variations betwen cars

[johngosnell]

I hope I don't offend any member but there has been talk over different times about the variable quality between the very early cars 1963-64 compared to later cars, to this point I would like to add an opinion .
Firstly particularly in the 1960's & 70's manufacturers often used different suppliers to supply the same item , this was to ensure production in case of shortages, secondly changes to cars are normal development changes and often to show prospective customers that this years car is better than last years model. These changes do not normally reflect on a better or worse car but just normal production changes. These changes are some times applied as it was decided that a change helped production, other time's due to supplier shortages and of course aesthetic improvements.
I object to suggestions that early cars are in anyway inferior to later cars.


Regards John

1B1257BW

[Glyn Ruck]

Absolutely correct.

As I said to Nigel in a post.

quote

"There is nothing inherently wrong with a 1964 built S Type it's just that they were highly variable. It seems the factory was using up existing stocks of parts & materials, rationalising parts with other models in the range, learning to build them & changing things on service department & dealer feedback. There are a whole host of differences from minor things like glove box pulls, mixtures of red & black hardura felt behind dash & on tunnel, routing of cables & the like, interior finishing materials & methods, early PAS steering box without torsion bar, early brake booster/servo from Mk2 & the list goes on and on.

1965 production onward was a lot more stable. Upgrades thereafter were more major & well known, like all synchro gearbox, diaphragm clutch, larger booster/servo, torsion bar steering box etc. etc. etc."
unquote

There is nothing wrong with early cars. They were just more variable than later cars. If anything quality suffered in the British Leyland era.

[Jose]

John,
why would anyone be offended by your post?

The first S type cars were what they were. Mine was built in 1964 to be sold as a 1965 model.
It has many early features and some that remained until the last models. Personally I like that mix of details.

There is no book of "standards" for the S type, or for ANY Jaguar.

How could any early S type be "inferior" to a newer model? I think the opposite is true. The first ones are The Base from which all others came.

[Orlando St.R]

The first S type cars were what they were. Mine was built in 1964 to be sold as a 1965 model.
It has many early features and some that remained until the last models. Personally I like that mix of details.

Absolutely agree. It's those little differences that prove a constant source of interest to many members on this forum.

[Glyn Ruck]

LOL ~ I love the discussions. But thank goodness they take place. I was restoring an SA CKD car back to British standard because the local content materials were no longer available. I had to research every item & make decisions. Those very discussions helped enormously.

[Jose]

The first S type cars were what they were. Mine was built in 1964 to be sold as a 1965 model.
It has many early features and some that remained until the last models. Personally I like that mix of details.

Absolutely agree. It's those little differences that prove a constant source of interest to many members on this forum.

yes, for example the glovebox Pull Handle, mine has the way-more-comfortable "s" Pull which makes a lot more sense than the boat-cleat pull for opening the glovebox door.

so it was only fitted to early built cars, well, that is GREAT ! It doesn't mean that the later boat-cleat pull is better! It isn't. Maybe they had a box full of of boat cleats and they needed to get rid of them!

[cass3958]

yes, for example the glovebox Pull Handle, mine has the way-more-comfortable "s" Pull which makes a lot more sense than the boat-cleat pull for opening the glovebox door.

so it was only fitted to early built cars, well, that is GREAT ! It doesn't mean that the later boat-cleat pull is better! It isn't. Maybe they had a box full of of boat cleats and they needed to get rid of them!
[/quote]

Jose I take offence at this statement and to "How could any early S type be "inferior" to a newer model? I think the opposite is true." Are you saying my 1967 built S Type is inferior to your 1965 build. lol

I don't see how one year of S Type can be inferior or superior to another year. Wrong turn of phrase being used here. All S Types are different from colour, engine size, gearbox, plug caps, plug leads, interior colours, leather or Ambler. I am sure there was when our original owners were purchasing their cars a long list of options to choose from which did not make the cars superior to the inferior cars they just became the S type the owner wanted. The same happens to day with all the changes Jose has made to his car, makes it in his eyes the car he wants but to others who want originality it is not the car they would buy unless the were thinking of returning it to its original form. Again though as we have discussed there does not appear to be an original form to go by. Just live with them, they are all S types and the only thing we have to remember is that they are all superior to the Mk2 and 420.lol.

[JCS]

John
Probably the first time I have read, on any Jaguar thread, some sensible reasons for minor specification changes, beyond annual changes for different markets. I am not offended and in fact embrace the discussion. The following is my own opinion and like yours not intended to offend anyone.

Members of the S Type register are naturally, like any other club member, interested in a particular model and especially in their own specific car. Often, very often, they make judgements between change points on their car and those on either later, or earlier cars, believing the changes / differences were deliberately incorporated as a model enhancement. Soon these changes are “converted” by owners dividing the cars into “better than”, or “worse than” models.

The common denominator is that the average classic car owner was far from the sharp end of the automotive industry when (mid 60’s changes) took place, and never has got to grips with why particular parts changed. That is a pity because an opportunity is lost to learn more about the cars. For instance why is it probable that Jaguar changed the HT lead arrangement for a technical reason, instead of just a supplier issue? (see the discussion in another thread)

There always will be early snagging lists on new models, but that does not make later models necessarily better, those late models often suffer dollar cuts with alterations to materials as designers overstepped the mark.

The S Type was fairly well developed for its time period, you could say it took the best of the MK2 and added the best of the E type, and in consequence did not suffer too many major engineering changes. What the model did suffer from was from two shortfalls that were not directly the fault of Jaguar at that time, and these are not exhaustive…….
(
A) Major labour troubles, very often from indirect sources like Pressed Steel workers on strike against Rover. In fact mid 60’s labour wildcat strikes were probably 95% of the reason for parts mixes. Not just Jaguar changing parts to reduce cost but because of the necessity to keep a production line flowing under duress. Changes and strikes occurred so frequent that a change of a glove box handle was a miner hassle, changes of gearbox more of an irritation.
(
B) The start of more serious issues developing around emissions, health and safety and especially the NADA (North American Dollar Area) regulations. Crash testing into 30 ton concrete blocks was well underway at MIRA which I often visited. This imposed a heavy workload on already stretched Jaguar engineering resources

From my perspective I have witnessed hundreds of changes in at least 35 production plants, all operated in a similar fashion whether it be Toyota in San Antonio TX or MAN in Germany. Production parts not on station were replaced with an alternative under what was known as a “Concession”. In such cases when the changes were very frequent they were never recorded in parts books under the terms of the concession. If the part change was permanent with luck it would be recorded in the next issue of the parts book….if there was such a thing. There is, and was, always a production standard vehicle at any one time, it may have even run 10 concessions, changing frequently in bad times, but never the less traceable IF you have access to the necessary records.

For my own choice I chose a 1965 3.4 S deliberately, not a 3.8 S, using my past engineering experience, which we all fall back upon, a better choice to me but that is shear opinion.

Apologies for running off thread but many of these points are interlinked and running off thread is almost mandatory. If you have a S Type, from whatever year and you are satisfied with its performance.

(a) You are lucky
(b) Keep it
(.c) Drive it and Enjoy it.

Norman

[Jose]

Norman, welcome to the S type forum.

yes I have driven 3.4 liter MK-2 (not S type), and concluded the 3.4 was a "sweeter" engine and not much different if any, from a 3.8.

[johngosnell]

My engineering background included 20 years at ford motor company UK during the early 70's to 90's, my area of expertise at that time was the body in white ( body Build area) and it was normal practice for more than one supplier to be given the spec and the detail left to the supplier as long as it fell in the design.

Regards John

1B1257BW