Original 34k miles 1963 coupe on BAT

Even then, could a US customer not specify 8:1? There could have been any number of resons to want the lower compression; planning a trip to South America, perhaps. I’m not sure if this is generally true, but in my experience, the lower compression car was more tractable. When I started driving in 1970, our fuel grades, IIRC, were 87 and 93 octane, 46 and 48 cents per gallon respectively. 48cents per hour was the hourly rate working on a potato harvesting machine that year, so relative to wages today, petrol is half as expensive as then. I always used regular gas in my E and it never ever pinked, unlike my 9:1 4.2 which was a pig around town and never even performed as well as the 3.8, despite the attention of the automotive team at the Polytech where I worked, and using 98 octane gas. Maybe different, modern fuels to blame ( 1970’s vs 2010’s), but knowing what (little) I do, I would plump for 8:1 should I ever need to.

I’m kind of curious about that, as I’m aware of some NZ new cars being 9:1 even in 1962. Maybe customers could spec the higher compression? Certainly I understand Sybil Lupp’s one was, for obvious reasons…

1 Like

I’ll let someone else answer that for certain, but I know I’ve never seen a US E with an original 8:1 engine.

I imagine it was merely an option and you chose for your intended use or circumstances. Likewise, when the 4.2 S1 was announced, I believe the 3.8 was still listed as an option. I always thought it would be a no-brainer, but again, if I had the choice, I would plump for the 3.8.
Again, a book I have states the Mk 1 stayed in production as " standard models" after the introduction of the Mk2, but I wonder if any were produced and sold. New doesn’t always equate to improved, especially in motor cars.

1 Like

My car has 9-1 pistons and the same 150 psi My head gasket is a Comtick 054 could this make that a big difference in compression psi

1 Like

It will make some difference. The original 3.8 is thin stamped tin. But you won’t get a Cometic composite much thinner that what you have and you’re probably better of with that.

FWIW, in my circle, beginning around 1989, many opted to rebuild with the 8:1 components due to the introduction of lower octane ethanol. We still hadn’t yet discovered what “gasohol” would do to the fuel system, which forced a change in seal technology, but that’s another story.

1 Like

But Tommy, ethanol had nothing to do with the octane number that was listed on the pump. If it said it was premium, it would have been blended to have the same octane whether it had ethanol or not.

1 Like

Ethanol actually increases the octane of gasoline. The octane rating of pure ethanol is 113. Many turbo and forced induction hotrodders actually seek out E85 (85% ethanol) and tune their cars to take advantage due to the octane characteristics.

Ethanol has lower energy content per unit though so they have to burn more of it to get that extra power. The tuning can involve higher flow systems to support increased fuel delivery rates. But lower octane is not one of the problems ethanol presents!

Dave

3 Likes

Not at all, which is why Indy cars ran for decades: it’s also nearly impossible to run it too rich, and engines run cooler with pure methanol/ethanol.

My engine, rebuilt some 40 years ago had 8:1 pistons. Since i had the block and head decked i wasn’t going to risk over compression problems by going with 9:1 pistons i went with 8:1 pistons, and a dollar a gallon difference in fuel. I can get non ethanol regular, non ethanol premium is harder to find.

1 Like

What are signs of over compression problems?

Whoops, I’m conflating things. For awhile, you could get both leaded and unleaded at the pump. The leaded pump handles had larger diameter nozzles that wouldnt fit the newer cars that were designed for, and required, unleaded. Leaded premium was still over 100 octane, which our long-stroke Jags loved. Then, octane ratings dropped below 100, and leaded was faded out. At that time, our 9:1 engines began knocking. Solutions were to retard the timing, rebuild with 8:1 components, or mix some 110 octane racing fuel with any good stuff you could find at the pump. (I still use the last option, but one must run the original spec S.U. carburettor needles.) Then came gasohol.

Did I get it right this time?

Close enough Tommy :grin:

I almost put diesel in the Etype a couple years ago which would be impossible to add to a modern car because of the nozzle restrictions. Must not have had my morning coffee and pulled out the diesel hose when a fellow next to me says”I never knew them to make a diesel in an XKE!” As embarrassed as I was I thanked him profusely!

1 Like

$195,000 …only.
I thought it would fetch more

1 Like

It seems to me, from watching the auctions, that most people prefer to pay more for the glitzy, every panel replaced, shiny hardware store bolts and fasteners, incorrectly restored cars, that will never leave their art gallery garages! I prefer a car like the auction car!

4 Likes

It came out of the gate like it was going to sell for $300k, but the auction went strangely quiet in the last couple of hours.

1 Like

Reality struck.

:grimacing:

I’m probably in the minority here, but I think $195,000 is a completely fair price for that car, and probably represents the reality of their current value.

2 Likes

There was a red/black 4.2 on BaT a couple of years ago with about 29,000 miles on it that was being sold by a well known dealer.

I believe he put it up with no reserve, and from his comments after the auction, he seemed pretty upset that it sold for “only” $150k. He claimed he had been offered $250k for it a year or two prior.

I think part of what made him so upset was that 302-powered “James Bond” E-type had just sold for $180k :laughing:

Having said all that, the guy who bought it was an E-type specialist, who immediately put it up for sale on his website, so I’m guessing he saw some “upside”.

1 Like

Well, I’m pretty sure I would pay more for the 302-engined Rover then I would for the original Buick-engined one… :slight_smile:

@302Rover

1 Like