Mark II Jag with 2.4, 3.4 or 3.8 ltr engine
Phillip Jones
I have reciently taken interest in the above model Jag for restoration purposes
I am particularly interested in other peoples experiences with regards to
restoring Jag's.
The mark 2 is a classic car and I would dearly love to hear other peoples
suggestions/oppinions about the restoration of such a car.
What model would be better? I understand the 3.8 ltr was the fastest 6 cyl car
Jag ever produced and it can keep up well with XJ12.
Thanks,
Phill
---------------------------------------------------------------
| Phillip Jones BCS (Bond) | E-Mail : P.A....@GU.EDU.AU
| Assistant Systems Programmer | Phone : (07) 875 6440
| Systems Development |
| ITS, INS, Griffith University| Ours is not to wonder why...
| Queensland, AUSTRALIA |
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Cohen
>Hi all,
>I have reciently taken interest in the above model Jag for restoration purposes
>I am particularly interested in other peoples experiences with regards to
>restoring Jag's.
If you're going to restore a Jag Mk II, there would be no point in
restoring anything but a 3.8 Manual w/Overdrive. The restoration
cost difference between the 2.4 and 3.8 would be minimal, but the
3.8 will have double the market value later. Not that we do this
sort of thing for the money, but if it gets stolen etc, the insurance
payout will at least spring for a nice car.
>The mark 2 is a classic car and I would dearly love to hear other peoples
>suggestions/oppinions about the restoration of such a car.
The mechanicals are easy. The body is hell. Jaguar used to do an awful
lot of lead-loading on the Mk I, Mk II and S-type bodies, so any panel
replacement will be time-consuming. And panel replacement will nearly
always be needed (unless it's a Californian car or similar).
>What model would be better? I understand the 3.8 ltr was the fastest 6 cyl car
>Jag ever produced and it can keep up well with XJ12.
Welllllll, the 3.8 MOD would do about 125mph stock. The XJ12 was tested
to 145mph or so by CAR magazine. And it handled _much_ better. Despite
their reputation, the Mk IIs were no great shakes in the handling
department. The S-type was much better because it had the IRS from
the E-type. In a straight line though, there were few cars of the day
that would keep up with one.
If you're interested in the MkIIs, keep an eye on any one of the
following (English) magazines :
Classic and Sportscar
Classic Car and Thoroughbred
Popular Classics
Practical Classics
which seem to run articles on Jag restoration every month or so.
regards,
--
thos cohen "In a racing car, Mansell |Softway Pty Ltd
is as fast and brave as any, Senna included... |ACSnet: th...@softway.oz
When it comes to mind games with Senna, he does|UUCP: ...!uunet!softway.oz!thos
not have a great arsenal" - Peter McKay, SMH |Internet: th...@softway.oz.au
Thomas Cohen
>What model would be better? I understand the 3.8 ltr was the fastest 6 cyl car
>Jag ever produced and it can keep up well with XJ12.
Forgot to tack this onto the end of the previous post :
the fastest 6-cylinder Jag was the flat-floor model E-type (Mk I),
which would do >150 mph as tested. Interestingly enough, the V12
E-type would only do about 145mph.
kevinh
In article <thos.73...@suite.sw.oz.au>, th...@suite.sw.oz.au (Thomas Cohen) writes:
|> In <1993May9....@griffin.itc.gu.edu.au> phi...@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Phillip Jones) writes:
|>
|> >What model would be better? I understand the 3.8 ltr was the fastest 6 cyl car
|> >Jag ever produced and it can keep up well with XJ12.
|>
|> Forgot to tack this onto the end of the previous post :
|> the fastest 6-cylinder Jag was the flat-floor model E-type (Mk I),
|> which would do >150 mph as tested. Interestingly enough, the V12
|> E-type would only do about 145mph.
Are you referring to the road test E-types, if so then they were not
exeactly standard cars - engines having been blueprinted and gas-flowed
so that thay could achieve the magic 150. Their true top speed was about
142/145 - I think this is documented in one of the well known E-type books (or
perhaps all of them :-).
Lawrence Buja
>Hi all,
>
>I have reciently taken interest in the above model Jag for restoration purposes
>I am particularly interested in other peoples experiences with regards to
>restoring Jag's.
>The mark 2 is a classic car and I would dearly love to hear other peoples
>suggestions/oppinions about the restoration of such a car.
