Hey all,

new member here just trying to find out if a set of wheel spats i have are genuine.

the spats are open but do not have a lip like the mk2 ones, they look factory done.

so i wonder if this is a case like the xk120 as i have read they released 6 cars with factory open spats

unfortunately my car is 3000km away so only pictures i have are the ones supplied below.


.

hope someone knows what they are.

thanks.

 

My brother had a 3.4 litre Mk1 with similar spats.
As far as I remember, the 2.4s had full spats, and the 3.4s were partly cut away to allow for the slightly wider rear track. I could, however, be miss-remembering as I was just eight years old when the last one was manufactured.

 

Thanks for the reply
And thats what i initially thought but could only find ones that look like the mk2 ones they fit very well and if someone has made them there work is flawless very factory looking.

 

Nice clean garage floor, or well it was until someone started the old girl up!

 

Haha. Yeah its my fathers workshop it isn't started often so some condensation is expected she does need a little tune up aswell

 

From Nigel Thornley's book:-
Full depth spats were fitted to the 2.4's After Feb 1957 and the introduction of the 3.4 cut away spats were used to improve cooling to the wheels and brakes, subsequently the cut away spats were used on the 2.4's, the MK1 spats were slightly different to the MK2 spats in that they were 1/8" deeper, but are all interchangeable.

This indicates that the MK1 spat should in fact have a lip, and these are shown in Nigel's book.

So it appears that they are not original to your 2.4 Ltr. and for some reason haven't got the lip either ?

 

Thanks tilleyjon,

it is a mystery as they are quiet odd without the lip and how the finish is done looks factory.

the ones that came on the xk120 had no lip either i read only 6 pairs where made by special order so i wonder if the factory made early test sets or special requested items.

i don't really know where to find that information out.

 

Hiello Damian. Very workmanlike look-alikes but IMHO, not Jaguar factory supplied . . . for several reasons, and not just the lack of "lips". For mine, the actual profile and inner radius match neither the original 3.4 cutaways . . . nor the revised for 2.4L I also question the dates given in Thorley's reference.

My pic (below) is a different shot of my avatar - our '56 2.4L showing the genuine factory supplied cutaway rear spats. You can clearly see the lip, the perfectly flat profile, and the much larger (than yours) inner radius - which makes the spat much narrower than yours. Also memorable as a pic of the day our #1 son (now late 40s) started walking . . . a feat he celebrated by continuous efforts to run away!

I have added a second pic . . . this time, of our '60 Mk2 showing its cutaway spats which I remember as being virtually identical to the earlier car.

Cheers,

Ken

 

Hey ken

thanks for the reply, finding any info is always good as anything for the 56 model is proving difficult especially seeing the genuine 56 model cutaway spats.
i must say if these where made by someone outside the factory its top work as my father also thought they looked factory, he has been restoring cars for 30+ years and cannot fault them or find any sign of modifications. Very beautifully crafted.

and he did mention the ones like you showed as a friend of his has a set on a 57 and did mention they where slightly different to the mk2 spats but still had the lip.

 

The page of thorleys book he states for the 2.4

"cutaway rear wheel spats for the earlier cars not so fitted."

 

My original thought to these odd spats was from the xk120 spats i found on my browse they are flat with no lip and only a few years prior to the 2.4 release which made me wonder about my ones.

http://www.jag-lovers.org/xk-lovers/library/spats.html

 

Hey Damian . . . great that you posted relevant page from Thorley . . . and I am reassured by my reading of it. Do you interpret, as I do, that these cutaway spats are listed as "Option Extras" for the 2.4L under the comment "for those earlier cars not so fitted".

This confirms my knowledge that my 2.4L, along with a sister car from the same Australian delivery, another to New Zealand, and a further 2.4L from the following month's Aus delivery, were all fitted with these cutaway spats.

Your spats are of excellent workmanship but as the 3.4L already had the "Mk1" cutaways prior to '56, as did our 2.4L in '56 as one of several known "which were so fitted". Perhaps your unique spats are a missing link in the evolution of that period . . . or maybe the product of some local firm who responded to an owner of a car "not so fitted". Remember, the company was smashed by the disastrous Browns Lane fire soon after, and we now know that many company records, especially build sheets, were lost forever.

Cheers,

Ken

 

PS . . . I didn't address your comments about the XK's spats. I am far from expert on the XK120, but wasn't aware it was offered with cutaways. All the road car pics I have seen, along with my brother's long gone XK120, had full spats . . . and of course, all the competition XK120s I saw as a kid, and pics since, show the cars with spats removed. I live and learn!

My big omission was failure to congratulate you on finding what looks like a great Jaguar . . . indeed, spectacular . . . I'm guessing the paintwork looks a bit hazy and tired (yes?) but the all-important chromework looks superb . . . and I love those original looking cross-plys. Well done. I'm British Racing Green with envy!

Cheers,

Ken

 

Both of my MK1s have this type of spat. A 1957 3.4L 4-speed an a 1958 3.4L Auto without wires.

 

Jagfixer do you have a picture of yours ?

and i found the xk120 spats interesting just to see that jaguar offers so many different things to different cars and with the build data missing from the fire that would be one thought that comes to mind as i had suggested to my father the possibility of things destroyed by the fire. And without the lip i thought possibly early stage trial and error possibly a strength issue they fixed by adding the lip.

 

Could be Damian . . . but then the 3.4L had cutaways from the outset. AFAIK, it was only the 2.4L which started with full spats, but then moved to cutaways like the 3.4L . . . both being perhaps identical (?) and both different from the Mk2s (whether 2.4L, 3.4L or 3.8L) because the Mk2 had wider rear track and different mudguard profile.

Cheers,

Ken

 

It would be good to have a missing piece to the history but either way its just good to know for sure what they are exactly, i do prefer the full spats which i also have but these are growing on me some nice wire wheels with them I'd love but the price tag to convert throws me off a tad maybe just the bolt on hubs or the wires that have a stud pattern will have to do will probably work out cheaper