Last week I found this 3.8L seat from a seller on EBay
The leather is actually still supple but the foam under the seat is starting to turn to powder.
I got it for $345 plus $67 shipping and $28 sales tax. These are photos I just took as I opened the shipping box.
I figured that if other sellers were asking silly amounts for E-Type seats that this was worth the $345
That looks eminently clean-uppable.
I think you did very well! Congrats on snagging that! Richard Michael Owen has a great YouTube channel where he shows restoring/cleaning original interiors and re using them. I think Chuck Hadley on Monocoque Metalworks YT also did some seat renewal , IIRC
It’s a good deal. I do assume you appreciate the difference between the coupe and roadster seats
Phil wrote: I do assume you appreciate the difference between the coupe and roadster seats
Whoops! No, I didn’t know there was a differences between coupe and roadster seats. Is there an explanation or photos of the differences available anywhere?
This thread has possibly everything you ever wanted to know about 3.8 seats (and possibly a lot more!)…
The seat you purchased is a Coupe seat. Original OTS seats had a narrower more “pointy” back.
Many early Coupes, up to about '62 used the OTS type seat though.
And then there are the 2+2 seats, which were even different (at least in my 67 2+2).
I think the one seat I got with the cut up hulk that I bought is probably a 2+2 seat since it has a cut off or angled front corner that seems like it would be needed to miss the extra wide transmission tunnel needed for the automatic transmission.
Before this I never realized there were so many variations in seats for the various cars. I just thought there were 3.8L S1 seats and the later seats for the 4.2L S1 cars.
All of the 4.2 style seats have the cut off corner to clear the transmission tunnel.
StevenD57, it’s been about 30 years since I had my 2+2, but my recollection is that the seat had a release which allowed the seat backs to tilt forward for access to the rear seat (like the seats in the XJS that I now have do for access to the rear seat).
From what I recall of the seats on my former 1969 2+2 they are the same as on my current 1969 FHC.
Are you saying that your 69 2+2 and 69 FHC seats both tilt forward, or that neither seats tilt forward?
I’m trying to remember what provided access to the rear seat in my 67 2+2, and I don’t recall having to move the seats all the way forward, but that the seat backs tilted forward (and maybe moved the seats forward some). But that was a l-o-n-g time ago and I do not clearly recall how access to the rear seat was accomplished.
In my old 2+2
Yes, both tilt forward, and recline. Both have the bevel for the transmission tunnel.
In the FHC.
It’s interesting that the weatherstrip for sealing the doors is so different between the FHC and the 2+2
Quite possibly because the 2+2 is almost a foot longer (11"+/-) then the FHC & OTS?
Not only that but the seats fitted before about May 1961 were different to those fitted afterwards. Early cars had seat backs with a 10 degree rake, later cars had seats with a 20 degree rake. These could be fitted because later cars had scalloped rear bulkheads.
If you fit later seats to the earlier cars you will compromise leg room.
David
1962, right?
Actually 9-1/8", IIRC.
Right. My '62 was April manufacture and the scallops came just after then. Had footwells already.
