Dec 1963 Axle ratio and boot floor material

[Vonkie]

Hello all

Where can I get official original specs for Dec 1963 RHD FHC?

1. I should like to confirm that the axle ratio for a December 1963 RHD exported to South Africa in 1964 for first registration was 3.07.
2. The boot floor covering needs restoring to original. Somewhere (some USA concours guide) I read that older 3.8 models had leather between the chrome luggage rails, and later models had rubber between the rails. Glossy photos of early 3.8s show leather. SNG Barratt boot floor kit seems to be rubber. How do I ascertain for certain what was original in a December 1963 FHC?

Appreciate help!

[mgcjag]

Hi..Whats your name...welcom to the forum.....have a read through the 3.8 factory fit section...lots of great info viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2006

[Vonkie]

Hi, sorry, looks like I've breached some forum etiquette rule by just plunging right in. But one treads softly in public. I'm Frank. Bought a 63 FHC in very good shape. She had had a 5 speed conversion done, but original Mossbox was still available and in great shape, so I am having it refitted (yes, voluntarily!). She currently wears beautiful but wrong 6" central laced wheels, so the 5" outer laced jobbies need procuring and fitment. So does the original OEM 16" Motolita steering wheel, and the boot floor covering. Hence my questions about the axle ratio and the material for the covering.

I'll see if the factory fit section helps me out. Thanks. If not, I'll await the collected wisdom of the forum.

I have several questions. Most will no doubt pop up once I have her in my grubby little hands. One will no doubt be how much double clutching up or down I shall have to do with the Moss box...

[Vonkie]

Ok, the JCNA guide (which I had seen before) suggests leather on boot floor for all 3.8s, but says nothing about axle ratio.

I don't think Barratt supplies a leather kit. Probably not cheap, especially with duties and shipping...

[JagWaugh]

You might try contacting the JDHT at http://www.jaguarheritage.com The axle ratio isn't on the JDHT certificates that I have seen (as far as I can remember) but I'm guessing it was noted in the build record of the car.

[Vonkie]

Thanks, good idea. I have a heritage cerificate, but it says nothing about axle ratio. From what I've read, the UK and European 3.8s came out with 3.07, and for the US they had 3.54 for some reason. But in a Hemmings buyer's guide publication there's an enigmatic suggestion that the axle ratio was altered "in 1963". So I'm not sure where that puts a December 63 job that gets shipped to South Africa for first registration here early 1964. I specified that the refit of the original Moss box should employ an axle ratio of 3.07, but am now not 100% sure this was right.

[Heuer]

The only leather covered items on the 3.8 E-Type are the seat facings and gear lever boot. The boot floor is covered with a two piece hardura mat with luggage rails attached. The hardura continues up to and including the hinged extension.


The standard axle ratio was 3.07 with 3.31, 3.54 and 2.93 as 'alternative ratios' depending on market or customer request. If you car is an original RHD then I would expect it to be 3.07:


Initially the 3.31 ratio was standard for all markets but in October 1962 the 3.07 ratio became standard, except on cars destined for USA and Canada which continued with 3.31. 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.


Each final drive unit had a aluminium tag, secured by one of the carrier cover bolts, and stamped with the ratio expressed as a fraction e.g. 43/14 = 3.07; 43/13 = 3.31:

[Vonkie]

Thanks Tag

If it was Hardura, then nothing lost by getting the Barratt kit. Photos in Jonathan Wood and Hemmings certainly look like leather..... (same colour as trim). Does seem a weird place to put leather, though! My colours are in any event not factory original. Factory was opalescent maroon and beige trim, mine are red body and black trim. Thanks for the axle ratio info! Seems I can safely stick with the 3.07 for the Moss box.

[Vonkie]

Last update on this and then I shall let it go:

I read the JNCA guide wrong. They were referring to the shift boot (i.e. the gear lever gaiter), not to the boot floor covering.

On pristine cars, the hardura in the back looked like part of the leather trim, which was what confused me, and the rubber is just the inlays with the chrome luggage rails.

Seems like I might take the plunge and do a whole interior trim make-over to the original beige anyway, as the trim on the doors leaves much to be desired.

The drive unit tag will be checked out and the stamped ratio will be used.

Steering wheel, horn button, interior trim, 5"wheels, Moss refit - it will be a little while before THE BIG DAY finally arrives...

Cheerio.

[Vonkie]

Heritage Trust Archive confirmed my car would have had a 3.31 axle (diff) ratio.

Thanks to all who contributed. Heuer's info re August 1963 onwards proved correct.

[Jaglex]

Hi Frank,
I don't remember the speed limits down there and have no idea what happens if you are a little bit liberal with them, but here in Germany I found a 3.31 diff to low geared, so I changed it to a 3.07. Even that could be a little bit longer, just so much I bought a 2.88 but didn't install it yet.
looking for originality is a good thing, but I think we should enjoy driving the cars. So I'd stick to the 3.07 you have.
Alex

[Vonkie]

Thanks Alex.

Testing of the axle and diff revealed that it was and still is 3.31, so I'm sticking with that.

Leider gibt es hier keine Autobahn ohne Grenzen. Our top speed limit is 120 km/h. But there are areas where....ahem.... the trapping and cameras are less active than others.

[Jaglex]

With stock tires that will give you approx 130 mph @ 5500 rpm.
Should be enough enough to raise the blood pressure of uniformed spectators.
And if you can't do that for longer distances anyway I'd stick to the original setup as well.

[Vonkie]

Well, just as the finishing touches are tantalisingly close, there's a hitch. My December 1963 FHC was bereft of its pretty luggage rails when I bought it, and one of the first things I said I wanted done was get the luggage rails fitted. My seller got them, and a hardura mat from Aldridges. Clausager p53: "On the early fixed-head, the boot mat was originally in two pieces as seen here, with a separate mat over the spare wheel cover and an L-shaped main mat; later cars had a one-piece mat with a transverse slot so the part over the spare wheel could be folded aside." P54 reveals the change occurred in Feb 1963 with 861093. The one-piece is prettier, as the two-piece leaves an unsightly ridge - as also appears on the picture from Heuer above, and in the unrestored 1961 FHC and unrestored 1963 FHC pics in the factory fit section in series 1.

The question now arises: were the luggage rails fastened only onto the hardura mat (i.e. mat and rails formed a unit that rested loose on the boot floor board), or were they fastened (screwed or whatever) to the boot floor board through the hardura mat in some way or another? Seller says board appears original but appears to have no traces of fittings for luggage rails, and he cannot see how one would be able to lift the board over the spare wheel part if the luggage rails penetrated the hardura mat and were fastened to the board.

We would of course much prefer not to mess this up. Seller said Aldridges told him this car probably had no rails, but this cannot be right, as all the FHCs had rails, and the OTS did not. Even 9600HP had rails, as appears from the factory fit photos, and Clausager is crystal clear on this.

Informed assistance much appreciated!

[christopher storey]

On the one piece mat with the slit on it, the rails are fixed only to the mat . They are not screwed through to the boards, as this would make it impossible to remove the mat without unscrewing everything. Mine are fixed to the mat by a special kind of staple I think. I will have a look later today

[Heuer]

All 3.8 FHC's had the luggage rails attached to the mats, not the plywood boards. The two part mat is actually much better than the one piece split mat when it comes to accessing the spare wheel well. With the two part mat you can easily lift the small one out. With the single mat you have to try and roll the hardura sideways but the luggage rails make this difficult as the whole thing fouls the LH bodywork. Go with the two piece mat. The whole thing becomes a nightmare if you have luggage in the car!

As regards the fixings there was a thread detailing how here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10836&p=86972

[Vonkie]

Thanks guys - extremely useful and timely info. Seller got conflicting info. The one piece is correct and prettier. I hear Heuer on the practicalities though.

[ChrisC]

I had the a one piece boot cover on my 64 FHC which strangely was carpeted not hardura and when i bought the interior kit from Mike Turley he gave me a two piece hardura. I politely mentioned that was wrong for my car and he said actually it isnt - Jaguar chopped and changed on the production line and cars went out of the factory with either Indiscriminately.

I have no reason to distrust a well knowm trimmer who worked in the factory in the 60's but obviously you may have your own views. Personally I prefer the 2 piece and i really must get around to fitting the luggage rails...

5 years after a total rebuild and that part is still outstanding :( but i like the clean look.

[Vonkie]

Ok guys - this is how it turned out.

Hope pasting the pics works.

I am seriously happy I went through all the pain of getting this done.

I am at 99%. Tiny little snags. Watch this space. Moet bottle is in the fridge.


And the steering wheel is great. She drives fantastically at 4000RPM.

[politeperson]

She looks excellent. Very nice indeed.