E Type 888330

The place to post images of your other cars.

Moderator: Bootsy

Post Reply
911hillclimber
Nurse, I think I need some assistance
Posts: 20620
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: West Midlands

Re: E Type 888330

Post by 911hillclimber »

Engine hoist is one of the best investments to have.
I had a hired one drop down on me with the 911 engine on it.
Went to Machine Mart in '89 (I think it was called that then) and still have it.
The E type lsd diff centre section is really heavy too, I once battled with an S Type diff on both of my hotrods. It is so good to have one at hand 'instantly'
They fold away so well and take 10 mns to erect.

Looking forward to the body job.

I organised a year ago a visit to CMC in Bridgnorth for the Club and we had a very in-depth tour.
They find the Jag shells a challenge to get to the perfection they achieve due to the base car, esp the fitting of the bonnets.

Refreshing thread! :)
73T 911 Coupe, road/hillclimber 3.2L
Lola t 492 / 3.2 hillclimb racer
Boxster 987 Gen II 2.9
sladey
Nurse, I think I need some assistance
Posts: 9320
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:08 pm
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: E Type 888330

Post by sladey »

I bought mine to replace the engine in the daughter's car last summer and then dismantled it and put it away. I recently treated myself to a lathe (and milling head) and rolled out the engine hoist to lift it into place - very useful thing to have available

So Barry you welded a hook directly onto it. Great idea - I like that one. I had enough room this time but I can see that would be useful. What do you mean a guarded hook? any pics?
The simple things you see are all complicated
I look pretty young but I'm just backdated yeah
Barry
Nurse, I think I need some assistance
Posts: 4322
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 8:50 pm
Location: East Sussex

Re: E Type 888330

Post by Barry »

I'll take a picture when I'm next in, Saturday most likely (playing at coachbuilding tomorrow).
DDK Member1243 07741 273865. Home of the RY Austin 7 Trophy's and Austin Single Seat Racers
Barry
Nurse, I think I need some assistance
Posts: 4322
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 8:50 pm
Location: East Sussex

Re: E Type 888330

Post by Barry »

911hillclimber wrote: They find the Jag shells a challenge to get to the perfection they achieve due to the base car, esp the fitting of the bonnets.

Oh smashing, that's wonderful news, thanks Graham :roll: :lol:
DDK Member1243 07741 273865. Home of the RY Austin 7 Trophy's and Austin Single Seat Racers
911hillclimber
Nurse, I think I need some assistance
Posts: 20620
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: West Midlands

Re: E Type 888330

Post by 911hillclimber »

It was made clear that not to have the factory 'matched' bonnet to the shell made the restoration murder. The rear edge of the bonnets were almost simply the edge of the panel, no return. This allowed for that edge to be ground/filed to allow the bonnet fit to the scuttle panel.
The guide was not kidding.
The CMC facility was very very impressive, and only excited any petrol head's enthusiasm towards the E Type, inc me, to new heights.

A member of our Club's visit even went back and bought one!!

Hope you get started very soon! :)
73T 911 Coupe, road/hillclimber 3.2L
Lola t 492 / 3.2 hillclimb racer
Boxster 987 Gen II 2.9
Lightweight_911
Nurse, I think I need some assistance
Posts: 17954
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 10:48 pm
Location: Worcs/W Mids border

Re: E Type 888330

Post by Lightweight_911 »

I think I've told Jonathan this story before but ...

Many years ago when I was restoring an S1 4.2 FHC, I was at the stage of refitting all of the new/refurbished components to the lovingly-restored/newly-painted shell when I hit upon a 'snag' ... try as I might, I couldn't get an acceptable fit with the rear bumpers.

Rather than re-chroming the original bumpers, I'd elected to go for new ones (from Martin Robey, one of the top E-Type parts suppliers) but, unfortunately, the curvature didn't match that of the rear bodywork.

I suspected that the problem was down to poor quality control of the 'repro' parts so dug out the original bumpers & had them re-chromed (at significant cost).

