Body shape FHC vs 2+2

Talk about E-Types here

Topic author
J Hunt
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2021 8:10 am
Great Britain

#1 Body shape FHC vs 2+2

Post by J Hunt » Sat Oct 09, 2021 8:13 am

Hello knowledgable folks. Is the body shape different ? It looks like the 2+2 is slightly squarer at the back with a different rear door shape. I've not been able to compare relevant pictures so thought I would ask around!. Regards, Julian

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

User avatar

malcolm
Posts: 2101
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 10:44 am
Location: Fleet
Great Britain

#2 Re: Body shape FHC vs 2+2

Post by malcolm » Sat Oct 09, 2021 8:51 am

Basically, the 2+2 is 9 inches longer and 2 inches higher, so this changes the shape. Rake of windscreen also different.
Malcolm
I only fit in a 2+2, so got one!
1969 Series 2 2+2
2009 Jaguar XF-S
2015 F Type V6 S

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

User avatar

mgcjag
Moderator
Posts: 6744
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 6:15 pm
Location: Ludlow Shropshire
Great Britain

#3 Re: Body shape FHC vs 2+2

Post by mgcjag » Sat Oct 09, 2021 9:13 am

Series 1, S2 and S3 cars are all different......you can get a 2+2 in each model.......Steve
Steve
69 S2 2+2 (just sold) & Building a C type replica, 1960 xk150fhc

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


angelw
Posts: 474
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:27 pm
Location: Ballarat, Vic, Australia
Australia

#4 Re: Body shape FHC vs 2+2

Post by angelw » Sat Oct 09, 2021 9:25 am

Julian Wrote:
It looks like the 2+2 is slightly squarer at the back with a different rear door shape.
Hello Julian,
The shape at the back for S2 and S3 cars (FHC & 2+2) is the same. The rear door is the same shape for all E Types made; 3.8 S1 FHC through to S3 2+2 cars.

Regards,

Bill

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

User avatar

mgcjag
Moderator
Posts: 6744
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 6:15 pm
Location: Ludlow Shropshire
Great Britain

#5 Re: Body shape FHC vs 2+2

Post by mgcjag » Sat Oct 09, 2021 9:46 am

3 photos S1 S2 S3
Image



Image

Image
Steve
69 S2 2+2 (just sold) & Building a C type replica, 1960 xk150fhc

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


bitsobrits
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:09 am
Location: Iowa
United States of America

#6 Re: Body shape FHC vs 2+2

Post by bitsobrits » Sat Oct 09, 2021 6:07 pm

Looks to me as if the rear door shapes are different between the three series of cars....
Steve
'65 S1 4.2 FHC
'49 MK V Saloon

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

User avatar

mgcjag
Moderator
Posts: 6744
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 6:15 pm
Location: Ludlow Shropshire
Great Britain

#7 Re: Body shape FHC vs 2+2

Post by mgcjag » Sat Oct 09, 2021 6:35 pm

Bill really knows his E types. ...workes on them every day......if he says all the doors are the same i would go with that.....photo angle makes a huge difference......Steve
Steve
69 S2 2+2 (just sold) & Building a C type replica, 1960 xk150fhc

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

User avatar

rswaffie
Posts: 1391
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2014 7:56 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Great Britain

#8 Re: Body shape FHC vs 2+2

Post by rswaffie » Sat Oct 09, 2021 7:46 pm

The part number is also the same for each model I believe, which generally means it can be used on each, although the holes for the letters/numbers/adornments would be specific to series.
Richard

S1 3.8 FHC Opalescent Golden Sand with Tan Trim 889504
Now enjoying my diy nut ‘n’ bolt restoration. :swerve: :wrench: :hammer: :fingerscrossed:

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


angelw
Posts: 474
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:27 pm
Location: Ballarat, Vic, Australia
Australia

#9 Re: Body shape FHC vs 2+2

Post by angelw » Sat Oct 09, 2021 8:38 pm

Richard Wrote:
The part number is also the same for each model I believe, which generally means it can be used on each, although the holes for the letters/numbers/adornments would be specific to series.
Exactly.

Regards,

Bill

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

User avatar

PeterCrespin
Posts: 4523
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:22 pm
Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Contact:
United States of America

#10 Re: Body shape FHC vs 2+2

Post by PeterCrespin » Sat Oct 09, 2021 8:52 pm

The doors interchange on external shape and will fit every hard top body style. But early and late 3.8 rear doors and glass and chrome will not interchange with later 3.8 and everything else. The glass and door aperture and trim shapes are subtly different and need to be matched to fit properly. Being an irregular shape (the change is on the top corners) you can't easily measure it or even tell until you lay the incorrect combinations on top of each other.(like the early rectangular petrol flaps can't be swapped onto newer tapered filler aperture bodies).

I would have expected new part numbers shown from relevant 3.8 VINs when the later glass / aperture shape changed in mid/late 62. In fact I'm pretty certain the number did change, since I had such a flat bulkhead early petrol flap May 62 car. Even the 3 different badge hole patterns would have justified a different number but I can believe it may not have happened until mid 64, if at all, when the 4.2 badge hole pattern came out. I assume they just figured that drlling holes to convert a 3.8 to 4.2 badges as easy, and added holes on new 4.2 doors used to repair 3.8 cars could be filled.

The screen rake is identical on all S1 cars and SWB two seat models . The more raked screen is the same for S2 2+2 an both S3 models.

The 'hips' (the upper rear wheel arches and rear upper quarter below the sides of the quarterlights and hatch), are deeper/different between any 2+2 and any FHC.
1E75339 UberLynx D-Type; 1R27190 70 FHC; 1E78478; 2001 Vanden Plas

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

User avatar

Series1 Stu
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:26 pm
Location: Shropshire
Great Britain

#11 Re: Body shape FHC vs 2+2

Post by Series1 Stu » Sun Oct 10, 2021 7:14 am

PeterCrespin wrote:
Sat Oct 09, 2021 8:52 pm
The 'hips' (the upper rear wheel arches and rear upper quarter below the sides of the quarterlights and hatch), are deeper/different between any 2+2 and any FHC.
Wow, I hadn't realised that. Every day is a school day!

I had always understood that the rear doors were all the same apart from, as you say, the very early cars upto mid 62, except the Series 3 items have a big hole for the vent too. Badge holes also vary, of course.

Regards
Stuart

If you can't make it work, make it complicated!

'62 FHC - Work In (slow) Progress
'69 Daimler 420 Sovereign
'78 Land Rover Series 3 109
'94 X300 XJR basket case

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

User avatar

PeterCrespin
Posts: 4523
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:22 pm
Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Contact:
United States of America

#12 Re: Body shape FHC vs 2+2

Post by PeterCrespin » Sun Oct 10, 2021 11:54 am

Series1 Stu wrote:
Sun Oct 10, 2021 7:14 am
PeterCrespin wrote:
Sat Oct 09, 2021 8:52 pm
The 'hips' (the upper rear wheel arches and rear upper quarter below the sides of the quarterlights and hatch), are deeper/different between any 2+2 and any FHC.
Wow, I hadn't realised that. Every day is a school day!
It’s more obvious in profile when you see that although the hatch is the same it lies at a steeper angle on the 2+2 to blend in with the higher roof and deeper quarter lights. It’s almost the reverse of the front, where the raised roofline is why so many people say the 2+2 screen is steeper when it isn’t - it’s just taller.

One of the first books I got when I bought my first E was by Paul Skilleter, who is nobody’s fool, and even he said the same. It just happens that I was given a scratched FHC screen and it fitted the 2+2 perfectly, apart from stopping a few centimeters short at the top.
1E75339 UberLynx D-Type; 1R27190 70 FHC; 1E78478; 2001 Vanden Plas

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

User avatar

Series1 Stu
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:26 pm
Location: Shropshire
Great Britain

#13 Re: Body shape FHC vs 2+2

Post by Series1 Stu » Sun Oct 10, 2021 3:24 pm

I get all that about the roof line, it makes sense due to the 2" increase in headroom and wheelbase increase. What surprised me was the difference in the rear hips and wheel arches. Maybe that's why the 2+2 has those chrome trims under the rear quarterlights, to hide/emphasise the difference?

I love this forum.

Regards
Stuart

If you can't make it work, make it complicated!

'62 FHC - Work In (slow) Progress
'69 Daimler 420 Sovereign
'78 Land Rover Series 3 109
'94 X300 XJR basket case

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

User avatar

PeterCrespin
Posts: 4523
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:22 pm
Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Contact:
United States of America

#14 Re: Body shape FHC vs 2+2

Post by PeterCrespin » Sun Oct 10, 2021 4:08 pm

The real lesson is how well Jaguar managed to accommodate two modestly-sized passengers without making it look like an estate car. By positioning flat floors lower and placing the rear bulkhead horizontally they got foot and seat room. Then with a nip and tuck up front to a curved roof to a re-sized around the back and sides, they got head and shoulder room. And by making the seat back moveable they got hatchback .load space when there are no rear passengers. All without non-specialists even noticing any difference to the fabulous shape.
1E75339 UberLynx D-Type; 1R27190 70 FHC; 1E78478; 2001 Vanden Plas

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

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic