Don’t need that stuff. Pigskin, man.
1 Like
funny 
1 Like
I agree totally. They are cars, and they were assembled as fast as they could to meet demand, and Sir Lyons was a master at making things look expensive while shaving every nickel (or pence) in the process. No rustproofing was one way, and the suppliers of parts were hammered for the last penny of possible savings. I had four, and they were all ‘lookers’, but had their faults. Like so many others, I can’t understand why no one has tried to re-make the car without going overboard. The technology is here, and drivetrains are plentiful. A replica is just that; a replica. OK, we like the looks of the body. The rest is child’s play these days.
I do not think that statement is quite correct. The cars were probably rustproofed as well as any of their contemporaries. When restoring one you will notice numerous drain holes that were used for the dipping procedure as well as fluid lines on panels showing the level to which they were dipped. Being constructed of multiple box sections is likely the main contributor to corrosion.
1 Like
Exactly. As can be seen in this factory description of the manufacturing process (4th paragraph), Jaguar did pay attention to rustproofing, with what were industry practices at that time. Corrosion science has come a long way since then, but at the time pretty much all cars were very susceptible, and being the first to use monocoque techniques likely exaggerated the problem with Jaguar.
2 Likes
Fascinating!
That thar new-fangled “CO2 wire welding” seems promising…
I will have to come up to speed on that one. I use an argon mix,and I think the rest is CO2
Yes, and I stand corrected. The American manufacturers were just as far behind, and in our salt and rust belts, we could see the rust pushing through the paint in the second year of ownership. The idea of making most of a car out of sheet metal was a grand idea for a race car, as it was much lighter, but to think an everyday driver could survive is another matter entirely.
Oh, come now! Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. Sitting in my garage is a replica body of a 250 GTO Ferrari, mounted on a Datsun 280Z chassis. It will have a 5.0 Litre Ford engine and T-5 Gearbox. Dayton wire wheels will finish the look.
Sometimes you see restored US cars with cad plated hardware and catches. A lot of this stuff was only phosphated or blued when it left the factory. Jaguar seems to have been as good or better than contemporary Chrysler or GM at rustproofing.
Reading about the method of assembly, I’m wondering why this method isn’t used by restorers today. Separate the frame. Build up the engine, transmission and front suspension on the rails, then bolt the whole shebang to the front of the tub as a unit. You could even install the front exhaust pipes with plenty of room to work. It seems like it would save many hours of fettling. A simple wooden jig to support it and roll it around, and you wouldn’t even need a crane or jack.
2 Likes
IIRC, that’s how Jaguar did the E.
Perhaps one reason is that the factory had the advantage of every single part sitting there, all shiny new, ready to go, while restorers are juggling the availability from a very different supply chain.
Engines may be off being rebuilt and waiting on out-of-stock pistons, while chrome is tied up in a 3 month backlog by the plater, and the body shop just lost their only person who worked with lead, and they just found they have to redo all the bullet connections on the wire harness. All while also trying to juggle restorations on a half dozen other cars of varying makes and deal with customers whose cars need servicing. They need to assemble whatever they can as they go to keep the whole shop team working.
Bullet leads should never be soldered, but I’ll never win that argument here. Just had to say it. Every time I hear about soldering harness connectors, I cringe.
I find this unconvincing. Jigging the frame and then installing the parts to the rails as they become available doesn’t take more time, it takes less. Think of the effort of dropping the engine into the car with a crane vs slipping the frame around the engine, then bolting the frame to the body when it comes back from paint. Simpler, less time, less stress. In fact, the frames can be sprayed up long before the balance of the body is finished, allowing bodywork to proceed while the mechanicals are built up.
I choosing to in my next project to “fit up “ the firewall including brake lines etc … roll the engine and gearbox with clutch piping, , speedo cable etc in position… build the frames around the engine in situ add suspension etc.
This was recommended as a way to avoid a lot of hassle by a chap that rebuilds many many e types in his shop.
This is all done after painting and fitting and gapping of all body panels … just remove bonnet and frames and replace when all under bonnet work done.
Danny
Mike, can you elaborate on that? If not soldered, what?
Crimped. Soldered connections in a hot humid environment like the engine compartment are subject to galvanic corrosion. Crimping is every bit as secure as soldering, provided enough pressure is applied to close the crimp. I know that many types of connectors in the aftermarket are designed for solder, but it’s not really best practice.
1 Like
Moral of the story- be sure you get a correct bullet crimping tool if you are going to make your own harnesses/jumpers/etc. For example:
NAYYY…
That is key, having correct crimping tools.
Mike is dead correct: crimping is far superior to soldering, wrt automotive wiring.
Thinking about the crimp style spade terminals. How about crimping, followed with soldering? Any value? Any harm.
John- as long as you cover the spades with the silicone insulators and fill with dielectric grease it shouldn’t really matter unless the area it is located in is hot enough to melt out the dielectric grease, then crimp only would be recommended. These connectors use a different type of crimper as I’m sure you’re aware.
