[xk-engine] Engine number of -maybe- factory exchange engine

XK-Engine
1

Hello together,

here we have a Mk2 with a strange number combination. The
car is very original in other parts, therefore the engine is
a bit a miracle.

The plate says it has to be KG. The head says it is KF75xx.
Stamping on the block is c8610. Very old colour of the head
is the original green.

History of the original italian car is known for many years.
Was for a time in the hand of Jaguar Italy. Could it be that
it was an Mk1 engine, which was works-reconditioned and then
been implanted in this Mk2 ? In Germany, Mercedes did such
things in the 50s and 60s…

Would be glad about some informations.

Best regards
Lindi–
lindi
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–

//please trim quoted text to context only

2

In reply to a message from lindi sent Fri 19 Feb 2016:

C8610 is not a serial number, it is a 3.4 block part number.
Look for a stamped serial number directly below where this
C8610 number is, on the horizontal shelf above the oil filter.
It is in 1/2’’ (12.5 mm) characters individually hand
stamped, and often is very faint and hard to read if the
block is rusty.–
XK120 FHC, Mark V saloon, XJ12L Series II, S-Type 3.0
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

//please trim quoted text to context only

3

In reply to a message from Rob Reilly sent Fri 19 Feb 2016:

Hmm, brain fade alert, make that 1/4’’ (6mm) characters.–
XK120 FHC, Mark V saloon, XJ12L Series II, S-Type 3.0
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

//please trim quoted text to context only

4

In reply to a message from Rob Reilly sent Fri 19 Feb 2016:

Hello together,

after a long day of work at the Mk2, I now can tell you the
numbers.
Block is KF7854, Head KF7514. Both numbers seem to me, like
the casting number does, beeing Mk1 numbers.

The more I am working on the car, the more I am sure, that
nearly all things have never been touched, what corresponds
to the italian mentality, where the car lived. Assuming
that, in view of the known history of the car someone has
taken any engine of a scraped Mk1 (were there many Mk1s in
Italy?), seems strange to me. So I think it must have been a
perhaps reconditioned engine, maybe done when the car was in
the hands of Jaguar ?

Can somebody tell me, if such tings were common in the past ?

Best regards
Lindi–
lindi
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

//please trim quoted text to context only

5

I didn’t notice where you said what year your car is.

I have 1959 MK1.

While restoring the car I found that the sun visors were stuffed with a December 1959 London Times news paper (I left the stuffing in place for any future owners) but theoretically MK1 production stopped in June of 1959.

The front right fender has the cutout for the MK1 turn signal but also has a cutout for the MK2 “spear” on the top of the fender, that was leaded in.

It seems to me that during the transition from MK1 to MK2 production, they grabbed whatever was on the shelf to build cars and probably built MK1’s and MK2’s simultaneously for a time.

With that in mind, an engine that falls in the MK1 number range could have easily made it into a fairly early MK2.

Mike WOn 2/20/16, 11:57 AM, “owner-xk-engine@jag-lovers.org on behalf of lindi” <owner-xk-engine@jag-lovers.org on behalf of lindner.gmund@freenet.de> wrote:

In reply to a message from Rob Reilly sent Fri 19 Feb 2016:

Hello together,

after a long day of work at the Mk2, I now can tell you the
numbers.
Block is KF7854, Head KF7514. Both numbers seem to me, like
the casting number does, beeing Mk1 numbers.

The more I am working on the car, the more I am sure, that
nearly all things have never been touched, what corresponds
to the italian mentality, where the car lived. Assuming
that, in view of the known history of the car someone has
taken any engine of a scraped Mk1 (were there many Mk1s in
Italy?), seems strange to me. So I think it must have been a
perhaps reconditioned engine, maybe done when the car was in
the hands of Jaguar ?

Can somebody tell me, if such tings were common in the past ?

Best regards
Lindi

lindi
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

//please trim quoted text to context only
ÿúey«¶¸¦ªê-yÛ^ÆÛhr‰í{ehž\

6

In reply to a message from mikew@crtonline.com sent Sat 20 Feb 2016:

Hi Mike,

the car is May 1962. A bit late for this theorie. The
nameplate shows an original Mk2 engine number…

So I thought about an exchange engine.

Best regards
Lindi–
lindi
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

//please trim quoted text to context only

7

In reply to a message from lindi sent Sat 20 Feb 2016:

Can somebody tell me, if such tings were common in the past ?–
PS
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

//please trim quoted text to context only

8

In reply to a message from lindi sent Sat 20 Feb 2016:

Can somebody tell me, if such tings were common in the past ?

Lindi,

No, I would say the probability that the factory retro fitted a
MK1 engine with an earlier replacement cylinder head to a 62
MK2 would be near zero. You have a non matching number MK2
with a MK1 engine. If you are interested in solving mysteries,
look at the factory bulletins between 58-62 and see what other
parts were swapped over (oil filter, air filter, rear crank
seal, dipstick, sump, drilled cams, jockey pulley, etc.)

Paul

Paul–
The original message included these comments:

Block is KF7854, Head KF7514. Both numbers seem to me, like
the casting number does, beeing Mk1 numbers.
The more I am working on the car, the more I am sure, that
nearly all things have never been touched, what corresponds

–
PS
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

//please trim quoted text to context only

9

In reply to a message from PS sent Sun 21 Feb 2016:

Factory and dealer reconditioned engine swaps were more
common in the 1940s, and a couple of early service bulletins
mention them.
Shade tree mechanic engine and head swaps were more common
in the 50s 60s and 70s than they are today.–
The original message included these comments:

Can somebody tell me, if such tings were common in the past ?

–
XK120 FHC, Mark V saloon, XJ12L Series II, S-Type 3.0
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

//please trim quoted text to context only

10

In reply to a message from Rob Reilly sent Sun 21 Feb 2016:

Thanks for your news.

First of all, it is obvious that it is a
not-matching-numbers car. I’ve seen a lot of
'‘shade-tree-mechanics-’'works on Mk2 in the last years (what
a wonderful word - unknown to me until now). In this case I
would have had another idea, especially because of the
installation of a jockey pull for the belt, wich was not
used at Mk1s as far as I know.

But maybe there is indeed no story behind the things. So
what. We will see what the engine is performing, when the
car is on the road.

Best regards
Lindi–
lindi
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

//please trim quoted text to context only

11

In reply to a message from lindi sent Mon 22 Feb 2016:

http://tinyurl.com/2uble5

http://www.jag-lovers.org/xk-lovers/library/engine_numbers.html--
The original message included these comments:

First of all, it is obvious that it is a
not-matching-numbers car. I’ve seen a lot of

–
Mike Spoelker
Louisville,Kentucky, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

//please trim quoted text to context only

12

In reply to a message from lindi sent Mon 22 Feb 2016:

So
what.

Lindi,

My favorite two words. It is a car and it was repaired with
what was available to the PO. If the MK1 engine runs well,
about the only functional thing missing is the rear crank seal.
If the engine has expensive problems, there is less resistance
to a 3.8 or 4.2

Paul–
The original message included these comments:

Thanks for your news.
First of all, it is obvious that it is a

–
PS
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

//please trim quoted text to context only

13

In reply to a message from PS sent Mon 22 Feb 2016:

Hi Paul,

exactly so are my thoughts! And this outlook is not too bad
anyway…

Best regards
Lindi–
lindi
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

//please trim quoted text to context only