Quote:
I'm sure someone will have more to say on this subject, but I will not.
OK, I lied.
Yes, I looked into that and while it does appear to be an anomaly, there are a few other factors to consider.
Production of the Clubman GT began in July 1971, not September 1971 as listed on the homoligation papers.
The first 260 or so cars did have Cooper S engines designated 9F/Xe/Y.
The latest chassis number that I can find (and my list is certainly not exhaustive) that has a 9F/Xe/Y engine is 763 (chassis numbers having started at 501, of course). This car has a compliance plate dated October 1971, but as we know the date on the compliance plate is not necessarily the date of manufacture, but the date of shipping to the dealership. However, with the Clubman GT, particularly early cars, these are likely to be the same or close.
The earliest car I can find that has an engine with prefix 1200 is car 507 (the 7th one built) with compliance plate date of July 1971.
It would appear, though, from information available on the 80 or so cars I have listed, that virtually all cars dated from at least October 1971, possibly built in September, had the 1200 series engines.
Now, the 1200 engines were identical to the 9F/Xe/Y engines. The only difference appears to be the numbering system, due to a change in policy by Leyland on 3 August 1970 for new engine numbering systems. This obviously took around 12 months to implement (typical of most similar decisions), but was certainly in effect by July 1971. Many of the early Clubman GTs clearly used up remaining stock of 9F/Xe/Y engines.
It would seem then that certainly by the time the Clubman GT was released, the 1200 series engines had been released. The fact that early cars used engines designated for use in Cooper S is also typical of BMC-Leyland (and most other companies) in using up remaining stock.
The date of commencement of production, September 1971, would also have been supplied by the manufacturer - do you think CAMS went out and arbitrarily chose their own manufacturing periods and technical details of cars? Or do you think the people at CAMS had the time to pull apart and measure every new car that came out on the market?
It may simply have been a case of Leyland Australia listing September as the start date to avoid confusion with the Cooper S engines.
I can't say what was going on with the people at Leyland at the time, but the point I am trying to make is that the information on the form would have been supplied to CAMS by Leyland so any error, etc on there is most likely the fault of Leyland, not CAMS.
The fact that the 9F engines were not listed may in fact have made those cars ineligible to compete in production racing, because the CAMS scrutineers would have had to go by what is in the papers, mistakes or not.
As for 1206 and 1208 series engines, these were the later type engines, from December 1972 and were not identical to the 9F engines. It is believed these were the Rationalised 1275cc engines from the English 1275GT - see Issue 19 of the Mini Experience for more detail.
Interestingly, while 1200 and 1206 engines were the standard production engines, 1208 is listed which was the replacement short engine for the 1206, but 1201 and 1202 were not listed, although they are standard replacement short engines for 1200. Does this mean the CAMS documents are completely wrong? Of course not. But it might mean that if you turned up with a car with a 1201 or 1202 engine in it, that you would have had to do some explaining and may even have had to have the engine stripped and measured.
Further on in the papers, on the page with all the technical specifications of the engine, no engine number prefix is used. I would suggest that perhaps anyone wanting to run a standard car with a 9F engine could have referred to those specs and had their engine checked for compliance.
The 1205, 1207 and 1209 engines are also not listed on the front of the document, as they were for the Police-spec engines, which were covered in amendment 1/IV later in the papers.
So, my point here is that just because you are not in possession of all the facts, don't assume that anyone who has a contrary opinion is wrong.
The full extent of the detail in the homologation papers, running out to 11 pages, lists what was permitted to run and any variation from that would have to have been taken up at the time. Technically, because the 9F engine is not listed and the production commencement date is listed as September 1971, then anyone with an earlier car with 9F engine may indeed have had a problem competing with it. That is something you would need to ask anyone who went through that scenario, though there weren't many (Ray Molloy being one of the few when he raced a Clubman GT at Bathurst, but that was not until 1975).
Don't be too mislead by the date on the CAMS papers as being September 1971 (this is a commencement of production date, not the date the papers were submitted), but having the engine number prefixes listed for December 1972 cars, as the homologation would not have been able to go ahead until the required number of cars had been built.
The CAMS homologation papers were as important, in fact probably more so in Australia, as the FIA homologation papers, and therefore it was the manufacturer's responsibility to ensure they were accurate.
All of this, though, ignores the fact that as the information supplied by the factory lists the Clubman GT as a Morris, then this is strong evidence (granted, not total proof) that the factory did refer to the Clubman series of cars as Morris.
anyone found any spelling mistakes??? 