>
>What model would be better? I understand the 3.8 ltr was the fastest 6 cyl car
>Jag ever produced and it can keep up well with XJ12.
Go with the 3.8. With a 0-60 time of 8.5 sec, it's only .1 sec slower
than the TR-7 V8 roadsters. And, as Thomas mentioned, the restoration
costs are the same.
If you can find it, checkout MkII values in Hemmings Motor News for the
past couple months. Here in the US, I'd expect to pay around $5K for a
good, non-rusty (but not concours) Mk II.
Beware of rust on these old unibody cars. Martin Robey in the UK is
currently remanufacturing Mk II body parts.
Buy the book _Jaguar MkI and MkII, The Complete Companion_ by Nigel
Thorley. This book goes into the great detail of the different models.
Figure out what you want before you go out looking.
Basically, the MkII's had the big bumpers, leather interiors and the
nice fog lights. The 240's and 340's which replaced them at the end of
the production run had small bumpers, plastic interiors and horn grills
instead of fog lights. The S-types that followed had the more complex
rear-end and, IMHO, some dubious styling modifications from the Mk II
mold.
Join the Jaguar e-mail list (reqests to sc...@wapsy.uwa.oz.au)
I've got a Daimler 2.5LV8, which is the upscale Jag MkII badge. As you
can see from the stats below, this pup is more style than speed.
However, the little Turner V8 does make some nice noises getting up to
speed (ring down for more power!!). A GIF image of it available via
anonymous ftp from hoosier.cs.utah.edu/pub/sol/GIF/buja_daimler_1.gif
and buja_daimler_2.gif. Also check out checklist.ascii.Z, an exhaustive
used-car buyers checklist and sfisher_on_british_cars.text.Z for some
wonderful prose that deals mainly with driving and racing MG's but often
philosophizes on owning old british cars in general.
Good luck, let us know what happens...
/\ Lawrence Buja Climate and Global Dynamics Division
\_][ sout...@ncar.ucar.edu National Center for Atmospheric Research
\_________________________Boulder,_Colorado___80307-3000__________
--
Jaguar Saloon Performance
MkII 2.4L Daimler 2.5LV8 MkII 3.4L 340
| | 240 | MkI 3.4L | MkII 3.8
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
0-30mph 5.7 4.6 4.1 4.5 3.6 3.5 3.2
0-60mph 17.3 13.2 12.5 11.9 10.0 8.8 8.5
0-90mph 49.9 31.2 31.0 26.0 22.1 19.6 18.2
1/4mile 20.8 ~19 18.7 19.1 17.9 17.2 16.3
max mph 96.3 112.0 106.0 119.9 119.8 124.0 126.0
Price L1597 L1660 L1364 L1732 L1739 L1422 L1842
HP@RPM 120@5750 1240@5800 133@5500 210@5500 210@5500 210@5500 220@5500
weight 28.5cwt 26.5cwt 26.5cwt 29.3cwt 25 cwt 30 cwt 29.3cwt
Fuel 18mpg 117 mpg 18.3mpg 16 mpg 16 mpg 17.2mpg 15.7mpg
First Sep '59 ONov '62 Sep '67 Jul '59 Dec '56 Sep '67 Oct '59
Last Jul '67 AJul '69 Mar '69 Aug '67 Sep '59 Aug '68 Sep '67
Total RHD 21768 3716 22092 8945 2265 15383
LHD 3405 8800 730 6571 8459 535 14757
length 15'0.75" Wheelbase 8'11.25" Tires 6.40x15
width 5'6.75" Track Front 4'7.00"
height 4'9.50" Rear 4'5.47"
Coombs Mk II variants Performance
MkII Coombs 3.8L MkII Coombs 3.8L 3.8L E-type
w/std carbs 2" carbs
30 2.2 2.2 2.8
60 7.3 7 6.9
90 18.2 13 13.2
.25mi 16.3 15.7 14.7
(lifted from Jaguar MkI and MkII, The Complete Companion by Nigel Thorley)
--
MAKE MODEL DATE SPEED 0-60 30-70 50-70 MPG
AC COBRA 289 12/11/65 138 5.5 5.1 4.1 15.1
TVR 350i 17/7/85 136 6.6 7.8 8.8 19.6
LOTUS ELAN SPRINT 3/6/71 121 6.7 7.5 7.0 22.2
JAGUAR E-TYPE 3.8 26/4/63 150 6.9 5.7 5.4 17.9
