Converting a V 12V E TYPE to fuel injection

Talk about the E-Type Series 3
User avatar

PeterCrespin
Posts: 4437
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:22 pm
Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Contact:
United States of America

#21

Post by PeterCrespin » Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:28 am

Sorry, I was getting mixed up. The thread started with Peter then Mark the PO chimed in and mentioned Paul the PO before him. Mark had an engine/gearbox built and showed a pic of that with EFI.

Then it switched focus when you chimed in with your car on the other side of the world which is why I wondered how come it had gone back to carbs and why the bell/RFOB area looked different at the bottom left from the privious pic.

I now realise we were talking about two totally different engine/gearbox combos, not the same car with different owners/builders. Your Melbourne suburb looks so English I didn't even realise it was a photo from Oz. That would explain the nice bell housing needing no fettling. Did it come with a release arm or did you use the a Getrag one or the Jag V12 or a special? Do you have any kind of link for the seller of those bells?

Pete
1E75339 UberLynx D-Type; 1R27190 70 FHC; 1E78478; 2001 Vanden Plas

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
Hide post links
Show post links

User avatar

Topic author
Peter Collins
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:32 pm
Location: Kidderminster

#22

Post by Peter Collins » Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:48 am

Sorry for the delay in answering your question , my gear box and rear mounting is exactly the same as you have but my bell housing is different . Mine has a hefty mounting plate between gear box and engine and also i have noticed that your mounting plate at the back is the same as the one i had but i had to shorten mine by an inch so it missed one of the cross member beems on the tub.I believe that this mounting was designed by Vicarage ltd at Four Ashes Wolverhampton . Tel/ 01902 791816 . I talked to them on the phone a number of times because my mounting was too long and they told me it was off a mark 2 jaguar and if i cut an inch off it would fit perfectly and it did . This was the only modification i had to do. Have you had to make any other modifications or similar ? because i was wondering if the gear box was located in the car the same as mine . Going on to the gear shift , the person i spoke to at Vicarage who's name was Pete ( i think has since left ) who also gave me all the information on fuel injecting my e type . He told me not to go with the gear shift link conversion but to keep with the original getrag gear shift but to bring it forward by an inch .He also said at the time that the original gear shift position is to far forward and in my opinion it was proven to be correct. ( this requires you cutting and re welding the mounting plate an inch forward including the link underneath the stick )

Image
Peter Collins

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
Hide post links
Show post links


MarkE
Moderator
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:00 pm
Location: Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire
Contact:
Great Britain

#23

Post by MarkE » Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:16 am

Simon, the Getrag box is quite notchy in changing until it's nicely run in. My 3.6 manual XJS has the Getrag, and with nearly 200,000 miles on the clock, the box is now very smooth!

I used to find it hard to select first gear in the winter, and had to put it in to second, then first, to get everything moving. You may just get the same on those cold Canberra winter morns!

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
Hide post links
Show post links

User avatar

PeterCrespin
Posts: 4437
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:22 pm
Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Contact:
United States of America

#24

Post by PeterCrespin » Fri Jul 01, 2011 8:30 pm

Try synthetic oil in the Getrag. Jaguar changed the recommendation from EP80/90 to ATF during the XJS period with the box, IIRC, to cut down the cold baulking. It still wasn't great with ATF but I saw some synthetic on offer in Halfords and it made the box much better. Still wouldn't say it exactly snicks into gear but you can live with it now. Bit whining in third but it adds character :-)

I had the same box on two different XJ-S cars and it changed better. They used a very heavy metal gear knob and direct change mechanism, as opposed to the forward-mount mechanism for the E-type console.

Pete
1E75339 UberLynx D-Type; 1R27190 70 FHC; 1E78478; 2001 Vanden Plas

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
Hide post links
Show post links

User avatar

vee12eman
Posts: 711
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:14 pm
Location: Down South
Kiribati

#25

Post by vee12eman » Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:11 am

Many thanks for all the answers and I am sorry if I hijacked the thread with questions about the gearbox - I started reading the thread because I am interested in converting my car to injection in the future, then noticed the gearbox in the picture. as this is the first V12 I had seen with the conversion I got very interested. I wonder if we should start a new thread with a link to this one, but with the subject referring to the getrag conversion?

