Since the original question was what do we feel about the Sandman canopied utes i'll stick with my original comments, and below stay with observations and facts.
Looks like a panel van. But isn't built by GMH as a panel van. It is a ute with a canopy. The brochure says so. The brochure calls the canopy a Sandman (conversion), not the vehicle it is fitted to. I see this as the same as cutting the roof off a 6cyl 3spd HZ van, and putting a van turret on it and calling it a Sandman!
Dealers had little to do with Sandmans, they were GMH built in the 4 x assembly plants of the day. The only dealer involvement was to fit the optional stripes on HQ-HJ, or to fit Nasco/GMP&A accessories of the day, which co-incidentally is what HBD is for these and the canopy is a dealer fitted accessory just like HQ-HZ mudflaps or other such accessories. I'm not sure why people still hang their hat on Brisbane built Sandmans being special in some way. HQ GTS or SS owners certainly don't feel that way about their cars built in plants outside of Brisbane!
True, a Sandman wasn't a top of the line product, but was never intended to be. Just like an SSV ute in modern times isn't - that goes to a Calais as the top of the line Holden or the top of the line Holden Motor Company vehicle the Statesman Caprice.
No Sandman ever started life as a normal ute or van though, except maybe the very first concept vehicle(s) done in styling. They were all started from details on a production broadcast sheet with inventory parts allocated off the rolling schedule intended for each particular vehicle. Some of those parts (called feature changes or component options depending upon what they are) are unique to Sandman that could not be optioned on other utes and vans, and this made the Sandmans unique and distinguishable from early on in production. Examples: console brackets on HQ and HJ, lack of side strip weld-tabs on HJ Kingswood and full length headlining attachment equipment on HX-HZ Holden vans. Yes they started from the same basic body pressings as other cars of the day, but so did A9X, L34, XU1, XV2, XV4, XW8, GTS350 etc. Remember that XX7 (and later XU3) were codes for a special vehicle package, which was an option on a base vehicle. This was how all "sports" GMH product (and other stuff too) of the day was made except for HK-HQ 1837 (GTS327 and GTS350), and the seriesII Brabham HB which were unique models. All of the rest were special vehicle packages on a base vehicle:
Special vehicle package code - base vehicle
XS5 (HB Brabham) - HB S and SL
XV2 (HQ SS) - HQ Belmont
XV4 (HQ GTS sedan) - HQ Kingswood
XW8 (HQ GTS350 sedan) - HQ Kingswood
XU1 - LC and LJ GTR
XU2 - (SLR5000) - LH and LX SL/R
L34 - LH SLR5000
A9X - LX XU2 or SS+L31
There are many others too like B06 (HJ-HZ Ambulance - HJ-HZ tonner and van), XW4 and XY8 (Vacationer) plus many more.
Again, Holden never called the vehicle a Sandman, the accessory is called a Sandman and it isn't built by Holden.
Personally I don't have a problem with them, and they look pretty good, but I like the look of the original ute better (but i'm the same for HQ-WB!).
Also more than happy to see people modify, customise etc and bring them to GMH/Holden events. They'll never be classed as (or in shows judged as) a Sandman though. They will always be a ute with an accessory. No different to a ute with a HBD hard tonneau.
Good, they look heaps better and have more room than a butt ugly traditional canopy. Whilstever there is a market they'll keep the moulds and make some each year!
Bookmarks