LOTUS 7 TWIN CAM 29/1/70 103 7.1 7.2 8.1 19.2
TRIUMPH TR7V8 (MINE) 24/4/92 130? 7.1 6.2 8.0 20.0 +/-10%
TVR 3000M 9/11/74 121 7.7 8.1 6.7 21.4
TRIUMPH TR6 17/4/69 119 8.2 8.0 10.5 19.8
TRIUMPH TR7V8 STOCK R&T 1980 130 8.4
JAGUAR MK2 3.8 26/2/60 125 8.5 8.5 8.6 15.7
AC ACE 7/11/58 117 9.1 8.9 8.5 21.6
A-HEALEY 3000MK11 12/6/64 121 9.8 9.4 7.9 20.3
JAGUAR XK120 17/10/53 120 9.9 10.4 7.9 16.2
Daimler Dart SP-250 10/02/59 122 10.2 5.7 29.1
A-HEALEY 100/4 11/9/53 111 10.3 10.1 7.6 24.5
ROVER??? COOPER S 14/8/64 96 11.2 12.3 9.4 28.5
TRIUMPH TR3 11/1/57 102 12.5 12.9 12.5 24.9
ROVER??? MGB 1/7/71 102 13.0 14.0 13.5 23.7
FORD LOT-CORTINA 22/11/63 107 13.6 14.4 8.9 20.8
ROVER??? MORRIS MINOR 8/5/64 73 24.8 N/A N/A 31.2
Note: 30-70 TIMES ARE THROUGH THE GEARS,
50-70 TIMES ARE IN TOP GEAR,
the dates are UK style (day/month/year),
speed is miles per hour.
"this information is derived from autocar's road test reports, if anyone
wants copies of the originals, phone autocar on +44 235 534323, quoting
the make,model,date tested and your visa/mastercard number. (about 5
dollars each)"
Lawrence Buja
Overview of '50s-60's era Jaguar Saloons
(Rick Lindsay, Lawrence Buja, Shel Hall)
During the 60's Jaguar built a wealth of models. Actually, a confusing
line of saloons were built. Below is a list with my opinions added.
These opinions are from readings and experience.
MK-VII \ All of these cars are rather large and luxurious. However,
MK-VIII \ not the most collectible. Also due to their weight, not
MK-IX / performers. The MK-X is the largest car Jaguar has ever
MK-X / made - just shy of eight feet wide!!!
MK-I Nice car but built rather 'overly-solid' - thick window posts,
small rear window etc. Front turn signals are centered vertically
on the front wings. While not considered as valuable as the
MKII's they are still collectible. Available in 2.8 and 3.4 litre
engines.
MK-II This is probably the most collectible of the post 50's Jaguars.
It has the same general lines as the MK-I but without the bulky
bits. Added in the MK-II was the wonderful 3.8 litre engine. A
bit about that here. The 2.8 is considered underpowered. The 3.4
as almost as powerful as the 3.8 and has occasionally been chosen
over the 3.8. The 3.8 is my favorite at 220 Hp making the MK-II
and 3.8s fast!
The MKII's were fitted with both manual and automatic
transmissions. The transmissions fitted pretty much paralleled the
transmissions fitted to the 'E' Types of the same years; i.e. the
later manual transmissions were all-synchro.
Nice, used, 3.8 Mk.2s go for $6,000-8,000 , but a show-winning
restoration will be much more. And, of course, you can have a
rusted-out barn rat for much less.
3.4S The s-model Jaguars were made for about 6 years starting about '61
3.8s or '62. From the front, these look very similar to the MKII's,
distinguished by streamlined light fittings and turn signals
located down low, near the bumper. The tail sections of these
cars are considerably longer than the MKII's. The interiors have
minor changes from the MKII's, (Wood around the center gauge
console, a underdash shelf, a descrete dash mounted clock etc..)
Opinions are mixed but the 's' is claimed to be for 'small'. It
was introduced to provide a more luxurious car than the MK-II
(with the same performance) that was smaller than the MK-VII's and
above. These cars better 'fit' the small roads o f rural England
and Europe while providing the luxury of the larger cars.
240 Late economy versions of the MK-II (vinyl seats, less wood, no
340 foglights, thin bumpers) with 2.4 and 3.4 liter straight six engines
420 4.2 litre 6 cylinder rather boxy car
420G G is for 'grand touring'. This is a huge car very close to the
MK-X
Daimler The Daimler was (and still is) Jaguar's "up-market" badge. ALL
Daimlers (Jags with more chrome) are good inverstments. The small
V8 is wonderful! Developed by Edward Turner who also developed
the Triumph Twin motorcyle engine, it had a bore of 76mm and a
stoke of 70mm, had a hemi head design, and put out 140 net bhp.
There is a Vintage racer named Trevor Topley that has made just a
few modifications to his motor in his Daimler SP250, and it now
produces 200hp out of this little jewel of a motor.
One final note. Only about 12,000 3.8s's were made in left-hand-drive
as opposed to the much more available MK-II's. MK-II's and 3.8s's are
the best investment from the 60's.
Now, if you have all the money in the world, look into the XK-120,
XK-140 and the XK-150 from the 50's (or the SS-100 from the 30's which
goes for $70K (US) and up).
E-Type roadster Jaguars are wonderful but again, hardly within the price
range specified. Anyway, I prefer the Saloon cars...
You can have a new MkII, if you'd like. A firm in England is
"remanufacturing" them. I saw one today, and it was astounding. The
paint under the Wilton trunk mat was as perfect as it was on the outside
of the car, the leather was wonderful, the wood was far beyond merely
perfect, and it was a general knockout. It also had real steering gear
(rack and pinion instead of the original recirculating ball),
_integrated_ air conditioning, and a host of other improvements.
Everything was built and finished at least as well at the cars were when
they were new. They go for ~$70,000.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What to look at when checking out a Jaguar MKII.
>I'd like to find out what to look out for.
(1) Rust never sleeps.
(2) People who don't understand the original design may have tried
to "improve" things, especially the wiring, the ignition system,
the carburettors and possibly other things. These are unlikely
to work any better than the original, and you won't be able to
find them in any manual.
(3) Anything resembling engine problems. The cooling systems on all
the older Jaguars was very marginal, and damage from overheating
should be suspected. Assume guilt unless proven innocent. Run
a compression test, and look closely at the oil and coolant _after_
a nice long test drive. I'm not aware of any particular weak
points in this engine; in fact, I've never seen one opened up.
(4) The same engine was used in the Daimler Dart, a/k/a/ SP-250, and
that car was infamous, in its day, for short clutch life.
(5) In the SP-250 it had 2 big SU carbs on a cross-over manifold; I
don't know what they used in the sedan.
(6) Veneer peeling. It doesn't look like it would be a big deal to
fix, but it is quite tricky to do. The veneer was glued to the
curved surfaces in a type of form-fitting pneumatic press, and
getting any loose veneer stuck back correctly is very difficult.
They used real varnish back then, or something very much like it,
and it didn't take kindly to direct sun. Once the varnish burned
off, dampness attacked the glue, and the veneer fell off. Mk.2
re-wood kits have been advertised in Hemmings, but the copy I have
at hand doesn't have an ad.
(7) The rear fender skirts. Be sure they are there and they work.
>I assume that body rust is a major item ...
See #1, above. However, the steel used in the body was pretty heavy,
and repair of minor rust damage is no big deal (says my buddy with the
rusty, but fast, Mk.II.)
Do pay special attention to the suspension mounting points and the
rocker panels, though, as well as around the windshield and along the
bottom of the doorskins.
>Brakes?
Nothing special as far as I know. The car has rather modest power, so
the Mk.II brakes, even the 2.4 version, should be OK.
>Engine?
See above. The number of these cars in the US is very small, even if
you count the SP-250. I'm told any Jaguar specialist can order the
parts, but I'd expect the "Daimler" parts would be harder to get than
the "Jaguar" parts. My understanding is that the engine is the only
major difference from the Mk.II.
>Trans?
Depends on the trans they used. Could be the Jaguar 'box or the older
Moss 'box, with or without OD, or the automatic with or without the
"intermediate speed hold" feature. The automatics were all US units, I
think, and I understand the manual 'boxes are basically interchangable.
If it's a manual, keep in mind the comments on the SP-250 clutch,
above, as I don't know if the sedan got the same unit.
>Parts availability?
