A very wise choice: not that I am against using any E-type as a race car, but you start from a much higher ground with the 944.
1 Like
Perhaps Chris Harvey book E-TYPE END OF AN ERA could give you some leads ? It has a chapter on racing E-types and copies are common for not much $$. I have a copy from 1977 and it has a couple of 2+2 photos in V12 form in competition. The middle of this page does mention one that began as a Series 2 4.2 though. Since they rev better I hear the racers like the 3.8 better than the 4.2.
David
68 E-type FHC
2 Likes
Almost any car is wider than an E-type!
1 Like
Thank you very much David, i will look this book up.
While i am preparing a Etype 2+2 for vintage racing, it’s not all about winning the race. It’s simply about participation in the events. Thats what Vintage racing is about.
1 Like
I just bought it in hard cover from Amazon. thank you
I also made that assumption for a long time, now I tend to think they’re similar as the flexible front end is common and the A-pillars look too slender to involve the roof in the overall structure.
Just an opinion from someone who’s never been fortunate enough to own the cars in question, happy to be proved wrong
I also am inclined to believe that the FHC didn’t have substantially greater structural stiffness than the OTS, even setting aside the common subframe to monocoque join.
Recall that the E-type was engineered originally as an OTS. The FHC originated, most accounts say, as a styling exercise by the talented bodyman Bob Blake which Lyons saw and liked so much he put it into production.
Furthermore, consider the racing E-types such as the lightweights. Though engineered from scratch (in the sense that the monocoque was made of aluminum instead of steel) they retained the OTS body structure as well, with an add-on hardtop.
Given that these were intended for racing, and that they had switched to aluminum, if there was a rigidity issue with the OTS one would think that they would have taken advantage of the possibilities an appropriately modified FHC could have offered (and if they had been thinking of aerodynamics ala Low-Drag Coupe, they likely would have!)
Dave
1 Like
From what I’ve seen, the B-pillars are welded on for the 2+2 cars and screwed on for the FHC cars, and not in a way that would contribute to stiffness. On my car, there is a noticeable gap between the bottom of the B-pillar and the window opening.
I guess the Jaguar reasoning was the added length of the door/window opening combined with the flipper window opening on the 2+2 required the added bracing of the welded in upper “B” pillar. I’m surprised Jaguar didn’t incorporate that design item into FHCs going forward along with putting the 2+2 style floors into the FHC and OTS models. IMO, they are more user friendly.
This is an article on the same car. It’s a pre-production S3 car, so I’m not sure how relevant the information may be.
thank you for this. This is relevant for me. Basically same body so this car does give reference for body prep. I am hoping to run this in the 1966 and earlier class, but this will give me a few exceptions with regards to brakes. The Series 2 and 3 cars have larger callipers, and the Series 3 cars have under carriage alloy ducts for brake cooling. When going through Tech inspection, the more documentation i have allows for wiggle room. As these early cars were raced through the 70’s they were still improved and modified to keep them competitive.
Is it possible I could ask for a picture of the publish date of this article. The car featured in this article is actually a Series2 2+2 4.2 that was used as a test car by Jaguar and then converted to a Series3 V12 car by the Jaguar Factory. I think this is what I am looking for. Thank you
Autocar, w\e April 5, 1975. It did start life as an S2, 4.2, and used as a development car, but was put down the production line as an S3 and bought by a Jag development engineer, who then raced it.
The scrutineers inspecting your car will expect it to conform to the relevant class regulations, and probably won’t care if you can provide evidence of some mod that someone used on their track car 50 years ago; if it doesn’t comply, it’s illegal, IMO.
Ditto, the regs are unlikely to be so prescriptive as to favour or penalize a long wheelbase version of the same car; ie if it’s legal on an FHC or OTS, it’s probably allowed on a 2 + 2.
Cheers.
In case it helps it looks like this article from 2012 mentions the same car. Also Graham when you get the Chris Harvey book the other 2+2 photo in Racing chapter appears to have a Series 1 style (small mouth) bonnet and big flare rear wings (fenders) for big racing tires but is a V12.
Also this one on xkedata might be of interest to you
David
68 E-type FHC
1 Like
VERY interesting interior on that racer!
I have a good analytical model of the front suspension on which I’ve run more than six hundred variants, I’m happy to share anything in your range of interest. I can also run your ideas that didn’t occur to me. I don’t have a full functional model of the rear suspension, but do have test data for the few parts which are capable of variation. From that I’ve built some understanding of the way it behaves and might be adjusted.
I’ve approached dynamic enhancements from two directions, initially working with a friend to put together a car slightly beyond typical in the structure, suspension and powertrain areas. The question no-one was asking
With that largely in place we recently started a discussion here on what simple, subtle, reversible mods can be done to improve dynamic behaviour while leaving the car essentially original. Getting the best out of standard suspension components for touring driving today
We’re currently working on flexible elements - mounts, bushings and dampers. I recently received 39 test files for 5 different dampers which show some interesting history. I’ll post them when I’ve collated all the charts, I hope we will generate some useful options from that exercise.
I’d be happy to pass on anything relevant that I know or can find.
Any contribution I might make is, at present, in the theoretical area. I’ve done a lot of practical dynamic development on a wide range of vehicles but sadly have never owned an E-type (yet), so real-world information will come from the many other capable people on this forum.
2 Likes
Wow, that is huge information. I am planning on running Koni coil over adjustable on the front. Standard on the back. The reaction plate mounting bracket for the front torsion bars allow for very fine tuning and changing fairly easy.I will have to wait for track time to make adjustments . Still aways from that.
Which rear dampers do you plan to run?
Will you have the front coil springs additional to the torsion bars? We don’t have test data for Koni dampers, always happy to add to the database if anyone feels like getting them tested.
We do have recent test data for the following dampers:
front: Gaz adjustable, original Girling and current (aftermarket) Girling
rear: Gaz adjustable, current (aftermarket) Girling
I have a suggestion arising from that, will need the force-velocity plots to explain. Hope to post them over the weekend, when I’ve worked through 39 sets of data 
I do not propose this facetiously: it appears to me that Peter has the means to actually obtain a standard E-type against which to make further observations.
1 Like
If using the std mounting points, will there be room for that assy to clear the upper wishbone?