1968 Jaguar Prototype

[Carsie]

I was watching the video below recently when something caught my eye




https://youtu.be/690jNRH_hPI

The aficionado amongst us will know about MWK28G, perhaps even recall MWK 21G and 22G , one of which was stolen and allegedly transported to Belgium but that's not what I noticed.



The build history of a couple of the earlier prototype cars listed them as being fitted with V8 engines; so the question is, which V8?

Jaguar historians please step forward...

Perhaps the Daimler Majestic as tested in the MK10 - that would make sense.

The Quad Cam V12 cut down as an an evaluation and benchmarking against the proposed for the single cam V12?

The existing 6 cylinder Twin OHC extended -

A competitor V8 in NVH trials? - highly probable

The Rover V8 - Why not ? Satisfies political interference, NVH evaluation and provides benchmarking against in-house developments

Beyond the above I'm struggling and curious; my money would be on the Daimler V8 becasue I don't think that Value Analysis/Value Engineering was a feature of the autocratic Mr Lyons but perhaps not so with Messrs Mundy, Hassan, Heynes, and Bailey?

I hear the calling of Messrs Swaile, Porter and Skilleter..

As an aside, I have to complement JDHT on an informative and interesting website.

https://www.jaguarheritage.com/about-us/

Any comments on the above?

[williamp]

Interesting. Just read that Rover and Jaguar' parents were merged in jan 68, so by then the Rover V8 would be in-house rather then a competitor (well they always were, but you know what i mean).

I guess it would be the Daimler V8 which was in house. Which leads me onto..

...the famous Xj40 engine bay being too narrow for the Rover V8. Id love to buy both and see if they do fit, or if the legend is real

[2xChevrons]

williamp said:

Interesting. Just read that Rover and Jaguar' parents were merged in jan 68, so by then the Rover V8 would be in-house rather then a competitor (well they always were, but you know what i mean).

I guess it would be the Daimler V8 which was in house. Which leads me onto..

...the famous Xj40 engine bay being too narrow for the Rover V8. Id love to buy both and see if they do fit, or if the legend is real

The reality is better than that!

I once interviewed Jim Randle (Jaguar director of vehicle engineering and essentially 'boss' of the XJ40 project) and asked him about that very thing. The interview was actually on a rather different subject but I wasn't going to let an opportunity pass. He said that it's true that BL were keen to get rid of the AJ6 and use the RV8, especially since they were developing the 'Iceberg' diesel version at the time with the XJ40 as one of its intended uses. Randle and the others at Jaguar were dead against this (with good reason because the RV8 is a nasty engine, certainly no patch on the AJ6). He spun BL head office a story that to accomodate the RV8 would require redesigning the front crush tubes and the bulkhead, which would cancel out the cost savings of dropping the AJ6. And the head office accepted his word.

So it's not that they designed the XJ40 specifically so the RV8 wouldn't fit, it's that Jaguar told the head office that the RV8 wouldn't fit and they believed them. The engine bay of the XJ40 was tricky to mount a V-layout engine in, but that was just because it was designed only to have inline-sixes and was set in stone long before the idea of using the RV8 came along. Randle also said that he didn't see why they bothered all the reworking later to make the V12 fit the XJ40, when persuing the twin-turbo AJ6s that were tried during development would have been much simpler and cheaper to produce and would have had better performance.

As for the original question of what the V8-fitted XJ prototypes were, I'd also bet that they were Daimler V8s. Which is intriguing, because one 'what-if' project that I'd love to build given the resources is a Series 1 Daimler Sovereign with the 4.5 V8 rather than the XK6.

[Carsie]

Interesting comments; thnx for replies.

I too think it was probably the Daimler V8 which Jaguar had owned since 1960 but the concept of a V8 was not alien to Jaguar who had developed and built other V8's as well

https://www.jaguarheritage.com/jaguar-history/jagu...

Dozy bat I am, I failed to notice that a couple of the other cars on the list were V12's - which story is that?

