Small 13 ft Viscount query

[awbeattie381]

Hi all,

My previous post talks about how rare small viscount vans seem to be, however I am actually going to look at one this weekend.

My question is was window placement an option when you ordered your van in the early 70s? Both side windows at the front appear to be missing. Was this just the design at the time or something that was a cost saving option for the original owner?

Also, the model is 73A. Does this give any clues as to its age?



Andrew

[ForumMod]

G'day Andrew, what does give an indication of a Viscount's age is the chassis number welded on the drawbar just next to the jockey wheel. I'm thinking your van is a 1973 or '74 model, but the chassis number will confirm that. Maybe the model number of 73A means it's a 1973 Ambassador (it does look like it's an Ambassador )

In the early 1970s, Viscount were advertising that customers could choose from 64 different floor plans, so the absence of windows at the front is quite possible depending on what's inside the van in that area.

Not a bad looking van, judging by your photo.

cheers,
Al.

[Deleted]

Hi Andrew,
Yes,lack of windows was a cost saving "cheap and cheerful" option!
Also inside,cushions were not as thick,one cupboard door where there would have been two,thinner curtains and no choice of wood colours.
But still it was a Viscount,so that didn't matter!
Cheers
Hughdeani

[awbeattie381]

Thanks for the replies. Wow 64 configurations! Inside is pretty mint judging by the photos (van is on trading post). Pretty boring brown vinyl, lino has been replaced but thats about it apparently for repair work. Oh, windows winders have been replaced as was the external hatch cover (which blew off while in transit to its current home). An 82 year old bought it, did some minor reno work (in his words involved a great deal of cleaning) and is wanting to sell it to make a profit to fund his international professional tennis career (seriously).

[awbeattie381]

So went and had a look at his van today. Was a little disappointed with it cosmetically as it had been repainted (with a brush and there were some runs) on 3 sides...there had been a leak (enough to replace a bit of internal panelling) but the source of the leak has never been found. 1 small section of floor near the bed was spongy.

A bit overpriced for me, even though a lot of cosmetic work has been done to the van including new window seals all round, it was definitely function over form with not a lot of attention to detail.

One interesting fact is the chassis no. A6 3133. Reading the hall of fame thread it looks like it may be a 1976 van (rather than a 1973) but there were stickers on the van 'royal'. Isn't the 'A' reserved for the ambassadors?

Andrew

[ForumMod]

Isn't the 'A' reserved for the ambassadors?

Yes, and..err..no.

We do see on occasions where Viscount dispensed with tradition and built a different model on the next available chassis. So as you've discovered, a Royal model might be sitting on an Ambassador chassis number, or vice versa. The same goes for the Supreme models as well. Considering Viscount were building up around 6000 units or more per year in the late '70s, I guess from time to time things got out of whack on the production line.

It just shows that not everything about the history of these old vans is as true as we think it is. There's always going to be examples that just don't fit our thinking, but in the majority of cases they will.

cheers,
Al.