2+2's

[norman m. macleod]

Hi all,
Inspired as I am with the recent events in Egypt, Tunisia, and more recently, Libya, I feel the urge to champion a much-denigrated cause, the dear old 2+2 E-Type.....Most of my E-Type library authors write in condescending, or even critical, terms of the model, yet I do feel it has a place. Admittedly, not as pretty as a true FHC or an OTS, it is still not the ugliest car in the world, and, dare I hypothesise, had it been the only model shown in Geneva in 1961, it would probably have been hailed as an exceptionally good-looking GT car (OK, not a true sports car....) capable of 140mph, for a mere two thousand quid. All readers of this post are reminded that I bought my first E-Type ( Series 2 proper FHC....) at the tender age of 24, yup, brand new.....Hands up all members who can claim to have done the same.....hands up all members who owned a 1952 Vincent Series "C" Black Shadow at the same time (!!) and at the same age, both veritable icons of what the UK could do, in the middle of the last century......I'll freely admit that the "proper" FHC was a better-looking car, but I'm now restoring a Series 1 2+2, which both of my sons are increasingly interested in, and will probably inherit. Both arev 6'3" +, so there is a certain practicality to that +2" overhead, and one of them has 2 offspring who will be about 5yo and 3yo when the restoration will be complete. Given the serious speed restrictions we have here in Western Australia, (freeways 100kph, and open roads 110kph, I'm leaving the low-ratio USA diff in to have some credible acceleration, but am putting on a Series 3 big-valve head and a Scottish (naturally.....) E-Type Classics stainless exhaust manifold + "silencers", + a few other tweaks. I have no doubt I shall need a fair bit of assistance with the restoration along the way, so I invoke your kind understanding of my (perhaps oft-times silly questions.......) along the way. Thanks thusfar to all who have responded to my posts, including particularly Christopher Storey and David Heuer, people who take time out to help others like this are invaluable......
PS David......I note you are into vinyl, me too, use a Linn-Sondeck LP12 with a Koetsu Signature....how about you.....? Regards to all
Norman
Western Australia.

[christopher storey]

Norman : I am glad we have been able to help . I drive all 3 varieties of the 6 cylinder car, a friend of mine having an S1.5 2+2 which he has had for about 25 years, and which has been continuously restored as needed. All 3 types have different attributes, and whilst the 2+2 may not have the looks ( although strangely with the "forward" windscreen I think that in the S2 range the 2+2 is the best looker) it has practical attributes which make it a great car . It is a great Grand Tourer for 2 people, having enormous stowage space. It also has, as you have pointed out , the best headroom. And IMHO on the road it handles better than the short wheel base cars, and is quieter into the bargain

[PETE V]

Beauty is in the eye off the beholder and in the case of the 2+2, great value for money.

[andy303]

... ( although strangely with the "forward" windscreen I think that in the S2 range the 2+2 is the best looker) it has practical attributes which make it a great car . It is a great Grand Tourer for 2 people, having enormous stowage space. It also has, as you have pointed out , the best headroom. And IMHO on the road it handles better than the short wheel base cars, and is quieter into the bargain

Here here! Mr. Storey, if ever we should meet, I'll buy you a drink. The estimable Mr. Bolster had a similar opinion when he did a road test comparison of the S2 FHC and 2+2, "back in the day". He thought that the new windscreen configuration of the 2+2 lent greater balance to the entire design.

[Heuer]

Norman

I am indeed a huge audio vinyl fan and use a SME20 with a Koetsu Rosewood Platinum cartridge and Sutherland PhD phono stage.

[skiday]

Norman

I am indeed a huge audio vinyl fan and use a SME20 with a Koetsu Rosewood Platinum cartridge and Sutherland PhD phono stage.

I have absolutely no idea what that means!

I don't listen to music so much as make it, and I can get my full PA sound system rig (Bose) + guitar etc into the back of my 2+2 (and don't need to put anything on the front seat). Now that's the way to arrive at a gig That's why I didn't buy a DB7 or Massa. 2+2 ROCKS!

[Peter B.]

Hello to everybody,
I could now start counting all the "rational" benefits for having chosen a 2+2, but this does not really give an idea what it is for me.
This is now my very personal opinion, which could be argued by others: the longer wheel base adds to the sleek and streched look, and in combination with wider wheels, that sit a bit more far out, it looks absolutely stunning to me. I even like the little bit "odd look" of the higher windscreen, roofline and back, it?s so unique and a bit off of what you would expect. At least as uncomparable as an FHC.
So many have been ripped apart in the past, as donour cars for FHC?s and OTS?s, that I believe there are far less Sereis I 2+2?s than FHC/OTS out there. And with regards to the price level, it might be completely stupid to restore or even upgrade them, but keeping that beauty alive and on the streets is worth every cent to me.
Better stop now before I do get carried away, but I had to make that statement, because sometimes you meet other E-type owners that seem to look down on you, when you say that you drive a 2+2, what a bunch of ignorants.
Best regards to ALL E-types out there, hope to meet many 2+2?s in September in Goodwood!
Peter

[D COUPE]

[After 16 years it sees daylight 2+2

[marsh]

Seasons Greetings to all E type owners, everywhere.

I have to say, I believe it's time for the 2+2 to be re-appraised as it has for too long languished as the 'undesirable E type', if such a thing really exists.

There appear to be a number of largely unsubstantiated reasons why the 2+2 is less revered than it's Coupe cousin. Much of these prejudices seem to emenate from journalists who clearly have a personal dislike of the car - my well thumbed copy of a definitive history of the E type never holds back an opportunity to take a dig at the 'defaced' abomination that is the 2+2 and frankly, I'm a touch jaded with this view, having owned examples of all E's.

The case for the prosecution seems to rest on the fact that the 2+2 is an ugly car and the original form of the Coupe was seriously compromised. I'd be inclined to dispute this and whilst I agree that the pure shape of a Coupe is pretty much perfect, I'd suggest that anyone who has a 2+2 takes it into the street when the weather allows and see what comments it draws from the public. I'd venture to suggest that people won't be running away, shielding their eyes. Park one next to a regular Coupe and see what happens and again, I don't think children will be pulled away by their anxious parents...

There are those (in a minority, granted) who suggest that the longer car is better looking and whilst I wouldn't personally go that far, in contemporary road tests, the views of respected writers such as John Bolster were far more complimentary in print about the 2+2 than in subsequent times. The angle of the windscreen does make a difference and certainly on later cars, this increased rake is more asthetically pleasing to the eye.

The second perception seems to suggest that the performance of the 2+2 is also blunted. Consider that the standard manual 2+2 was tested at around 140 mph when new and than ask yourself how fast a standard coupe would be in comparison? Ten miles an hour faster? Hmmm, perhaps with an engine of 'known performance', racing tyres, overriders removed, an aluminium tailgate and perhaps some lightweight glass, it might be, if you tried long and hard enough. Norman Dewis took a standard 2+2 up to a comfortable 147 mph in 1966, so I guess the '2+2's are slower' argument starts to lose some weight.

The E type, in all its various forms, is a truly desirable car, irrespective of colour, configuration or condition. Those of us who are priviliged to own one (or more) examples of the marque should remember that. I love my 2+2 - it has every right to be a proud part of the E type family and I think 2012 should be the year where 2+2's are appreciated for the fast, practical and beautiful cars that they've always been.

Marsh

[PETE V]

Well said that man

[norman m. macleod]

Hi all,
I'm pleased I kicked this one off (see initial post.....),and, yes, well said that man, as Pete V comments. The 2 + 2 has been an under-rated vehicle for some time, I feel.
Must take this opportunity to wish all in the Club and the Forum all the best for the Christmas and New Year Season.....regrettably we have to put up with it at 28deg.C and a clear blue sky, no rain, no snow or slush or salt and grit on the roads.....Someone has to do it........
Best regards from Down Under,
Norman,
Perth, Western Australia.

[MarkE]

I can?t see that the 2+2 has been underrated?.it?s just been rated. The market has over 50 years experience of E Type, with over 45 years of the 2+2. I think that?s long enough for the market to have come to a stable conclusion!

Most 2+2 cars, from Jaguar, Lotus, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Jensen, Aston, and many others, are not valued as highly as the 2 seater versions. That doesn?t make them a lesser car or inferior in any way, it just means that folks are more willing to put more money into restoring and running a 2 seater version. Maybe something to do with the romantic vision, the dream, which has a 2 seat car roaring off into the sunset, rather than a 2 seat car with a couple of kids in the back!

The driving experience is hardly any different, especially considering how many of them are driven these days, which just means that the 2+2 owners are laughing all the way to the bank!

We are often not comparing like with like with regards to condition though. Many OTS and FHC cars have had full professional standard restorations carried out on them. When they come up for sale, the eye-watering prices, although seemingly very high, can be a small part of what has been spent on them.

Many 2+2 cars have had home restorations, and again, whilst the driving experience may be just the same, the detail may not be there.

I wonder what a fully restored 2+2 would go for if it had been restored by one of the specialist E type companies.

Looking at the cars when they were new, the 2+2 was the most expensive E Type. How many were bought compared with 2 seater cars? From 1966 to 1973 (the last year of 2+2 production), the 2+2 outsold both the OTS and FHC in most years in the UK market. It did pretty well in the export market as well, outselling either the OTS or FHC in several years.

So they were rated very highly when new, and in many cases, customers preferred them to the FHC and OTS. It would be interesting to understand what has changed between then and now!

[PeterCrespin]

Did you ask copyright clearance from the publisher before reproducing that printed table?

[MarkE]

A rather fatuous question, but I have removed the interesting information to stop any whining, and I'll type it out...eventually.

[marsh]

Mark is absolutely right in everything he says and makes the very valid point that the 2+2 was the most expensive model in the E type range when new, but something changed in the intervening period.

A combination of poorly maintained or restored cars, plus un-enlightened journalism have all played their part for sure in establishing a market value that is so disproportionate to contemporary price lists, but there is a silver lining and I agree with Mark that those individuals lucky enough to obtain a good, straight 2+2 can benefit from exceptional value for money with a capital E, so it's not all bad!

Merry Christmas everyone.

Marsh

[Heuer]

Try these with correct copyright acknowledgement:


? Classic Jaguar World

Peter has a good point and we should respect copyright or at the very least acknowledge who is the copyright owner. These tables are Jaguar production figures rather than pure unique intellectual property so I do not think we should get too hung up on the subject.

[MarkE]

The speed limit is 70mph on motorways in the UK, but nobody worries about minor infringements until some are pointed out publicly, then something has to be done by the authorities.

The copyright issue has become ridiculous on some forums, leading to, in a couple of cases, the forums grinding to a halt. We have to remember that this sort of forum is for exchange of information between enthusiasts, free of charge and without any implied leverage for any product or service.

To make a forum come alive it needs photographs, diagrams, illustrations, and these are often taken from one of the many sources of information available. In my experience no seasoned author or publisher minds this sort of publicity so long as it?s not taken to extremes?.high resolution photographs and full pdf copies of books or chapters.

For somebody to get all righteous about production volumes of an E type being copied from a book, when they originated from Jaguar in the first place, is just the most negative form of comment, and at a loss to see what value it adds. Unfortunately I have a background in this stuff from a legal position so have to comply whenever a small infringement is mentioned.

I hope this sort of crap doesn?t get started on this forum, which up to now has been free of teachers and preachers.

[Heuer]

We have had a couple of IPR complaints in the past (regarding photo's) but they have been resolved by acknowledging copyright. Seems fair, we have limited use of the content, owner gets publicity. I understand where Peter is coming from as he writes this stuff and it is his livelyhood but that needs to be tempered by the fact readers here are his audience. So as a general guideline please acknowledge content source if possible with both pictures and text - a sort of taster for further reading.

[PeterCrespin]

Not such a big deal really is it Mark? It doesn't hurt to at least mention where you get info.

Something like '...the following figures from XYZ's book...' or '...according to XYZ's numbers...' when literally reproducing a printed work. It doesn't hurt or restrict us does it?

Granted, it wasn't as if you were quoting some major creative stuff but I think of it like saying please and thank you. Nobody's calling it a hanging offence but if you don't even give a nod of acknowledgement it looks odd to me. Jaguar certainly pursue their copy rights with due diligence and so they should, within reason.

Granted, my total royalties wouldn't keep David in p?age fees, so my personal interest is negligible, but it's not a bad principle to uphold without getting too irate about it.

I did actually post something on the 2+2 topic last evening but it has disappeared - doubtless operator error at my end - but the substance of the thread is a good one. For some time this year I had my Series 1.5 2+2 alongside the S1 FHC in the barn. From time to time people would stop for a chat and if the subject of value came up I usually let them know that one of the two cars was worth 50% more than the other. Not only did nobody guess which car was worth more, they couldn't even tell them apart by looking at the back of them from the barn door. When I was out in the 2+2 I got just as many positive comments at petrol stations as when in an OTS.

To me the message is clear - the only people who even think there is a 2+2 vs FHC issue are 'E-type people'. Not even most classic car buffs realise there is an issue and 6" rims on a 6-cyl 2+2 help the visual balance anyhow. So if you drive to please yourself not your club mates you can laugh all the way to the bank in a 2+2.

Pete

[MarkE]

Did you ask copyright clearance from the publisher before reproducing that printed table?

That is completely different to acknowledging the source of something which, as you say, is no big deal and I agree, is the polite thing to do. What you suggested in the first place will often result in a refusal to use due to common usage detracting from absolute copyright ownership, which is exactly the position other forums have found themselves in, and hence they grind to a halt.

You are now backing two entirely different approaches, and I still think that the first course of action that you seemed to think should be taken would have a considerable detrimental effect on the forum if pursued.