I am not sure either but assuming the tail lights were original, they were 1963, so I assume my car is a 1963 as I cannot find any of the other numbers that the International S Type Registrar said to look for ID#'s? What I mean is that these cars were all hand made so when you get another hood it will need reworking to fit well, especially if you want all of the gaps perfect. Glynn, I know your car is a concourse car so you spent a lot of time to get the gaps perfect. I just did the same even though I do not intend to really show the car, and the hood, etc. took a lot of work to get good consistent gaps like a new car. That is what I mean as every hood may take a lot of body work to get it to fit well unlike a new car where all the panels are separated and more uniform.

Cass & Glynn, do you know if they make new hoods for the 3.8 S Jaguars? I was assuming it was just used as it took me a while to find a good condition used hood for my car as I was the opposite of Clyde; I sold my louvered hood as I wanted the body to look completely stock so it would be more of a sleeper.

 

I hope you get that beast on the road soon! So you would rather have a hood scoop on the car instead of dropping the V8 lower? That is cool too as you need to build it the way you want

Look for my update in January to my 3.8s Sleeper as I opted to preemptively rebuild it since it was over 200,000 miles and I wanted a bit more power for my daily driver; the LS1 just got back from L & R Engine Builders and I hope to have about 500HP

 

Yes Rob. That's exactly what we are talking about. Clyde & Primaz cars take a 5100. You have the snazzy uprated one.

 

Sadly Martin Robey has ceased production so it's look out for NOS. They only made the 5100

 

What changed on the later type? Is it only the reinforcement frame and catches or is the external panel different? There's a 1966 S type being broken for parts, including the bonnet, on eBay.

 

Nigel on the register can tell you. He has been down this road. They don't fit one another. Might be standardisation with 420.

See thread ~ excuse name.

Clutch fluid bottle lid - THE INTERNATIONAL JAGUAR 'S'-TYPE REGISTER FORUM

 

Yes, but why standardise with the 420? Was there a possibility of dropping the MK2? It seems unlikely. After all, XJ6 (XJ4) was in the pipeline and the MK2 body (as 240 and 340) outlived both those cars. Did Heynes have something else in mind for the whole family? A larger engine that would have later required a larger radiator or the radiator moved forward or, more likely, access space for an a/c condenser?

Anyway another interesting mystery and thank you for the link to the S register. It's a great forum.

 

Dropping the Mk2 was frequently discussed & would have happened had other models sold better. The range was far too complex but the Mk2 allowed niche pricing to help hold it up until XJ6. Once the IRS models were launched the Mk2 lost much of it's shine.

Mk 2 sales dropped precipitously in '62 (halved ~ never to recover but rather to continue its downward trend), S Type & Mk10 sales were not as robust as hoped. It quickly became clear that the 420 was exactly what the market wanted. Although its short lifespan of just two seasons in production meant that the overall build total was not very great, it sold faster than any of the S-types had done. Sales of the 3.4-litre S-type averaged around 2,000 a year over five years, and those of the 3.8-litre model ran at about 3,000 a year for the same period; but sales of the Jaguar 420 averaged 5,000 a year over its two-year life. On top of that, its Daimler Sovereign sibling averaged another 2,000 a year. Greater 420G luxury & power in a more compact package.

Excerpts from James Taylor. This was propping up the range until XJ6. Jag did not want this complexity in the range. They simply had no option.

 

It's not clear to me as I'm no S type expert. Did this modification arrive late 1966?

 

If I was to take a guess, by combining sources of record, I would say it happened late '66 into 1967 (certainly second half of 66 at the earliest). From a few cars I know. But the truth is I don't know & can't find reference to dates in any of my S Type literature. Jaguar never commented on it. We have big time of manufacture gaps on the register and scribes seem to find crocodile bonnets of little interest.

If you quoted second half of '66 you can't be far wrong.

Mine was the 4th car built in '66 and has the 5100 original bonnet as do both my donors that are newer. (Yes these were CKD cars & lagged Browns Lane by a little but not much until run out)

We have never been able to reconcile the early registration but it may have been a Johannesburg demo. Strange things were possible in SA in those days. All records show it was registered before it was built. A reregistration could have caused this fowl up but it's supposed to be a one owner doctor's car. This is recorded.

 

As Glyn says there are gaps in the actual dates of manufacture on the S Type register but the chassis numbers quoted do fall towards the end of 1966. The Mk2 was beginning to be phased out at this time and by September 1967 the 240 and 340 were being made and it might be that the bonnet swap had something to do with the 240 and 340 change over. My S Type is September 1967 built so has the later bonnet but Jaguar kept terrible records around 1966 as they had just changed ownership to BMC. On the S Type forum we have always commented on the changes of cars built around 1966. There were a lot of strikes at Jaguar at this time and it was almost like they fitted anything they could get their hands on just to keep production line going.

 

Rob, With all our scratching & reading & experiencing over the years I think we are pretty much in agreement on this one. We can't be far out.

I think BMC just threw all the Jaguar records in the skip.

 

Glyn do you know of or have any photos of the Aston Martin hood from above? Thanks

 

At that stage, keeping in mind the lag between making bodies in Oxford to building cars in Coventry I suspect that the Pressed Steel Company was using up parts.

Merry Christmas to all,

Peter

 

Clyde. These are the best I can do. Pre drone era not common.

The DB 4 had a more pronounced bulge in early models that you can see in my earlier pics and last pic here. DB5 & 6 were the same.

Remember Astons were hand made motor cars and buyer preferences were accommodated.































Hot air side vents. Vantage = cams, tripple side draught Webbers, higher compression etc.




Inside bonnet/hood standard car.

 

Glyn, Perfect shots. Thanks.

 

On the V8 Vantage, AM blanked off the open scoop. Had they realised the slot didn't work how they always believed? Either way, the main objective of the bulge was probably, like the one on several Jaguar cars, to clear the top of a tall engine.

 

On some V8 Vantages they blocked the front of the scoop & opened the rear, some had a closed rear. This was not universal. Blocked the grill & stuck 2 spot lights in it (common). Managed the air under the car & via the two wing vents. Ugly great spoiler.

The Jury is still out as to which is better. Many overheated & they were generally not liked.

The Aston scoop certainly worked. The question is could it have been improved. ~ Yes most likely with modern gear. In fact definitely with modern aero gear. It became part of the mid 60's Aston character. DB 4, 5 & 6 required no extra clearance. Side draught SU's or Webbers. I rather liked the open Aston scoop.

V8 Vantage with open scoop:






V8 vantage closed scoop. Not to my taste.

 

While Tadek Marek was putting the finishing touches to his V8 they put the Vantage version of the 4 litre 6 into a semi V8 body they called the DBS. I thought it handsome.

 

Great style.