Jump to content


Photo

Lightweight E Type - Channel 4 documentary 28th May


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#51 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 25,883 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 01 June 2015 - 10:19

I think I will give this a miss (as if we will get it in Canada anyway) and settle down again with Philip Porter's excellent "Ultimate E Type" . I just ordered his history of 4WPD to go with it...

I am not sure if the TNF TV critics' forum should be taken as the final arbiter.  It's only a hour long, worth a try if it ever reaches your screen.  You can always turn it off if it disappoints.



Advertisement

#52 JAPMagna

JAPMagna
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 01 June 2015 - 10:46

A few things that struck me while watching the programme (for what it's worth):

1. Prior to watching the programme, I thought the cars seemed expensive, but having seen how they've gone about it, they must have lost a shed-load of money on the project. So it must be a promotional exercise, in which case the TV programme is clearly a part of that, and must appeal to people who are wondering if they would rather have a new Jaguar than something more sensible.

2. You could forgive Jaguar for marketing them as a genuine continuation of the original if they had the drawings, but the inference was that they didn't and were having to use the internet to figure out what the originals were like in detail - and that's just for the body structure.

3. My suspicion is that the engines (and other major components that would have been made in-house originally) were farmed out to an established restoration expert who is probably sworn to secrecy, because I don't recall any reference to how they were put together. Now that really does detract from whatever provenance might be attributed to the cars. If you can buy new E-Type heads & (aluminium) blocks from Jaguar Heritage or they machined them from solid in-house, then fair enough, but - if not - presumably the engines have been recycled! Similarly, many of the major components that would have originally been bought in by Jaguar from their component supply base and made to OE specification (Dunlop, Lucas, Smiths, Trico etc.) must be reproduction parts. That's okay for original cars because their owners have nothing to prove, but for a "continuation" it's all a bit sad.

4. The luggage and watches etc seemed to be being developed on the hoof (rather than being part of the original budget) and came across as an apology / grovelling "thank you" to prospective owners for buying something that they had every reason to doubt represented good value for money. (Not that they would, but if Ferrari did a similar exercise with the GTO, or Ford with the GT40, they'd be confident that they could sell them several times over at more than twice the price, and make money on them without any gimmicks.) All of the formulaic TV drama aspects (and much of the dialogue from their employees) just suggested a lack of confidence in Jaguar's ability to make and sell the car.

5. If (as suggested in the programme) it would cost £40,000 to re-spray a damaged bonnet to the standard of finish that they've achieved, then someone's lost the plot. I wonder how light these new Lightweights are with their oodles of filler and paint layers. (Mightn't it have been more cost-effective to have made the panels better in the first place and given the car a quick coat of protective paint?)

 

A very attractive & expensive ornament and probably a safe investment, but as a car it's not a classic and it hasn't been made for racing. I would suspect that it can be road-legal as different rules apply for low-volume production cars, but, if not, then even its appeal to poseurs is limited.



#53 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,571 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 01 June 2015 - 12:56

A small amount of not necessarily 100% correct additional info for anyone interested.

 

http://classics.hone...-jaguar-e-type/

 

A couple of items in the accompanying text caught my eye, "Lucas mechanical fuel injection" and "unservoed brakes". Is Lucas mechanical injection still guilty of overfuelling to the extent that a complete oil change every 1000 miles is advised? The only E Type I've driven recently was so severely lacking in the braking department that it was slightly scary in traffic. These latest cars will no doubt be considerably better, but the 4.2 I drove didn't feel particularly pokey, given its reputation.



#54 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 25,883 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 01 June 2015 - 15:34

 

3. My suspicion is that the engines (and other major components that would have been made in-house originally) were farmed out to an established restoration expert who is probably sworn to secrecy, because I don't recall any reference to how they were put together. 

I believe that I read somewhere (and I can't recall where) that the engines were coming from a specialist who was also supplying the engines for the new Lister Knobbly continuations currently being made.



