
A couple more pictures if they help anything:![[Image: fordsalooni1.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/26849/fordsalooni1.jpg) ![[Image: fordsalooni2.1.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/26849/fordsalooni2.1.jpg) |
|
◊ 2020-02-15 12:23 |
As Eccles used to say "Foine, foine, foine!" I have reeled in my kite and returned it to its hangar. 56 Zodiac stars again. -- Last edit: 2020-02-15 12:26:38 |
|
◊ 2020-02-15 12:25 |
Thanks, s13a. The front looks more like the Consul grille and the chrome strip under the side-light and above the bumper is possibly visible. Consul with 75% probability I think but awaiting others comments please..... |
|
◊ 2020-02-15 12:28 |
Do I have to get out the kite again? That string takes some winding up. One could almost say, "Whatever!". -- Last edit: 2020-02-15 12:33:09 |
|
◊ 2020-02-15 12:38 |
... but this could prove your complete supremacy in correctly postulating the Consul identification! Looks also like the Consul's plainer rear light with no added bright-work at the back end. |
|
◊ 2020-02-15 12:41 |
Very kind of you so to say, but I think the only conclusion that can be made is that, given enough string, you can prove anything. A reminiscence, if I may.... Many, many years ago I had just commenced my studies at the local boys' grammar school, which was made more interesting by the fact that it also admitted girls. During the first few days, we were all required to sit something called "The Prefects' Exam". Being the place it was, many of the questions involved sport, so I didn't do well, but the second question after Name, Initials and Form, was "What is your shoe size?". Later, I asked a teacher with whom I had slightly better understanding than most of the beaks, what it was all about. "Oh, Staffs" (Not my real name) she said. "That was Mr. -----, (MA Cantab. Maths) he had a theory that given enough statistics you could prove anything, and he did a graph relating the shoe size to the results of the test. It was rubbish." -- Last edit: 2020-02-15 14:11:30 |
|
◊ 2020-02-15 13:02 |
 |
|
◊ 2020-02-16 11:32 |
![[Image: fordsalooni21.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/558/fordsalooni21.jpg) |
Add a comment Advertising Advertising