The Jaguar parts are very available, if somewhat expensive, and there
are enough Daimlers in England that I bet most other stuff is
available. I'd be sure anything on the as-bought gig-list is available
before I gave the man the money, as his discovery of a fault whose
rectification requires an unobtainable part may be the reason for sale.
I've just found a chap with a set of manuals for the car, as well as a
set of Mk.II manuals, and I'll have an opportunity to compare them
later today; if I find anything mentionable, I'll relay it ASAP.
>Any other gotchas?
An 'E' Type will only let you carry one nice young blondes; the Daimler
will let you carry her and two spares. And you can't get a nice 'E'
Type for $3,300 either.
Buy it and have fun.
-Shel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By a curious coincidence I just picked up a copy of the December,
1991 issue of the British magazine, "Your Classic" which has a
long article on MkII's and Daimlers. The article reads:
"But if the MkII is one of the most charismatic cars Jaguar has
ever made, it is also one of the most rust prone. It was only the
company's second monocoque after the 1955 MkI and they'd learned
little in those five years about how to protect stressed mild
steel and open structural box sections against rust. A tired,
tarted MkII is a welder's nightmare."
...
"Assuming the car looks generally tidy outwardly the first thing
to check on the MkII is the rear seat area. If the vendor is
confident in his charge he won't mind if you remove the rear seat
cushion. Check for corrosion where the rear seat meets the floor
and along the edge of the pan and with the seat removed you can
see any problems within the rear inner wheel arches too.
Remember, this is a crucial area of strength which spring hangers
- and thus the axle itself - rely on for location."
They have a diagram showing other rust problems to watch out for:
1. Protruding wing-top side lights tend to rust.
2. Watch seam at front wheel arch for rot.
3. Rubber window seals collect water with dire results.
4. Inner rear arches are vulnerable.
5. Spats rust through from inside. Little protection.
6. Blocked drain holes rot doors from the inside.
7. Bottom of A-post susceptible.
8. Front floor pan vulnerable to kicked up dirt.
9. Body panels go at edges; never well protected.
Most of the mechanical stuff seems to concentrate on the Jaguars
rather than the Daimlers. However there is a sidebar about the
Daimler. It says "When Jaguar bought Daimler it inherited a duff
range of cars but an excellent pair of engines - the Edward
Turner (no relation - M.T.) designed 2.5 and 4.5 litre V8's. ...
Jaguar saw potential in the 2.5 litre unit and fitted it in an old
MkI that was lying around the factory."
"It was a combination that worked beautifully and Jaguar found
themselves with a car that handled rather better than the MkII
(less weight over the front wheels equals less understeer) and
was faster - considerably - than the MkII 2.4"
Hope this helps. If you want any more tidbits from the article
you may contact me directly by email. It sounds like a neat car.
Let us know what happens.
Mark Turner
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Cohen
Well, I should have realized that they may not have been quite standard,
but I wouldn't have thought Lyons would have gone to the subterfuge of
porting & blueprinting. Maybe they used a D-type head (did that head
ever become standard btw?
MR KR COMAN
>From: phi...@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Phillip Jones)
>Subject: Mark II Jag with 2.4, 3.4 or 3.8 ltr engine
>Date: Sun, 9 May 93 22:51:07 GMT
>Hi all,
>
>I have reciently taken interest in the above model Jag for restoration purposes
>I am particularly interested in other peoples experiences with regards to
>restoring Jag's.
>
>The mark 2 is a classic car and I would dearly love to hear other peoples
>suggestions/oppinions about the restoration of such a car.
>
>What model would be better? I understand the 3.8 ltr was the fastest 6 cyl car
>Jag ever produced and it can keep up well with XJ12.
>
>Thanks,
>Phill
The Mark II is a beaut motor! Your problems (potential) revolve
largely around the bodywork. These Jags feature an astounding array of
fiendishly complex bodypanels and enclosed sections, which combined with
1950's-level corrosion protection, add up to a MAJOR & EXPENSIVE restoration
headache. Interior trim also tends to go downhill at a commensurate rate --
leather upholstery, for example, can and will blow a serious hole in yr beer-
budget...=(:-<)! Mechanicals are not such bad news -- expensive yes, but
most everything you need is well catered for, if not in Aus then ex-UK.