#55 bill p

bill p
  • Member

  • 697 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 01 June 2015 - 20:30

I believe that I read somewhere (and I can't recall where) that the engines were coming from a specialist who was also supplying the engines for the new Lister Knobbly continuations currently being made.


The initials C & G spring to mind..........

#56 Peter Morley

Peter Morley
  • Member

  • 2,263 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 03 June 2015 - 09:57

A few things that struck me while watching the programme (for what it's worth):

3. My suspicion is that the engines (and other major components that would have been made in-house originally) were farmed out to an established restoration expert who is probably sworn to secrecy, because I don't recall any reference to how they were put together. Now that really does detract from whatever provenance might be attributed to the cars. If you can buy new E-Type heads & (aluminium) blocks from Jaguar Heritage or they machined them from solid in-house, then fair enough, but - if not - presumably the engines have been recycled! Similarly, many of the major components that would have originally been bought in by Jaguar from their component supply base and made to OE specification (Dunlop, Lucas, Smiths, Trico etc.) must be reproduction parts. That's okay for original cars because their owners have nothing to prove, but for a "continuation" it's all a bit sad.
4. The luggage and watches etc seemed to be being developed on the hoof (rather than being part of the original budget) and came across as an apology / grovelling "thank you" to prospective owners for buying something that they had every reason to doubt represented good value for money. (Not that they would, but if Ferrari did a similar exercise with the GTO, or Ford with the GT40, they'd be confident that they could sell them several times over at more than twice the price, and make money on them without any gimmicks.) All of the formulaic TV drama aspects (and much of the dialogue from their employees) just suggested a lack of confidence in Jaguar's ability to make and sell the car.
5. If (as suggested in the programme) it would cost £40,000 to re-spray a damaged bonnet to the standard of finish that they've achieved, then someone's lost the plot. I wonder how light these new Lightweights are with their oodles of filler and paint layers. (Mightn't it have been more cost-effective to have made the panels better in the first place and given the car a quick coat of protective paint?)
 
A very attractive & expensive ornament and probably a safe investment, but as a car it's not a classic and it hasn't been made for racing. I would suspect that it can be road-legal as different rules apply for low-volume production cars, but, if not, then even its appeal to poseurs is limited.

3. It was reported (can't remember who by) when they were announced that the engines were coming from Crosthwaite & Gardiner so it isn't a big secret.

 

4. I also got the impression they were feeling guilty about the cost (which might suggest the project was profitable) and were thinking up ways of sweetening the deal.

 

5. Even a Rolls Royce specialist would think twice about quoting that much to repaint a nose, even if it included the nose it would still be expensive. I also felt the same about all the filler!

 

I wondered if the fact they were using numbers that were 'issued' in the 60s avoided having to meet current regulations, in the same way as replica WW2 fighters made using period (but unused) numbers didn't have to meet current regulations.

 

Looking up the collection of the buyer they showed (John Breslow) is interesting, for someone who was "carefully selected" he has a collection of pretty mundane cars (apart from a Tucker) but he does have an XKSS as well as two E-types and a Mark 2.

He also appears to have spent $11 million on an ice hockey centre so he clearly met the major part of the selection criteria.



#57 backfire

backfire
  • Member

  • 116 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 03 June 2015 - 10:16

Another point on the chassis numbers. There have been a couple of cars built from genuine period unused lightweight shells that have assumed the 13 and 14 monikers. Where do these cars stand now? Although Jaguar did not sanction these cars (one was built by CMC and is closer to a period lightweight than the new Jags - in my humble opinion), but they, at least, use genuine period Jaguar built monocoques. Unless they were pure unused spares, they were probably intended for a couple of the unbuilt four cars.



#58 Belmondo

Belmondo
  • Member

  • 210 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 03 June 2015 - 11:43

The car Bobby Bell used to race in the '80s I remember being referred to as a factory semi-lightweight. Anyone know if this car was one of the original series, or perhaps a prototype?



#59 JAPMagna

JAPMagna
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 03 June 2015 - 13:45

4. I also got the impression they were feeling guilty about the cost (which might suggest the project was profitable) and were thinking up ways of sweetening the deal.

