Seems that it is not possible to contact the main web page so I am sending this to the prototypes page of your forum. During the death-throes of Peerless Cars in Slough, there appeared an offshoot sports coupe called the 'Gordon'. It was not fitted with the bottom-hugging seats that we would expect of a performance car of today yet the seats were adequately supportive, even when cornering at speed, probably as a result of the fact that they were upholstered in warm and 'grippy' tartan (almost certainly 'Gordon' tartan) woven from pure Scotish highland wool. That, of course, was over forty years ago but the upholstery has remained clear in my memory - and I have never seen a car with tartan uphostery ever since.
yes the first car built by John Gordon after he left Peerless was called the Gordon GT, it was produced with the help of Jim Keeble. This car was all alloy bodied and the first design by Giorgetto Giugiaro (few... speel check couldn't help me with taht one!) for Bertone.
After the Gordon GT, John left the project and Jim carried on to produce another 99 Gordon Kebble's. I think Williams & Pritchard produced the GRP bodies for production of this model.
Sooo J. Clifford whats your connection with the mark
Sorry Joachim, I didn’t answer your original thread, john Gordon believed that the first prototype that looks very short was not what the market needed. He said that there were too many two seater cars around and the market to target was the married man who had to sell his TR when the kids came along. If they could offer an alternative it would sell.
Could they still exist, I doubt as they were short on parts/cash for one thing so I would speculate that they were stripped of all the parts to build the next….or were they
In response to Nigel c: You ask of my involvement with the Gordon marque. The answer is that, I was there. However, I had very little to do with the Gordon. It was the Peerless that I was more familiar with.
In response to Joachim Sverd: Many odd things happened to the back end of the Peerless. The bodylines were meant to be an excercise in public acceptability. And, to explain that, I should give some insight into the influences imposed by the era of the car's beginnings. Britain was supposedly a world leader in technology at that time, yet the Spaniards were producing the Pegaso (Pegasus - the winged horse) which was heralded as the world's fastest production car. As one of the reparations for WW2, the BMW car maker had forfeit to the British all of its production tooling for a beautiful new model of car which subsequently became the product of the Bristol car company (complete even to the characteristic BMW grille) yet the Germans were already back to being a powerful force in the car market. In short, despite Britain's superiority, she was not making the post-war progress that many other countries were making. The British car industry became, in one direction, very uncertain of itself while, in another direction, very adventurous. As an example of this lack of self confidence, the British Motor Corporation handed over its entire range of cars to an Italian design house, known at the time by the name Farina but now known as Pininfarina, for a top to bottom redesign. But concurrently, this was the first time that it was feasible to produce a truly high-performance car, not just for elite owners but for the mass market. And that is where the Peerless (along with Lotus et al) fitted into the picture. However, despite how adventurous the concept was, it was decided that the bodylines of the Peerless needed to be as inoffensive - as 'acceptable' - as possible. So it is that the Peerless looked the way it did - bland to the point of being characterless. The frontal aspect was merely a hole of suitable dimensions for air to get in bracketted by plain headlights. The tail end, however, tells much more about the 'no surprises' design. Farina's influence on British car design during the 50's was extraordinary. Particularly, his tail lights. He introduced, for BMC, the Austin A40 which of course had his trademark tail lights. But so too did every other car in the BMC catalogue which eventually came to include alongside the names Austin and Morris such names as Riley, Wolesley, Singer and MG. Even the Austin-Healey Sprite finished up with his 'bishop's mitre' shaped tail lights fitted into rear wing panels which had a sharply creased top edge. And so too did the French Peugeot 404 - because it was all but identical to the Austin A55 which he had previously designed for BMC. Of course, if that's what people were buying it was necessary to give them what they wanted, so look also at the back end of a Ford Zephyr/Zodiac of the period. Look even at the back end of a Daimler Dart SP250. And lastly, look at the back end of the Peerless which has a somewhat amateur translation of that same 'bishops mitre' theme. Lotus cars, in opposition to Peerless, were designed by artists and constructed by engineers. What a pity that the Peerless was designed by engineers and constructed by artisans. If only they had recognised their need for a body stylist.
reply to Mr J Clifford I do feel that your comment “bland to the point of being characterless. The frontal aspect was merely a hole of suitable dimensions for air to get in bracketted by plain headlights.” Could be said of the Lotus Series 1 of the time, which was for sale in a box that you put together yourself.
Was the series 1 of 1956/7 not the culmination of 9 previous models derived from an Austin Seven special that was built in a lock up garage some 10 years previously.
“a hole of suitable dimensions for air to get in bracketed by plain headlights.”
The Warrick prototype was also built in a lock up garage and road tested all in the same year.
In 1957 Lotus and Peerless released there new products. Let’s just look at the prospective new owners of these cars.
The Elite was I grant you a design classic, beautifully proportioned and stylish, just right for their projected market.” The sugar daddy class” Just right to take you, you’re small slim girlfriend and perhaps her mother’s miniature poodle out in. To get the dog in all you had to do was “throw it over the seats and it could wedge itself between the suspension turrets. You had to call the number of your destination if the dog was to be fed and they could get provisions in as you were unable to transport this type of bulky item. 0-60 12 seconds top speed 115 mph. Geographic Marketing: UK European interest from the racing fraternity.
The Peerless was a design classic, beautifully proportioned and stylish, just right for their projected market.” The married man” Just right to take you, your “perhaps” slim wife, two children (that could still be catered for up to National Service age) dog, luggage, tools, 14 gallons of fuel and a picnic. 0-60 10, 4 seconds top speed 122 mph. Geographic Marketing: UK and America.
