Author Topic: Solved NIC#920 - Alvis 12/70 Special FUF210  (Read 524 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online nicanary

  • Editor
  • *
  • Posts: 18684
  • Country: gb
  • Puzzle Points 655
  • YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Solved NIC#920 - Alvis 12/70 Special FUF210
« on: January 02, 2018, 05:50:03 AM »
What is this car?
« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 08:45:21 AM by nicanary »
I must be right - that's what it says on Wikipedia

Online nicanary

  • Editor
  • *
  • Posts: 18684
  • Country: gb
  • Puzzle Points 655
  • YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: NIC#920
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2018, 07:04:55 AM »
Experts?
I must be right - that's what it says on Wikipedia

Offline Mogul

  • Expert
  • *
  • Posts: 790
  • Country: be
  • Puzzle Points 108
  • Name That Car!
  • YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: NIC#920
« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2018, 07:14:36 AM »
Alvis 12/70 3 litre, reg. FUF-210

Online nicanary

  • Editor
  • *
  • Posts: 18684
  • Country: gb
  • Puzzle Points 655
  • YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: NIC#920
« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2018, 07:18:26 AM »
Alvis 12/70 3 litre, reg. FUF-210

I have the licence plate as FUF120!  ;D

Of course you're correct. I can find no information about the builder of this car, so I can only call it an Alvis special.
I must be right - that's what it says on Wikipedia

Offline Mogul

  • Expert
  • *
  • Posts: 790
  • Country: be
  • Puzzle Points 108
  • Name That Car!
  • YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: Solved NIC#920 - Alvis 12/70 Special FUF120
« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2018, 08:15:55 AM »
Another view.

Online nicanary

  • Editor
  • *
  • Posts: 18684
  • Country: gb
  • Puzzle Points 655
  • YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: Solved NIC#920 - Alvis 12/70 Special FUF120
« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2018, 08:44:55 AM »
 ;D The caption on my source photo was incorrect, and I believed it! Thanks.
I must be right - that's what it says on Wikipedia