I have been asked to reproduce the etype side repeater lenses in clear, rather than orange or red plastic. The ones I have been sent are modern reproduction, I suspect, as although they are Lucas items, the word “LUCAS” is missing from the main body of the lens exactly as are modern s1 front indicator replacements, even though there is a space for the script. Looking at 10,000 exterior pictures on XKEdata.com, it appears people have two types fitted. There is a shallow tapered version marked “L824” (with LUCAS script and as seen on car UE1S23613) and also a much fatter tapered version, see car 1S25678, although the part number is indistinct. The JCNA guide to authenticity warns against XJ6 or MGB replacements, which they call “wrong” rather than “non-OEM fitment”, but describe them as not tapered.
Can someone take a look at a factory-OEM fitted side repeater and let me know what writing I should expect to find please, front and back? I suspect the ones now being sent out by the usuals are replacement XJ6 items. I would like to make sure I am dealing with the “not wrong” item, if possible.
Even better, if someone has an unmarked factory-fitted set and wants a clear set, contact me off-list.
Marek not sure of the issue with Stew Cleave’s wording but I do know what he was after. For a long while the original “fat” ones were very hard to obtain and the usuals including Jaguar issued the lenses for later cars such as the XJS which fit and function but are very much less “proud”. They did this for both the front and rear versions and of course the left and right side for they are handed as you know. About the same period the rubber bases for the lamps were also almost impossible to find. Good luck.
OK, first off here are two pictures showing the difference between the short and tall lenses. The short ones are for MGB and others, note the part number on the package. The short lenses are not for E-types, or so I’ve been told.
OK - so we have two totally different casting both marked “L824”. Well done Lucas. (Four if you count left and right handing.)
George, to clarify the JCNA’s wording, both appear tapered in height, but the OEM etype fitted lenses are the much taller than the MGB lenses. The non factory fitted shallow ones are about half an inch proud of the bodywork with only a shallow taper, whilst the original factory fitted ones stand (I’m guessing) an inch proud of their housings, hence the term “tapered” without any qualification.
John - I assume when you mean “short and tall”, you are merely referring to the height both times and not implying that the MGB lenses are any shorter in length than the Jaguar ones, such that the same dimension reflector is used in both castings and they both castings the same footprint as each other.
OR
The Jaguar housings and the lenses are indeed noticeably shorter than the MGB lenses and that must mean that the housings are different lengths.
The MGB lenses I have are 12.4cms long (excluding the end mounting tab), 4.2cms wide, 1.8cms tall and have the same (size and same marking) reflector as the s2 and s3 rear lights.
Hi Marek…i have a set of 4 lamps that came off a US import 69 roadster…all have amber reflectors…2 are the shallow ones and 2 are deaper (front and rear pairs) they have very similar markings to tne ones shown above but no top printed on them…send me your email if you want photos or need to borrow them…im in tne UK…Ludlow Steve
Don’t you just love Lucas? This is exactly where I found myself with the s1 front indicators. All of the usuals stocked them and they were all different - some were missing the word “LUCAS”, some had it but with the wrong script (check the angled “S” in LUCAS) and some were just plain different reproductions.
FWIW most of the pictures on xkedata are of the deeper type on a ratio of about 5:1, both front and rear and the the front ones stick out a mile.
Marek I understand but Stew’s description has served well for almost a decade. John’s pics of the MGB version are the same as the supplied “thin” ones from Jaguar sources years ago. I never connected they carried the same model number but there you go. I will say that there are no mixtures of thin thick originally and Federal specs were clear about Red for rear and amber/yellow for front. Be aware I never look for top or bottom markings as the drain hole is the most important part. I wonder if some are not marked incorrectly. The set in John’s first pic seem to be correct–and not wrong!
The way you are headed you will soon be faced with the tail lamps for a series 2 E which are very often incorrect on restored cars using the later lenses for the early cars. Best of luck!
I have seen US models here in the UK with an all dark red much thicker casting of a lens which is ribbed vertically inside. Euro spec will always have been amber/red on a horizontal divide I fancy.
Marek all sales literature I have shows the UK spec S2 with no markers–period… As far as the US market all red to the rear and all amber to the front.
If you mean the tail lamps the 69 cars for us had two reflector panels but one was actually a lense and the other a reflector–side by side toward the square end. Later cars had one reflector but the lamp arrangement in the housing was different so it is evident when lamps are lighted.
Both have the same footprint and fit on the same base. By tall I mean how far they rise above the base; i.e. in my second picture in my first post the shorter lens is in front of the taller lens.
I wonder whether the timing of the change in style would be related to the introduction of the same lights as used for Lotus as the second blanked off insert is in the Lotus reversing light position.
Could be but I am sure Lotus requirements were not driving the bus. I suspect strongly it was US lighting regulations or a more efficient or cost savings but it did require a re work of the lamp housings which as I said is one way you know something is wrong.
Well, federal law at the time required rear tail lights, stop lights, turn signals, a reflector and reversing lights. They could all be in a single unit like the Lotus Europa with it’s clear backup light lens replacing the far right reflector in the upper lens in my picture. Or you could have different units performing different functions like the separate reversing lights in the E-type.
As I recall the story Jaguar didn’t want to pay the cost of tooling for new taillights and found out Lotus was striking a deal with Lucas for the new lights. Jaguar bought in with minimal expense, the only unique costs being the modification of the Series II bodywork below the bumper, and the clamshell chrome trim units.
Lotus Europa tail light lens.
The following is pure speculation on my part but perhaps is correct:
Lucas, in an effort to reduce different offerings cut out the single reflector lens and just produced the double reflector lens as a service replacement after 1974. Note the reflector or clear back up lens is “glued” in place, not cast as part of the lens body.
Maybe some applications of this basic lens incorporated the turn or brake light function where the Europa had it’s reversing light. I recall reading somewhere that at least one Alfa used this same basic tail light.
In my opinion it would have been nice had Jaguar used this as an opportunity to dump the separate reversing lights and use the same set up as Lotus. That would have resulted in a cleaner looking rear end.
Well after lurking here back on the Etype list I want to throw this into the works for everyone to think about.
Now that I spend most of my time on the XK list, I have run into a similar quandary with the Lucas 490 lights for early XK’s and mark II’s
Repop’s are being sold with glass lenses and Made in England on the lenses and there are a few plastic lenses both smooth and with Lucas 490 on them.
All are listed as Lucas 490 sidelights.
So it’s been happening since the late 40’s not new to the series 2 Etypes
John story? Could you share where you got that? The Lotus shown would have required work in the lamp housing. The required body work for the S3 cars was well underway by 1967 as the Federal specs were known—you have to dive deep into the specs to see where this all came from. They nor only required what was there but how big how bright and so on. Had Federal law been so simple as you had to have this and that then the S! fitments would have sufficed.