The best advice I can offer is: (a) Don't let your heart rule yr
head, buy the very best that you can afford, not necessarily the first one
that comes along -- take your time making yr choice; (b) body and interior
trim condition are prime go, no-go criteria -- a buggered engine/powertrain
is an expensive challenge that can be surmounted but a bondo and rust-
encrusted "parts car" will assuredly break your bank and your spirit.
Engine-wise I understand the 3.8 is the more desirable unit. The 2.4
seems to be naturally less "assertive", parts *may* be a bit more difficult
to procure and wasn't there a "problem" with this engine insofar as it tends
to have an affinity for burning its pistons?
Cheers,
Keith Coman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we pay dogfood salespeople more than we : Dept of Management
do teachers, we should not be surprised if : Rhodes University
our dogs eat like kids, and our kids end : Grahamstown, 6140
up reading like dogs." : Rep of South Africa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kevinh
|> Engine-wise I understand the 3.8 is the more desirable unit. The 2.4
|> seems to be naturally less "assertive", parts *may* be a bit more difficult
|> to procure and wasn't there a "problem" with this engine insofar as it tends
|> to have an affinity for burning its pistons?
|> Cheers,
|> Keith Coman
I think that was more the 2.8 fitted to the XJ6 - that certainly had this
reputation, never heard it about the Mk II 2.4 though.
Gunnar Forsgren
True for the XJ6. The 2.8 was underpowered for the XJ weight and had to be driven
too hard compared to the small piston area. The engine was identical in exterior
dimensions with the 4.2 version so it is probably the largest 2.8 engine of modern times.
--------------
The early XJ 4.2 litre suffered from another problem; cracks between the cylinder bores
with subsequent water leakage into the cylinders. I have personal experience..
The mid-70's 3.4 XJ S2 versions improved on this with a more rigid block, partly
due to the reduced cyl diameter. XJ owners; always watch out for water leaks
or cracked water hoses.
The cooling system runs at appr 1 Kg/cm2 pressure to allow high temp without boiling; leaks reduces pressure->causes boiling->water loss->overheating->engine cracks :'-(
To end XJ engine boiling is like a nuclear power plant meltdown, not much you
can do but wait and then it's too late. A XJ water hose explosion is a great free
bonus show for pedestrians passing by..
--------------
---
Gunnar Forsgren Ericsson Telecom AB email:<gun...@ericsson.se>
S-126 25 Stockholm, SWEDEN "Opinions are my own"
MR KR COMAN
>From: kev...@hslrswi.hasler.ascom.ch (kevinh)
>Subject: Re: Mark II Jag with 2.4, 3.4 or 3.8 ltr engine
>Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 12:08:04 GMT
Aah! That's the one!! I stand corrected -- multo bene!!!
MR KR COMAN
>From: etx...@eua.ericsson.se (Gunnar Forsgren)
>Subject: Jaguar engines (Was: Re: Mark II Jag...)
>Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 14:31:28 GMT
Quite so! I got mixed up between the 2.4 and 2.8 -- it's been a
*long* time since I last had to think about Jag specs, thanks for setting the
record straight!
Agree regarding XJ-6 cooling. Fortunately I never had such a
catastrophic melt-down in the XJ 4.2 that I once had the pleasure of four
years' free use back in the early 1970's, but I do remember that on really
stinking hot days when stuck in rush hour traffic with the air-con on, the
area above the bonnet/hood would shimmer with heat haze -- rather like aft
end of a jet fighter with its after-burner on!!
BTW, I understand that the 2.8 XJ-6 was brought out to circumvent
certain European licencing regs geared to engine capacity -- the smaller
unit fell into a lower tax bracket, or something. Maybe the earlier 2.4
was intended to meet a similar objective? (No big deal, just "Jag trivia"!)
Cheers,
John Barrott
>From: kev...@hslrswi.hasler.ascom.ch (kevinh)
>Subject: Re: Mark II Jag with 2.4, 3.4 or 3.8 ltr engine
The original road test car 9600HP also had perspex side windows and a bit
of "added lightness" elsewhere and was fitted with Dunlop racing tyres for
the continental road tests. No wonder it went well! The car is now under
restoration and was recently featured in a TV documentary on the E-Type in
England.
Regards, John Barrott.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Barrott (barr...@lincoln.gpsemi.com)
GEC Plessey Semiconductors, Lincoln, England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------