I was also wondering what the Brico Engineering input was? Again and it is just speculative, that they were evaluating fuel injection. Brico developed the first electronically controlled system in 1966 and a mechanical system was first deployed in the Aston DB6 in 1969 so I guess it's in the right ball park.

What about the Ambla and Cord interiors?

Edited by Carsie on Friday 11th December 12:15

[neutral 3]

I am intruiged by RRW 511H, the one sold in 74, to a Mr. Davies, of Letchworth, Hertfordshire.

No trace of it on DVLA though, wonder if it’s on a private plate or like many XJs, it dissolved from rust.

Always liked the XJ-6, but until recently, I’ve only ever ridden in 2 of them.
The first one was a Regency red L registered, XJ-12, it must have been one of the first built. A class mates Dad bought it new.
The second one, was a very quick J reg BRG 2.8 manual, which a Late pals, Late Dad owned in Chingford, East London, in circa 78 / 79
He used to pick me up in it, each Thursday morning as, we both went to Loughton college.
He melted a piston after a couple of months and I think it was repaired and sold on.

I only recently got the chance to sit behind the wheel of a regency red 72 model, 4.2. But I was shocked @ just how poor, the driving position is. Seat is too high, dash and steering column, too low.
My 73 BMW3.0 Si was streets ahead, in this respect.

[TarquinMX5]

2xChevrons said:

williamp said:

Interesting. Just read that Rover and Jaguar' parents were merged in jan 68, so by then the Rover V8 would be in-house rather then a competitor (well they always were, but you know what i mean).

I guess it would be the Daimler V8 which was in house. Which leads me onto..

...the famous Xj40 engine bay being too narrow for the Rover V8. Id love to buy both and see if they do fit, or if the legend is real

The reality is better than that!

I once interviewed Jim Randle (Jaguar director of vehicle engineering and essentially 'boss' of the XJ40 project) and asked him about that very thing. The interview was actually on a rather different subject but I wasn't going to let an opportunity pass. He said that it's true that BL were keen to get rid of the AJ6 and use the RV8, especially since they were developing the 'Iceberg' diesel version at the time with the XJ40 as one of its intended uses. Randle and the others at Jaguar were dead against this (with good reason because the RV8 is a nasty engine, certainly no patch on the AJ6). He spun BL head office a story that to accomodate the RV8 would require redesigning the front crush tubes and the bulkhead, which would cancel out the cost savings of dropping the AJ6. And the head office accepted his word.

So it's not that they designed the XJ40 specifically so the RV8 wouldn't fit, it's that Jaguar told the head office that the RV8 wouldn't fit and they believed them. The engine bay of the XJ40 was tricky to mount a V-layout engine in, but that was just because it was designed only to have inline-sixes and was set in stone long before the idea of using the RV8 came along. Randle also said that he didn't see why they bothered all the reworking later to make the V12 fit the XJ40, when persuing the twin-turbo AJ6s that were tried during development would have been much simpler and cheaper to produce and would have had better performance.

As for the original question of what the V8-fitted XJ prototypes were, I'd also bet that they were Daimler V8s. Which is intriguing, because one 'what-if' project that I'd love to build given the resources is a Series 1 Daimler Sovereign with the 4.5 V8 rather than the XK6.

Thanks for posting the above. I was sure I'd read or heard something similar quite a while back but couldn't remember whether it was Jim Randle or Bob Knight who'd said something along those lines (bearing in mind how long the XJ40 was under development) and I couldn't find any reference to it at the time.

It's a good get that the V8 referred to is the Daimler one, they did try it (4.5) in the MK10/420G; an underrated engine IMHO.



MVC203G was one of the first six rhd works cars.

Edited by TarquinMX5 on Friday 11th December 18:46

[Toma500]

Apparently period drag racers loved the daimler V8 because of its all solid bottom end and hemi style combustion some where getting up to 1400 bhp with superchargers shame it wasnt developed and used a bit more .

[lowdrag]

When I stayed with the Heynes family, William's son, Jonathan, related to me an amusing story. Apparently his father was not enamoured by the Daimler V8, seeing it as a challenger to the supremacy of the XK engine that he had designed. So after the merger he instructed Jonathan to take a Daimler MK 2 and to drive it from Coventry to Stratford (near where they lived) - in second gear. On arriving back at the factory, the engine having survived, Jonathan was instructed to retrace the route - in 1st gear. The engine blew, thus proving the supremacy of the Jaguar engine.

[bstark]

Toma500 said:

Apparently period drag racers loved the daimler V8 because of its all solid bottom end and hemi style combustion some where getting up to 1400 bhp with superchargers shame it wasnt developed and used a bit more .

That would be the same Russ Carpenter https://youtu.be/04-eHQBm6J8

[aeropilot]

I would bet on those prototype V8's car using the 2.5L Daimler V8's, for a comparison in performance with the proposed 2.8 XK cars, in the same way the 2.4 had been used in the Mk2 cars. The 2.8XK was the same 140hp as the 2.5L Daimler V8, but the Daimler engine weighed 100-150lbs less in weight compared to the XK.

[williamp]

lowdrag said:

When I stayed with the Heynes family, William's son, Jonathan, related to me an amusing story. Apparently his father was not enamoured by the Daimler V8, seeing it as a challenger to the supremacy of the XK engine that he had designed. So after the merger he instructed Jonathan to take a Daimler MK 2 and to drive it from Coventry to Stratford (near where they lived) - in second gear. On arriving back at the factory, the engine having survived, Jonathan was instructed to retrace the route - in 1st gear. The engine blew, thus proving the supremacy of the Jaguar engine.

A great story... but crappy politics like that can ruin a new car and squander its chances. Great though the Xk is, if a better engine was available it should have been properly evaluated/used.

Who knows, maybe the Daimler V8 would be used in TVR, Marcos, Range rover, land rover, Rover etc etc etc

[GoodOlBoy]

williamp said:

A great story... but crappy politics like that can ruin a new car and squander its chances. Great though the Xk is, if a better engine was available it should have been properly evaluated/used.

Who knows, maybe the Daimler V8 would be used in TVR, Marcos, Range rover, land rover, Rover etc etc etc

Jaguar chose to continue production of the v8 engine and introduced a model specifically for it. They made 20,000 examples of it. It's fair to say it was evaluated.

It was dropped from production by Lord Stokes not William Lyons. The reason being it was already expensive to produce and would have needed further major investment to increase production volumes.

It's undoubtedly a fine engine and capable of withstanding large power increases. Unfortunately it's also impossible to obtain any increase without having a new inlet manifold designed, fabricated and fitted. Not something the average owner is about to undertake.

Given that this is confirmed by the v8 guru, Russ Carpenter, I'm rather surprised that he hasn't produced a manifold himself.

In standard form the automatic V8 is charming car but an underwhelming performer. The V8 burble without the V8 grunt.

Sadly it remains an "if only" engine.

[mph]

Some years ago I approached Russ Carpenter for an engine rebuild and asked if he could increase the power at the same time. He told me that his rebuilt engines were slightly more powerful but it wasn't possible to get much more out of them because of the inlet manifold design.

I wonder if there would be sufficient demand if someone were to produce a bolt-on upgrade. Are there limitations because of the engine bay design ?

[Tyre Smoke]

Don't mind me. I have nothing at all to add, but consider me sitting with a glass of red, just lapping all this up.

Slightly off topic, why do you consider the RV8 to be such a bad engine when it was used in virtually everything? Is it 'because everything Jaguar is simply better' or was the RV8 cheaper to mass produce?

I'm no fan of the RV8, I thought it wheezy and underpowered in my TVR and my Range Rover. In fact the best use I've found for one is this...

[aeropilot]

mph said:

Some years ago I approached Russ Carpenter for an engine rebuild and asked if he could increase the power at the same time. He told me that his rebuilt engines were slightly more powerful but it wasn't possible to get much more out of them because of the inlet manifold design.

I wonder if there would be sufficient demand if someone were to produce a bolt-on upgrade. Are there limitations because of the engine bay design ?

