Disappointed in parts quality

[steve3.8]

Very good of you Bill ,thank you.

[JulianBarratt]

Hi All
We have had a chance to look at the mounts we offer and i can advise as follows.

We currently offer 4 different versions of this mounting:
Genuine Jaguar
OES (Same supplier as above but not in Jaguar box)
Aftermarket
Uprated (polyeurethane)

I can confirm that all variants are the same in terms of dimensions, that all match the Genuine Jaguar version and the suppliers and specifications havent changed in recent times.

Additionally, i can advise that we fitted the aftermarket version to one of our own E-types last year (a V12 2+2) and our technician advised that they fitted without a problem. However, he does concede that there is a "bit of a knack" to fitting them and this has been discussed at length in this thread.

However, what i would say is that the current genuine Jaguar version that we are selling is not the same as the sample that Bill is measuring against. I dont have a sample similar to Bills one but i would expect that the comparison of his old stock against any of the currently available options would yield similar results to what Bill demonstrated.

Assuming that Bills versions is an original (and i have no reason to doubt this) it means that Jaguar changed the specification of this part at some point over the years. We have had no change in specification of this part in any of our records but these records would not stretch back into the 1980s - when Bill purchased the parts he is comparing against. The versions that we are selling are a faithful reproduction of the version Jaguar has been selling so the comment that they have been "reproduced so inaccurately" is not right.

Its worth noting that that the comment from Tom W is right - there are a number of vairants of a similar mounting but we are looking at the E-type one only (C17198).

So, what does this mean in terms of action from our side. I have to be honest and say its unlikely that we will retool for this part to the specification of the example that Bill has measured at this stage. This is simply down to the fact that what we are selling is the same as the Jaguar specificaction and our technical team are happy with the fit and function of this part. Yes, it may be that we could improve this but reproducing the part from the sample that Bill has measured but this would be an expensive job to undertake and we would then likely be faced with the possible accusation that the new part does not match the Jaguar part!

I hope that this has been helpful from a suppliers viewpoint on this topic - i always aim to give an honest answer, even if it isnt the one that is most popular. My customer service team did contact the original poster of this thread but did not get a response as yet but we are open to helping - but maybe the contents of this thread have solved the issue anyway...

Stay safe.

[angelw]

Hello Julian,
Nice to see your participation in the Forum and that you are well.

The NOS I have and used in the comparison is without doubt Jaguar origin. The new part that was used as the other leg of the comparison was purchased from SNG Barratt within the last six months (I need to confirm the exact date from a sales invoice). It is labeled as part number C17198#, described on your Website as "Original Equipment Part". Therefore, I agree that a comparison of my NOS with your inventory would show the same discrepancy as the comparison detailed in my previous Post. For your reference and comparison with your stock, I have an accurate measurement of 69mm (rounded from 69.12mm) for the C17198# part, from the base from which the single threaded stud protrudes, to the centre of the Chassis Leg attachment holes.

I purchased C17198# parts to supply to a DIY client, rather than supply from my stock of NOS items; the reason being and this can be seen from the pictures in my previous Post, is that the NOS items are somewhat shop soiled. In recent weeks, this client has brought the car (S3 2+2) to my works for other work and has opted to have the IRS overhauled, including fitting the new Mounting Brackets. I'll report back detailing if more than my trusty Plus Driver is required for hole alignment.

Best regards,

Bill

[angelw]

Julian Barratt Wrote:

I have been lucky enough to visit Bill in his workshops

Hello All,
There is a brief back story to this.

SNG Barratt were sponsors of the annual Jaguar Rally in Australia, with Julian being the Guest of Honour. A month or so before the event, I received an email from Julian advising that he would be in Australia and that he would like to come and meet with me; he stated that the 1st of April was the day that best suited. I replied that as long as this isn't an April Fool's joke in the making, he would be quite welcome.

It wasn't an April Fool's joke. I believe it turned out to be a good day, with some of my loyal supporters on hand and Julian appearing to be impressed with what I do. In any regards, Julian is a thoroughly good chap and good company.

Regards,

Bill

[PeterCrespin]

“In any regards, Julian is a thoroughly good chap and good company.”

Which is as true at 6.30 AM outside a freezing Stoneleigh cowshed, as it was at your place Bill. Jason Len at XKs was a decent bloke, as is Michael Marter who now works for Moss, and Dave Welsh, et al. These firms didn’t get where they are by grabbing a quick sale at the expense of long term customer satisfaction, I even had issues of my own when I sold homemade parts when there was practically no prospect of selling to a customer more than once...

Thirty years ago I discovered some failings in the design of one version of the world famous Norton Roadholder motorbike fork. I published the findings (pre-internet of course) and started making kits that others still sell today. For the couple of years that I turned them out one evening a week, I was both manufacturer and seller, so there was nobody else to blame if things didn’t fit.

Except that having based those Covenant conversion kits on my factory-correct stanchions and sliders, it turned out there were others making inaccurate fork legs that meant my correct parts didn’t fit as well as they should have. So I ended up giving refunds because people had bought other firms’ craptastic aftermarket parts.

And if that wasn’t annoying enough, at least one of today’s sellers has misunderstood the principle and bolloxed up their instructions, thereby repeating one of the errors my kit resolved and inevitably reducing customer satisfaction with that kit’s performance.

Which is just a long way of suggesting people don’t leap to conclusions about vendor or product grumbles, because the fault, assuming one exists, may lie st someone else’s door entirely.

[tinworm]

All very true Mr Crespin, I have had the same experience.

Barrie

[lowact]

I will report back on this in due course...

Seems there is still some that are the wrong dimension being sold; I bought a set for S3 e-type back in 2021 (C17198U), just now tried to fit them .... to line the bolt holes up would require the rubber to be compressed 9 mm, can't be done without causing damage.

Question is, are all the variants currently on offer (C17198U, C17198# and C17198) the same dimension, are correctly sized mounts available?

[mgcjag]

Hi Colin...Julian did report back at post number 22 above...if your parts are from SNGB I suggest you contact Julian via pm or e mail as he doesn't necessarily read all forum posts....or is this just a general question to all forum members....Steve

[rfs1957]

As has been intimated elsewhere in the thread, there will be times when being down to 9mm close will seem quite good.

Could you out a picture up to show where your 9mm are ?

There is a surprising amount of “give”, in the shear sense, of these rubbers, if you can work out how to impose it.

Which is why I knocked up that tool ………

[lowact]

Thx Rory, I can see how yr tool works, unfortunately S3 doesn’t have an anchor for mounting it …. Also for S3 you have to bolt the mounts to the car first, then raise the IRS up and attach it to the mounts, no room to do it otherwise.

I’m down from 9 mm to 7 mm, at least in theory, this is how much the mounts need to be compressed. Here is photo of new IRS mounts (SNGB C17198U) fitted to my out-of-car IRS:

The distance between the top inner mounting bolt holes is 235 mm (+/-). The distance between the corresponding holes in the body of the car is 225 mm. By simple trig, to align the holes the new mounts will need to be compressed 7 mm. If the mounts were shorter (Bill’s originals) they wouldn't need to be compressed as much (duh).

Here is picture of my load test, of what is required to compress these mounts by 7 mm.

Procedure was: used hydraulic press to compress a mount (SNGB C17198U) by 7 mm; attached load cell and tightened (using Stillsons) until the load started to come off the press. 300 kg, 3kN, 660 lbf … and that’s just one mount. To do it as per the S3 manual, all 4 mounts at the same time, I’d need 1.2 tonnes in the boot to stop the car lifting …

Frustrating thing is, this issue is so obviously caused by an SNGB/Jaguar (Heritage) stuff-up, signing off on a too tall mount as being legit.
Taller mounts provide absolutely no benefit whatsoever. When the mounts are compressed (7 mm) so that the holes are aligned and the bolts are installed the height is locked in, it can’t change, it is set/fixed by the geometry, position of the holes; it is independent of the weight of the car and of the uncompressed height of the mounts. I.e. when installed the (compressed) height of taller and shorter mounts will (has to) be exactly the same. The only difference/consequence of taller mounts is to increase the internal stresses that have to be withstood. There is NO benefit of this. It does NOT make the mounts stiffer, it does NOT make them less likely to sag, such depends only on the elastomeric material, reasons to choose PU instead of rubber…

Disadvantages: Firstly accommodating the additional induced internal stresses. The original design mounts are evidently long lasting, when they eventually fail if is usually the bond between the elastomeric and the steel. The increased stresses that are the consequence of having to compress the taller mounts will (has to) cause this bond to fail prematurely. Also this same increased load must be bourne by the frame of the car; should be ok however in any litigation this would be hard to argue conclusively.
Secondly, the difficulty of installing the mounts. Various advice is that the first installation of new mounts is difficult. I suspect this is an impression gained by comparing the effort required for new taller mounts with that required for the original shorter mounts. As long as the taller mounts are in reuseable condition they will always be difficult to install? This is an issue because there are so much maintenance that is facilitated by the ability to easily remove the IRS.

I haven’t figured out yet how to install these taller PU mounts on my S3 yet, none of the offered advice seems applicable for this combination. In any case for me the critical awareness is that managing to fit these incorrectly sized mounts would not be solving a problem, it would be creating one; the stresses and failure risk described above.

[mgcjag]

Hi Colin..there are many forum members that have done this job...often more than once....useing a variety of mounts of different makes and suppliers......some struggle and others dont have much of a problem ...working conditions, tools and experiance can impact on any job......however all seem to get the irs fitted one way or another.....its far easier to just get on with it rather than think about how its not going to fit......you do have the option of looking for parts that you think may be more suitable.....Steve

[lowact]

Steve, as I said, managing to fit these mounts is not solving a problem, it is creating one. These mounts are designated safety items. We should try to make it right.