On their return, I attempted to fit them to the rear of the car - only to be presented with the same problem ... there was a distinct 'gap' between the rear bodywork & the centre of the bumper, even though the inner & outer ends were 'flush'.

In frustration, I moved on to the next job - the interior. I had called upon the services of an ex-Jaguar trimmer who had worked at Browns Lane during the E-Type's early production years &, during the course of conversation, I happened to mention the problem with the rear bumpers ...

A smile came over his face immediately - "Were there any dents in the rear bodywork when you stripped the car down ?" he asked.

When I said that there were but that these had all been rectified during restoration of the shell, his response was somewhat unexpected:

"Aha - that was where you went wrong - none of the original rear bumpers fitted perfectly 'straight out of the box' !

There was a length of 4"x2" screwed horizontally to the back wall in the Factory & fitting the rear bumpers involved selecting a pair that were the best fit, then reversing the car slowly into the beam so that the bumpers were pushed into the bodywork ensuring that there were now no gaps ... !"

With the escalation in E-Type prices I think that such parts have subsequently been 're-jigged' to ensure a hassle-free fitment so such issues shouldn't now arise.
Andy

“Adding power makes you faster on the straights;
- subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere”
210bhp
Nurse, I think I need some assistance
Posts: 8237
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 12:28 am
Location: Scotland

Re: E Type 888330

Post by 210bhp »

Nice update Jonathan. Enjoying the thread.

In case it helps, believe it or not, there is a bespoke jag stainless exhaust manufacturer in my home town. To look at the premises you would not believe what goes on inside. Apparently he made all the exhaust systems for those recent 6 (?) recreated factory lightweights that were a million a'piece.

Regards
Mike
_____________________________
73 RS (Sold)
67 S
Mint T (Sold)
996 Turbo (Sold)
73 2.4E (home after 25 years) and Sold again :-(
73T targa (signal yellow project)
1953 Vauxhall Velox
914/6
1963 356B
https://www.mybespokeroom.com/
sladey
Nurse, I think I need some assistance
Posts: 9320
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:08 pm
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: E Type 888330

Post by sladey »

Lightweight_911 wrote:I think I've told Jonathan this story before but ...

Many years ago when I was restoring an S1 4.2 FHC, I was at the stage of refitting all of the new/refurbished components to the lovingly-restored/newly-painted shell when I hit upon a 'snag' ... try as I might, I couldn't get an acceptable fit with the rear bumpers.

Rather than re-chroming the original bumpers, I'd elected to go for new ones (from Martin Robey, one of the top E-Type parts suppliers) but, unfortunately, the curvature didn't match that of the rear bodywork.

I suspected that the problem was down to poor quality control of the 'repro' parts so dug out the original bumpers & had them re-chromed (at significant cost).

On their return, I attempted to fit them to the rear of the car - only to be presented with the same problem ... there was a distinct 'gap' between the rear bodywork & the centre of the bumper, even though the inner & outer ends were 'flush'.

In frustration, I moved on to the next job - the interior. I had called upon the services of an ex-Jaguar trimmer who had worked at Browns Lane during the E-Type's early production years &, during the course of conversation, I happened to mention the problem with the rear bumpers ...

A smile came over his face immediately - "Were there any dents in the rear bodywork when you stripped the car down ?" he asked.

When I said that there were but that these had all been rectified during restoration of the shell, his response was somewhat unexpected:

"Aha - that was where you went wrong - none of the original rear bumpers fitted perfectly 'straight out of the box' !

There was a length of 4"x2" screwed horizontally to the back wall in the Factory & fitting the rear bumpers involved selecting a pair that were the best fit, then reversing the car slowly into the beam so that the bumpers were pushed into the bodywork ensuring that there were now no gaps ... !"