It's probably lack of demand, although I would imagine there would be demand for a manifold that would allow for a modern EFI system to be fitted.
I'm surprised Steve Dennish of Limeworks (he has a 4.5L version from a Majestic in his '32 roadster) didn't approach Hilborn to see if they still had the drawings in their archive for the manifold they produced back in the sixties for fitting their mechanical stack injection for fitting to the Daimler V8. They supposedly only made 14 of them. Would be ideal, as Hilborn now sell a modern EFI version of their stack injection, for road use.
This is one of the few to have survived, was for sale in the USA some years ago.

[Tyre Smoke]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That would surely seriously devalue the Daimler V8!

[aeropilot]

Tyre Smoke said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That would surely seriously devalue the Daimler V8!

[Allan L]

"In period" at least one Daimler SP250 was raced with a set of twin-choke Weber carbs that had started life on a Coventry-Climax FWMV. It eventually was in the hands of John Miller when it had bigger inlet valves and various other changes many of which were not properly engineered (e.g. the bigger inlet valves needed stronger springs to make them follow the cam profile). Some of the problems were revealed by a friend's rolling road, where it produced little more power than my home-assembled very standard SP250

[neutral 3]

I have no idea why people rubbish the Buick / Rover V-8.

It was an incredibly successful engine, light, strong, 300 Hp in the very quick SD1 race cars, punched out to 4 Litres, 4.5 litres and 5 Litres, for the Griffith 500.

My mildly tweaked Griff has 300 Reliable HP.

[Carsie]

neutral 3 said:

I have no idea why people rubbish the Buick / Rover V-8.

It was an incredibly successful engine, light, strong, 300Hp in the very quick SD1 race cars, punched out to 4 Litres, 4.5 litres and 5 Litres, for the Griffith 500.

My mildly tweaked Griff has 300 Reliable HP.

I agree with you Neutral3. I've had experience of two RV8s, the first in a TR8 convertible and the second in a TVR 350i running many thousand of miles in each.

I think as a modular V8, developed to either deliver torque or outright power, it was a fantastic smooth and powerful engine. I'm no engineer nor profess to be so, but I guess the development of the Daimler V8 from Turner followed the same path, that is to say that in period, it was benchmarked and technically capable of delivering far above the bar, a point I'm sure that the marketeers, never mind the cost accountants, saw.

The Turner V8 had the inherent engineering integrity (as I understand it) to be developed into a real powerhouse, as many have commented on above.

Fast forward today and I listen and read of the ubiquitous LS in all its permutations and I think that it's an echo of 1966/7 but 1967 (development time) it was a really, really long time ago.

My original post was not so much about the merits of the Daimler V8, which I think are valid, but rather an interest in the commercial decision making that pre dated launch.

Consider the autocratic approach Sir Williams had when he purchased Daimler; he didn't even consult his board before tabling the purchase offer lol! ; I do and am oft repeated when I say that highly successful people are driven by ego, ego and ego.

I think it's hard when you're in a position of notional authority and up against a forceful Senior who has a proven track record, to argue against a commercial decision; the backdrop of one's own confidence and the month end pay check kinda hold sway sometimes.

My understanding is that whilst Radford afforded a much needed manufacturing expansive footprint, the Turner V8 could not have been produced in the higher numbers required without further capital investment and this is at a time when not only BL, to whom Jaguar had to succumb, but also within it's own Cost Centres who had to constantly juggle suppliers due to cash flow constraints.

One sits in a Planning Committee discussing the merits of engineering v cost v market potential and sometimes the £ of the known quantity makes more sense; a mistake that I think Ford made with the XJ350 in listening to marketing rather than design.

I recall reading (Drivetribe perhaps?) how the MK10 was a commercial flop that drained the cashflow somewhat like the SP250 upon Jaguar's initial acquisition- maybe this was in the back of mind whilst at the same time considering, what if...

I was interested that the V8 was considered, as I've said earlier I guess it was the Daimler and a comparative 2.5 would seem more reasonable.

Interesting about the comments on the V12, the fuel injection (possibly....) and of course the Ambla interior as subsequently shown in the Range Rover and SD1.perhaps driven by the newly acquired BL overview.

Edited by Carsie on Saturday 12th December 19:57