Anyway, as you can see, I did move my gear lever, although I did consider leaving the original in place. I had to use parts of the original linkage to do this, so there is no going back unless I find out which car it came from and obtain a spare linkage I can see why this would be advantageous, but I wanted to keep original looks and I supppose I just trusted the original lever location to be the best.

Peter (Collins!), thank you for the comments and answering my original question. In answer to the points you raised, I remember now that when I fitted the engine and 'box, I didn't initially bother with a rear mount since, as you said, the mount actually fouled the cross member on the tub and I had to later remove the mount and cut an inch of it - exactly as you describe. I then had to drill it from below and fit the standard manual transmission mount for an e-Type V12. As my car was a) Automatic, and b) totally dismantled when I bought it, I had very little idea how this all went together. I had no mounting - must have got lost before I bought the car, so I found one at one of the Stoneleigh Autojumbles. I also had to fit the whole assembly to the car simply to measure the length of the propshaft, then drop the rear suspension to fit the new propshaft, due to the design of the car. The propshaft was made by Bailey Morris Propshafts in cambridgeshire, who made a fantastic job in double quick time.

Peter (Crespin!), the reason that the "suburb" in the photo looks so English, is that it is in fact a photo from my previous house in Hertfordshire; we moved here lock, stock and four smoking exhaust outlets around three years ago.

Sadly, I don't have a link for the bell manufacturer. the whole thing came from ebay, I think I still have the contact details for the guy that sold it to me, who is an ex-Jaguar worker from the V12 production line, now living near Portsmouth. His garage looked like a miniature Jaguar factory with severla cars, plus special tools from the factory, including two origianl V12 engine stands with "Jaguar" cast into them. He told me that the bell housings came from SNG Barratt and I went to them shortly afterward to obtain the rear mounting discussed above. They also mentioned having a gear linkage available, but at the time, I didn't buy it, I am not sure why. When I went back later, they had none left and no intention to supply them again. They said thay had stopped supplying the Getrag conversions because the supply of gearboxes had dried up. I remember the SNG catalogue at the time still mentioned the Getrag system, but shortly afterward they changed the catalogue to the current one and omitted the Getrag conversions. The guy that sold the gearbox to me was very open about the work I needed to undertake in future and that it was not a complete conversion, but I have enjoyed the challenge. I spoke to him more recently about the problems I was having locating a clutch release bearing, but although he tried to help me, he wasn't sure of the source of the one fitted, which is why I ended up modifying it as described. I can't therefore comment on the origin of the relaese arm and bearing carrier, they may be bespoke or a conversion of the original but I have no way of knowing. I remember the hole in the side of the bell housing through which the release arm protrudes is rather rough, indicating a modification.

I really regret not taking more pictures, especially when the 'box was removed to cure the squealing problem described in an earlier post, I will take more pictures in future, but that does involve removing the thing (again!). I did take these pictures of the Clutch release bearing mounted on its' carrier before I machined the carrier to take the more common bearing:

Image

Image

Hope this helps and if anyone recognises this carrier I will be very interested! I would really like to know where it all came from in case I ever need spares......

Regards,

Simon
Last edited by vee12eman on Sat Mar 14, 2020 12:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Simon S-Y
Series III FHC

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
Hide post links
Show post links

User avatar

PeterCrespin
Posts: 4437
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:22 pm
Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Contact:
United States of America

#26

Post by PeterCrespin » Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:27 am

The carrier looks normal Getrag, the release bearing struck me as a little flat. I probably have one or two and will take pics.

Pete

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
Hide post links
Show post links

User avatar

vee12eman
Posts: 711
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:14 pm
Location: Down South
Kiribati

#27

Post by vee12eman » Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:36 am

Hi, that would be good, as although I have now modified the carrier to take a different bearing, I would still like to know where it came from so I can perhaps find out about ratios and get spares it I ever need them.
Simon S-Y
Series III FHC

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
Hide post links
Show post links

User avatar

PeterCrespin
Posts: 4437
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:22 pm
Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Contact:
United States of America

#28

Post by PeterCrespin » Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:23 am

vee12eman wrote:Hi, that would be good, as although I have now modified the carrier to take a different bearing, I would still like to know where it came from so I can perhaps find out about ratios and get spares it I ever need them.
Below are two views of a Getrag release bearing and arm as used on the 265 and 290 boxes fitted to pre 1900-ish and post 1990-ish XJ-S/XJ40/X300 respectively. As I thought, the rubbing face is a bit deeper/rounder. The carrier is free to slide in the slotted fork as it traverses the arc of motion, but this one is a bit gunged up:

Image

Image

This is the standard V12 bell and release mech, which as you can see is similar to the XK version except for the fork being pivoted on the opposite side of the input shaft:

Image

Pete
1E75339 UberLynx D-Type; 1R27190 70 FHC; 1E78478; 2001 Vanden Plas

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
Hide post links
Show post links

User avatar

vee12eman
Posts: 711
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:14 pm
Location: Down South
Kiribati

#29

Post by vee12eman » Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:35 am

Hi, thanks for the pictures, the arm which I had was very similar to the arm in the first picture, but as you can see the carrier itself was somewhat different, it actually seems bigger from memory and this would be borne out by the fact that an XJS clutch release bearing was too small. I think my carrier may have been specially made and, as I said, I had to modify it to take an easily available bearing.

Thanks again,

Simon
Simon S-Y
Series III FHC

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
Hide post links
Show post links

User avatar

Topic author
Peter Collins
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:32 pm
Location: Kidderminster

#30

Post by Peter Collins » Mon Dec 05, 2011 8:13 pm

Update on fuel injection V12 E-Type , After doing 2900 miles this year, the car has now been put away for the winter . The last big run out was the goodwood revival meeting ,which i attended for all three days .I did 402 miles that trip and my best average was 23.8 to the gallon .I am now doing some small modifications to the plumbing , the water pick up point for the heater from off side to near side .
Peter Collins

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
Hide post links
Show post links

User avatar

MLBS3V12
Posts: 457
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 6:57 pm
Location: France
France

#31

Post by MLBS3V12 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:02 am

Peter,

To get a rough idea : what could have been the fuel consumption for a such trip with the 4 carburators ?

Regards
Michel
Le chemin sera long!...

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
Hide post links
Show post links

User avatar

PeterCrespin
Posts: 4437
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:22 pm
Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Contact:
United States of America

#32

Post by PeterCrespin » Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:38 pm

Assume you're not talking to me but my Series three never saw better than 17 mpg IIRC and that was on a run in Europe. It usually gave around 13-14 mpg. Driving hard would get you closer to 10-11 mpg.

Pete
1E75339 UberLynx D-Type; 1R27190 70 FHC; 1E78478; 2001 Vanden Plas

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
Hide post links
Show post links

User avatar

Mark Gordon
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:33 pm
Location: Burke, Virginia
United States of America

#33

Post by Mark Gordon » Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:15 pm

10-11 mpg? That's gotta hurt! You might have to move to Venezuela to be able to afford to drive a Series 3. I don't know what the current price is, but in July 2010 the price for gas in Caracas was 6 cents! I remember as a school boy in about 1962 preparing a report on the petroleum industry development in the U.S. When crude oil was first being commercially refined, its main use was for kerosene. A useless by product was gasoline which was given to anyone who would just haul it away. Anybody have a time machine?

Mark

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
Hide post links
Show post links

User avatar

PeterCrespin
Posts: 4437
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:22 pm
Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Contact:
United States of America

#34

Post by PeterCrespin » Wed Dec 14, 2011 4:38 pm

Strangely, the few occasions when consumption dipped that low were very enjoyable and there was far too much going on to worry about cost of fuel. Hospital bills and license points maybe, but not cost of fuel or tyres... :-)

It was the relentless mid-teens consumption, day in day out, that put a crimp in my fun with the car. It was the first vehicle of any kind in forty years of motoring where I did pause to reflect if I really needed to take that car. On the plus side, it made me use my bike more to redress the expense.

Bear in mind too that this was all about 5 years ago when fuel climbed to levels which would seem cheap today.... The old adage about smiles per gallon was still true, but occasionally with my heavy usage the smiles were through clenched teeth. Somehow the 22-25 mpg I've got from most of my Jags since then, just doesn't seem to hurt as much even though it's terrible by modern standards. But you can't hide from 14-15 per gallon....

Pete
1E75339 UberLynx D-Type; 1R27190 70 FHC; 1E78478; 2001 Vanden Plas

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
Hide post links
Show post links


MarkE
Moderator
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:00 pm
Location: Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire
Contact:
Great Britain

#35

Post by MarkE » Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:18 am

9 to 12 mpg is the sort of consumption that a new Range Rover gets around town delivering the kids to school....it's not just a 1970s thing! So the next time you see a Chelsea tractor in the traffic jam you can feel sorry for the poor owner....maybe.

The beauty with the S3 is that it can be converted to injection quite readily, and if you have a bit of nouse, very cheaply. The bits from an XJS are free with a packet of cornflakes, and as Peter has demonstrated with his injected S3, the results are pretty dramatic.

An old chum used to run a S1 XJ12 with the carburettor engine, and on the motorway at speed, you could literally watch the fuel gauge going down! A fantastic machine, but 10 mpg was only an ambition that was rarely achieved.

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
Hide post links
Show post links

User avatar

Heuer
Administrator
Posts: 13583
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:29 pm
Location: Nottinghamshire
Great Britain

#36

Post by Heuer » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:18 am

MarkE wrote:9 to 12 mpg is the sort of consumption that a new Range Rover gets around town delivering the kids to school....it's not just a 1970s thing! So the next time you see a Chelsea tractor in the traffic jam you can feel sorry for the poor owner....maybe.
Nooooooooo! The latest full fat Range Rover with a 4.4 diesel V8 (Jaguar engine) returns about 25mpg around town. My 3.6 TDV8 Sport (Ford engine) gives 22.3 when knocking about locally and clambering through fields or 26mpg on a motorway run. On the other hand if you were to look at either of the 5.0 litre petrol Supercharged Range Rovers (Jaguar engine) then you would indeed get 9 mpg but these are rare beasts on UK roads as they are special order only from JLR.
David Jones
S1 OTS OSB; S1 FHC ODB

Add your E-Type to our World Map: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1810

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
Hide post links
Show post links


MarkE
Moderator
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:00 pm
Location: Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire
Contact:
Great Britain

#37

Post by MarkE » Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:23 pm

I wasn't talking about farm machinery David!

I think it was the PC Clarkson who tested a Range Rover on Top Gear, but probably a couple of years ago now, and got 8 or 9 mpg. That had a proper engine, none of this klunking, rattling, knocking and smelly business!

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
Hide post links
Show post links

User avatar

AussieEtype
Posts: 531
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:59 am
Location: Canberra, Australia
Australia

#38

Post by AussieEtype » Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:48 pm

My RRS gives 30mpg :)

My Etype V12 has only ever given a best 17.5mpg (usual 14mpg and worst 10mpg)

My Landrover FC101 gives a best of 15mpg, average 10mpg and worst 6mpg.

I have an old roadtest on the etype and it shows best fuel consumption of 18mpg is achieved at a steady 72mph. We are driving a car with a big engine with poor breathing and fuelling. While heavy for its size, it is not a heavy car for the engine but despite its looks it does have the aerodynamics of a rhinoceros so fuel consumption is never going to be a strong point.

Garry
1971 Series 3 E-type OTS

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
Hide post links
Show post links

User avatar

PeterCrespin
Posts: 4437
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:22 pm
Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Contact:
United States of America

#39

Post by PeterCrespin » Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:46 pm

When doing a decent run at speed in an OTS, it is noticeable that top-up motoring is more economical than top-down. You wouldn't normally worry about 1.5 mpg difference, but on a Series 3 OTS that's more than ten percent improvement.

As for the fuel gauge dropping as you watch, that happened on my fuel-injected Series 3 XJ12 as well. In their defence, the XJ cars used twin tanks and it took less than ten gallons for the gauge to go from full to near empty. At 80-90 mph (dawdling for a V12) you're doing about 10-11 mpg or a gallon every 6-7 min. So just over an hour of high speed after a motorway fill up (i.e. a couple of Radio 4 programmes or less than two CDs) you'll look down at an empty gauge and need to switch to the other tank. Yes, you can watch the needle going down :-(

Pete
1E75339 UberLynx D-Type; 1R27190 70 FHC; 1E78478; 2001 Vanden Plas

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
Hide post links
Show post links


Woolfi
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:57 pm
Location: Germany
Germany

#40

Post by Woolfi » Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:59 pm

I have a EV12 rodster with 6,0 L motor from a '93 limousine with 4 Strombergs, a Getrag 5gear-box and a 2,88 diff. My best average this summer was 23,0 mpg, but with slow cruising, most of the time i fifth gear. In the city the gas consumption is going up a lot. Up to 12 mpg.
But I think my motor has more power than a 5,3 HE with injection.
Regards Wolfgang Gatza

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
Hide post links
Show post links

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic