RE: Jaguar E-Type V8 | The Brave Pill
Discussion
Standard, as in retail customer-spec., 3.8 E-types wouldn't reach 150MPH. Maybe not that far off but not 150. However, in their time it was an extraordinary speed for an attainable (for some) car.
Compared to cars of the day they looked quite striking; making an impact much as the Citroen DS did. So, there is something about them that, perhaps, the Austin A40 or Austin 1100 didn't have.
The one in the advert looks terrible, and I say that as an E-type owner. I bet it drives like a pig and the fact that ther are limited descriptions / photos of the work done, I suspect it's not been done to the standard of, for example, an Eagle E.
I don't understand the asking prices on many classic cars, they're not really 'worth' it in any normal measure, they don't drive as well as new cars but they do have an appeal. I know, I have enough of them but I'm under no illusions. They're vehicles that appealed when I was younger and most I've had for years.
Much as I don't understand some asking prices, I don't understand why somebody would pay £5,000, £50,000, £500,000 etc for a piece of canvas where some 'artist' has thrown a couple of pots of paint in a random pattern over them to create a mess but as it's 'art', it's meaning is only understood by a few. Oh, and auctionners, of course
Some 'classic' car prices are the same.
Compared to cars of the day they looked quite striking; making an impact much as the Citroen DS did. So, there is something about them that, perhaps, the Austin A40 or Austin 1100 didn't have.
The one in the advert looks terrible, and I say that as an E-type owner. I bet it drives like a pig and the fact that ther are limited descriptions / photos of the work done, I suspect it's not been done to the standard of, for example, an Eagle E.
I don't understand the asking prices on many classic cars, they're not really 'worth' it in any normal measure, they don't drive as well as new cars but they do have an appeal. I know, I have enough of them but I'm under no illusions. They're vehicles that appealed when I was younger and most I've had for years.
Much as I don't understand some asking prices, I don't understand why somebody would pay £5,000, £50,000, £500,000 etc for a piece of canvas where some 'artist' has thrown a couple of pots of paint in a random pattern over them to create a mess but as it's 'art', it's meaning is only understood by a few. Oh, and auctionners, of course
Some 'classic' car prices are the same.
Mr Tidy said:
Let's be honest, most people wouldn't want to drive any pre-war car these days!
I grew up dreaming about owning a FHC E-Type, but in this century realised I would never afford one unless I sold the house and lived in the car!
But the more I have read the more I realise they aren't that great to drive nowadays.
So in 2014 I bought my poor man's equivalent, a BMW Z4 Coupe which seems to have had a similar design brief but had a 155mph limiter - which the E-Type never needed!
A semi-retired mate of mine keeps telling me I ought to buy a "Classic" car (probably one he is selling).
But I can't see why I'd want to pay up to £10K for a decent 2.8i Capri when I've already had 2 and sold my last one for les than £3K in 1989. And by current performance standards it's just slow!
One of the last things to contemplate with a classic is how it compares to a modern car, it just completely misses the point.I grew up dreaming about owning a FHC E-Type, but in this century realised I would never afford one unless I sold the house and lived in the car!
But the more I have read the more I realise they aren't that great to drive nowadays.
So in 2014 I bought my poor man's equivalent, a BMW Z4 Coupe which seems to have had a similar design brief but had a 155mph limiter - which the E-Type never needed!
A semi-retired mate of mine keeps telling me I ought to buy a "Classic" car (probably one he is selling).
But I can't see why I'd want to pay up to £10K for a decent 2.8i Capri when I've already had 2 and sold my last one for les than £3K in 1989. And by current performance standards it's just slow!
ruhall said:
Standard, as in retail customer-spec., 3.8 E-types wouldn't reach 150MPH. Maybe not that far off but not 150. However, in their time it was an extraordinary speed for an attainable (for some) car.
Compared to cars of the day they looked quite striking; making an impact much as the Citroen DS did. So, there is something about them that, perhaps, the Austin A40 or Austin 1100 didn't have.
The one in the advert looks terrible, and I say that as an E-type owner. I bet it drives like a pig and the fact that ther are limited descriptions / photos of the work done, I suspect it's not been done to the standard of, for example, an Eagle E.
I don't understand the asking prices on many classic cars, they're not really 'worth' it in any normal measure, they don't drive as well as new cars but they do have an appeal. I know, I have enough of them but I'm under no illusions. They're vehicles that appealed when I was younger and most I've had for years.
Much as I don't understand some asking prices, I don't understand why somebody would pay £5,000, £50,000, £500,000 etc for a piece of canvas where some 'artist' has thrown a couple of pots of paint in a random pattern over them to create a mess but as it's 'art', it's meaning is only understood by a few. Oh, and auctionners, of course
Some 'classic' car prices are the same.
I think the DS was even more eye opening. The E Type shape was , to an extent, hinted at by jaguars own racing cars, i see a lot of C and D type in the E. The DS, christ that just have looked like a spaceship. No cultural reference for that shape or the way it drove Compared to cars of the day they looked quite striking; making an impact much as the Citroen DS did. So, there is something about them that, perhaps, the Austin A40 or Austin 1100 didn't have.
The one in the advert looks terrible, and I say that as an E-type owner. I bet it drives like a pig and the fact that ther are limited descriptions / photos of the work done, I suspect it's not been done to the standard of, for example, an Eagle E.
I don't understand the asking prices on many classic cars, they're not really 'worth' it in any normal measure, they don't drive as well as new cars but they do have an appeal. I know, I have enough of them but I'm under no illusions. They're vehicles that appealed when I was younger and most I've had for years.
Much as I don't understand some asking prices, I don't understand why somebody would pay £5,000, £50,000, £500,000 etc for a piece of canvas where some 'artist' has thrown a couple of pots of paint in a random pattern over them to create a mess but as it's 'art', it's meaning is only understood by a few. Oh, and auctionners, of course
Some 'classic' car prices are the same.
John Locke said:
There's nothing wrong with such a transplant, especially into the ugly and unloved Series 1.5 2 + 2 with the less free revving 4.2 engine. The car featured would have struggled past 130 mph on its original engine.
As is frequently the case in PH pieces though, drivel such as:
"a (very) carefully fettled version managed 150mph" is presented as fact.
Any 1961 -1964 3.8 E-Type would walk past 150 mph on 3 of the 4 available final drive ratios.
No they absolutely bloody wouldn't, and you know it. I for one hate fanboy drivel.As is frequently the case in PH pieces though, drivel such as:
"a (very) carefully fettled version managed 150mph" is presented as fact.
Any 1961 -1964 3.8 E-Type would walk past 150 mph on 3 of the 4 available final drive ratios.
Water Fairy said:
John Locke said:
There's nothing wrong with such a transplant, especially into the ugly and unloved Series 1.5 2 + 2 with the less free revving 4.2 engine. The car featured would have struggled past 130 mph on its original engine.
As is frequently the case in PH pieces though, drivel such as:
"a (very) carefully fettled version managed 150mph" is presented as fact.
Any 1961 -1964 3.8 E-Type would walk past 150 mph on 3 of the 4 available final drive ratios.
No they absolutely bloody wouldn't, and you know it. I for one hate fanboy drivel.As is frequently the case in PH pieces though, drivel such as:
"a (very) carefully fettled version managed 150mph" is presented as fact.
Any 1961 -1964 3.8 E-Type would walk past 150 mph on 3 of the 4 available final drive ratios.
John Locke said:
Water Fairy said:
No they absolutely bloody wouldn't, and you know it. I for one hate fanboy drivel.
John Locke said:
There's nothing wrong with such a transplant, especially into the ugly and unloved Series 1.5 2 + 2 with the less free revving 4.2 engine. The car featured would have struggled past 130 mph on its original engine.
As is frequently the case in PH pieces though, drivel such as:
"a (very) carefully fettled version managed 150mph" is presented as fact.
Any 1961 -1964 3.8 E-Type would walk past 150 mph on 3 of the 4 available final drive ratios.
Hmmm. Well, let's see if the period test results support that view:As is frequently the case in PH pieces though, drivel such as:
"a (very) carefully fettled version managed 150mph" is presented as fact.
Any 1961 -1964 3.8 E-Type would walk past 150 mph on 3 of the 4 available final drive ratios.
Motor, road test of 77 RW, (May 1961) max speed 149.1 mph (close, but no cigar, as they say
)Car & Driver Dec 1961 (with 265bhp, so UK- spec., engine) 145mph
Motor Racing magazine (April 1961) 149mph
The Autocar test of April 1963 was on a 3.8 with the 3.07 diff in place of the 3.31 diff on the original test, which in their words gave an extra 5mph top speed, a best of 155mph but a mean, ie the accepted maximum, of 152.7mph. The original (1961) test car , 9600 HP, did hit 150.4 mph but it was later found to have a gas-flowed head and the over-riders and centre bar on bonnet radiator inlet had all been removed when supplied for test. However, the car was also running on Dunlop racing tyres so it's fair to say that the Autocar, and probably Motor's, test cars were not truly representative of customer cars and, in all likelihood, were running race-spec engines.
One of the Autocar roadtesters later had his own personal 3.8 roadster and its maximum was reported to be 137 mph.
Those figures were pretty phenomenal for the early 60s, which is why the E-type gained quite a reputation but it is now generally accepted that, however fast they were, the customer cars weren't quite genuine 150mph cars. However, for most people it's all somewhat academic now whether a particular car could achieve 140, 145, 149 or 150mph 60-years ago, although it does make good press or advertisement spiel.
As an aside the 1966 Autocar test of a 4.2 2+2 reached 139mph, so series 1.5 might be a few mph less with exposed headlights, but 9 mph?
Does an E-type sound 'right' with a V8? Perhaps it's what people get used to but, much as I love V8s, a V8 E doesn't sit quite right with me.
I'm sure it's a superb job, knowing who restored it. However, this is an example of where I don't always see eye-to-eye with auctioneers, or some other collectors. People will pay strong prices for originality, especially early cars, yet Jaguar changed them (flat floor, for example) for good reason back in the day but now many lust over the very early ones. Why? What is it about them that's so special?
What's so special about early Minis, you know, the ones where they welded the floor seam the wrong way. Why would you pay extra for a faulty design?
Suffix A Range Rovers have a similar following and I don't quite get it. Perhaps it's me.
Anyway, we should get back on topic.
What's so special about early Minis, you know, the ones where they welded the floor seam the wrong way. Why would you pay extra for a faulty design?
Suffix A Range Rovers have a similar following and I don't quite get it. Perhaps it's me.
Anyway, we should get back on topic.
ruhall said:
John Locke said:
There's nothing wrong with such a transplant, especially into the ugly and unloved Series 1.5 2 + 2 with the less free revving 4.2 engine. The car featured would have struggled past 130 mph on its original engine.
As is frequently the case in PH pieces though, drivel such as:
"a (very) carefully fettled version managed 150mph" is presented as fact.
Any 1961 -1964 3.8 E-Type would walk past 150 mph on 3 of the 4 available final drive ratios.
Hmmm. Well, let's see if the period test results support that view:As is frequently the case in PH pieces though, drivel such as:
"a (very) carefully fettled version managed 150mph" is presented as fact.
Any 1961 -1964 3.8 E-Type would walk past 150 mph on 3 of the 4 available final drive ratios.
Motor, road test of 77 RW, (May 1961) max speed 149.1 mph (close, but no cigar, as they say
)Car & Driver Dec 1961 (with 265bhp, so UK- spec., engine) 145mph
Motor Racing magazine (April 1961) 149mph
The Autocar test of April 1963 was on a 3.8 with the 3.07 diff in place of the 3.31 diff on the original test, which in their words gave an extra 5mph top speed, a best of 155mph but a mean, ie the accepted maximum, of 152.7mph. The original (1961) test car , 9600 HP, did hit 150.4 mph but it was later found to have a gas-flowed head and the over-riders and centre bar on bonnet radiator inlet had all been removed when supplied for test. However, the car was also running on Dunlop racing tyres so it's fair to say that the Autocar, and probably Motor's, test cars were not truly representative of customer cars and, in all likelihood, were running race-spec engines.
One of the Autocar roadtesters later had his own personal 3.8 roadster and its maximum was reported to be 137 mph.
Those figures were pretty phenomenal for the early 60s, which is why the E-type gained quite a reputation but it is now generally accepted that, however fast they were, the customer cars weren't quite genuine 150mph cars. However, for most people it's all somewhat academic now whether a particular car could achieve 140, 145, 149 or 150mph 60-years ago, although it does make good press or advertisement spiel.
As an aside the 1966 Autocar test of a 4.2 2+2 reached 139mph, so series 1.5 might be a few mph less with exposed headlights, but 9 mph?
Does an E-type sound 'right' with a V8? Perhaps it's what people get used to but, much as I love V8s, a V8 E doesn't sit quite right with me.
showing that the reverse is the case.
Performance was extremely sensitive to correct ignition timing and carburation; when servicing them I frequently found cars with one or more throttle butterflies not opening fully, incorrect mixture settings, and ignition retarded to allow the use of 4 star petrol rather than the specified more expensive 5 star.
Other impressions; the Moss gearbox didn't like attempts at rapid changes, but was very strong. The original R5 tyres were shocking by today's standards, Michelin XASs improved grip tremendously, the brakes were good, by 1960s standards, but the servo assistance poor.
Not sure why the bonnet is such a horrendous shape.
The 302 is a really small engine - it's about an inch wider than the Rover [Buick] V8. It's a great little thing really, but can't be anywhere near tall enough to necessitate what's gone on there (I've got a 302 ford in the shed, but no Jag 6 to compare against).
The 2+2 was never an oil painting, and, as has been pointed out, these weren't all that fast anyway, so not surprised someone did something halfway logical and put an engine with a bit of poke in it.
'Smooth the bonnet out' - yeah, sure - easy as that....
The 302 is a really small engine - it's about an inch wider than the Rover [Buick] V8. It's a great little thing really, but can't be anywhere near tall enough to necessitate what's gone on there (I've got a 302 ford in the shed, but no Jag 6 to compare against).
