I would welcome opinions on what might be a problem with my 140’s rear wings.
Viewed from the rear (first photo), the rear of the wing, aft of the rear wheel, seems to protrude an excessive amount from the side of the car. Viewed from the front (second photo), it doesn’t look so bad maybe. If I remove the rear bracing strut, it sits in a better position but not perfect (third photo).
This I don’t understand as these are the original wings to the car, the chassis is original and the bracing struts are original, so all I am doing is replacing the parts that have been on the car for 65 years. I have made no repairs to the chassis or the wings, and both sides are exactly the same.
Any thoughts, please? Is this normal and nothing to worry about? Should I bend the struts? Has something altered shape symmetrically and magically?
Roger
I’d change that so it didn’t look odd from the rear. It might be correct except for some bumps and bruises along the way, but it has to look right. Like door gaps… ya gotta fix them so they don’t look like they’re wrong.
The factory didn’t always get it right. The first 2,000 1934 Ford coups went out with rear fenders that didn’t match in width. The sub got it wrong and it wasn’t found for months.
Just took thise pics - XK120 in this case but the same configuration.
I measure 1 5/8” from the edge of the tire, fore and aft.
Just a thought Roger, the rear struts, correct way round ? end with the washer at the wing bracket ? if you can achieve a fair line with the strut removed then adjust the
strut to suit.
Peter B
Thanks for the advice, chaps - unfortunately I don’t have a rear axle in, Nick, let alone tyres. Yes, the braces are the correct way around - but I think this looks so odd now I’ve noticed it I will have to shorten the braces. That will bring the wings in fine - I just don’t understand why I need to do it. I’m sure it must have been like that before dismantling, but as is always the case that’s the one photo I didn’t take.
There will be a little, how would one put it, rotational (?) adjustment to the rear wings. The bolts that hold them in place are 5/16” BSF while the bolt slots in the wings are about a half inch or so wide. The bolts screw into caged nuts that also allow some degree of play. So, if you were to pull up hard on the bottom edge of the wing whilst tightening the bolts you would rotate the wing upward and this would cause the bottom edge to splay outward. Pulling down on the bottom edge will have the opposite effect.
Nick, I see what you mean - but the issue with that would be that the position of the rear lower outer edge is dictated by the stay bar, and the position of the front lower edge is dictated by alignment with the door and B-post. The only way I can see to change this is to shorten the stay. That’s fine - but the stays are the ones the car was built with, which is what is confusing me.
Have the stays changed sides by any chance?
I don’t think they will fit the opposite side, surely?
That said, they came out of the plastic bag labelled ‘rear wing stay, LHS’, or the other one.
I suspect this is down to acceptable mass production tolerance at the factory, which might, or might not, have something to do with the oft-quoted Jaguar line, ‘how do they make them for the price?’
One thing you have changed is the exact position each wing is bolted to the body; there is a slight adjustment available in the oval holes.
Are 140 struts like 120, a 5/16" diameter steel rod with threads on each end, the upper end being adjustable and double nutted?
The struts are handed. In the case of these reproductions of unknown origin, they are not exactly mirror images.
For comparison: these are the genuine stays for the XK 140. They look a bit different from the reproductions Mike showed especially the ends without the fixed washer (but that might be due to “optical deformation” of the camera).
Bob K.
There is a little adjustment, but I’m tied to one position by the wing needing to be abutted to the rear of the B-post, otherwise the door gaps change.
I’ll investigate further today. I think the best option will be to wait until I’ve done the necessary rear bodywork repairs and take stock - if they still stick out the simple fix will be cutting a short section out of the stay.
I might have found the cause of the problem - the stay bolts onto the chassis at the rear spring hanger. There are two holes in the hanger plate that the stay could bolt into. If I put it in the forward hole, the wing arch bows outwards as mentioned initially. If I put it in the rearmost hole, the wing sits nicely where it should. My dismantling photos show it in the front hole, but that’s no guarantee it was in the right place.
Could someone confirm which hole it should be in? If I use the rearmost hole, will it interfere with any other components later on reassembly?
Front hole mount:
Rear hole mount:
Ah. Not going to work as that’s where the spring shackles bolt up.
Dammit.
All else being equal - as in the rear wings being all the same - it seems to me the stays used in the FHCs and DHCs should be shorter than those used in the OTS, given the difference in body elevations. It also seems to me the location of the anchorage on the lower wing flange
will, when mated to the stay, influence the position of the wing itself.
Do the stays between body styles vary or do the wing anchorages vary?
Yes a pertinent thought Nick, so all in all line the wing up to satisfaction and install the strut to suit.
Peter B
I don’t know the answer to that for other cars, but on my car all components are the originals, which I took off the car, so I don’t know why the discrepancy has arisen unless it was always there.