I’m only a couple of weeks away from removing the body from its rotisserie and mounting it to the frame. The rigid cockpit bracing will be left in place to maintain panel alignment during the process. The braced body will be lowered onto the four main amidship frame brackets (red arrows), shimmed to clear the frame - I’m measuring the need to shim the front two frame outrigger brackets 3/8" and the rears 5/8"
and the remaining mounting points (green arrows) shimmed for a tailored fit, everything bolted firmly in place after which the bracing will be removed.
After referencing Viart’s XK120 Explored, p. 100, I’m not entirely clear on what pads and shims will be required.
The parts manual lists four different 5 7/8" x 3 1/8" pads for the OTS:
BD.3692/1
BD.3692/2
BD.3799/1
BD.3799/2 (Viart has this fourth pad as BD.3692/2, apparently an error).
Viart then shows a detail of BD.3692/1 at 1/8" thick. I have several of this pad, all the same, but none of the other three. What are the thicknesses of the other three? Are they really handed? Seems they’d be ambidextrous.
Are rectangular felt or fibre pads called for in these four locations? The other eight?
Where else are there felt strips between the body and the frame?
As usual, my humblest thanks, oh wise and grey whiskered ones …
A rotisserie is the only way to go. The body was off the frame when I bought the car so I don’t have a factory point of reference. Are the shims under the four main body mounts on your OTS all the same thickness, as in 1/8”? That’s all that was in the box that came with mine.
Having an early FHC, my car does not even match Viart’s pads for Coupes, so would probably not be an accurate reference for the mounts on an OTS.
However, having done this job a couple of years ago on a Mark V saloon, the body of which I had removed myself, and having all the original pads in hand, some of which were cork, I will observe that the quantities did not match the SPC.
I bought a sheet of rubber in 1/2" thickness and cut out a stock of 2" pads with a hole saw, then fitted them according to the parts catalogue, after which I then found I needed a couple more in places where the body did not sit down on the chassis as expected.
So it might be well not to assume that the SPC and Viart are correct in every aspect, and to allow that there may be some variation in bodies made from one month to the next.
Yes aware of this Rob, this body mount issue was discussed 18 months 2 yrs ago,
Your car I believe had / has rubber central mounts and I informed that 679282 has / had
aluminium plus red fibre mounts. Re the OTS something rings a bell that the very late cars also have the raised body like the DHC / FHC , but like so many things I am more than likely wrong.
Peter B.
Ah, ok Peter now I understand your comment, although I don’t recall hearing this thought before now, and for that matter I have not figured out WHY they raised the body on FHC and DHC. But in the 25 years of this forum we’ve uncovered hundreds of strange anomalies and minor changes on the 120 that give grey whiskers to the restoration book and judging guide writers.
And yes my FHC has all rubber body mounts.
I read somewhere that Jaguar regarded the OTS as their true “Super Sports” model which should be “low” to the ground in racing terms, whereas the DHC and FHC should be “higher” above the ground as they were more “luxurious” touring models (and it is easier to get in and out of the car. For what it’s worth…
Is there a problem with mounting the fhc lower on the chassis the same as the ots? Does it cause clearance problems with components or result in an odd looking side view?
My initial thought is that the steering column is fixed in a certain angle on the chassis, and the scuttle and dashboard panel are designed to receive it at a certain position, so it would not be simply a matter of removing support pieces to lower the body. Clutch and brake pedal shafts also go through fixed holes in the scuttle.
For the FHC the factory added a support channel at the front of the chassis and made some significant changes to a number of body panels, but the change raises it only 7/8" at the front, and I think a little less at the rear.
I’m just curious to know all about it, why did they go to that trouble and expense, when the FHC could have been just as low as the OTS.
I’m beginning to think it was about a compromise between providing enough headroom and keeping the roof low and sporty in relation to the rest of the body line, so they found a way to lower the driver.
Well, its still low and sporty enough for me anyway.
No problems mtg body of fhc dhc same as roadster only issues are you can’t have dropped floors so back to 9mm ply floor.
And in the fhc you have 1 inch less head room
Good morning, from what I have been able to read, the XK120 OTS have these pads between the body and the chassis:
1X BD3692 / 1
1X BD3692 / 2
1X BD3799 / 1
1XBD3692 / 2
12X BD4373
? X BD6635 (I don’t know the total amount)
Being OTS, it does not need the aluminum supports (BD5981, BD7974, BD7856, BD7857, BD4981) or the BD2070 fiber pads. Is this correct or are they missing?
I need to know what to bring because I have to finish installing the body on the chassis.
XK120 explored covers this in detail on pages 28 and 29 with pictures of each of the parts
6635 is one either side minimum and very rarely will you see anymore than this
The problem is that we do not have any, the vehicle came in parts, and those shoes did not bring them. That is why you have to put them all completely new, and that is why I would like to obtain a complete kit, with all the necessary parts.
