I have aquired a Standard sidevalve engine,box and rolling
chassis well I think it is. The engine does not have many
markings other than engine and casting numbers being
B.C.1.2.4.E(as stamped) and casting 43268. The reason I am
asking on here is the close relation to the SS cars.
The engine comes with twin SU’s and a four branch exhaust
with the sump pan recessed to clear the pipe. The gearbox
which is cast Standard has a remote alloy gearchange casting
bolted on. The rear axle is different cannot find any
casting/stamped numbers yet.
The chassis which according to the reg plate was registered
between Sept 1932 to June 1933 carries 12 inch hydraulic
drum ribbed drum brakes with knock on hubs and the steering
box is a so far unstamped huge effort.
I am in the process of taking photo’s so will try to post
them up soon.
many thanks in advance Andy–
bsa500
Tonbridge, United Kingdom
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
In reply to a message from bsa500 sent Sun 19 May 2013:
Hydraulic brakes doesn’t sound right for an SS or even a
Standard, although it could be a later conversion.
When you post the pictures, also mention the wheel base and
front and rear track measurements.–
The original message included these comments:
between Sept 1932 to June 1933 carries 12 inch hydraulic
drum ribbed drum brakes with knock on hubs and the steering
–
XK120 FHC, Mark V saloon, XJ12L Series II, S-Type 3.0
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
In reply to a message from bsa500 sent Sun 19 May 2013:
Greetings Andy,
SS1’s ran 12’’ and half inch larger brake later on in production.
The steering box is a Marles Weller unit and it is cast ibto the
housing.
Gearboxes weren’t a strong point and some have had a later XK
unit swapped into place.
Any pictures of the frame. The way the X-member is nested into
the outer rails can be clue to both it’s age and if it’s ss in
origin.
Ed N. feel free to correct me…
Later, Bob Lovell--
The original message included these comments:
I have aquired a Standard sidevalve engine,box and rolling
chassis well I think it is. The engine does not have many
drum ribbed drum brakes with knock on hubs and the steering
box is a so far unstamped huge effort.
–
Lovell
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
Hi Bob,
It’s not a cruciform frame. You can see pics here:
Peter
Lovell wrote:> Any pictures of the frame. The way the X-member is nested into
the outer rails can be clue to both it’s age and if it’s ss in
origin.Ed N. feel free to correct me…
Later, Bob Lovell
In reply to a message from peter scott sent Fri 24 May 2013:
The chassis frame sweeps over the rear axle, so it
presumably is not an SS-II. Tube shocks appear to be later
additions. Oversize rear wheels make it seem like an early
British version of what we called in the US a T-bucket hot
rod. souped up with whatever parts we could scrounge at the
dismantler’s yard. This kind of thing is becoming popular
here again, only now they are called rat rods.–
XK120 FHC, Mark V saloon, XJ12L Series II, S-Type 3.0
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
Hi Rob,
You are excluding the 1932 and '33 SSIIs as pictured in Allan Crouch’s book.
Peter
Rob Reilly wrote:> In reply to a message from peter scott sent Fri 24 May 2013:
The chassis frame sweeps over the rear axle, so it
presumably is not an SS-II.
In reply to a message from peter scott sent Fri 24 May 2013:
Greetings Andy,
Hold on!!!
Firstly, the front of the frame with the crossmember with the hole
in it is a Standard. I know I have one. Would’ve sent the picture
to you at your site but I’m having problems registering.
From what I can see it looks like it started out as an SSII, most
likely an early one, which explains the extra angle iron in the
back that was added. The original SSII’s were a little flimsy in
this area and the center.
Contact me at @Lovell
My SSi had been sitting on a trailer for almost thirty years.
Eventually the trailer and then the rear of the car sank into the
ground, necessitating a fair bit of work in replicating the damaged
outer rails that had thinned considerably.
Yours. Bob Lovell--
The original message included these comments:
Hi Bob,
It’s not a cruciform frame. You can see pics here:
–
Lovell
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
In reply to a message from peter scott sent Fri 24 May 2013:
Very good, Peter. I incorrectly assumed the brochure covered
the whole range. So if I understand correctly, the SS-II had
a normal chassis for the 1932-33 models and then an
underslung for 1934 on. I don’t think I’ve ever actually
seen an SS-II in person. What is the advantage of the
underslung rear axle, is it just to make the car lower, or
is there a handling improvement?–
XK120 FHC, Mark V saloon, XJ12L Series II, S-Type 3.0
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
Hi Rob,
Yes, the 1932/33 SSIIs used the Standard Little Nine chassis which has
the ladder configurartion and as you say, this changed to the cruciform
chassis and larger bodies and engines for 1934. I imagine it is just as
you say that the underslung chassis gives lower coachwork and lower roll
centre.
Rob Reilly wrote:> So if I understand correctly, the SS-II had
a normal chassis for the 1932-33 models and then an
underslung for 1934 on. I don’t think I’ve ever actually
seen an SS-II in person. What is the advantage of the
underslung rear axle, is it just to make the car lower, or
is there a handling improvement?
Under slung gives a lower build to the body line. The differential rides above the frame. It’s the frame that is “underslung”.
The lower body build no doubt lowers center of gravity somewhat.
It was done more to extend the life of the frame to another facelift rather than a whole new redesign that would need to be amortized over a shorter period of time.