With the escalation in E-Type prices I think that such parts have subsequently been 're-jigged' to ensure a hassle-free fitment so such issues shouldn't now arise.
Great story Andy - fascinating stuff
The simple things you see are all complicated
I look pretty young but I'm just backdated yeah
jtparr
DDK 1st, 2nd and 3rd for me!
Posts: 2356
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:54 pm
Location: london/surrey

Re: E Type 888330

Post by jtparr »

Yup, remember the story Andy....there are a couple of recesses in the back of the car...;)...but I know it also had a bit of a knock at the back, so how much is due to Jaguar and how much to wear and tear is difficult to say.......but as one of my personal OCD dislikes is the rubber trim that covers the bumper edge....(nothing more than a cheap and effective detail to allow for misalignment) ...I shall be grinding the bumpers to fit perfectly and leave a constant tight gap....and no rubber trim.....
1974 2.7 Carrera
(full restoration. now as an RS Touring)
1963 3.8 E Type
( 11 years in the making…………………….)
1952. XK120…the next one ……….……..)
Mike
Nurse, I think I need some assistance
Posts: 5129
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:39 pm
Location: Hampshire

Re: E Type 888330

Post by Mike »

See how easy a low drag lightweight would have been, no bumpers to worry about there. :wink: Good luck with the car, it's going to be great!
cheers, Mike.

previously..
1994 968 Club Sport Riviera Blue
1994 993 C2 Carrera Riviera Blue
1972 911S to Martini RSR Prototype Spec
1973 911E to RS Lightweight Specification
1981 924 Carrera GT ex Mexborough car
3.2 Carrera Sport x2
jtparr
DDK 1st, 2nd and 3rd for me!
Posts: 2356
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:54 pm
Location: london/surrey

Re: E Type 888330

Post by jtparr »

210bhp wrote:Nice update Jonathan. Enjoying the thread.

In case it helps, believe it or not, there is a bespoke jag stainless exhaust manufacturer in my home town. To look at the premises you would not believe what goes on inside. Apparently he made all the exhaust systems for those recent 6 (?) recreated factory lightweights that were a million a'piece.

Regards
Mike

Hi Mike
Have thought about a stainless system, the only reason why I wouldn't have one is they apparently sound more tinny than a traditional mild steel one....something I have noticed on my car compared to others (I have stainless SSI's and a stainless back box)....but don't know how true this is....the new lightweights certainly sounded ok..!
1974 2.7 Carrera
(full restoration. now as an RS Touring)
1963 3.8 E Type
( 11 years in the making…………………….)
1952. XK120…the next one ……….……..)
User avatar
inaglasshouse
DDK 1st, 2nd and 3rd for me!
Posts: 2450
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 9:35 pm
Location: Surrey, UK

Re: E Type 888330

Post by inaglasshouse »

jtparr wrote:they apparently sound more tinny than a traditional mild steel one....something I have noticed on my car compared to others (I have stainless SSI's and a stainless back box)....but don't know how true this is....
Having discussed this with various metal pipe gurus recently, the consensus seems to be that it's not the material, per se, that leads to the tinny sound. But because a stainless exhaust can be made from thinner material (being more rot-proof) a lot of owners consciously (for weight saving) or less consciously do buy a thin one. They sound tinny.
If you make a stainless exhaust from the same gauge as a mild steel one they sound the same.
I have not yet tested this theory.
Cheers, Richard.
User avatar
KS
Nurse, I think I need some assistance
Posts: 15737
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Cornwall

Re: E Type 888330

Post by KS »

Image

Bodywork and headers sorted, then...
Keith Seume
Follow on Instagram @orange914
My YouTube channel
Tp81
Put a fork in me, I'm done!
Posts: 1626
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 10:10 pm
Location: Glasgow

Re: E Type 888330

Post by Tp81 »

DDK#694
jtparr
DDK 1st, 2nd and 3rd for me!
Posts: 2356
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:54 pm
Location: london/surrey

Re: E Type 888330

Post by jtparr »


Marvellous....just bought one...thanks Tom
1974 2.7 Carrera
(full restoration. now as an RS Touring)
1963 3.8 E Type
( 11 years in the making…………………….)
1952. XK120…the next one ……….……..)
Post Reply