For a company like Jaguar, you can make the cost whatever you want in determining whether the project was profitable. Imagine the number of meetings that they would have had with many suits sat round tables just to decide whether to go ahead with it or not. There's then the question of what multipliers you use to attribute man hours to the project. The sprayer mentioned £40,000 for the bonnet painting and 850 man hours, which works out about £50 / hour for manual labour.

The only thing (IMHO) that differentiates these cars from replicas is the fact that you get an invoice from Jaguar. I can't see any great value in te fact that they're using chassis numbers that were written in a ledger but not used until now. They could just as easily make up new official chassis numbers today that continue the sequence further. It's their ledger, so they can do what they like.

As far as the programme is concerned, attempting to view it from the (highly unlikely - in my case) perspective of a potential buyer, prior to watching it I would have been far more susceptible to the romance of the marketing spiel than afterwards. If I'd already paid my deposit, I wouldn't be feeling as good about it now. I think the Lister Knobbly is being advertised for about £350,000 and it would be difficult to argue that it has any more or less provenance than the new Lighweight. Although the Lister isn't a limited production run, I suspect the real difference in the cost (rather than price) is the number of suits involved.

It must be a nightmare for these rich guys having to make this kind of decision!



Advertisement

#60 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 5,775 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 03 June 2015 - 15:04

Never really understood this very British obsession with Jaguars, most of them are like MG's just mass produced sports cars like a Corvette or a TR7

 

They seem to attract an almost God like following and have price tags that really do not reflect what they in fact are.

A mass produced, production sports car.

 

Not a bespoke, hand crafted piece of engineering.

 

I do realise some oJaguars were more special and more rare, but really?

 

Look at our recent past, The DB7 is a heavily modded XJS for Gods sake, what is there to be proud of!



#61 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Administrator

  • 41,742 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 03 June 2015 - 16:20

I don't think many people's 'obsession' with Jags extends much past the Mark 2 and the E-type Series 1. In the world of what Jenks called 'grey porridge' they stood out as the epitome of (reasonably affordable) style. Yes, the E was a production sports car, but it was like no production sports car seen before. It was low, it was long, it had a race-bred engine and - most importantly - it was beautiful.



#62 David Birchall

David Birchall
  • Member

  • 3,291 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 03 June 2015 - 22:53

Chunder27: The "obsession" is certainly not restricted to England. The U.S. and Canada has a similar percentage of Jaguar obsessed people. William Lyons was brilliant, as a manufacturer, marketer and stylist (in as much as he approved or rejected proposed designs of Jaguars)

#63 john aston

john aston
  • Member

  • 2,676 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 04 June 2015 - 06:32

I never did 'get 'Jaguars at all - almost entirely because of the rather raffish image. I acknowledge the beauty of C, D and to a lesser extent E but (irrationally and maybe unfairly)  consign the rest to the fur coat and no knickers category. Lotus epitomise innovation, flair and iconoclasm and I admired those qualities far more than the stolid Home Counties feel of the Jaguar- a car which was always more canine than  feline to me.     



#64 JAPMagna

JAPMagna
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 04 June 2015 - 19:25

Lotus epitomise innovation, flair and iconoclasm and I admired those qualities far more than the stolid Home Counties feel of the Jaguar- a car which was always more canine than  feline to me.     

Wouldn't argue with you about Jaguar, but as for Lotus - if ever a company was trading (badly) off distant memories, then that's what they epitomise. Their best-selling car (which doesn't take much) has been in production longer than the MGB. As a supplier to both, I can honestly say that when you shake hands with a Lotus employee, you count your fingers afterwards. They've got no money for tooling, so they raid parts bins and have no regard for intellectual property rights. If it wasn't for the Malaysian tax payer, they'd have gone out of business years ago. Their last filed accounts showed a loss of £71M, which is pretty staggering on annual unit sales averaging about 1,000 for the past couple of years. They would dearly love to sell as many cars as Jaguar, but they can't afford to develop anything that people want to buy. Sadly, they're in the no coat or knickers category.



#65 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,571 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 04 June 2015 - 20:08

Wouldn't argue with you about Jaguar, but as for Lotus - if ever a company was trading (badly) off distant memories, then that's what they epitomise. Their best-selling car (which doesn't take much) has been in production longer than the MGB. As a supplier to both, I can honestly say that when you shake hands with a Lotus employee, you count your fingers afterwards. They've got no money for tooling, so they raid parts bins and have no regard for intellectual property rights. If it wasn't for the Malaysian tax payer, they'd have gone out of business years ago. Their last filed accounts showed a loss of £71M, which is pretty staggering on annual unit sales averaging about 1,000 for the past couple of years. They would dearly love to sell as many cars as Jaguar, but they can't afford to develop anything that people want to buy. Sadly, they're in the no coat or knickers category.

 

Well, I agree with both of you as far as Jaguar are concerned, but has anyone seriously suggested that any of their products other that the C, D & E, and possibly the SS100 were worthy recipients of obsession? John was comparing them with Lotus in that company's heyday, not the current entity, which is what you're on about. Lotus were never really a commercial success from the day they were founded, they were never very far from bankruptcy, but for all that they were one of the greatest successes of the British car industry in their way, John's line about innovation, flair and iconoclasm says it all. There's no comparison at all between the always slightly dodgy company that Colin Chapman ran and the present day, probably also slightly dodgy concern. But as Chapman proved, you can have dodginess and at the same time have flair in bucketloads, certainly entirely worthy of anyone's "obsession".



#66 JAPMagna

JAPMagna
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 04 June 2015 - 20:45

Well, I agree with both of you as far as Jaguar are concerned, but has anyone seriously suggested that any of their products other that the C, D & E, and possibly the SS100 were worthy recipients of obsession? John was comparing them with Lotus in that company's heyday, not the current entity, which is what you're on about. Lotus were never really a commercial success from the day they were founded, they were never very far from bankruptcy, but for all that they were one of the greatest successes of the British car industry in their way, John's line about innovation, flair and iconoclasm says it all. There's no comparison at all between the always slightly dodgy company that Colin Chapman ran and the present day, probably also slightly dodgy concern. But as Chapman proved, you can have dodginess and at the same time have flair in bucketloads, certainly entirely worthy of anyone's "obsession".

Fair enough, and I agree with all you say. When he said "epitomise" in the present tense, I took it for a comment on the current rabble.



#67 john aston

john aston
  • Member

  • 2,676 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 05 June 2015 - 06:33

I used the historical present . But as the saying goes , judge the art and not the artist. Many near sacred concerns had dodgy reputations - stand up Messrs E Jordan and F Williams , with honourable mentions for TVR and Enzo Ferrari - but Lotus still make sublime cars , however long their teeth may be.

 

But I was really talking about Lotus in the ACBC era and the sheer brilliance and originality of road and race cars. Compare - say - an Elite with a TR3 or MGA  or some horror like the Cooper Maserati with the 49. (and I will try to forget the Lotus 43 H16 ok ?)  



#68 backfire

backfire
  • Member

  • 116 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 June 2015 - 09:15

This thread seems to have veered off track. What has Lotus got to do with it all? I've owned both Jaguars and Lotus and they are such different animals that comparison is futile. In the Fifties and the Sixties, Jaguar certainly shone out against the regular grey porridge as road cars with a real racing pedigree. If anything the Lightweight E Type was a bit of a failure in period, coming too late to the tracks, but what a beautiful car. Also remember that the the original XJ6 was hailed as the best car in the World by many journalists when it came out. You may not like Jaguars and may love Lotus, but look at the history.  


Edited by backfire, 05 June 2015 - 09:51.


#69 JAPMagna

JAPMagna
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 05 June 2015 - 11:17

But as the saying goes , judge the art and not the artist.

Following that analogy, and applying it to cars, you could argue that the beauty is in the aesthetic and the engineering design, but it's still in the eye of the beholder. Unlike art, however, cars have (or should have) a practical application, although I don't think that the new Lightweight has one. So if it is 1959 (say) & I'm leaving tonight to be at Le Mans for the start of the great race tomorrow afternoon, and I can only choose between a Lotus Elite and MGA, straight off the production line, for transport....whatever my heart says, I'm always going to take the MGA.

 

For you and many others perhaps, Jaguar's image was tainted by the clentele that were attracted to it, rather than by its products. I think that Lotus's image has been tarnished by its reputation for making unreliable cars (despite their conceptual / aesthetic appeal), more than by some of its nefarious personnel. Whatever the source of mud, it cetainly sticks!



#70 RTH

RTH
  • Member

  • 6,064 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 05 June 2015 - 12:55

A small amount of not necessarily 100% correct additional info for anyone interested.

 

http://classics.hone...-jaguar-e-type/

 

A couple of items in the accompanying text caught my eye, "Lucas mechanical fuel injection" and "unservoed brakes". Is Lucas mechanical injection still guilty of overfuelling to the extent that a complete oil change every 1000 miles is advised? The only E Type I've driven recently was so severely lacking in the braking department that it was slightly scary in traffic. These latest cars will no doubt be considerably better, but the 4.2 I drove didn't feel particularly pokey, given its reputation.

Quite right , early cars had  little in the way of braking, awful steering and roadholding,  and in the power stakes would be left for dead by even a diesel Audi family saloon.

But 54 years ago it looked like a spaceship and could power away from most other cars.

Even now  nothing comes close to its beauty of line.



#71 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,571 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 22 June 2015 - 09:33

An interesting assessment.

 

http://www.autocar.c...r-e-type-driven



#72 David Birchall

David Birchall
  • Member

  • 3,291 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 22 June 2015 - 19:57

"Quite right , early cars had little in the way of braking, awful steering and roadholding, and in the power stakes would be left for dead by even a diesel Audi family saloon."

RTH you surprise me! :) The E type had awful seating but very good steering and the roadholding wasgood enough to beat the Ferrari 250SWB right "out of the box". The brakes were inadequate.

In the past thirty years the average road car has leapt ahead in sophistication and performance but we should be careful of making comparisons over such a long time frame-The E type was light years ahead of cars made in 1959!

#73 bradbury west

bradbury west
  • Member

  • 6,096 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 22 June 2015 - 20:30

David, I recall a story about there being more air going under the car than passing over it, hence the perennial nose-up attitude of the cars at speed, which must have been adversely affect too. Period pics seem to point to this. It may also explain the performance from some E types in modern historic racing, with lower lines.... Perhaps all E types racing now should be made to take these textbook spec new cars as the benchmark for spec.
Roger Lund

#74 David Birchall

David Birchall
  • Member

  • 3,291 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 23 June 2015 - 01:10

Well....There was really no proper understanding of automobile aerodynamics at that time was there? Sayers and everyone else believed Ferrari when they said the rear spoiler on the GTO was "to stop the exhaust fumes entering the cabin". In the USA was it Bocar who made their sports racing car sit about a foot above the ground "so the air can pass under it". Jim Hall was still considered a whacko. Hindsight is remarkably clear isn't it? :)

#75 Peter0Scandlyn

Peter0Scandlyn
  • Member

  • 727 posts
  • Joined: September 14

Posted 23 June 2015 - 03:49

Could be interesting but this bit sounds all too familiar:

 

"Back at Jaguar, as the Lightweight project gets closer to the deadline and the first delivery, the pressure starts to tell. Can Jaguar create automotive perfection, please their billionaire clients and silence the critics?"

 

Could be that the documentary on the Lightweight was in itself, lightweight.



#76 Jagjon

Jagjon
  • Member

  • 146 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 24 June 2015 - 13:04

"Quite right , early cars had little in the way of braking, awful steering and roadholding, and in the power stakes would be left for dead by even a diesel Audi family saloon."

RTH you surprise me! :) The E type had awful seating but very good steering and the roadholding wasgood enough to beat the Ferrari 250SWB right "out of the box". The brakes were inadequate.

In the past thirty years the average road car has leapt ahead in sophistication and performance but we should be careful of making comparisons over such a long time frame-The E type was light years ahead of cars made in 1959!

Reading this I'm amazed I am still alive,  The Etypes I recall had brakes of the day,, you had to use them to make them work,  steered OK, & stayed on the road, people who crashed  didn't appreciate the  performance leap from cars like a Healey or Daimler Dart  TR etc. things that just about did 100mph  were now easily passed by a Jaguar that would do 100+ anywhere &  100 felt like you were doing 50mph!  There wasn't  anything better at  any price & today the £2000  that bought the Etype would be £50K & after 54 years that diesel Audi is over £100K !

Regarding other Jaguars, from the XK120 through the Mk7, Mk1's & Mk 2 MK 10 etc all cars that had performance & in most cases mega mileages, maybe why people like & respect them.



#77 Paul Parker

Paul Parker
  • Member

  • 2,198 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 25 June 2015 - 08:43

David, I recall a story about there being more air going under the car than passing over it, hence the perennial nose-up attitude of the cars at speed, which must have been adversely affect too. Period pics seem to point to this. It may also explain the performance from some E types in modern historic racing, with lower lines.... Perhaps all E types racing now should be made to take these textbook spec new cars as the benchmark for spec.
Roger Lund

 

That was me and having driven many standard E types during the late 1960s including the early faster, 3.8 litre cars (lower gearing 3.31:1 rather 3.07:1) I can confirm that over 115 mph the view ahead of the road gradually diminished.

 

Additionally I note the comment elsewhere about how an Audi diesel could leave an E type for dead, well certainly the last cars were pretty gutless but I can confirm that the restored E types I have driven plus some Aston Martin DB4 and 5s are nothing like as quick as they were in period. This I suspect is something to do with modern fuel rather than subjective judgement.

 

Finally no standard production E type I drove during the late 60s/early 70s would do more than an indicated 143 mph whilst a friend's early 4.2 roadster was about the same albeit with a bit more punch at lower revs.



#78 Jagjon

Jagjon
  • Member

  • 146 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 26 June 2015 - 14:20

That was me and having driven many standard E types during the late 1960s including the early faster, 3.8 litre cars (lower gearing 3.31:1 rather 3.07:1) I can confirm that over 115 mph the view ahead of the road gradually diminished.

 

Additionally I note the comment elsewhere about how an Audi diesel could leave an E type for dead, well certainly the last cars were pretty gutless but I can confirm that the restored E types I have driven plus some Aston Martin DB4 and 5s are nothing like as quick as they were in period. This I suspect is something to do with modern fuel rather than subjective judgement.

 

Finally no standard production E type I drove during the late 60s/early 70s would do more than an indicated 143 mph whilst a friend's early 4.2 roadster was about the same albeit with a bit more punch at lower revs.

Modern fuel is something of a problem if left in the fuel lines, we shut off by tap  & run engines to clear the carbs to empty, otherwise needle valves etc seem to get gummed up,, pumps in fuel tanks are another problem if fuel is in & the cars stored for a  long time. Even diesel seems a problem in some makes.

Not all Etypes drove well, some were quite bad & a few really spot on for the expected performance. Regarding the nose up attitude  I seem to recall a conversation with an Etype racer in the 1960s when he said that the tailend got light at high speed circuits,  this on a prepared standard car! So quite the opposite experience.

I had a bonnet open at moderate speed which ground off the over riders until I slowed it down, it was a scary  moment as the wind pressure sent the bonnet completely open.

I dreaded the hinges breaking or climbing over it  before I could stop it.  I always made sure both sides were fastened after that.

I sold that car to a friend and he went over a local hump backed hill near here which was flat out in every other car he'd had, Dart, TR, Healey, TVR,, but not in the E which took off & he hit the side of a cottage & quite high up! The car lived to drive another day with a replacement tub. A 1963 3.8FHC.



#79 63Corvette

63Corvette
  • Member

  • 358 posts
  • Joined: March 15

Posted 27 June 2015 - 16:50

Philippe Reyns Lightweight E-Type at Sears Point. 

jag+S+type+pic+b+copy.jpg Thought to have been lost, S850660 was hiding in Los Angeles from almost new. It was found by the 
estate executors for Gidovlenko and put for sale in in 1998 and returned to Britain that year for sympathetic 
restoration. At present it is still in the UK.

   Time heals all wounds so they say. Jaguar lightweight E Types are among the most valued E Types around. They are serious collectibles especially in England where owing one admits you into the Historic Racing events such as GoodWood. There was a major upsweep in interest in 1999 when a long believed to be lost lightweight (S850660) was discovered in Los Angeles and sold by RM Auctions to a keen enthusiast in England for restoration.

r1mm2s.jpg

keez9c.jpg


Edited by 63Corvette, 30 June 2015 - 17:25.


Advertisement

#80 Paul Parker

Paul Parker
  • Member

  • 2,198 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 28 June 2015 - 13:55

Modern fuel is something of a problem if left in the fuel lines, we shut off by tap  & run engines to clear the carbs to empty, otherwise needle valves etc seem to get gummed up,, pumps in fuel tanks are another problem if fuel is in & the cars stored for a  long time. Even diesel seems a problem in some makes.

Not all Etypes drove well, some were quite bad & a few really spot on for the expected performance. Regarding the nose up attitude  I seem to recall a conversation with an Etype racer in the 1960s when he said that the tailend got light at high speed circuits,  this on a prepared standard car! So quite the opposite experience.

I had a bonnet open at moderate speed which ground off the over riders until I slowed it down, it was a scary  moment as the wind pressure sent the bonnet completely open.

I dreaded the hinges breaking or climbing over it  before I could stop it.  I always made sure both sides were fastened after that.

I sold that car to a friend and he went over a local hump backed hill near here which was flat out in every other car he'd had, Dart, TR, Healey, TVR,, but not in the E which took off & he hit the side of a cottage & quite high up! The car lived to drive another day with a replacement tub. A 1963 3.8FHC.

 

I often wondered how much air was going under the E type rather than over it, although I never felt the rear going light unless you tried throwing it around when it could swap ends quite easily, something I put down to the narrow wheels and tyres and the relatively soft suspension.

 

Brian Playford who helped develop/rebuild the Lumsden/Sargent E type in 1962 (898 BYR) and then the rebodied/developed 49 FXN in 1964 told me that FXN was 4 inches lower than a standard LWT E type (look at the ground clearance of the German' low drag' E type as a contrast). He had remounted the steering rack and lowered the inside pick up for the upper front wishbone arms to achieve negative camber to counter the E type's otherwise excessive bump steer.

 

In 2007 I drove 49 FXN at Goodwood together with the Protheroe 'low drag' and its lower stance was quite noticeable by comparison, even though the car had been set up for a road rally and was not quite in racing trim.

 

This rising front end is quite noticeable in period photographs of other cars, there is a famous image of Flockhart at Le Mans 1957 in XKD 606 on the Mulsanne straight with the D type's nose lifting up noticeably, so the E type was not alone in this characteristic.

 

Another culprit was the late 1960s Maserati Ghibli which was even worse, or at least the one I drove on the M1 in 1969 was.



#81 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 25,883 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 30 June 2015 - 19:42

Another culprit was the late 1960s Maserati Ghibli which was even worse, or at least the one I drove on the M1 in 1969 was.

Not to mention the legendary Lamborghini Miura.



#82 Paul Parker

Paul Parker
  • Member

  • 2,198 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 01 July 2015 - 13:21

Not to mention the legendary Lamborghini Miura.

 

Drove one of those as well, but not much over 110, it was not that impressive acceleration wise, perhaps overgeared or not as powerful as they claimed but the one thing I do recall was the scary rear end twitch when I had to lift off in 3rd gear under acceleration and brake hard avoiding somebody pulling out in front of me without warning.

 

This was due to the transverse engine location presumably, I didn't like it at all.



#83 63Corvette

63Corvette
  • Member

  • 358 posts
  • Joined: March 15

Posted 20 July 2015 - 15:48

More good stuff on the Lightweight E-Type from Sports Car Digest:

http://www.sportscar...=IqcA7ma_des.C0



#84 SJ Lambert

SJ Lambert
  • Member

  • 5,326 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 10 February 2016 - 09:27

The Bob Jane Lightweight at Mallala ( I think ) in period, circa 1966.

 

IMG035_jag_ul.jpg
 



#85 Paul Parker

Paul Parker
  • Member

  • 2,198 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 10 February 2016 - 12:06

Historic E-type Jaguar that needed 3,000 hours of restoration to go on display

 

 

 

jag1_3571421b.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

jag3_3571424b.jpg

 

http://www.telegraph...on-display.html

 

 

 

Didn't want to start a new thread

 

Very attractive and subtle colour scheme, especially the interior but It needs a period British registration number, not an import plate which is what it is wearing unless I'm mistaken.



#86 Geoff E

Geoff E
  • Member

  • 1,523 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 10 February 2016 - 12:23

1961 Edinburgh registration.  Wasn't Scotland still British at that time?



#87 RobMk2a

RobMk2a
  • Member

  • 262 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 21 April 2017 - 18:38

Does anyone know when David Cunningham raced his lightweight E Type I'm trying to date a photo at Silverstone.

Thanks

Rob

#88 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 25,883 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 22 April 2017 - 16:52

Historic E-type Jaguar that needed 3,000 hours of restoration to go on display

 

 

 

jag1_3571421b.jpg

By the look of it, the only original parts on that restoration might be the knock-off hubs



#89 Paul Parker

Paul Parker
  • Member

  • 2,198 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 22 April 2017 - 17:23

By the look of it, the only original parts on that restoration might be the knock-off hubs

 

What it also shows is the relatively puny front end frame which needed to be beefed up for racing, unlike the D type the monocoque section began at the cockpit, you were (relatively) safe if you went off forwards, but much more so backwards as I discovered in 1969.

 

As ever the priority at Jaguar was the cost, the E type could/should have been so much better but both Lyons and his finance director were always more concerned about saving money rather than investing in the future, a defining characteristic of British industry then and now, the curse of the accountancy class.

 

As ever I apologise if I have offended anybody but this was the reality.



#90 Sharman

Sharman
  • Member

  • 5,284 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 23 April 2017 - 07:46

What it also shows is the relatively puny front end frame which needed to be beefed up for racing, unlike the D type the monocoque section began at the cockpit, you were (relatively) safe if you went off forwards, but much more so backwards as I discovered in 1969.
 
As ever the priority at Jaguar was the cost, the E type could/should have been so much better but both Lyons and his finance director were always more concerned about saving money rather than investing in the future, a defining characteristic of British industry then and now, the curse of the accountancy class.
 
As ever I apologise if I have offended anybody but this was the reality.


I don't think you are saying anything which is unknown Paul.

#91 Alan Cox

Alan Cox
  • Member

  • 8,397 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 25 April 2017 - 10:21

Does anyone know when David Cunningham raced his lightweight E Type I'm trying to date a photo at Silverstone.

David owned the Lumsden/Sargent low-drag coupe from 1969-1971 and did only a few races with it at Brands at Silverstone, concentrating mainly on sprints and hillclimbs, according to Philip Porter's book 'The Ultimate E Type'. It would appear that he bought the car for £2,000 and sold it three years later for a similar sum (part of a deal involving a house purchase). How times change

#92 RobMk2a

RobMk2a
  • Member

  • 262 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 25 April 2017 - 19:00

Alan,

Thank you the photo is on the WSM website, it is earlier than 69 it aparently shows David Cunningham Ex Le Mans E Type and also Jack Lambert's car (RL 26?). Was Lambert's car 850016 I understand this may have been crashed in say 64? See link for photo.

http://www.wsmcars.c...stoneJLFULL.jpg

Thanks

Rob

Edited by RobMk2a, 25 April 2017 - 19:04.