The SST and Sabre were in production together... they must have been because they appear on the 1991 price list together. SST in 1.4 and 1.8 and Sabre 1.8. The odd Sabre 1.4 CVH isn't really an issue... if a customer asked for a Sabre but with a 1.4 engine ( and remember, this was before the K series) Reliant in their perilous financial position were hardly going to say no, were they?scimjim wrote:Yep - I was being a bit vague because at least one is dressed as a Sabre and two (including Steve Feay's) appear just inside Sabre production ...
Not too simplistic at all, that's how I would differentiate them. Reliant's oddities like the Sabres with SST rear bumpers is just Reliant doing what they had to in order to fulfill customer orders and realise a revenue stream as quickly as possible. If it was sold as a Sabre, it is a Sabre... if it was sold as an SST, it's an SST.philhoward wrote:"monobody cars without arches"?
Running by the premise that Reliant changed the name that often...to me, at least, if it's a monobody and had arches, it's a Sabre. No arches, then an SST. Bit too simplistic?
The only problem here is if any of the "odd" Sabres had the SST editon number on the radiator bulkhead or if any of the later SSTs didn't have it.