My old IRS mounts were original, they are the correct size, easy to install as per the manual, same size as Bill’s NOS. Unfortunately I’ve had the car on centre hoist too long without the IRS supported, this unsupported weight (329 lb btw) has damaged my original IRS mounts, on one the elastomeric has pulled away from the steel. So I am replacing them with, new SNGB mounts C17198U (polyurethane). Or I was trying to. It is these new SNGB mounts that are the wrong size.

Yes, I know that Julian said that all of their offerings are the same dimension as a designated Jaguar original. However there is so much (overwhelming) evidence that all of the mounts currently available are wrong (for S3 e-types) that the only conclusion can be that the “designated original” is not as original (for S3 e-types) as he is saying.

Julian considered that there must have been an undocumented change in the specification. This is implausible. Jaguar stopped producing e-types in 1974, why would they subsequently change the specification? Particularly given that the change, an ~8 mm increase in height, provides zero benefit, makes it extraordinarily difficult to fit the IRS (cannot be done per the Jaguar Workshop Manual) and without question will cause the mounts to fail prematurely.

Most likely the change was caused by some accountant somewhere trying to rationalise stock orders, they don’t look that different … subsequently a part pulled from a bin was chosen to be the “designated original”. Thus a clever evolved efficient design was reduced to a crude pile of shite. Probably.

I imagine that, for SNGB it will be essential that these mounts are adequately in accordance with Jaguars design, if their professional indemnity and public liability insurance does not cover responsibility for the design of such product. Problem is, it’s not enough to believe it, you have to have reasonable grounds.

[mgcjag]

Hi Colin....your only option is to find mounts that are acceptable to you....NOS or approach suppliers for dimensions of their products.....I have not see any reports of failures of new mounts that I can recall....Steve

[Phil P]

I'm particularly interested in this I shall be at this stage of assembly shortly.
Would it be possible to get the original drawing (and any subsequent revisions with reasons) from Jaguar. This would confirm the design data definition and enable all parts to verified against this.
Yours,
Phil

[mgcjag]

As the old saying goes you have two hopes...Bob Hope and No Hope.....but hey you never Know....iv fitted quite a few irs.s.... never really had a problem....Steve

[lowact]

Steve, I was reading a jag-lovers thread, to which you were contributing, wherein there was one that had failed (delaminated) during attempted installation. Assumption was it must have been a dud ... so you do know of at least one.
https://forums.jag-lovers.com/t/lining- ... les/390847

Not sure why you are trying to sweep this under the carpet? Everyone is struggling, and mostly succeeding, in fitting these because they trust and believe that this is how it is supposed to be. But its obviously not, at least for S3. I don't know if S1, S2 S3 IRS mounting holes are the same distance apart. You could use the same mounts but space the bolt holes differently, are S!, S2, S3 mounting holes the same distance apart?

Phil, You are S1 so should be ok. If not, just get a Rory tool.

[mgcjag]

Hi Colin...be assured that I'm not trying to "sweep this under the carpet" ...my intention was to try to help you fit your irs........yes you are correct you found a post I contributed to where a mount delaminated whilst it was being fitted useing force...the car had been rear ended and it wasn't sure that the mount holes weren't out of line....I'm sure others will report of mount failures.. Steve

[madjack4]

Hi i have to say ive been hands on in the motor trade for 50 years we come across this day in and day out there are a lot of parts that don't fit straight out of the box .Not just jag parts but every manufacturer the general public don't understand how difficult a mechanic's job can be u are in our world now

[abowie]

I have not see any reports of failures of new mounts that I can recall....Steve

I have had several sets of the cheap generic mounts from SNGB where the rubber has delaminated from the metal of the mount, both on customer cars and on one of my own cars. These mounts would have been purchased around 2015 or so and none had done more than a couple of thousand miles.

After discussion I chose to replace them with the genuine Jaguar mounts. These are much more expensive but so far are in good condition.

[abowie]

Colin it's been my experience that installation of the IRS with new mounts can be a variable feast. It's very rare to be able to simply lower the car down and bolt it on, and sometimes it's quite difficult.

Aligning the holes isn't just about direct axial compression of the rubber but also about pulling the mount sideways to get the holes to line up.

Most of the time though it does require you to tilt the IRS up or down with a second jack and use levers or screwdrivers, often with a lot of force, to get one bolt in after the other.

I have a couple of small podger bars that I use to get one hole close enough that I can hammer a large Phillips head screwdriver into the other hole, then hammer in the first long bolt. Once that's in you then lever the mount around to get the second long bolt in, after removing the screwdriver.

Getting the small bolts in on the rear mount is often quite tricky.

Recently I've had to remove and reinstall the JT5 box on my 3.8 OTS. Because it has a sliding yoke integral to the back of the box you need to drop the IRS to get enough room to install it; a real bugger. Even though the mounts on that car are 12 years old it still wasn't easy.