You can! I searched on 0-60 and found such a post by you from 1998. You quoted a Motor test of one of the first cars, 3.07 and 0-60 of 7.0 secs. OK, but you have to factor in that the very earliest cars were “got at” by the Jaguar performance department! I think 7.4 is a lot closer to the average tests. Too bad you didn’t quote any tests of a 3.54 car except the Car & Driver test, it would be interesting to see what others found.
Of course, nobody really races 0-60, so what’s the difference? Well, when you exit a mountain curve in second and accelerate, believe me the difference in the cars is very noticeable and the 3.54 E-Type is really quite amazing there!
Yes, I’ve been looking as well and ran into a post by our old friend Terry Handley questioning those numbers. Car and Driver always seemed to have the fastest times of the three big US publications of the time, Road & Track, Car and Driver and Motor Trend. I mentioned that to the editor and his retort was along the lines of “We’re hot shoes, the others aren’t”.
I’m just now looking at a R&T test of a 69 FHC and they recorded a 0-60 time of 8.0 seconds and 1/4 miles time of 15.7 at 86 MPH. Not apples to apples with the pre federalized cars of course. The only other two road tests I have handy, the May 61 Car and Driver E-Type intro and the April 66 R&T 2+2 intro don’t quote 0-60 times, so no help there.
I still stand by my thought that the only right way to equip the car is the way each individual owner wants it.
Of course! But what we are discussing here are the points that may give each individual the information she needs to decide how she wants it. We have a lot of listers who have been thrilled with the difference that the 3.07 makes for them. Super! Point is, not everyone will want that tradeoff, and people should be able to consider the other side before choosing. I really resist the concept that is implied here sometimes that EVERYONE will want the car the way somebody likes it. I’m just describing the other side of that particular trade-off for those thinking about it.
My favorite R&T road test is April, 1964, a FHC that looks a lot like mine but with a 3:31 axle. 0-60 time was 7.4 secs. And yes, C&D flogs cars compared to reasonable magazines, or at least they did back in the day. I have a big stack of R&Ts with tests, starting with the first ones back in 1961. Also Sports Car Graphic and Car & Driver. (I have most R&Ts back to 1958!)
But I have driven a number of sports cars hard on the roads around here, and the E-Type is more fun out of that 2nd gear curve than any of the others (have not tried the ZR-1 yet; might not be able to hold the rear end in!) and most of those cars actually have faster measured 0-60 times. For me, the 3.54 is the best fun option for the E-Type. I take very long (2-3,000 miles) tours every year, often listening to the radio, and it’s great for that, too.
These are the Brookland series of books, and are still available as they reissue from time to time, with revised cover, and a slightly different mix of contents.
Just purchased a new version last week from a swap meet book vendor.
A really handy quick reference.
Roger
Wallstman1 - don’t know what rear axle ratio you are running, but in my UK new, totally original RHD 1966 OTS with its original (for UK, all RHD exports, and all LHD exports other than to USA and Canada) 3.07:1 rear axle ratio, mid 20s mpg is normal, and on drive to Canberra to Melbourne, some 400 miles cruising on a four-lane highway at 80 mph (some years ago before we went metric and before police enforcement got stupid) I would regularly get 29 and sometimes get 30 mpg, so could do trip without stopping to refuel - just. And that’s with the standard Jaguar EJ series close ratio 4-speed gearbox, on a standard 3.07:1 rear axle, with a standard 4.2 XK motor with standard triple HD8 carburetters… If you can’t get 18 to 20 mpg with the standard 4-speed gearbox and think that’s good and justification for a five speed gearbox, I think I would be going back to the basics, and sort out what is seriously wrong with your e-type, and probably something more than just a low 3.54 American spec unique rear axle ratio, and I also know/factor in that a USA gallon is undersized by about 10% relative to an Imperial Gallon as used in UK and the rest of the non-metric world.
Over to you.Why do you get such poor fuel consumption?
Diff ratio’s are very confusing because Jaguar changed them back and forth. Initially the 3.31 ratio was standard for all markets (3.54, 3.07 and 2.93 were described as “alternative ratios”) but in October 1962 the 3.07 ratio became standard, except on cars destined for USA and Canada which continued with 3.31. SPB G8 October 1962 refers.
From August 1963 all countries had a final ratio of 3.31 except Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands and Italy which had 3.07 and USA/Canada which had 3.54. SPB G.12 dated September 1963 refers.
In my OTS I have a 5 speed BW T5 and a 2.88 diff which is superb for touring Europe. If I were to do it again I would have a 3.07 because with my current setup I have to slip the clutch in first on uphill Alpine hairpin bends. Progress in town traffic is also compromised as 2nd is too low and 3rd too high for a steady 30mph. My car does however benefit from a fairly powerful engine which has been dyno’d at 280bhp and 340 lb/ft. On the other hand in 5th I can cruise at 100mph at 3,000rpm with no problem. You can use this handy RPM to MPH Calculator to check your gear ratios: http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_speed_rpm.htm
I made the change to a T5 because my fully reconditioned Jaguar 4 speed box started to lose synchromesh on 2nd and 3rd after about 5,000 miles due to the poor quality repro synchro rings which are not hardened in the same way as the originals, so wear very quickly. Not sure if the current batches suffer the same problem, you need to check.
For those with a Moss box there is a company in the UK who can convert it to full synchro, a popular modification for owners who intend to race their Morgan’s. They do them in batches of 10 using your original box so you keep the ‘matching numbers’ but they refuse to offer the conversion as a kit of parts as they want to maintain control over reliability and their personal reputation. Contact Billy Bellinger at http://www.jb-engineering.co.uk/Pages/new_parts.html
John,
I am not trying to argue, but can I ask what is your rear axle ratio.
And your five speed gearbox - is it a gearbox with overdrive fifth gear, or still direct drive fifth gear.
Roger
Thanks for that.
Certainly being a V12 would explain poor fuel consumption, whilst offering inferior performance to a Series 1 six cylinder E type, but still, sensible decisions on rear axle ratio may help far more than five speed gearboxes.
Roger
Just as a data point, 20-21 MPG on the run between Houston and Austin or Houston and San Antonio was about as good as I ever got in a Series II 2+2 with triple SUs and a factory 4 speed and 3.54 gearing. That was at a steady 70-75 MPH.
So, when Jerry tours with the other guys using 3:07:1 gearing he is using Imperial gallons and the others are using US gallons? I asked him the first time he said the milage was the same with 3:54:1 to explain how fewer explosions at lower RPMs didn’t burn less fuel, I never got an answer. Now he has stated it again. Jerry, are you using Imperial physics or US physics?
Thanks David.
Right you are - 17% .Should have checked rather than fading memory.And didn’t realise that Canada also uses Imperial Gallons and not US gallons.At least a Litre is consistent worldwide.Roger
I didn’t see your question, sorry. No physics involved, just rithmetic. We do have a rithmetician along on most of these drives. We start at the same gas station in the morning, end at the same gas station in the afternoon, then add, subtract, and divide.
Number of explosions is insufficient to explore this subject; because, think about how much more fuel per explosion at a given RPM is burned at 3/4 throttle than at 1/2 throttle. Again, no theory needed, just observation and rithmetic.
Truth be known I don’t seem to get as many miles per gallon any more. Not since I installed Ray’s EDIS system. I now get 19.5 - 20 MPG on these tours. OK, I know it’s not the EDIS, it’s something about the way I have it tuned. But over many decades I got 21 MPG on the highway, and I have records of nearly every fill-up in the last 43 years… if you want to try rithmetic. Real soon now I’ll be getting 21 MPG again! Also on the last several tours our rithmetician with a 1971 S2 OTS with 3.54:1 and a Toyota 5-speed has actually been getting 1 MPG more than I do, pretty consistently.
Are you saying that you got up to 30 US MPG in an E-Type? Never heard of anyone getting anywhere near that! In fact, nobody on this forum that I have read (and who actually measured in a valid way) got as much as 22 US MPG.
