I bet he won't do that again...

Ian Dalziel ( snipped-for-privacy@lineone.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

48-90, so a bit less than the Austin A-series - that died with the mini in 2000, so 49 years. The Cit flat twin changed quite markedly in the late '60s - it's not really the same engine.

No.

Reply to
Adrian
Loading thread data ...

formatting link

the problem is that it's got the wrong engine and drive train underneath it all :(

Reply to
dojj

The S-Type was a MkII front grafted to a Mk10 rear, more or less. Reckoned to be a 'sleeper' classic by Classic & Sports Car, some years ago.

Reply to
Halmyre

Halmyre ( snipped-for-privacy@this.address) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

And still snoring...

Reply to
Adrian

formatting link

RX-8 stylee maybe?

Reply to
PC Paul

If you've ever lifted a Jag IRS system you'd know what I mean. ;-)

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

The first version (803cc) of the A Series was shown at the '50 motor show in the Austin A30. All the later ones up to the last Mini had near enough the same external dimensions. In other words, take a pic of the first and last basic engine and you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference.

The SS100 had a pushrod OHV engine made by Standard but tuned by Jaguar. The XK was a twin OHC design. Some say the block and bottom end was similar to the Standard unit but I don't know.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

I done my apprenticeship on XK Jaguars 45 years ago and I haven't the faintest memory of anything about them. Going senile I reckon;-) pete

Reply to
turtill

It's a clever 'double wishbone' design where the driveshaft acts as one of the links. Still in use today. It's all on one massive subframe which makes it popular for 'specials' etc.

I'd say it weighs some three times that of a beam axle and takes up a lot of room - hence the shallow boots on all those cars that use it.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

I know one that does ;-)

formatting link

Reply to
ThePunisher

it's basicly the same floorpan as the granada it repl;aced, but it's got different bits bolted to it

the sierra and granada's shared the same rear suspesion, other than the sierra's getting mostly 7 inch diffs and the granadas getting mainly 7.5 inch version (and the discs/abs stuff)

untrue it's just a bigger version of the sierra/granada I4 lump exactly the same bottom end in found in the mk5/6 RS2000 escorts when they put the 16 valve head onto the granada/mondeo (for a short time) and galaxy range they put in revised cams and different manifolds to give it less power but a smoother torque curve the capacity went up to 2.3 to beat emissions and tax and other stuff like that also, the scorpio is longetudinaly mounted and the galaxy is a transverse location, neither block are interchangeable with the other

Reply to
dojj

There is nothing untrue about that statement ;)

The 2.3 in the Scorpio has balancer shafts, I don't know if the Galaxy

2.3 does, but I'm quite sure the RS2000 didn't.

Cosworth developed the 2.3 16v fitted to the Scorpio, and it is in their history as being intended for DEW98. *shrugs*

Richard

Reply to
RichardK

They're not actually that bad. My Dad had an F plate 3.6 XJ6 for several years and it only let him down once due to a wheel bearing failure, so not exactly Jaguars fault. Repairs and servicing are very reasonable for a luxury car too as long as you keep well clear of the main dealers.

Reply to
Jack

I have no memory of it. The main problems I remember with Jaguars were bearings and clutches and of course they were regarded as Gentlemans cars in those days so we had many eccentric owners, one of whom supplied his own oil and he reckoned he made it too. I also worked on RR, Bentley and Daimler and to this day nothing will touch a Jaguar in my book but unfortunately my wife insists on me having a BMW which is also a very enjoyable car except for the recirculating ball steering in the model I have;-) pete

Reply to
turtill

the balancer shafts are there to give it a better rev, the rs2000 boys when they do their swaps discard them because they are a pain in the arse to build the sump around and besides, it's a neater package and the sump is a whole heap shallower and not in as many bits :)

it may well be that that's what they have said, but the end product seems to have ended up in everything but the jags :)

Reply to
dojj

Best I know of is the current Ruston Paxman RK280 series industrial Diesel developed from a 1933 English Elctric lump

But that Citroem lump lasted well!

How long did their lawn mower engine last?

Reply to
Martin

Well strictly it wasn't tuned by Jaguar. Wasn't SS Swallow sidecars, that became SS, that became Jaguar? So if Jaguar tuned the engine in an SS100 it must have been a restoration of an SS by the later company?

Reply to
NeedforSwede2

Lyons adopted the name Jaguar in '35.

Yes. And I *think* the SS100 was made either side of the adoption of the name Jaguar.

Clutching at straws now? ;-)

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

According to PAul Skilleter's 'Jaguar Sports Cars', the SS100 was announced in 1935 "concurrently with the new SS Jaguar saloons", although the Jaguar name wasn't added to the SS100 until 1936. The 'SS' was finally droped in 1945.

The genesis of the XK engine isn't really gone into, but it sounds like a totally new design - seven bearing crankshaft, twin cam, crossflow cylinder head with hemispherical chambers, lightweight (for its day!) cylinder block. There was supposed to be a four cylinder version, but it never made it into production.

Reply to
Halmyre

My understanding is that Swallow Sidecars made cars one model of which was called Jaguar hence SS Jaguar and the SS part had to be dropped when our german friends became momentarily unfriendly. I had a 1933 SS Jaguar that definitely had a 1.5 Standard engine. Of course that was the baby of the family and my uncle had a SS Jaguar that was a straight six about 3 litres but still a flat top Standard engine that had been tuned and it was a please to drive and to look at too with those huge headlights. Sweet memories indeed. pete

Reply to
turtill

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.