The 2+2 was never an oil painting, and, as has been pointed out, these weren't all that fast anyway, so not surprised someone did something halfway logical and put an engine with a bit of poke in it.
'Smooth the bonnet out' - yeah, sure - easy as that....
John Locke said:
ruhall said:
John Locke said:
There's nothing wrong with such a transplant, especially into the ugly and unloved Series 1.5 2 + 2 with the less free revving 4.2 engine. The car featured would have struggled past 130 mph on its original engine.
As is frequently the case in PH pieces though, drivel such as:
"a (very) carefully fettled version managed 150mph" is presented as fact.
Any 1961 -1964 3.8 E-Type would walk past 150 mph on 3 of the 4 available final drive ratios.
Hmmm. Well, let's see if the period test results support that view:As is frequently the case in PH pieces though, drivel such as:
"a (very) carefully fettled version managed 150mph" is presented as fact.
Any 1961 -1964 3.8 E-Type would walk past 150 mph on 3 of the 4 available final drive ratios.
Motor, road test of 77 RW, (May 1961) max speed 149.1 mph (close, but no cigar, as they say
)Car & Driver Dec 1961 (with 265bhp, so UK- spec., engine) 145mph
Motor Racing magazine (April 1961) 149mph
The Autocar test of April 1963 was on a 3.8 with the 3.07 diff in place of the 3.31 diff on the original test, which in their words gave an extra 5mph top speed, a best of 155mph but a mean, ie the accepted maximum, of 152.7mph. The original (1961) test car , 9600 HP, did hit 150.4 mph but it was later found to have a gas-flowed head and the over-riders and centre bar on bonnet radiator inlet had all been removed when supplied for test. However, the car was also running on Dunlop racing tyres so it's fair to say that the Autocar, and probably Motor's, test cars were not truly representative of customer cars and, in all likelihood, were running race-spec engines.
One of the Autocar roadtesters later had his own personal 3.8 roadster and its maximum was reported to be 137 mph.
Those figures were pretty phenomenal for the early 60s, which is why the E-type gained quite a reputation but it is now generally accepted that, however fast they were, the customer cars weren't quite genuine 150mph cars. However, for most people it's all somewhat academic now whether a particular car could achieve 140, 145, 149 or 150mph 60-years ago, although it does make good press or advertisement spiel.
As an aside the 1966 Autocar test of a 4.2 2+2 reached 139mph, so series 1.5 might be a few mph less with exposed headlights, but 9 mph?
Does an E-type sound 'right' with a V8? Perhaps it's what people get used to but, much as I love V8s, a V8 E doesn't sit quite right with me.
showing that the reverse is the case.
Performance was extremely sensitive to correct ignition timing and carburation; when servicing them I frequently found cars with one or more throttle butterflies not opening fully, incorrect mixture settings, and ignition retarded to allow the use of 4 star petrol rather than the specified more expensive 5 star.
Other impressions; the Moss gearbox didn't like attempts at rapid changes, but was very strong. The original R5 tyres were shocking by today's standards, Michelin XASs improved grip tremendously, the brakes were good, by 1960s standards, but the servo assistance poor.
EggsBenedict said:
Not sure why the bonnet is such a horrendous shape.
The 302 is a really small engine - it's about an inch wider than the Rover [Buick] V8. It's a great little thing really, but can't be anywhere near tall enough to necessitate what's gone on there (I've got a 302 ford in the shed, but no Jag 6 to compare against).
Wouldn't be the first time a bulge was exaggerated to overcompensate for the small, um.. engine underneath?The 302 is a really small engine - it's about an inch wider than the Rover [Buick] V8. It's a great little thing really, but can't be anywhere near tall enough to necessitate what's gone on there (I've got a 302 ford in the shed, but no Jag 6 to compare against).
Baddie said:
The original road-testers were patriotically ‘discreet’ about the original cars ability to top 150. The road test car was returned to Jaguar before the top speed run for a tyre change, but came back thirstier and lumpier. Also, when they failed to hit 150 two-up the tester went out on his own and returned with the stop watch showing the correct elapsed time - but it would not have been correct to question his integrity.
Maybe ten years ago Autocar had a feature where an E really did do 150 with some mods. Apparently it was a fairly scary experience with the back wheels almost lifting off the ground. So, no, no production E, even the V12, would go past 150. Most were nearer 140.
Having been in one of those cars driven spiritedly, as a passenger I would say that 150mph would be about 50mph faster than I would be prepared to stay in it anyway, so largely academic for me. It just didn't feel stable or safe.Maybe ten years ago Autocar had a feature where an E really did do 150 with some mods. Apparently it was a fairly scary experience with the back wheels almost lifting off the ground. So, no, no production E, even the V12, would go past 150. Most were nearer 140.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff