Roadster Seats in a FHC

I’m trying to think back to 2 days ago (an eternity as far as my short term memory is concerned) to what started me down this rabbit hole. I think I was looking at some upholstery vendors very helpful charts showing all the pieces and saw a simple diagram for the roadster seats versus the coupe seats. I guess I would have found out eventually when I ordered a kit for a FHC and the covers didn’t fit worth a damn. Cars in boxes are an adventure, that’s for sure!

1 Like

Thanks for that update. I’ve now gone through the LHD FHCs either side of the possible introduction of the FHC seats, which looks to be around 887400. Yours is one of 2 cars post 887400 that has OTS seats. I have only found one before 887400 with FHC seats, and that car is a recent full restoration (so the seat shells may well have been changed). As with many things Jaguar, hicoughs in the production line could easily cause one or two anomalies, so I think we are close with 887400 plus or minus 50, say. I’m interested in your comment about the car number being penciled on your seat shells. Was it the car number, not the Body Number? There are many accounts of the Body Number being marked in pencil or crayon on various components of the car so that they could be brought together at assembly time. Examples I’ve seen include the back of door cards, the inside of the convertible top envelope, and the underside of carpet pieces. It would be interesting to know if @Harvey_Ferris has stripped his seats yet, and if so, whether any identification was found on the shells.

When I was about 14, a customer gave me his completely disassembled TR4: didn’t quite get it done for my 16th birthday!

He delivered it all, in the back of s pickup truck… I thought Id died and gone to heaven! My VERY own 1:1 model kit…:yum:

I loved that car…and I feel your pain!

My memory may well be faulty, but next time I have it out I’ll check and see if it was painted over or is still there. Could have been body number rather than car. I recall the dash panels had pencilled numbers also, and body number in crayon inside hatch shell.
Will also check style of Leverol script - I think it was the earlier style.

Wow ! And I thought the '68’s could be confusing. If it is any solace from a 4.2 guy I think the 3.8 seats either in Roadster or FHC form look cooler than the 4.2 seats. Surprised so many folks say they are uncomfortable. The bottoms look plusher and backs look like they would hold you in better than the later seats. I have never ridden in a 3.8 though.

David
68 E-type FHC

1 Like

They do hold you in yes. Kind of cool in that regard. The issue for me is the recess in the seat back. It makes no sense unless you have some kind of dorsal fin sticking out of your back. It causes my shoulders to get pushed forward and my spine to sink in. There is zero lumbar support. Then there is the whole head/neck business. Having been rear ended before I dread it happening in my 3.8.

Which is why The Big A(drienne) made the bolsters that went on Tweety’s roll bar.

I WOULD NOT drive a car w/o a head restraint.

David

I have trawled through XKEdata looking at all photos of RHD FHC’s and the result pretty much tallies with your search. OTS seats were fitted to all FHC cars up until November/December 1962. After that date the wide seats were fitted to the FHC’s.

So that seems to put to bed another E-Type myth, that the Factory fitted whatever seats they had to hand. They did not!

Regards

Just to add a little gasoline to the fire :slight_smile: Here is what Mick Turley said to me in an email this morning. He worked in the factory trim shop but maybe later than the timeframe we are discussing.

"Hi Harvey hold fire with purchasing new seats quite often the fhc was fitted with ots seats if there were no fhc seats in the trim shop the car had to go especially when it was going overseas, this combination is very common the thing"

Not at all definitive from a timeframe standpoint but from a philosophy standpoint, it is an important data point, don’t you think?

1 Like

Depends what you want to do with the car but it will, unfortunately, always be seen to be ‘wrong’ with those early 10° rake seats. Odd things sometimes happened on the production line but as far as concours goes the Judges will always mark you down and you will not be able to look them in eye and plausibly argue the point. Don’t think you are going to be able to document an exception.

In practice the Factory would be reluctant to fit wrong or out of date parts because of the nightmare it would cause with service replacements.

I did the same with the RHD cars going back from mine 860320, and came to the same conclusion.

(It’s a good idea to also check the RHD numbers when checking for information on xkedata, the 860 and 861 RHD series.)

So the other story that goes around about the OTS needing to have “cut-down” Coupe seats so that the top would fold also seems to be a myth if all early cars used the same seats. In any case, the Coupe design was an afterthought for Jaguar, the original car being the OTS.

So maybe the reason for the different Coupe seat was merely an attempt by Jaguar to use the extra space in the Coupe to make the seating more comfortable. Foot wells and dished bulkheads were definitely added to all cars for that reason.

1 Like

The E-Type seats came in for a lot of criticism from day one so the revised seat design was Jaguar trying to differentiate the coupe and give it more appeal as a viable day to day car. Eighteen months later the 4.2 was released with revised seating common to both models.

Oh, after what I’ve learned from this excellent thread, I am 100% going to get the correct seat frames, most likely from MM, and sell my early seats to someone who needs them. A win-win for everyone. You are right, as a concours judge myself, arguing this point would be hopeless, even if they had a 20 degree rake. Thanks to everyone for all the input. I learned a lot.

So did we all!!!

1 Like

I am most interested in this thread. After 13 years of letting my FHC languish in storage I have finally unpacked it and have once again commenced its restoration. I commiserate with you Harvey on a Jag-in-a-Box! My car is 887030, built in 9Oct1962. It has roadster seats in it and long slides. The Body No. was written on the bottom of one seat, V3974. I bought this car from my aunt in July, 2003 who had purchased it on 16Mar1990. The car was running at that time (1990) and was put into a shop for full restoration. And then the troubles began, but I’ll save the story for another thread. Suffice it to say the entire bonnet and interior was stolen and boxes of hardware. I bought the Jag in boxes. I also bought the interior out of an E-type in Cave Creek, AZ. That car had been stored in the open for abouit 20 years because the owner took it in for some brake work, went home and had a stroke. He lived for 20 years and the car just deteriorated but free of rust. That car was 885766 (V2073). Had I known what it was, I would have bought the whole car! It had roadster seats in it and short slides and I have them. There are some initials on the drivers seat, but no body number. I’ll have to look again at the right seat.

I’d agree with Mr. Langley that 887400 is a good cross-over point for the FHC seats being introduced into the FHC assembly line.

So, I can use some advice as well. As my car has many pieces missing and/or unidentifiable , I do not know where the “packing pieces” (the standoffs) nor where the “spacers” fit. If anyone can tell me what the dimensions of these are and where they go, I’b be grateful. Scottie

1 Like

Crazy story Scottie. Hang in there! In case you haven’t done so, get the Jaguar Spare Parts Catalog as a reprint from one of the usuals. It is invaluable when you don’t know exactly how things were supposed to go back together.

Yes, the SPC is invaluable and not just because of the nice drawings. The associated text gives you the assembly order and what goes where. There is Jaguar decoder for many of the fixings which gives you screw, bolt and washer specs. Should be on JL somewhere, if not I can post a link.

Here is a link to the Jaguar fastener guide:


Jim

Right. Thank you both. I have the SPC and the combined owners/shop manual. They are the old and new testament! I’m not sure about the associated text. Mine only has diagrams and then a parts listing of those items on the diagrams as well as other parts for that assembly not in the diagram. I do take the listing as the assembly order, but there is much I haven’t broken the code on yet. I’m going to look for that decorder. And I’ll start a thread on my car…the story is far crazier than my brief above…like when the movers dropped a Lincoln Navigator on it! All in all though the car is very nice, painted on a rotisserie, etc.

Oh wow! Thank you Jim. That is something I did not have. I’m pretty good with sorting this stuff out, but sometimes it tries ones patience. Like those tiny screws that hold the fuel gauge in the tank … with the double washers. They are simply #8 UNF which means #8X36. Most folks assume they are #8X32, but that is the coarse thread. Anyway thank you.
Here are pics of the seats out of this Jag. I believe these are 10 deg seat backs, and they are the same in the older car’s seat I have, even though these have the longer slide. You can see the long slide (I only have one) vs. the short slides (out of the other car). The short ones do not fit. Anyone want to trade?

1 Like