Tachometer stopped in 1969 Series 2 E Type

An E-Type with 3 SU’s and a generated-driven tach with a clock in it is what was called a Series 1 in the USA, and was not sold here after 1967. The rest of the world may have had different rules. Did it have covered headlights?

My ‘68 is fitted with the pulse tachometer - ie, does not feature the generator on the exhaust camshaft. I have never seen any E-type built from model year 1968 onward fitted otherwise.

But to the above question, only USA bound ‘68 E-types featured the dual Zenith-Stromberg carburetor setup, all other markets still got the triple SUs, which were retained into Series 2 production everywhere except North America. Covered headlights were discontinued in all markets after January, 1967.

July 1967 for everywhere except US and Canada, which were January 1967.

Change to ignition circuit driven Tachometer and elimination of tach generator on cylinder head happened with the 1968 model year. So did Rocker Switches and the Clock in center of dash.
The change from covered headlights to open is not a good indication of the end of Series 1 in US and Canada as it happened about the middle of the 1967 model year so well before the end of Series 1.

I’m under the impression there were only 18 or so E-types that left the assembly line after the second week of January, 1967 with glass covers, something like 125 VINs apart. I wasn’t aware that it went on for another six months. Were these all destined for ROW markets?

Yes. The details are in Spare Parts Bulletins P.198 and Q.143 which describes the changes for Open Headlights. This wasn’t actually published until January 1968, which seems odd, but maybe it took that long for the dust to settle enough for someone to have time to write it up after what must have been a hectic time at the factory. It states:

Open Headlights introduced worldwide 1E1864 RHD OTS, 1E15889 LHD OTS, 1E21584 RHD FHC, 1E34550 LHD FHC, 1E50975 RHD 2+2, and 1E77645 LHD LHD 2+2. These serial numbers correspond to a build date of July 6th, 1967.
Open Headlights introduced USA and Canada only, 1E14532 LHD OTS, 1E34113 LHD FHC, and 1E77010 LHS 2+2. These serial numbers correspond to a build date of January 10-11, 1967. The SPB lists 32 individual cars beyond these change points that still had enclose headlights.
Between these two dates, Jaguar built 1357 LHD OTS, 437 LHD FHC, 635 LHD 2+2, around 155 RHD OTS, around 102 RHD FHC, and around 275 RHD 2+2. All of these cars not destined for the USA or Canada would have had enclosed headlights. Unfortunately, I can see no way (short of viewing the build ledgers) of determining which of the LHD cars (a total of 2429) to went the ROW, but clearly all the RHD cars (a total of 532) did. If just 20% of the LHD cars were ROW, it would mean 1000+ cars left the factory after January 10/11th 1967 with enclosed headlights. It must have been a great relief to the schedulers at the factory when everyone got the same bonnets again…

. Hi,
No, my E type did not have covered headlamps. As far as I’m concerned it was a series 2, for some unknown reason, some referred to it as a series 1.5. What I do know it was not flat floor and it did have the removable access panels behind the rear seat (yes it was a 2+2) to the rear brake pads. It also had the later cam covers. Date of registration is shown as June 1970 as checked to-day.
Here in the UK we are able to check if a vehicle is still taxed for road use, I can confirm my E type is still in use or at least exists. I sold it in 1987 and had a Mk2 prior to that. Now currently working on my 1964 3.8 S type.
I have worked on numerous Jaguars over the years, the earliest model being a Mk7, I do not profess to be an expert or know every change made to the models along the way. I’m happy to leave that to people such as yourself, I bow down to your superior knowledge.
I rarely comment on any forum, when I do, I hope it may help in some way. Maybe, just maybe, the posters car does have a tacho generator, especially if the engine has been changed, so worth a mention what.ever.
As far as I’m aware the poster has not yet commented upon the issue.