BMC released their Farina styled car in 1958, a year on from our two comparisons. I don’t think either company could foresee BMC’s styling. Harley Earl had been developing his distinctive fins and lights for a decade which culminated in the 59 Cadillac Eldora do. Over six million cars were sold that year in the States and Remember at that time we were coming out of the “export or die” culture.
I have talked at some length with the “British designer” of the prototype car who in the mid 50’s was fresh out of Design College. When he was asked by Bernie to “sketch” his ideas down he was only to pleased, he even gave the steel tubing he had gathered to make his own special to Bernie to build the chassis. The 1956 prototype was produced by Bernie and Morris a British coachbuilder based on a tubular frame to create the basic shape and the alloy worked to fit. This was 990 ABH.
It was said to perform and handle well but when shown to John Gordon who at the time had a manufacturing business re-boding Rolls Royce’s into shooting brakes said the “gap” in the market was for a four seater GT. This is the second prototype 333 CBH which with a few minor details went on into production A lot of people come up to me and say that my car looks like an Aston Martin, but the Peerless came out Four years before the DB4. Jon Gordon had previously been in the Aston Martin drivers team at Le Mans and no doubt must have had some dealings with the factory and there designers/engineers. Had he seen the future at AM? Neither Peerless or Lotus could have seen each others designs, and so they unveiled in my view two completely different marketable cars. The one was built, tested, marketed, won it’s class at Le Mans and out sold it’s projected figures within 18 months by a small group of highly skilled engineers and bought by enthusiastic people who were looking for a car that would take them to work, kids on holiday and slap a number on the side and go racing. The other was built by a group of engineers that have already worked together for ten years produced ten different models, and I think you would agree of a very basic post war kit car.
An interesting piece of history which you could call a snapshot in time. A gentleman came up to me at one of the informal local car gatherings that I go to and said “I’ve got a photo of a Peerless, next time I see you I’ll give it to you” Thanks I said thinking that will never happen, but true to his word he came over next time and gave me a copy. He said it was taken a Silverstone in 1959/60 and his dad wanted him to take a picture of it as he had “admired them” and had watched it perform on the track. He also showed me the other pics from the same film; there was also a lot of an Elite. He said and I quote “I loved the look of the Elite and it was the first one I’d seen up close, but my dad liked the Peerless” He was 16 at the time, his father was 38. Who do you think at that moment in time had the money to buy either of these cars and which would fit their criteria?
I feel I must also add my view to this topic. Having never seen a Peerless before, when I first set eyes on the one which was to become our racing Peerless I was very pleasantly suprised, and instantly fell in love with it. It has beautiful lines, reminiscent of the DB2/3, and surely no-one could deny that car has aesthetically pleasing contours. I have owned many interesting cars over the years, and the Peerless stands the test of time. Wherever we race it people surround it. "What is it, what a lovely looking car " is the usual remark, and we are in 2005, so that says something doesn't it ? The prototype information is interesting, but please do not run our magnificent cars down.
OK, we are all entitled to our opinion. But opinions are just that......
Most of the contributors to this site know what they like, and are prepared to get out of their armchair and back it up. If you are going to spend the best part of a thousand hours restoring a Peerless, as well as the ££££ that it takes, then you really have to like them a lot to keep you going when things don't go to plan.
I struggle to see how anyone could realistically describe a Peerless as "characterless" either in appearance, performance, or driving experience. In my view they are the best kept secret of the classic car world, and it's embarrasing how much fun I'm having. Even the non-believers that don't like the noise, the smells, the oil stains, or the fact that I keep overtaking will admit that it looks a bit special.
I still sneak outside to look at mine at odd times during the evening, I still think it's damm handsome for a sports car that's nearly fifty years old.
I’m only catching up now reading all the postings to the messageboard after a holiday, and feel I have to add some more.
First, on the Peerless design – I will probably be told that I’m totally biased as a Peerless owner, but I don’t think we have to justify ourselves concerning the beauty of the design. It is a fine product of its period and the design can be regarded by today’s standards as truly classic. When looking at the car, I always feel it has some resemblance to the Aston Martin DB4 and the AC Greyhound, or better to say, the AC and the Aston resemble the Peerless as they both came later to the market. To me, it was just the design of the car that attracted me in the first place. And not only does it look good, but it is a full four seater and it has a convincing technical concept.
Second, and more interesting, I would like to mention that the designer of the Peerless prototype was Peter Cahill. He lives today in my area in Germany, and he told me the Peerless design story, mentioning that he made the original drawings of the Peerless prototype which was then built by the London coachbuilder Morris. As Nigel said, Peter’s tubing which he had intended for building his own special was used for constructing the frame. From his very interesting report I have learned that the creation of the Peerless was very much the work of enthusiasts who did this with much energy.
It would be very interesting to gather more information on the Peerless history, and to document it in some way for all who are interested.
I had the pleasure of talking to Peter several years ago and I think it's time I got an interview sorted out(similar to the Fred Nicklin/Albert Gay CD's which I will try to get onto the regalia page as soon as I get a day or so to set it up). As far as this heated discussion goes, I'm just so glad the Forum exists ! There's absolutely no point in printing my response as I think Peerless and Warwick cars are the best thing since sliced bread and it's just a shame John Gordon had to leave the company as I think he may have held it all together from a business perspective for much longer. Anyone who's owned a Warwick knows that they have several advantages in practicality although many would say the clean lines of the Peerless were disturbed (and I agree), It would have been extremely interesting to see what would have followed the Warwick (please feel free to speculate on what the Phase 4 would have been like ! If I had time and money (of which I have neither) I would definitely build Phase 4).
