Jag Mark 2 front springs

Author
Discussion

jith

2,752 posts

214 months

Monday 22nd March 2010
quotequote all
Bob Falfa said:
Just had uprated front springs fitted to my '65 3.8 Mk2. WotJag were very helpful and provided appropriate shims (different on each side by the way) plus written instructions for my local garage.

I too thought it looks a bit high now with the new springs. I can fit a whole hand between the top of the tyre and the wheelarch. Ken Jenkins from the JEC reckons that you should just be able to fit three fingers between tyre and arch. Some mechanics (like RW774) have said that the springs will settle down after a while (I take this to mean that they will compress slightly, thus lowering the overall ride height), but others have said that springs don't do this.

Confused? Oh yes! But I'm riding it out for a while to see if it settles down. It certainly handles better and is fantastic to drive!
Sorry, but I have to open my mouth here, and apologies to RW if you disagree.

I use to service the police Jags. The 3.8s when used as police cars were obviously driven seriously hard and both the front and rear springs suffered. The rears were worse because they were constantly carrying heavy equipment in the boot and are leaf springs, which tend to sag or break.

When we renewed the springs the car sat dead right. My measure on it was roughly two inches between the top of the tyre and the wheel arch. These springs were always genuine factory and did not have "shims" anywhere. I'd love to hear the technical explanation as to why one side should have more shims than the other! The first Jaguar with shims fitted to the front springs was the XJ6 in '68.

If the springs start to settle when they are new, they are faulty, of inferior material or simply the wrong spring. The spring rate and free length should be set such that the car will sit at the right height the soon as the weight is applied. As Bozwell has already stated, making springs is very straightforward and simply should not be a problem.

From memory there are three springs available on the Mk2 shell, the 3.4/3.8 are the same, the 2.4 and the Daimler V8 are different again. This is simply due to the weight over the front axle being different on these models.

The Jaguar shown in the pictures at the start of this thread is far too high at the front and it will not handle properly. You will have to fix it barefoot or it will never be right.


RW774

1,042 posts

222 months

Tuesday 23rd March 2010
quotequote all
Jith,top of the morning to you sir! You`re quite right about the springs ,but that was back in the day when Charlie Cooke(chelsea) scored a hat trick in the 5 /5 draw against WestHam (1968) and John Hughes was playing for Celtic ,just. I degress....
New springs these days always sit too high at first , but do settle with use. Nothing is available from the factory for anything this old so you have to rely on what is aftermarket.These are made in the thousands usually from the one manufacturer. It is still small market and probably close but not exactly as the original factory rate.Probably tempered differently aswell. Make do, I`m afraid and you can blame Lyons for the lack of re investment aswell. Greedy B-----d sold off the Parts side to Unipart, then most of the old lines went in due course.
Some of the progressive springs available are the same and settle too . I have fitted many and try to gain mileage before the client takes delivery.
All factory cars( S Mk1/2 and 420) used Shims above the springs, to rectify the ride height correction. They probably were not that important for the police as the drivers did try and get the tyres off the rims when driving!
Jith I`m interested in the high speed response cars of the day. What modifications etc were carried out by the factory/ workshops and who would have tested them.

aeropilot

34,288 posts

226 months

Tuesday 23rd March 2010
quotequote all
RW774 said:
They probably were not that important for the police as the drivers did try and get the tyres off the rims when driving!
Jith I`m interested in the high speed response cars of the day. What modifications etc were carried out by the factory/ workshops and who would have tested them.
Aah Police Jags... smile

Here's a geniune ex-Met.Police S-Type....IIRC from talking to the owner (a current serving Met Officer) this is one of only a handful of survivors.



I have fond childhood memories of the Met S-Types as my late father was in the Met from the mid 1950's to the mid 1980's and I often got picked up from school in one of these...probably why I have always had a soft spot for S-Types smile
The Jags weren't all that well liked by most Met Area Car or Traffic Officers at the time, and they were glad when the P6 V8 Rovers started replacing them in around 1969/70 ish.

jith

2,752 posts

214 months

Sunday 28th March 2010
quotequote all
RW774 said:
Jith,top of the morning to you sir! You`re quite right about the springs ,but that was back in the day when Charlie Cooke(chelsea) scored a hat trick in the 5 /5 draw against WestHam (1968) and John Hughes was playing for Celtic ,just. I degress....
New springs these days always sit too high at first , but do settle with use. Nothing is available from the factory for anything this old so you have to rely on what is aftermarket.These are made in the thousands usually from the one manufacturer. It is still small market and probably close but not exactly as the original factory rate.Probably tempered differently aswell. Make do, I`m afraid and you can blame Lyons for the lack of re investment aswell. Greedy B-----d sold off the Parts side to Unipart, then most of the old lines went in due course.
Some of the progressive springs available are the same and settle too . I have fitted many and try to gain mileage before the client takes delivery.
All factory cars( S Mk1/2 and 420) used Shims above the springs, to rectify the ride height correction. They probably were not that important for the police as the drivers did try and get the tyres off the rims when driving!
Jith I`m interested in the high speed response cars of the day. What modifications etc were carried out by the factory/ workshops and who would have tested them.
Sorry for the delay RW, I am just so busy just now.

I have no memory whatever of MK2 or S types having shims on the front springs. It is possible that the 420 did have, but they seldom needed new springs, unlike the MK2.

As far as aftermarket springs supplied in variable rate; these simply didn't exist when the cars were new, but the ones I fit now to Audis and BMWs certainly don't settle.

Right! Police cars.

The 3.8 Mk2 was one of the favourites with police drivers because in it's day it was a very quick car and was, on the whole reliable. All cars then needed constant, intensive maintenance. The Mk2s positively ate brake pads, but they were so easy and cheap to replace it wasn't a problem.

The biggest problem with them from the police point of view was that they were running dynamos which simply could not keep up with the equipment running from the battery; bear in mind radios were huge, heavy valve jobs in those days that needed a lot of current. For some inexplicable reason Jaguar continued with dynamos on the Mk2 models right through to the end of production in '69 with the 340. However we converted most of them to alternators and negative earth to match the detection equipment.

Jaguar supplied most of their cars in those days as police specials with calibrated speedometers and ambla instead of leather and no overdrive, which I thought was stupid, as the fuel saving with overdrive is considerable. It was only when we got into the seventies that budgets started to bite and fuel was considered a major issue. They also had Salisbury Powrlok diffs, which was a huge advantage, particularly in the wet.

The CI in my town ordered a new XJ12 series 1 SWB in '72 and I tested it on the then new M8 to Greenock after a tyre change, a set of Konis and a complete, intensive PDI. It topped 155 MPH coming over the hill down towards the Clyde with two up. The car was totally stable and utterly beautiful to drive: he never opened his mouth once, just sat there! The council however disposed of the car prematurely after perusing the fuel bills for the first year. 9MPG! Despite the Stromberg carbs, I have never driven an XJ12 that was faster than that. I did my advanced training and this allowed you to test police vehicles with exemptions.

By the 70s Rovers were used more frequently and the 3500S was a superb car; very quick and reliable with superior handling to the Jags. In my area they seldom used XJ6s. I don't know why but suspect it was the cost and the unreliability problems cause then by BL. I had a colleague in the traffic police then who was also a customer. He was a Class 1 Advanced Driver with at least 20 years experience in the job. He was pursuing two bank robbers in a 3.4 Mk1 Jag through the town in a Rover 2000TC. They went through a junction at just over 90 MPH and a driver just didn't see them coming. He spun and hit a lampost at around 80 MPH. He was in a coma for several days but would have been dead had it not been for the safety cell construction of the Rover.

This is a Strathclyde Police 1986 Granada that is beautifully preserved in the Glasgow Transport Museum :-





These were police specials supplied by Ford with heavy duty suspension, calibrated speedo and higher power output. They had to run on high octane fuel due to higher compression pistons.

This one has a VLS system and Vascar fitted for speed detection.

I see recently that the police are returning to Jaguar with the XF, but I wonder if they still have the drivers to justify it and if the car is up to that kind of use.

bigblock

772 posts

197 months

Monday 29th March 2010
quotequote all
jith said:
This is a Strathclyde Police 1986 Granada that is beautifully preserved in the Glasgow Transport Museum :-





These were police specials supplied by Ford with heavy duty suspension, calibrated speedo and higher power output. They had to run on high octane fuel due to higher compression pistons.
My recollection was that these were standard L spec granadas fitted with the 2.8 engine and springs from the Granada estate. The "uprated" engine was a myth, the cars were fitted with the 3.89 diff ratio from the 2.0 litre model and as such had superior acceleration to the standard 2.8 cars. This came at the expense of top end speed and with the light pod on the roof they struggled to exceed 100mph.

In comparison the Rover 3.5 SD1 could reach nearly 120mph and was a more popular car for the fish supper run, although not as reliable.


neutral 3

6,356 posts

169 months

Monday 29th March 2010
quotequote all
Any Advise please , Just bought my first MK2 ,a 62 3.8 Man O/Drive (Moss Box J.S car) in a lovely Orig Colour combination with P.A.S. , heated rear window , on Wires and is a very Original car . I have had many Es , but am not too familier with Mk2s.
Its a Matching No.s car and i spotted that it has a 9.1 Compression Engine ( Same as an E ) and ime pretty sure that the Mk2 was useually supplied with 8.1 Pistons , unless specially ordered ?
She will need Rear Spring Hangers , what is the Aprox cost of the Pannels and how involved and Expensive a job is it ?

jith

2,752 posts

214 months

Monday 29th March 2010
quotequote all
bigblock said:
jith said:
This is a Strathclyde Police 1986 Granada that is beautifully preserved in the Glasgow Transport Museum :-





These were police specials supplied by Ford with heavy duty suspension, calibrated speedo and higher power output. They had to run on high octane fuel due to higher compression pistons.
My recollection was that these were standard L spec granadas fitted with the 2.8 engine and springs from the Granada estate. The "uprated" engine was a myth, the cars were fitted with the 3.89 diff ratio from the 2.0 litre model and as such had superior acceleration to the standard 2.8 cars. This came at the expense of top end speed and with the light pod on the roof they struggled to exceed 100mph.

In comparison the Rover 3.5 SD1 could reach nearly 120mph and was a more popular car for the fish supper run, although not as reliable.
Nope, the engine was definitely not standard. If you ran it on regular fuel it pinked very badly due to the high compression. On the slam panel on these cars was a spec plate from Ford with the details of the vehicle. It was notably faster than a normal production car. I'm not saying all of them were, it probably depended on the force ordering them.

The only Granadas with low ratio diffs were the automatics. I don't know why these were used but clearly someone thought it a good idea for whatever reason.

The SD1 was faster simply because it had a bigger, more powerful engine and a far lower Cd. I don't know about the reliability aspect though. Whilst the Rovers had constant niggling faults due to poor quality control, the engines were great, and I certainly did more Ford head gaskets than Rovers.

bigblock

772 posts

197 months

Monday 29th March 2010
quotequote all
jith said:
bigblock said:
jith said:
These were police specials supplied by Ford with heavy duty suspension, calibrated speedo and higher power output. They had to run on high octane fuel due to higher compression pistons.
My recollection was that these were standard L spec granadas fitted with the 2.8 engine and springs from the Granada estate. The "uprated" engine was a myth, the cars were fitted with the 3.89 diff ratio from the 2.0 litre model and as such had superior acceleration to the standard 2.8 cars. This came at the expense of top end speed and with the light pod on the roof they struggled to exceed 100mph.

In comparison the Rover 3.5 SD1 could reach nearly 120mph and was a more popular car for the fish supper run, although not as reliable.
Nope, the engine was definitely not standard. If you ran it on regular fuel it pinked very badly due to the high compression. On the slam panel on these cars was a spec plate from Ford with the details of the vehicle. It was notably faster than a normal production car. I'm not saying all of them were, it probably depended on the force ordering them.

The only Granadas with low ratio diffs were the automatics. I don't know why these were used but clearly someone thought it a good idea for whatever reason.

The SD1 was faster simply because it had a bigger, more powerful engine and a far lower Cd. I don't know about the reliability aspect though. Whilst the Rovers had constant niggling faults due to poor quality control, the engines were great, and I certainly did more Ford head gaskets than Rovers.
It maybe that the spec of the Granada varied from force to force but common practice at the time was for the manufacturers to supply a "Police" spec demo car to be evaluated by the force traffic department. The spec of this car would be standard throughout the UK and any further modifications ( lights, radios, stripes etc) would be carried out by the forces own garage.

To keep costs down the cars were normaly the lowest spec in the range (wind up windows, no radio casette, cloth trim) with the engine, brakes and suspension from the top of the range. This is obviously a fairly straight forward thing to do on a production line.

It seems an expensive option for Ford to uprate a normal production engine in such small numbers with the added problem that it could not run on standard fuel and is unlikely to have been part of the extensive R&D the standard engine was subject to.

I stand by my original comment that the reason the Police MK2 Granadas felt faster than the standard 2.8s was because they were mated to the lower ratio diff from the base model. This is probably the reason you had to replace their head gaskets so often, caused by over revving.

The only thing Police bean counters are interested in when buying traffic cars is reliability and economy, not unfortunatly souped up engines.

Edited to say: Sorry this has nothing to do with Jag MK2 front springs.

Edited by bigblock on Monday 29th March 13:29

a8hex

5,829 posts

222 months

Monday 29th March 2010
quotequote all
They may well have spec'd a lower ratio diff. Unless you are working on the motorway then the top speed is meaningless whereas acceleration was key.

I used to know a lot of Police guys in the Met. (worked behind the bar in some of their preferred watering holes) They all said the SD1 engines weren't normal spec. I don't know whether AR did them as specials on the production line, whether they were sent to a special dept. in AR to be sorted, whether a third party was involved or whether the Met had the work done themselves. I just remember some of them went rather well. They also had many "normal" spec cars, I'm sure they ran a load of 2.6s as well as the V8s. Not all police cars need to be quick, look at how many Morry Thous. and 1100/1300s they ran.

aeropilot

34,288 posts

226 months

Monday 29th March 2010
quotequote all
a8hex said:
I used to know a lot of Police guys in the Met. (worked behind the bar in some of their preferred watering holes) They all said the SD1 engines weren't normal spec. I don't know whether AR did them as specials on the production line, whether they were sent to a special dept. in AR to be sorted, whether a third party was involved or whether the Met had the work done themselves. I just remember some of them went rather well. They also had many "normal" spec cars, I'm sure they ran a load of 2.6s as well as the V8s. Not all police cars need to be quick, look at how many Morry Thous. and 1100/1300s they ran.
All the Met marked traffic and area car Rovers had standard normal engines throughout the service life of the P6/SDI. Many were certainley better performers than others, as was typical of 1970's/1980's BL production. The Class 1 drivers obviously knew which were the good cars and which were the not so good ones.
Obviously there were times when cars were loaned for testing etc. There certainley was an unmarked TWR prepped SDI 'loaned' to the Met for 'special use' in the early 1980's wink
Originally the first marked SDI's were 2.6 versions, but these were universally loathed by all the drivers, as they lacked the torque of the V8, and weren't even up to the performance of the old 2.5Pi Triumphs the Met used to use in central London.
They also suffered from chronic brake problems, which is why the Met forked out for them to be fitted with Minilites to try aid brake cooling. This was the only non-standard fit for the SDI fleet, as the Met procurement and mainatainance was very against 'modifications' apart from Police equipment (my late father was Met during these years so I know how as an organisation they were very anti-mods) so this is why I know the V8's were standard.
Eventaully the Met went over to ordering the V8 again gradually replacing the earlier fleet of 2.6's.
Of course it all went pear shaped again, with the demise of the SDI and introduction of the equally loathed 827's.

Going back to the Jags, the Met S-Types had the ambler seats and a rehased dash for the Police equipment and included the wood door cappings and dash being overpainted with black paint eek

Edited by aeropilot on Monday 29th March 18:52

Rayx

1 posts

68 months

Tuesday 17th July 2018
quotequote all
Hi
I have a mark 2 3.8 and have stripped the front suspension out to change the bushes springs and dampers
I have started to put everything back and am having trouble trying to compress the springs to attach to the wishbones any suggestions as spring clamps are no good.
I have tried putting 16mm rod through with the plate compressing the spring with no success I am considering trying 20mm rod as you have done this could you advise.
Regards
Ray

No ideas for a name

2,160 posts

85 months

Tuesday 17th July 2018
quotequote all
Rayx said:
Hi
I have a mark 2 3.8 and have stripped the front suspension out to change the bushes springs and dampers
I have started to put everything back and am having trouble trying to compress the springs to attach to the wishbones any suggestions as spring clamps are no good.
I have tried putting 16mm rod through with the plate compressing the spring with no success I am considering trying 20mm rod as you have done this could you advise.
Regards
Ray
It is a while since I did mine.. and I did it off the car with the beam on the floor.

Fit top and bottom arms and hub carrier. The spring platform on the bottom arm is removeable. Insert the spring, then I used four lengths of threaded rod, one in each spring platform mounting hole.
Run the nuts up the threaded rod, jacking the spring platform in to position with those nuts.
Then, ONE AT A TIME remove a threaded rod and replace with the bolt.
Once that plate is back on, the damper goes up through the middle.