MK2 after all
#41
The following 2 users liked this post by Rishi:
Cass3958 (03-03-2024),
Glyn M Ruck (03-03-2024)
#42
The Netherlands authorities can be strict about the VIN (chassis number). They are checked at the annual MoT and in one rcase the row of zeros at the start of the number weren't shown on the Dutch registration document. The car had arrived with an expat and the zeros had been lost in copying. The result might have been a load of problems and no MoT. However, the car had a few mechanical problems and was scrapped. This was all 40 years ago. As I recall, the VIN was the only number, apart from the number plate, to appear on Dutch registration papers. We were in NL when I swapped the engine in my Daimler and, in those days about 25 years ago, the authorities weren't interested.
Last edited by Peter3442; 03-03-2024 at 12:54 PM.
The following users liked this post:
Glyn M Ruck (03-03-2024)
#43
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Llandudno, Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 5,544
Received 1,488 Likes
on
1,157 Posts
#44
I should also have mentioned that the MoT tester knows the proper place, that is the bonnet closing plate, to look for the VIN. That one has to agree with the RDW records and papers with the car. As the whether it has to be consistent with anything that came out of the Jaguar factory is a different question.
#45
I should also have mentioned that the MoT tester knows the proper place, that is the bonnet closing plate, to look for the VIN. That one has to agree with the RDW records and papers with the car. As the whether it has to be consistent with anything that came out of the Jaguar factory is a different question.
Last edited by Rishi; 03-03-2024 at 01:57 PM.
The following users liked this post:
Glyn M Ruck (03-03-2024)
#46
It looks to me like a previous owner has put in the later XJ6 transmission and stamped a new chassis plate to reflect that. The numbers on that plate look etched, rather than stamped like the originals. The original plates were stamped quite heavily. It's clearly been off the car, as it's screwed on instead of riveted.
I notice there is nothing in the valve clearance place, so it's clearly a replacement plate.
I notice there is nothing in the valve clearance place, so it's clearly a replacement plate.
#47
The following users liked this post:
Glyn M Ruck (03-04-2024)
#48
I think someone has had that plate stamped as the gearbox number looks too long for the plate and also an LA engine number would be for a much earlier 3.8.
As mentioned above a heritage certificate will confirm what numbers it had originally but of course it doesn't really matter as long as your happy with it.
As mentioned above a heritage certificate will confirm what numbers it had originally but of course it doesn't really matter as long as your happy with it.
It looks to me like a previous owner has put in the later XJ6 transmission and stamped a new chassis plate to reflect that. The numbers on that plate look etched, rather than stamped like the originals. The original plates were stamped quite heavily. It's clearly been off the car, as it's screwed on instead of riveted.
I notice there is nothing in the valve clearance place, so it's clearly a replacement plate.
I notice there is nothing in the valve clearance place, so it's clearly a replacement plate.
The following users liked this post:
Glyn M Ruck (03-04-2024)
#49
In UK terms, car and chassis number are the same thing. The body number means the bodyshell only, not a finished motor vehicle. It's comparable to the engine number. Interesting, but not really useful to know. I would have expected the stamping on the radiator header panel to be the same as the car number.
I can't remember on my S Type, but I think the body number is on a small tag riveted behind the rear bumper, and that's the only place you'll find it. A Mark 2 expert can correct me if I'm wrong on that location.
I can't remember on my S Type, but I think the body number is on a small tag riveted behind the rear bumper, and that's the only place you'll find it. A Mark 2 expert can correct me if I'm wrong on that location.
#50
Thanks. I think the dutch registration authority (RDW) took the body number and registered the car using that. Maybe they stamped the car themselves when it was imported.
The car was imported in 1977 and has gone through multiple APK's (MOT) without any issue. The anomaly is if you look in up it appears as a 1967 3.4 because of the E prefixed body number but if you look up the Car number (starts with a 2) its a 1967 3.8.
It has the 3.8 engine because that is cast in the block.
Its a beautiful car and I want it but I have to be sensible. The price is almost to good to be true and we all know about things that appear to good to be true!
The car was imported in 1977 and has gone through multiple APK's (MOT) without any issue. The anomaly is if you look in up it appears as a 1967 3.4 because of the E prefixed body number but if you look up the Car number (starts with a 2) its a 1967 3.8.
It has the 3.8 engine because that is cast in the block.
Its a beautiful car and I want it but I have to be sensible. The price is almost to good to be true and we all know about things that appear to good to be true!
#51
In your very first post on this car you said "Matching numbers chassis, engine and gearbox." Is this what the seller stated or is this something you thought having seen the numbers on the VIN plate. It is certainly not a "Matching numbers " car and if it was the seller who said this even though he might not have realised it he has misrepresented the cars identity and that should supersede any verbal agreement you had. It was cheap for a reason and I think you have found the reason. Stick to an S Type anyway they are the better car. (Stand back for the argument to commence.)
The following users liked this post:
Glyn M Ruck (03-04-2024)
#52
The following users liked this post:
Glyn M Ruck (03-04-2024)
#53
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Llandudno, Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 5,544
Received 1,488 Likes
on
1,157 Posts
In UK terms, car and chassis number are the same thing. The body number means the bodyshell only, not a finished motor vehicle. It's comparable to the engine number. Interesting, but not really useful to know. I would have expected the stamping on the radiator header panel to be the same as the car number.
I can't remember on my S Type, but I think the body number is on a small tag riveted behind the rear bumper, and that's the only place you'll find it. A Mark 2 expert can correct me if I'm wrong on that location.
I can't remember on my S Type, but I think the body number is on a small tag riveted behind the rear bumper, and that's the only place you'll find it. A Mark 2 expert can correct me if I'm wrong on that location.
#54
I remember seeing it there after having removed the rear bumper for rust repairs in the rear quarters.
Try using a an endoscope (?) to spot it, cos taking the bumper off is an absolute horror.
Pete
The following 2 users liked this post by redtriangle:
Cass3958 (03-04-2024),
Glyn M Ruck (03-04-2024)
#55
#56
Got this back from the heritage trust:
Good afternoon Rishi,
Thank you for your research request.
We can confirm that engine number LA 4612-8, body number E 065816 and gearbox number 45PT1BW66 does not match with chassis number P
224588 BW Which is a Jaguar Mark II 3.8 left-hand drive.
Kind regards
Tracy Nabbs
Pretty much what my research indicated. Don't like the Body number not matching the Chassis number. I think I am going to pull out. Shame, really nice car.
Good afternoon Rishi,
Thank you for your research request.
We can confirm that engine number LA 4612-8, body number E 065816 and gearbox number 45PT1BW66 does not match with chassis number P
224588 BW Which is a Jaguar Mark II 3.8 left-hand drive.
Kind regards
Tracy Nabbs
Pretty much what my research indicated. Don't like the Body number not matching the Chassis number. I think I am going to pull out. Shame, really nice car.
#57
Sad really as it looked a nice car but the history is key and this car looks on paper as a Bitszer. Bit from here, bit from there.
If the owner was not aware of the changes himself (you said he had owned the car for 7 years) then it is a shame for him too but that said he could either be lying or he did not do his own due diligent checking when he bought the car. Nice car at a low price means there is often something wrong with it. I think you are making the right decision.
If the owner was not aware of the changes himself (you said he had owned the car for 7 years) then it is a shame for him too but that said he could either be lying or he did not do his own due diligent checking when he bought the car. Nice car at a low price means there is often something wrong with it. I think you are making the right decision.
#58
I think you are right. I believe the owner is honest but he didn't do any research. I think I am at the point of going full circle. Mk 2's are just a bit too expensive for me and I am seriously considering going back to the first S type I saw that was regularly used, heritage certificate, well maintained, has nice upgrades but is a bit tatty. I think I can get it for €18K
#59
The following users liked this post:
Glyn M Ruck (03-06-2024)
#60
I think you are right. I believe the owner is honest but he didn't do any research. I think I am at the point of going full circle. Mk 2's are just a bit too expensive for me and I am seriously considering going back to the first S type I saw that was regularly used, heritage certificate, well maintained, has nice upgrades but is a bit tatty. I think I can get it for €18K