Jaguar Mk2 3.4 / 3.8
Discussion
The way i see it with old Jags (Ive owned quite a few) is simply buy on condition rather than a particular spec, Id have a nice unmolested 2.4 auto anyday over a ratty, Patchwork quilt of a 3.8, Simply molest the 2.4 auto with a bigger engine and manual box 
(It can all be converted back if you keep the bits!) Unless matching numbers etc is your thing. As well as my 3.8 i had a 1 owner 3.4 manual last year with genuine low mileage of 53K, It had a lot of previous structural repairs (All the usual MK2 weakspots) where as my 3.8 has'nt as 6 months after registration in the UK it then spent 40+ years in California, That is the only reason i hung on to the 3.8 over the 3.4 (Well except the LSD and close ratio gearbox!) Seriously if the 3.4 was better i would have kept it and sold the 3.8, There really is little between them.
(It can all be converted back if you keep the bits!) Unless matching numbers etc is your thing. As well as my 3.8 i had a 1 owner 3.4 manual last year with genuine low mileage of 53K, It had a lot of previous structural repairs (All the usual MK2 weakspots) where as my 3.8 has'nt as 6 months after registration in the UK it then spent 40+ years in California, That is the only reason i hung on to the 3.8 over the 3.4 (Well except the LSD and close ratio gearbox!) Seriously if the 3.4 was better i would have kept it and sold the 3.8, There really is little between them.Edited by klunkT5 on Monday 30th November 20:12
jith said:
The S3, big valve head was very badly built. Remember this was the height of the BL days and quality control was virtually non existent. They would go porous, suffer from loose cam follower guides and premature cam and follower wear. The only way to use one of these heads is to have it totally rebuilt before fitting and the faults engineered out. On top of that they won't do you any good unless you raise the compression and run injection or Webers: and expect seriously increased fuel consumption.
J
The S3 XJ's were built when John Egan was in charge, BL quality applies mainly to S2 XJ's, Egan and the Jag team put a lot of effort into making the S3 reliable, It had to be. They were up against it with basically worn out XK engine tooling, I believe the S3 4.2's had tuftrided cranks amongst other enhancements in the oil sealing department (Rear main seals etc) The head problems with tappet guides mainly involved the US market as they were running S3's with Cats to meet emission regs and the added heat created these problems though easily rectified by fitting a stake down kit which holds the tappet guides in place. I worked for the old Plessey company as a vehicle technician in the 80's and early 90's and looked after the mainboard Jag fleet of S3's and the then new XJ40's. We had no problems with the S3's, Just needed keeping an eye on and strict adherence to the service schedule.J
P5BNij said:
Would it be worth converting an auto..? I know the kit is available for the Mk2.... I'm sure I've seen an ad in 'Jaguar World' fairly recently.
It's a lot of work to convert an auto MKII/V8250 but it is readily do-able. I'm amazed that few folk do the conversion on the V8. Get the gearing right with a modern 5speed ZF and they'd be the pick of the bunch for me, together with a good 3.4. The great thing about the Edward Turner engine is that they're so much lighter than the trusty old XK...and contrary to the usual pub talk rubbish, they can be very reliably tuned to 200+bhp...and in this tune they're bloody marvelous.200bhp? Pah! Ask Russ Carpenter 
http://www.britishdragracinghof.co.uk/hall-of-fame...
He and his son Andrew are still in business and will be rebuilding my SP V8 engine next year. I'm looking forward to an oil-tight engine for the first time. Not 1000bhp though!
http://www.britishdragracinghof.co.uk/hall-of-fame...
He and his son Andrew are still in business and will be rebuilding my SP V8 engine next year. I'm looking forward to an oil-tight engine for the first time. Not 1000bhp though!
v8250 said:
It's a lot of work to convert an auto MKII/V8250 but it is readily do-able. I'm amazed that few folk do the conversion on the V8. Get the gearing right with a modern 5speed ZF and they'd be the pick of the bunch for me, together with a good 3.4. The great thing about the Edward Turner engine is that they're so much lighter than the trusty old XK...and contrary to the usual pub talk rubbish, they can be very reliably tuned to 200+bhp...and in this tune they're bloody marvelous.
I've always liked the Daimlers but when I looked into getting more power out of them I was told there are practical limitations to getting decent horsepower. It was some years ago and I can't remember the reason. Could it be the intake design, I really can't remember ?How do you get them up to 200 hp ? Is your car producing that ?
rovermorris999 said:
200bhp? Pah! Ask Russ Carpenter
http://www.britishdragracinghof.co.uk/hall-of-fame...
He and his son Andrew are still in business and will be rebuilding my SP V8 engine next year. I'm looking forward to an oil-tight engine for the first time. Not 1000bhp though!
Yes, Russ and Andrew's history with this engine is the stuff of legend. An oil tight SP/V8250 engine which doesn't smoke on the left bank is a rare thing and very pleasing to see and hear. Are you changing the manifolds too? They really benefit from this and having a through end-to-end internal balance and...really sorting out the ignition system for a super strong spark.http://www.britishdragracinghof.co.uk/hall-of-fame...
He and his son Andrew are still in business and will be rebuilding my SP V8 engine next year. I'm looking forward to an oil-tight engine for the first time. Not 1000bhp though!
mph said:
I've always liked the Daimlers but when I looked into getting more power out of them I was told there are practical limitations to getting decent horsepower. It was some years ago and I can't remember the reason. Could it be the intake design, I really can't remember ?
How do you get them up to 200 hp ? Is your car producing that ?
Yes, there are a number of limitations. Inlet manifolds have very poor flow...a redesigned manifold is key to performance + head work + correctly modifying the SU's + many other engine internals + manifolds + ignition. Really they're no different to any other engine and needs a complete engine approach and it's the attention to detail that enables the reliable power. The real reason why they're such a peach of an engine is that they're very under stressed and can handle some serious power, ala Russ Carpenter's Glacier Grenade. Another area where some have seen extremely good results is with throttle bodies and injection systems. There are a number of US guys running home brewed injection with with big power and they're super reliable. There have been some good PH discussion on the V8 250 engine over the years, and for fun this comes to mind...How do you get them up to 200 hp ? Is your car producing that ?
http://www.britishv8.org/Other/SteveSanett.htm
Oddly, I had the re-occurring light bulb go off again only last week...that of picking up a Daimler Majestic engine and dropping it into a MKII/V8250. Have had this itch for a number of years now, just need to find the engine first.
rovermorris999 said:
200bhp? Pah! Ask Russ Carpenter
http://www.britishdragracinghof.co.uk/hall-of-fame...
He and his son Andrew are still in business and will be rebuilding my SP V8 engine next year. I'm looking forward to an oil-tight engine for the first time. Not 1000bhp though!
Actually I did ask Russ Carpenter. http://www.britishdragracinghof.co.uk/hall-of-fame...
He and his son Andrew are still in business and will be rebuilding my SP V8 engine next year. I'm looking forward to an oil-tight engine for the first time. Not 1000bhp though!
It was he that told me that it's not economical to get big hp improvements from a standard V8 without some fairly major modification/expenditure. If I recall correctly he advised me that his rebuilt engines produced perhaps 15/20 hp more than original. Obviously if you're prepared to spend the sky's the limit.
mph said:
Actually I did ask Russ Carpenter.
It was he that told me that it's not economical to get big hp improvements from a standard V8 without some fairly major modification/expenditure. If I recall correctly he advised me that his rebuilt engines produced perhaps 15/20 hp more than original. Obviously if you're prepared to spend the sky's the limit.
Well you've had the best advice then. More power is rarely cheap. The good thing about the Daimler V8 is that the basics are good and strong if you wish to go down that route.It was he that told me that it's not economical to get big hp improvements from a standard V8 without some fairly major modification/expenditure. If I recall correctly he advised me that his rebuilt engines produced perhaps 15/20 hp more than original. Obviously if you're prepared to spend the sky's the limit.
I think we've drifted somewhat O/T.
klunkT5 said:
jith said:
The S3, big valve head was very badly built. Remember this was the height of the BL days and quality control was virtually non existent. They would go porous, suffer from loose cam follower guides and premature cam and follower wear. The only way to use one of these heads is to have it totally rebuilt before fitting and the faults engineered out. On top of that they won't do you any good unless you raise the compression and run injection or Webers: and expect seriously increased fuel consumption.
J
The S3 XJ's were built when John Egan was in charge, BL quality applies mainly to S2 XJ's, Egan and the Jag team put a lot of effort into making the S3 reliable, It had to be. They were up against it with basically worn out XK engine tooling, I believe the S3 4.2's had tuftrided cranks amongst other enhancements in the oil sealing department (Rear main seals etc) The head problems with tappet guides mainly involved the US market as they were running S3's with Cats to meet emission regs and the added heat created these problems though easily rectified by fitting a stake down kit which holds the tappet guides in place. I worked for the old Plessey company as a vehicle technician in the 80's and early 90's and looked after the mainboard Jag fleet of S3's and the then new XJ40's. We had no problems with the S3's, Just needed keeping an eye on and strict adherence to the service schedule.J
Egan's involvement doubtless made a significant improvement, but the early cars had these faults no question. The stake down kit should of course not be required if the guides had been fitted properly. The early heads with smaller valves never suffered this problem; it was down to poor quality control. I would doubt the fitment of a cat had anything to do with it either, as all the UK cars were non cat and had the fault.
J
v8250 said:
Oddly, I had the re-occurring light bulb go off again only last week...that of picking up a Daimler Majestic engine and dropping it into a MKII/V8250. Have had this itch for a number of years now, just need to find the engine first.
Steve Dennish of Limeworks Speedshop runs a Majestic lump in his 32 roadster....a left over from his drag racing days here in the UK before emigrating to the USA. It confuses the hell out of the yanks at car shows 
http://www.hotrod.com/cars/featured/1007sr-1932-fo...
Edited by aeropilot on Tuesday 1st December 11:56
Edited by aeropilot on Tuesday 1st December 11:56
jith said:
Not quite so. The S3 was developed before Egan took over, (I've just finished his book). The Jaguar rep for Scotland, Martin Routledge, visited my workshop in '79 in a Series 2 XJ fitted with a prototype S3 engine with injection to show me the new engine. The early S3s were a result of this development before Egan took over. They were seriously flawed and I repaired dozens of them with loose follower guides; they are known for this problem.
Egan's involvement doubtless made a significant improvement, but the early cars had these faults no question. The stake down kit should of course not be required if the guides had been fitted properly. The early heads with smaller valves never suffered this problem; it was down to poor quality control. I would doubt the fitment of a cat had anything to do with it either, as all the UK cars were non cat and had the fault.
J
Erm...Think we should agree to disagree on this one, This thread isnt the place to discuss this topic any further, Cheers Egan's involvement doubtless made a significant improvement, but the early cars had these faults no question. The stake down kit should of course not be required if the guides had been fitted properly. The early heads with smaller valves never suffered this problem; it was down to poor quality control. I would doubt the fitment of a cat had anything to do with it either, as all the UK cars were non cat and had the fault.
J
Well here we are
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Daimler-250-saloon-v8-ma...
Looks like it needs a bit of love though.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Daimler-250-saloon-v8-ma...
Looks like it needs a bit of love though.
I had a lovely 1960 3.4 m/oD back in 2003. It had Coopercraft brakes (essential) but a standard engine. Hot starting was always a complete b
d - I would convert to a pre engaged starter as a matter of course. They're a tank to drive......but it's old and I wasn't going to ruin it with nonsense like a rack conversion. At the same time I had a 1971 BMW 3.0S that would eat it for breakfast, such is progress. On the M40 though it would sit at 70-80 yet, if bothered by some tit in a 320d, would barrel up to 110+ without bothering to disengage overdrive, such was the torque.
These days though I would disregard the Mark II and go for a 420. They're worth far less, but are a much better car. The XJ6 was better still of course. Never liked the S Type, always looked unbalanced styling wise.
d - I would convert to a pre engaged starter as a matter of course. They're a tank to drive......but it's old and I wasn't going to ruin it with nonsense like a rack conversion. At the same time I had a 1971 BMW 3.0S that would eat it for breakfast, such is progress. On the M40 though it would sit at 70-80 yet, if bothered by some tit in a 320d, would barrel up to 110+ without bothering to disengage overdrive, such was the torque.These days though I would disregard the Mark II and go for a 420. They're worth far less, but are a much better car. The XJ6 was better still of course. Never liked the S Type, always looked unbalanced styling wise.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff