In the last couple months, I have (without really planning to do so) managed to acquire 3 separate 1960's Jags, two of which are Mk2, one I am pretty sure is a 340 (slim bumpers, Ambla)
Two of the 3 are quite restorable with (relatively) little rust, one of the Mk2s is certainly a parts car only.

I have done a lot of reading on this and the question/confusion I have is the Car number for what I think is the 340 doesn't really seem to follow the standard numbering convention. I have attached a picture of the number.
What should be a number that starts with 1J, really appears to be actually a 1U. The engine number starts with 7J, which I think is a 1967 vintage.

The other factor that might make this different is that this car is RHD, and has features that indicate that someone had this car was imported to the US.

I bought it on a bill of sale only, no title. I will need to do something about this, but its a bit hard to do with what might be a nonstandard Car#/VIN.

Any thoughts as to what the VIN and/or year this might be? If it is in fact a J and not a U (it really looks like a U in person) is this going to complicate matters with the title?

Thanks!

 

Pod, according to info published by Nigel Thorley,340 total production RHD 2265, LHD 535.Chassis no starts @ RHD 1J50001, LHD 1J80001. 1967- 1968.
regards barry

 

pod, further info ex Barret,s cat'340 body starts @ 4J- engine @ 7J50001.
LHD 1967 1J80001. 1968 1J80201. 1969 n/a. last 1J80535.
Have a look on the net lots of info there. Only 535 LHD made!
Barry

 

Does the "1U" typically represent a Mk2?

It seems to me that some of the later Mk2 cars were de-optioned and fitted with slim bumpers but still carried "Mk2" badging. Very much like a 340....but not identified as a 340.

????

I dunno. I'm way out of my realm here. Just thought I'd toss out the idea.

Cheers
DD

 

The degree of difficulty is probably dependant on the requirements of the licensing department in the particular state you live and/or the state the car was last titled in (maybe the same state, in this case?)

My limited experience in such matters is that the DMV/licensing authority doesn't care much about model designations/model names. That is, they could care less if the car is called a 340 or a Mk2 or whatever.

(I just went thru something vaguely similar with my '88 Series III. It's Canadian model and the VIN doesn't compute in their database. "We'll just call it an XJ6" was the rather shrugged-off decision)

What *might* be more of a problem is whether car number or body number was used on the previous title. It might complicate the title search.

Cheers
DD

 

I know its difficult to see the photo but the body no of 4j is ilw the data I gave you
barry

 

Thanks for the input.

The car is actually RHD, so there were a few more of them made if it is a 1967 340. I bought this (and a parts car 1961 MK2) from a guy in Minnesota who had it in a shed for the last 20 years. He bought it as a project but lost interest.
When he bought the car 20 years ago, he thinks it had a European type (wide) license plate on it, so there is some possibility that it wasn't registered in the US at any point.
The original drivetrain is in place and looks to be in pretty good condition, so I think I'll see about getting that running. Just need to locate a set of wires to convert from steel wheels . . .

I know the "U" in the Car number really doesn't make any sense as it should be a J, but kinda strange all around. So it appears with the body number and engine number in the correct range that this is a 1967 340.
Thanks for the input, it is greatly appreciated.

 

A (not too flattering) pic of the 340 in question. It sat in the corner of a shed for many years. It rained during the drive home but still didn't quite wash off all the grime.
It has some rust issues, but otherwise complete and nothing that appears to be a deal breaker. I have a '63 MK2 that is closer to being road-worthy, so this is probably going to be stored for a bit longer.

 

I feel quite certain that what you see as a "U" is indeed a "J". I looked at your photo of the serial number plate with a good bit of magnification, and the "U" is just a "J" with a bit of a gouge on the left side of the "J". Compare the "J" in the Body Number with the same character immediately above it in the Car Number. The two characters are clearly identical for most of the "J", until the oops in the Car Number. These were stamped by hand (maybe a shaky Monday morning). In addition, there should be the same Car Number stamped on the front sheet metal ahead of the radiator, just to the left of the catch for the bonnet lock. Sometimes that becomes covered in repaintings, or maybe the rusted out section is replaced in a rebuild. But that might provide confirmation of your Car Number.

I would say that your 340 is the 125th (1J50125) out of 2265 built, probably completed in Sept or Oct of 1967.

 

Is the 340 an auto trans car?

Does it have the intermediate speed hold switch on the dash?

If it does not and is a BW35 transmission I would be intereste in the mounting and control parts. thanks.

bob

 

Its a manual, but not looking to part it out; its pretty complete and a bit uncommon in my part of south dakota.

 

the VIN could also be stamped on the body, behind the rear bumper, (the rear bumper might need to be removed to see it), at least that's the way it is in the 1963-1968 S types.

 

There were a small number of cars which were badged as 340s which were actually Mark IIs. The had a Mark II serial number, the larger Mark II bumpers, but used a 3.4 engine and Ambla rather than leather seat
upholstery. (Leather was apparently an option, as were chrome wire wheels.) If equipped with a standard transmission, they were not fitted with overdrive like the earlier 3.8 Mark II models. The holes on the boot lid were the same for the Mark II and 340 badges. The apparent reason was a desire by dealers to have a cheaper car on the floor as an alternative to the 420. There seems to be a debate on whether or not the cars left England with a Mark II badge, but then had the 340 badge fitted by the USA distributor, or whether the cars left the factory so equipped. When the official changeover occurred, the cars came with the 340 serial number rather than that of the Mark II.

 

David there really is no actual debate. The US market wanted to go to a more logical numbering system 340, 420, 420G. The myth that the badges were added in the US is easily disproved. The MK2 Carried two badges on the lower boot. A MK2 script and an engine size script. The US 340 (large bumper and MK2 vin sequence) caries only one badge "340". Careful inspection of genuine cars reveals there are no redundant holes or any evidence the holes were ever filled or painted. While the badges do interchange due to pin location no dealer or distributor would have undertaken a respray of at least the boot just to change the badges. The change over to the 340 vin sequence for the US at least was MY 1968 as neither the MK2 or the 340 would meet NHTSA or DOT standards and was not importable. It did not really matter to the US as the XJ6 was due and in theory would replace the entire range of 340,420, 420G with different engine sizes. In fact only the 4.2 XJ6 was normally ordered for the US market and normally fully optioned.

For conclusive evidence we recommend a careful read of the only factual book that addresses the US cars "Jaguar in America" by Dougdale (1ed) or "Jaguar in America" by Dougdale and Cook (2ed). These works were published by Jaguar US and were produced from documents that exist only in the US. Highly recommended if facts are important.

 

I own a 1967 340, which was delivered new in Seattle. It has the original ambla upholstery, lack of fold down trays on the rear of the front seat backs, large Mark II style bumpers, and 3.4 engine, per the heritage certificate and actual numbers on the vehicle. The boot badge says "340." However, the serial number is that of a Mark II, not the later 340. It would appear that a relative handful of cars like mine were created for the US and perhaps Canadian market in 1967 prior to changeover to the 340, with its smaller bumpers and unique serial number series.

When I get a little time, I'd like to do some more research to establish the exact number of cars produced as an extension of the Mark II series serial numbers but with the downgraded equipment. Thanks for the book reference. Mike Cook should have been in a unique position to establish the exact specifics of this relatively short model run.

 

Actually it was Dougdale that did the heavy lifting. Mike did update the book and update it for the time that had passed between editions.

 

I own 1J50657DN which was built in 1967 so yours will definitely be a 1967 built car as SCMIKE has said.

David, there is debate regarding these cars and the origin of the "change", I have scoured Dougdale's book and cannot find definitive proof that these cars were re-badged in either the US or at the factory, I have had some heated debate with George Camp (Coventry Foundation) regarding this, but as yet no definitive proof either way has emerged.

I Dougdale's book, Sir William is quoted in telling the US to Re-badge other old stock cars and get them sold as new models so if anything there is some proof that this practice was a distributor level in the US. I have not yet found the time myself to look further into this, George Camp has stated that NO 3.4 Mk2's were ever sold into the North American market, however there is anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but as I said I have not found the time to see if this is actually true or not, so IMO the debate is still open until some evidence comes to light that proves what actually did happen to these MK2 VIN 340's

 

Although I appreciate the compliment I am not the Foundation--It has several very active and prominent members- as well as advisors of which one is the past president of Jaguar North America. As far as no MK2 of 3.4L displacement being sold in the US if I said that I did not intend that. In fact we have followed the nice post here on the first 3.8 conversion as the Foundation has one of the very first MK2s which is a 3.4. The 3.8 did not come on at first so 3.4 was all available. That soon changed and dealers and distributors ordered 3.8L cars and normally fully optioned. Sort of the same story with the 2.4L saloon in the US. Very few were ordered until the 3.4L was available. As far as documented proof someone in JCNA did do the leg work and will try to find it. As far as physical proof I do not understand why the evidence on the boot lid does not suffice. The MK2 carries two badges on the lower RH boot lid. MK2 and either 2.4, 3.4, or 3.8 L badge. The US 340 has but one badge---340. On these cars there is no evidence of a filled set of holes or in the rare case of non painted cars no touch up. So to follow the re-badge logic the boot lid had to be replaced as well as painted. Simply did not happen at the rectification facility at Port of Elizabeth and would never have been acceptable to a dealer. Remember the US market drove much of Jaguar in that period--what the US market wanted it normally got--why there was an E-Type 2+2 (forgive us please). JAGUAR US wanted to follow the MB practice of normalizing the marketing. The US market and Jaguar both knew the MK 2 would not be re-designed to meet the 1968 requirements. JAGUAR started to comply with the 1967 E-Type with the first change in opening the headlamps. Many more changes came for the 1968 US E-type which was vastly different to the ROW 1968 E-Type. As the MK2 was going away in the US there was no effort. Not sure where the Lyon's quote can be found but that would be in agreement with placing the 340 badge on the cars at the factory for the US market. He knew the market for the US cars was ending so why not build them to the US request. No doubt the planning for the ROW 240, 340 was underway and perhaps the model name had already been chosen.

 

George, I was not saying you ARE the Coventry Foundation, but as a founder member you are part of the foundation.

The debate as far as I see it is whether the re-bagding was done at the factory or in the US, re-badging is not simply a change of badge, but in it's simplest form it is, other changes were quite common some being much more significant than a boot lid change or re-spray.

With the changes in US legislation the "NEW" 340 would not comply, so it is most feasible to re-badge old stock whether in the US or the UK and ship it with the OLD VIN numbers, as these being manufactured prior to the legislation were able to be sold, but purchasers wanted the "NEW" model, re-badging covered all bases, providing a new model and also shifting old stock.

The quote from Sir William was made to the distributor in the US telling him to re-badge old stock and get it sold, so this is evidence that such work was done in the US by the distributors, I will find the quote if you would like me to, I have cited this to you before.

 

Just found the post where you said there were never any imports of 3.4's to the US.

And the references to Dougdale's book.