Jaguar mk 2 2.4
Discussion
Anyone own one, is there much real world difference between this and the bigger engine cars. I don't mean on paper but thinking of driving holidays, shows and daily driver duties. I am in the market for a mk2 and was wondering if its worth the premium on the price for the 3.4 or 3.8
Thanks
Steve
Thanks
Steve
There is quite a difference in performance between the 2.4 and the larger engined Mk2's.
If you're working on a budget you could also consider the Daimler variations. They will perform a bit better than a 2.4 and are a lot cheaper than a 3.4/3.8 and possibly have a better image than a 2.4.
The problem with the 2.4 is that it will always be looked at as the poor relation, if that bothers you. For touring it will lack a bit of oomph but there's no reason it can't cruise at motorway speeds.
The 3.4 is generally thought to be a smoother engine than the 3.8 and a bit more willing to rev but either of them are really nice cars.
You could also consider an S type which will keep your budget down and is a very nice touring car.
If you're working on a budget you could also consider the Daimler variations. They will perform a bit better than a 2.4 and are a lot cheaper than a 3.4/3.8 and possibly have a better image than a 2.4.
The problem with the 2.4 is that it will always be looked at as the poor relation, if that bothers you. For touring it will lack a bit of oomph but there's no reason it can't cruise at motorway speeds.
The 3.4 is generally thought to be a smoother engine than the 3.8 and a bit more willing to rev but either of them are really nice cars.
You could also consider an S type which will keep your budget down and is a very nice touring car.
I've driven all three and totally agree that the premium for the 3.8 over the 3.4 is sure penis envy. The 3.4 is by far the smoothest of the lot and perfect for all motoring and cheaper. The 2.4, on the other hand, is, unless you tune it, asthmatic and slow, but anyone who has seen Grant Williams at Goodwood will know that this engine can be made into quite a monster, but at a cost. If the overdrive isn't working then you'll get nowhere fast either. The Daimler is left field, but remember that a manual version is hen's teeth. Very few made.
Willikins said:
Thanks for the info. Reason for asking is the budget will stretch to a very nice 2.4 or a shabby 3.4 so it might be worth waiting a while and gathering a few more pennies. Only problem with this is the cost of the cars seem to rise quicker than my bank balance :-(
On that note you should buy the 2.4. You will never be happy with a shabby MK11.A wee bit about the 2.4. The best version was the last in the 240. It had the straight port head from the E type fitted with SUs rather than tiny Solex carbs. The 240 also had the all synchro gearbox, which is a vast improvement over the old Moss 'box.
It is an absolute turbine of an engine and can be wound up to the red line effortlessly. But the best bit of running one in this era is the extremely frugal consumption figures that you would never achieve with the larger engine.
In my last 240 I fitted 2 inch SUs and ported the head and fitted cams I think from David Newman, although I can't be sure about that 'coz it was a long time ago. It peaked at 6500K and went like a train. It is a chunk lighter than the bigger engined cars and that is reflected in the handling; much more predictable and stable. It also has the slimmer and lighter bumpers, which personally I prefer.
The only thing to watch if you go for a 240 is that most of them had plastic seats due to BL's insane economy drive at the time. Leather was an option, but you might find one that's been retrimmed.
J
Dont dismiss the Daimler and a manual gear box conversion is straightforward and transforms the cars. Don't dismiss the S Type , a better car and very underrated.
For me it just Has to be a 3.8 Manual, but the 2.4 offers good value if you buy carefully.
Body wise, Unless you know these cars well , the untrained eye will find very it hard to tell whether the body has been repaired properly or bodged / full of pud and you could come unstuck big time.
But check the front X member and crows feet sections, ( peer into the front wheel arch ( take a good torch ) and look at the area behind the bumper and also the inner wing area behind the front tyre ).
The base of the A post ( front door post ) and splash guard area . Then run your hand carefully under the outer sills and reach up behind to the inner lower sill area .
Check the jacking points front and rear
Check the rear spring hanger forward sections ( located under the rear seat pan area , they All go here ) . Unless the car is on a ramp it's impossible to chech the rear seat pan area, so carefully lift up the rear seat base ( when the rear screams leak , water runs down and fills up this area and can't easily escape ) the body number tag will be located here as well .
Check the lower door sections, the inner rear wheel arches, the rear lower valance and the boot floor. Also check the tops of the front wings.
For me it just Has to be a 3.8 Manual, but the 2.4 offers good value if you buy carefully.
Body wise, Unless you know these cars well , the untrained eye will find very it hard to tell whether the body has been repaired properly or bodged / full of pud and you could come unstuck big time.
But check the front X member and crows feet sections, ( peer into the front wheel arch ( take a good torch ) and look at the area behind the bumper and also the inner wing area behind the front tyre ).
The base of the A post ( front door post ) and splash guard area . Then run your hand carefully under the outer sills and reach up behind to the inner lower sill area .
Check the jacking points front and rear
Check the rear spring hanger forward sections ( located under the rear seat pan area , they All go here ) . Unless the car is on a ramp it's impossible to chech the rear seat pan area, so carefully lift up the rear seat base ( when the rear screams leak , water runs down and fills up this area and can't easily escape ) the body number tag will be located here as well .
Check the lower door sections, the inner rear wheel arches, the rear lower valance and the boot floor. Also check the tops of the front wings.
I had a mate with a 2.4 and I must say while it is a lot slower than the 3.4 and 3.8 it's performance is OK for a car of that era and in other ways it's like every other MK 2 Jag. It will cruise quite happily at 70 or 80 but does lack a bit of oomph for overtaking. The 2.4 would probably match most other executive cars of 1960 performance wise {Zodiac, Rover P4, Humber, Cresta etc} but of course the 3.4 and 3.8 are much faster than any other saloon you could buy then.
Bill
Bill
DKL said:
To drag this up again. Does anyone use a Mk2 (fairly) daily? These things are 50 years old but for a 10 mile trip daily it would be quite a change.
I've no experience of the Mk2, but we have a Morris Minor Traveller, driven every day, on weekends its used as van, taken to france in summer. It does have an electronic fuel pump and electronic ignition.Go for it.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff