[E-Type] Why are my headlights open?

I bought my 67 OTS with open headlights, 1E14497 in 1975 in
pretty much perfect condition. When I look at xkedata, cars
built after mine have closed headlights.

Was Jaguar trying out a few of the new open headlight hoods?
Did one production line run out of closed highlight hoods
before the others?

Just curious.–
Mike Oldak 67 1 1/4 OTS
Bethesda, Maryland, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–


Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo
Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

In reply to a message from Michael Oldak sent Fri 29 Mar 2013:

Hi Mike. I’ve been trying to get similar questions answered
myself. I have 1e14598 with closed headlamps. Odder yet, I have a
bare aluminum head. What finish is the head yours. I believe Bob
Stevenson has been gathering information on this transition period
and has been able to nail some of it down.

My sense is that there were various parts to assembly in a
warehouse somwhere and there was some mixing and matching going
on. I would love to understand this better as well.

Mark
San Rafael–
The original message included these comments:

Was Jaguar trying out a few of the new open headlight hoods?
Did one production line run out of closed highlight hoods
before the others?


Mark Verwiel
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–


Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo
Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

In reply to a message from my67e sent Fri 29 Mar 2013:

My head isn’t original (either one) so I can’t tell what the
original head looked like, but on my last restoration I felt
that I could paint it gold. (I kind of recall that the
original head was unpainted, but found enough misinformation
on various sites to allow me to confidently spray it gold
anyway.

My theory was that there were different assembly lines. But
i believe from looking at XKEDATA that the hood change over
(luck of the draw) took place over too many months to be a
separate assembly line storage area issue.–
The original message included these comments:

Hi Mike. I’ve been trying to get similar questions answered
myself. I have 1e14598 with closed headlamps. Odder yet, I have a
bare aluminum head. What finish is the head yours. I believe Bob
Stevenson has been gathering information on this transition period
and has been able to nail some of it down.
My sense is that there were various parts to assembly in a
warehouse somwhere and there was some mixing and matching going
on. I would love to understand this better as well.
Mark
San Rafael


Mike Oldak 67 1 1/4 OTS
Bethesda, Maryland, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–


Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo
Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

In reply to a message from Michael Oldak sent Fri 29 Mar 2013:

The simple answer is that many of the 1967 cars in XKEDATA that
left the factory with open headlights have been either retrofitted
with closed headlight bonnets or are conversions. The production
cutoff was ostensibly January 11, 1967, before which all - as in
every single one - E-types were built with the glass covers, and
after which all but a small number (according to well sourced JCNA
data, 18 roadsters, 7 fixed head coupes and 7 2+2s) left the
factory with open headlights. If your car was built before that
cutoff date, it will have been originally fitted with covered
headlights. If after, probably not. It is interesting to note that
almost half of the post-January production 1967 cars revealingly
depicted in XKEDATA (ie you can see the headlight treatment in
their photos) have covered headlights. Almost all didn’t leave the
factory that way. It’s just owner preference. There is also
anectdotal evidence that some Series 1 owners wanted to ‘‘update’’
the look of their cars and traded in their closed headlight bonnets
for the new open headlight design. Go figure.–
The original message included these comments:

I bought my 67 OTS with open headlights, 1E14497 in 1975 in
pretty much perfect condition. When I look at xkedata, cars
built after mine have closed headlights.
Was Jaguar trying out a few of the new open headlight hoods?
Did one production line run out of closed highlight hoods
before the others?
Just curious.


Nick Saltarelli - 1968 E-type S1� OTS, 1954 XK120SE OTS
Niagara, Ontario, Canada
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–


Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo
Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

In reply to a message from Michael Oldak sent Fri 29 Mar 2013:

There is also anectdotal evidence that some
Series 1 owners wanted to ‘‘update’’ the
look of their cars and traded in their closed
headlight bonnets for the new open headlight
design.

IIRC there was a comment within the past year from someone
who worked at a Jaguar dealer in the late 60’s and he wrote
that there were a number of covered glass bonnets out back
of the shop from earlier SI owners wanting the newer look.
Certainly anecdotal and even that info might have been
second hand.

Go figure.

I happen to think that once the E-Type lost the covered
headlamps and then grew fatter bumpers much of the elegance
was lost, but to each his own.–
Doug Kennedy, '62 FHC
McKinney, TX, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–


Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo
Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

In reply to a message from Michael Oldak sent Fri 29 Mar 2013:

Hi, Mike. My car, 1E14988, early March 1967, came with
uncovered headlights and, I think, an unpainted head. (The
head number does match the ID plate.) Previous owner
converted to covered headlights in 2002. I have the shop
work order and bill to prove it. On a dark night, I would
prefer the uncovered lights, but the rest of the time, I’m
glad that PO paid to have the conversion done. And I don’t
drive at night that much, anyway. As you may know, my
rebuild is going to consist of a new (to me) Series 2 block
and head, the latter also unpainted and like you, I’ve
painted it gold. I am keeping the original matching numbers
head and block in case I win the Powerball Jackpot and can
have them rebuilt and then reinstalled. Bottom line is,
yours probably came with uncovered lights, but it’s your car
and you should set it up any way you please.–
The original message included these comments:

I bought my 67 OTS with open headlights, 1E14497 in 1975 in
pretty much perfect condition. When I look at xkedata, cars
built after mine have closed headlights.


Mark
Burke, VA, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–


Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo
Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

Hi Doug,
I don’t believe for one second that there was widespread, maybe a
couple somewhere, changing of bonnets from open to closed headlights
going on at Jaguar dealerships, Just think of the problems involved
besides the fact that there was never a “yard full of cars” cars
available at a dealership, at least not here in Michigan. Sooo- a
dealer would have to have two cars available of the same color and
then have his people change the bonnets and align them and when they
get through he’s left with a bastard car!
Bob
889076
Plymouth, Mi.On Mar 29, 2013, at 3:46 PM, XJ220 wrote:

In reply to a message from Michael Oldak sent Fri 29 Mar 2013:

There is also anectdotal evidence that some
Series 1 owners wanted to ‘‘update’’ the
look of their cars and traded in their closed
headlight bonnets for the new open headlight
design.

IIRC there was a comment within the past year from someone
who worked at a Jaguar dealer in the late 60’s and he wrote
that there were a number of covered glass bonnets out back
of the shop from earlier SI owners wanting the newer look.
Certainly anecdotal and even that info might have been
second hand.

Go figure.

I happen to think that once the E-Type lost the covered
headlamps and then grew fatter bumpers much of the elegance
was lost, but to each his own.

Doug Kennedy, '62 FHC
McKinney, TX, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–


Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo
Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php


Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo
Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

In reply to a message from XJ220 sent Fri 29 Mar 2013:

Inelegance is in the eye of the beholder. This is my screen saver,
a daily inspiration to see my current total restoration to its
successful conclusion. It was taken the day I started dismantling
my S1� OTS. I had already removed the seats and the ragtop and then
remembered I wanted to photodocument the entire process:

I have to confess that inelegance has never once come to mind in
the context of viewing my car, but I also have to admit to a bias
every bit as strong as those who might think otherwise. I have
considered headlight conversion but have so far not gone through
with it because of ambivalence. It’s beautiful just as it is, so
why change it? Perhaps impolitic, but I observe an abstract sense
of legitimacy on the part of a handful of owners with respect to
headlight covers, more pointedly that they ‘‘do not belong’’ on S1-
bodied cars unless they came that way from the factory. A sentiment
expressed recently in this forum is that just because a 1967 Series
1� has been fitted with covered headlights and looks exactly like a
1967 Series 1 in all respects does not make it a Series 1 - it is
merely a wannabe Series 1. Yes, to each his own.–
The original message included these comments:

I happen to think that once the E-Type lost the covered
headlamps and then grew fatter bumpers much of the elegance
was lost, but to each his own.


Nick Saltarelli - 1968 E-type S1� OTS, 1954 XK120SE OTS
Niagara, Ontario, Canada
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–


Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo
Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

In reply to a message from Nick S. sent Fri 29 Mar 2013:

Nick the way Jaguar saw it is that every car from 61-68 was a
series 1. Thhen series 2. Hope that helps. Keep it correct–you
will be happy later.–
The original message included these comments:

with it because of ambivalence. It’s beautiful just as it is, so
why change it? Perhaps impolitic, but I observe an abstract sense
of legitimacy on the part of a handful of owners with respect to
bodied cars unless they came that way from the factory. A sentiment
expressed recently in this forum is that just because a 1967 Series
1� has been fitted with covered headlights and looks exactly like a
1967 Series 1 in all respects does not make it a Series 1 - it is
merely a wannabe Series 1. Yes, to each his own.


George Camp
Columbia SC, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–


Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo
Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

Mike,
According to factory records your car should have had closed
headlights but its very close. The first one with open headlights
being 1E14532 or so… A couple of items might explain yours; it was
8 years old something may have happened to the original bonnet, you
might see evidence of that however. I’ve heard from two sources that
some cars had their closed headlight bonnets removed and swapped for
open by dealers before delivery to buyers that wanted the latest and
greatest. It sounds like an abomination today but when the cars were
new attitudes would have been different. This is a case where the car
left the factory with closed headlights but was delivered brand new
with open headlights. I wouldn’t omit the possibility of a car
getting open headlights earlier than recorded tho, especially that
close to the formal changeover. Also that changeover date was for
North American cars, rest of the world was supposed to have them
installed soon after but not on our schedule. MHO.
pauls

I bought my 67 OTS with open headlights, 1E14497 in 1975 in
pretty much perfect condition. When I look at xkedata, cars
built after mine have closed headlights.

Was Jaguar trying out a few of the new open headlight hoods?
Did one production line run out of closed highlight hoods
before the others?
<<<<<<<<<<From: “Michael Oldak” mike@oldaks.com
Subject: [E-Type] Why are my headlights open?


Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo
Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

In reply to a message from paul spurlock sent Fri 29 Mar 2013:

Paul as Bob said demand was always very high and few dealers could
keep any stock at any time. It was only at the end of the E
(1974/5) with rumors of an ‘‘F’’ that any stock was available
anywhere. A new bonnet (open headlamp) type would not have been new
until they were sent here–then they would have already have open
lamps. This is just a mis understanding by someone–or something
else. A new bonnet cost a dealer $434.28 in 1967/8. That is the
shell without the fixings or paint or shipping. So to be fair lets
just put the cost of ‘‘swapping’’ bonnets at $1000 for 1967. Add that
to the base price of a new E and you are looking at about a 20%
mark-up. Now all you have to do is sell the ‘‘old’’ bonnets. Why
would you do this on a car that the next guy in the door will take
as it is. I think all of this has become confused when Jaguar began
to offer ‘‘service’’ bonnets in about 1970 for the series one cars.
They were made to be used on all series one cars and came with the
proper instructions to install to even outside lock cars. 1970 is
some 43 years ago and memory of some (as well as most orig. owners)
have faded.–
The original message included these comments:

might see evidence of that however. I’ve heard from two sources that
some cars had their closed headlight bonnets removed and swapped for
open by dealers before delivery to buyers that wanted the latest and
greatest. It sounds like an abomination today but when the cars were
new attitudes would have been different. This is a case where the car
left the factory with closed headlights but was delivered brand new
with open headlights. I wouldn’t omit the possibility of a car
getting open headlights earlier than recorded tho, especially that


George Camp
Columbia SC, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–


Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo
Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

Totally agree. I guess these decisions are a fine line, we all love
the cars because of their beauty, removing the closed headlights is a
cosmetic change no question. Most would say for the worse but the
reasons why Coventry made the change can’t be ignored. It saved
money!!! It made it MUCH easier to adjust/change headlights and
improved lighting significantly. So if your car came with open
headlights do you choose to throw out those advantages and spend a wad
of cash doing it? I admit I like the appearance of the covered
headlights better than the open ones but as you say “it’s beautiful as
it is” and it’s as it left the factory.
pauls

In reply to a message from XJ220 sent Fri 29 Mar 2013:

Inelegance is in the eye of the beholder. This is my screen saver,
a daily inspiration to see my current total restoration to its
successful conclusion. It was taken the day I started dismantling
my S1˝ OTS. I had already removed the seats and the ragtop and then
remembered I wanted to photodocument the entire process:

I have to confess that inelegance has never once come to mind in
the context of viewing my car, but I also have to admit to a bias
every bit as strong as those who might think otherwise. I have
considered headlight conversion but have so far not gone through
with it because of ambivalence. It’s beautiful just as it is, so
why change it? Perhaps impolitic, but I observe an abstract sense
of legitimacy on the part of a handful of owners with respect to
headlight covers, more pointedly that they ‘‘do not belong’’ on S1-
bodied cars unless they came that way from the factory. A sentiment
expressed recently in this forum is that just because a 1967 Series
1ź has been fitted with covered headlights and looks exactly like a
1967 Series 1 in all respects does not make it a Series 1 - it is
merely a wannabe Series 1. Yes, to each his own.
<<<<<<<<<<<From: “Nick S.” stellar-plain@sympatico.ca
Subject: Re: [E-Type] Why are my headlights open?


Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo
Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

In reply to a message from paul spurlock sent Sat 30 Mar 2013:

Paul all of those reasons are prop. valid but the reason Jaguar did
it is that unless they did they would loose their largest market of
about 70% of E types. Late 67 and all of 1968 were the first years
of DOT rules. VW had to do the same thing with their cars. When I
was younger I did State Inspections for a garage. When the
compliance officer came the two cars he loked for in our books were
VW and E type Jaguar. We did not have the optical equipment to
check --only the stick on the lamp parts. All of the changes to the
1968 E (AKA S 1.5) were mandated.–
The original message included these comments:

reasons why Coventry made the change can’t be ignored. It saved
money!!! It made it MUCH easier to adjust/change headlights and
improved lighting significantly. So if your car came with open
headlights do you choose to throw out those advantages and spend a wad


George Camp
Columbia SC, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–


Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo
Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

George,
It was I who mentioned some time ago that I know a fellow who worked
at a dealer who did this, so for the record its not a
misunderstanding. I have heard rumor of it happening from another
source but its just that a rumor, however my evidence implies it was
possible. What I don’t and will never know is how many times it
happened nor the means of the buyers who wanted them. IMHO we’d have
to get into the mindset of buyers at the time, impossible but clearly
there are buyers in which cost was not really an object, just as it is
today, if they want it they get it. Looking at it from my personal
prospective, back in the 70s with a new Camero when Chevy came out
with slight body modifications on later models I bought the parts from
GM and had them installed on my car by my local body shop, parts that
required some panel repaint so not simple. The guy thought I was
crazy and I was but its what I wanted. Also back in the 70s I went
out shopping for the new 240Z when they were brand new. What I found
was ALL of them were priced 20-30% more than sticker price due to
dealer added options, wheels, tires, aftermarket chrome, paint
protection wax job, silly stuff but if you wanted one that’s the price
you paid. As you can imagine I have no problem believing this kind of
thing happened, illogical as it may seem. I’ve made plenty of
illogical decisions about cars.
pauls

Paul as Bob said demand was always very high and few dealers could
keep any stock at any time. It was only at the end of the E
(1974/5) with rumors of an ‘‘F’’ that any stock was available
anywhere. A new bonnet (open headlamp) type would not have been new
until they were sent here–then they would have already have open
lamps. This is just a mis understanding by someone–or something
else. A new bonnet cost a dealer $434.28 in 1967/8. That is the
shell without the fixings or paint or shipping. So to be fair lets
just put the cost of ‘‘swapping’’ bonnets at $1000 for 1967. Add that
to the base price of a new E and you are looking at about a 20%
mark-up. Now all you have to do is sell the ‘‘old’’ bonnets. Why
would you do this on a car that the next guy in the door will take
as it is. I think all of this has become confused when Jaguar began
to offer ‘‘service’’ bonnets in about 1970 for the series one cars.
They were made to be used on all series one cars and came with the
proper instructions to install to even outside lock cars. 1970 is
some 43 years ago and memory of some (as well as most orig. owners)
have faded.
<<<<<<<<<From: “George Camp” scjag@juno.com
Subject: Re: [E-Type] Why are my headlights open?


Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo
Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

In reply to a message from paul spurlock sent Sat 30 Mar 2013:

‘‘Also back in the 70s I went out shopping for the new 240Z
when they were brand new. What I found was ALL of them were
priced 20-30% more than sticker price due to dealer added
options, wheels, tires, aftermarket chrome, paint protection
wax job, silly stuff but if you wanted one that’s the price
you paid.’’ - I bought an Rx-7 when they first came out. The
dealers were gouging on those as well. I found one dealer in
town who would sell me the car I wanted at sticker price,
while everyone else was marking them up by thousands.–
Ray Livingston - '64 OTS Santa Cruz, CA
Santa Cruz, CA, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–


Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo
Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

In reply to a message from Ray Livingston sent Sat 30 Mar 2013:

Nick & Paul,
I’m sorry if you felt I was calling your baby ugly. In my
mind less elegance (much elegance lost was my use) ≠
inelegant (Nick�s term). The �61 design was, in my mind,
likely the most attractive mass-produced automobile, period.
It had a fair bit to fall in terms of elegance before it
became in inelegant / ugly. It is interesting for me in the
last run-up in E-Type prices that the SIII set the pace,
with it�s V-12 always mentioned. I didn’t quite understand
that since I don’t believe the performance was stronger and,
again, it was in my mind less elegant (adding the needed but
huge grill). Now the E-Type run-up seems led by the
original design with it’s design, incl. covered lamps &
smaller bumpers frequently referred to.

Paul,
George is right re headlight and other safety regulations
coming in �68 as well as some early smog requirement thought
I believe only for US manufactured cars at that time.
Safety requirements also included side marker requirement
(not '67-'68 Mustang change for an example), headlight
heights, padded dashes (& Jag going to less protruding
toggles), etc, etc. I believe EGRs show up about this time
as well as pre-heaters for the intake.

�In 1968 when Federal auto equipment and safety regulations
were initiated, the requirement for two large or four small
round sealed beams was codified, thus freezing headlamp
design for many years. At the same time, the new regulations
prohibited any decorative or protective element in front of
the headlamps whenever the headlamps are switched on.
Glass-covered headlamps, used on e.g. the Jaguar E-Type,
pre-1968 VW Beetle, 1965 Chrysler and Imperial models,
Porsche 356, Citro�n DS and Ferrari Daytona were no longer
permitted and vehicles had to be imported with uncovered
headlamps for the US market. This change meant that vehicles
designed for good aerodynamic performance could not achieve
it for the US market.�

I’ve also read that the E-Type lamps were slightly too low
and thus were raised a bit on the open headlight design.
Not sure if this is true or not.

Doug–
Doug Kennedy, '62 FHC
McKinney, TX, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–


Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo
Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

In reply to a message from XJ220 sent Sat 30 Mar 2013:

Naw. The closed headlights are beautiful, too. :wink: If I had the
space there’d be an S1 coupe in my garage. Maybe have to get rid of
the XK120 (with it’s incorrect PF770 tribar headlights that look so
much better than the standard items that came on US cars).–
The original message included these comments:

I’m sorry if you felt I was calling your baby ugly. In my


Nick Saltarelli - 1968 E-type S1� OTS, 1954 XK120SE OTS
Niagara, Ontario, Canada
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–


Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo
Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

George,
I’m aware that was the impetus for the change, however that isn’t the
reason given in the Jaguar bulletin which is “modified to provide
direct access to the headlamps”. And since it happened well before
the federalized car intro one could speculate that Sir William would
have leaped at the change for the reasons I cited. Let me be clear
the reason for the early '67 introduction time is is purely conjecture
on my part but personally I think a brilliant move since it was going
to happen anyway.
pauls

Paul all of those reasons are prop. valid but the reason Jaguar did
it is that unless they did they would loose their largest market of
about 70% of E types. Late 67 and all of 1968 were the first years
of DOT rules. VW had to do the same thing with their cars. When I
was younger I did State Inspections for a garage. When the
compliance officer came the two cars he loked for in our books were
VW and E type Jaguar. We did not have the optical equipment to
check --only the stick on the lamp parts. All of the changes to the
1968 E (AKA S 1.5) were mandated.
<<<<<<<<<<<<From: “George Camp” scjag@juno.com
Subject: Re: [E-Type] Why are my headlights open?


Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo
Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

In reply to a message from paul spurlock sent Sat 30 Mar 2013:

Paul as with all FMVSS Jaguar knew it was on the way and when it
was mandatory. As with Seatbelts and other items the due date was
known. I agree it saved money and also did allow better access to
the lamps. It was a win win for Jaguar but they would not have
said ‘‘they made us do it’’ as they had to continue to work with the
Feds. Even today there is a full time set of positions at Mahwah
that spend all of their time in ‘‘Federal Compliance’’. Regulations
are phased in and are well known by all car makers well before the
due date. As another thought Jaguar was/is a small company and
phasing in changes would be a lot easier on training than all at
once. Seatbelt rules were the first adopted but Jaguar had been
working on an approach since 1963 when they put in points and
offered them as optional–the handwriting was on the wall.–
The original message included these comments:

I’m aware that was the impetus for the change, however that isn’t the
reason given in the Jaguar bulletin which is ‘‘modified to provide
direct access to the headlamps’’. And since it happened well before
the federalized car intro one could speculate that Sir William would
have leaped at the change for the reasons I cited. Let me be clear
the reason for the early '67 introduction time is is purely conjecture
on my part but personally I think a brilliant move since it was going
to happen anyway.


George Camp
Columbia SC, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–


Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo
Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

In reply to a message from paul spurlock sent Sat 30 Mar 2013:

Agreed, Paul. Jaguar saw the writing on the wall and acted before
it was compelled to. The headlight cover design at the beginning
was a beautiful compromise shaped by dollars. Ferarri’s GTB
headlight design a year later was better but it was a lot more
expensive. The early cars had the poorest lighting. Their headlamp
output at night was characterised by the motoring press as
equivalent to glow worms or fireflies. Today you can compensate for
light scatter with high output lamps that weren’t invented back
then so the issue is almost moot. Side lighting still isn’t great,
especially compared to the S2 or S3 cars, but at least now you can
see what’s on the road ahead.

Back in the day the cars were not safe to drive fast at night and
that may have begun to show up in accident statistics. If so it was
the impetus behind the US Federal regs which, as you point out,
didn’t come into effect until a year after the first uncovered
headlight cars left the assembly line at Brown’s Lane. The change
was inevitable, even if it wasn’t ultimately appreciated.–
The original message included these comments:

I’m aware that was the impetus for the change, however that isn’t the
reason given in the Jaguar bulletin which is ‘‘modified to provide
direct access to the headlamps’’. And since it happened well before
the federalized car intro one could speculate that Sir William would
have leaped at the change for the reasons I cited. Let me be clear
the reason for the early '67 introduction time is is purely conjecture
on my part but personally I think a brilliant move since it was going
to happen anyway.


Nick Saltarelli - 1968 E-type S1� OTS, 1954 XK120SE OTS
Niagara, Ontario, Canada
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–


Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo
Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php