1964 FHC Barn Find

SEJohnson95 · Post by **SEJohnson95** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 8:58 am

Thought this might be of interest to you all, don't think it's been published before:

http://barnfinds.com/french-garage-find ... ar-e-type/

malcolm · Post by **malcolm** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:18 am

Interesting story, so thanks for that. Could be a good buy for someone at 40k euros if mechanics are good.

64etype · Post by **64etype** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:50 pm

I was recently in a discussion on the Jag Lovers site regarding original radiators offered in the '64. My 64 FHC has a unit that appears to be like the one in this car with flat sheet metal sides (not a "stacked" aluminum unit). Dr. Haddock shows one like this in his book and suggests it might have left the factory on some cars. The JCNA officials who frequent that site insist that this configuration is not original and that a radiator shop in the U.S. Midwest was offering them as replacements. If this is what it appears, it would make four that I am personally aware of on '64s. And if it is, it's odd that a radiator manufactured in the central U.S. would have shown up in France. ... Hmmm. I wonder if there's a way to get a better photo????

Sorry for the tangent remarks, but radiators get my attention these days.

Thanks for posting the link.

paydase · Post by **paydase** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 1:37 am

Looking at the ad, I just observe that the number indicated for the body, V7191, is exactly the same that the one of my own FHC 3.8 of 1964.

Mine was also bought at the same auctioner, Osenat in Fontainebleau,in December 2013.

How is that possible? Could E-Types share the same body number?

I would be curious to read the number plate...

ralphr1780 · Post by **ralphr1780** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:31 am

Serge, this is really weird, definitely 2 cars should have 2 different body nrs. Was yours claimed to be matching nrs too? do you have a JDHT certificate attesting the combination chassis/body/engine/gearbox nrs?
On this photo the body nr seem to be "cleaner" than the other stamped ones, but that could just be optical effect.

SEJohnson95 · Post by **SEJohnson95** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:00 am

I can go one better - Richard's 3.8 - #860927 with body number V 4198 is the same as on TWO other cars?!

Shared with 887284 and 887315. How weird is that? all 3.8 FHCs too

Perhaps someone can shed any light on this? another one of the many quirks of that car...

Red Kite · Post by **Red Kite** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:12 am

A quick look at xkedata suggests that the body number for that car should be in the V8000 range so i am guessing they use pre filled format for adverts and just forgot to update the body data from when they sold yours ?

paydase wrote:Looking at the ad, I just observe that the number indicated for the body, V7191, is exactly the same that the one of my own FHC 3.8 of 1964.

Mine was also bought at the same auctioner, Osenat in Fontainebleau,in December 2013.

How is that possible? Could E-Types share the same body number?

I would be curious to read the number plate...

paydase · Post by **paydase** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:38 am

ralphr1780 wrote:Serge, this is really weird, definitely 2 cars should have 2 different body nrs. Was yours claimed to be matching nrs too? do you have a JDHT certificate attesting the combination chassis/body/engine/gearbox nrs? On this photo the body nr seem to be "cleaner" than the other stamped ones, but that could just be optical effect.

Mine was indeed sold as matching numbers. Update: just received a reply from Osenat to my enquiry. They acknowledge they made a mistake on the body number. It is actually V8487.

Ouf!

ralphr1780 · Post by **ralphr1780** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:23 am

Feels better now! Happy for you!
Cheers,

paydase · Post by **paydase** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:36 pm

Btw, the guy responsible for the sale in Osenat told me that everything is original in the car and that ...only the "mechanics" had to be restored.
Which could be a long way if surprises emerge...
Unless it's as promising as advertised, whith an estimate therefore in the low range IMO

Edit: Here is a link with some pics and details that show that the car seems to be in rather good shape with limited corrosion under the body and in the mechanics.

http://www.osenat.fr/html/fiche.jsp?id= ... 1&aff=1&r=

64etype · Post by **64etype** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:21 pm

paydase wrote:Btw, the guy responsible for the sale in Osenat told me that everything is original in the car and that ...only the "mechanics" had to be restored.
Which could be a long way if surprises emerge...
Unless it's as promising as advertised, whith an estimate therefore in the low range IMO

Edit: Here is a link with some pics and details that show that the car seems to be in rather good shape with limited corrosion under the body and in the mechanics.

http://www.osenat.fr/html/fiche.jsp?id= ... 1&aff=1&r=

I forwarded these photos to the JCNA....they say the radiator on this car is absolutely not correct because it's not of the aluminum construction that they attribute to all 3.8 cars (per their records). Of course they also speculated quite recently that this style of radiator (which is exactly like the one in my car and four other '64s that I know of) was probably constructed at a midwest U.S. radiator shop and retrofitted. That theory doesn't exactly fit for an "original" car located in France. And it turns out the car owned by the chief "originality" expert was originally sold by this same French distributor and has this same style of radiator. Interesting mystery (to me, not to the "experts"). If anyone else has a vehicle with this flat sheet metal top and sides, I'd be very interested to hear about it. I'm not convinced that the JCNA knows everything that was happening at Jaguar during the change over to the 4.2. By the way, I advised the auction house that JCNA is questioning the veracity of the advertising material.

PeterCrespin · Post by **PeterCrespin** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:56 am

64etype wrote: I'm not convinced that the JCNA knows everything that was happening at Jaguar during the change over to the 4.2. By the way, I advised the auction house that JCNA is questioning the veracity of the advertising material.

In fairness to them, I don't think they claim to 'know everything', I think they just ask for hard evidence from the records for anything different than what the paperwork shows. Any other stance would leave the whole 'originality' issue as a total free-for-all. Which is not to say that every single tiny thing may have been documented and perhaps we will never know. But relying on the balance of probabilities is a lot less secure than relying on documents. Jaguar, along with every other maker of volume cars was pretty meticulous in noting everything, if only to cover their own backsides and those of their dealers is service, warranty or just pare parts enquiries came up later. It would look pretty shoddy if a maker sent cars out the factory not knowing their spec - it still would today. I guess the jury is a little bit 'out' if there start to be multiple examples of something in multiple markets, but the onus is definitely on the people with cars that vary from known factory spec to prove, not merely protest, fifty years later that that's how they left the factory. Be interested to see how it pans out but don't hold your breath :-)

Pete
(In Hollywood, enjoying Jaguar's largesse for a day at the track tomorrow in the F-TYPE Coupe. :-) )

Mark Gordon · Post by **Mark Gordon** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:27 am

PeterCrespin wrote:(In Hollywood, enjoying Jaguar's largesse for a day at the track tomorrow in the F-TYPE Coupe. )

Keep it away from Dead Man's Curve. It's no place to play.

Post by **Heuer** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:33 am

I think I am going to move over to J-L and Administer that site - seems you get a lot more perks over there

Incidentally just how many times have you driven the F-Type now Pete? I seem to recall they gave you one for a week

64etype · Post by **64etype** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:44 pm

Heuer wrote:I think I am going to move over to J-L and Administer that site - seems you get a lot more perks over there Incidentally just how many times have you driven the F-Type now Pete? I seem to recall they gave you one for a week

Pete's perks likely come from his close affiliation with JCNA, not the J-L site. His routine defense of JCNA on J-L (and here) is probably just a crazy coincidence. lol

PeterCrespin · Post by **PeterCrespin** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:25 pm

64etype wrote:
Heuer wrote: Pete's perks likely come from his close affiliation with JCNA, not the J-L site. His routine defense of JCNA on J-L (and here) is probably just a crazy coincidence. lol

Indeed. My new role as Editor of the Jaguar Journal gives me access to cars and info I did not have hitherto, provided to me so that it can be reported for the readers, like any motoring correspondent. Whether one regards that as useful extra data, occasionally interjected into discussions, or irredeemable bias against people of a differing opinion, is purely in the eye of the beholder! As a scientist by training, I am always careful to leave the door open to being proved wrong, because apart from being arrogant it is also foolish to state something is impossible and then have it happen. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt :-( But that same training tells me that hard evidence from reliable sources trumps theory or opinion every time, although forums are by definition the place for sharing all opinions so that all may learn and better inform their own view.

As I mentioned, in the matter of 3.8 radiators, notwithstanding the fact that is is presumably confirmed that some cars DID get replacements very early, if eventually enough evidence emerges that a number of known unchanged cars (not 'assumed', 'hoped-for' or 'believed' original) had a factory-fitted non-catalogue radiator the those who compile the JCNA originality rules might amend them. Dunno, definitely not my scene, but since I'm unaware of any other body having anything remotely as well researched or documented, the onus is on those desiring an amendment to present a compelling case. Good luck to them, because it is always better for the likes of JCNA to update stuff (as they have done) than to argue an incorrect case. I think Bob Stevenson has done a stellar job. People may not realise that Jaguar, in common with most other exporters, kept fully-equipped rectification workshops major ports of entry to repair damage in transit, which sometimes bordered on total loss. Extensive body and even mechanical repairs were occaionally carried out before cars were even despatched to the dealer.

The more complex an object (in general) the more the opportunities for failure of some kind. The stacked-plate 3.8 radiator has always struck me as a great way to maximize cooling surface area but a nightmare of potential seepage seams. I could easily believe that one or two per thousand reached their destination with evidence of seepage that was not apparent after hot running on road test or that just developed by capillary action over the first few months or so of coolant fill before sale. If that resulted in an odd local repair or replacement part, I could believe it and it wouldn't require an undocumented change in true OEM spec. The E-type radiator layout is very similar to several GM and Ford off-the-shelf rads, which is why I brought two Ron Davies alloy radiators back one time for about 150 quid each.

Driving, not concours, is my scene though, so I leave others to get this sorted. And just to show my 'perks' are not all a dream job, I spent most of yesterday feeling very rough due to passengering a Porsche-racing journalist from Detroit on two hours on canyon switchbacks before we swapped seats. It quite ruined my day, although it was exactly how the car needed to be driven. Experiencing high lateral and vertical G from the passenger seat is unpleasant in a way which is not the case when driving. Last time I felt that rough was after an especially vile ferry crossing. Yeuch :-(

Mark Gordon · Post by **Mark Gordon** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:50 pm

PeterCrespin wrote: Driving, not concours, is my scene though, so I leave others to get this sorted. And just to show my 'perks' are not all a dream job, I spent most of yesterday feeling very rough due to passengering a Porsche-racing journalist from Detroit on two hours on canyon switchbacks before we swapped seats. It quite ruined my day, although it was exactly how the car needed to be driven. Experiencing high lateral and vertical G from the passenger seat is unpleasant in a way which is not the case when driving. Last time I felt that rough was after an especially vile ferry crossing. Yeuch :-(

Precisely how I felt holding down the navigator's seat in the F Type with you at the wheel a couple of months ago. I haven't been car sick for years, but that did it to me!

64etype · Post by **64etype** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 2:23 pm

PeterCrespin wrote:
64etype wrote:
Heuer wrote: Pete's perks likely come from his close affiliation with JCNA, not the J-L site. His routine defense of JCNA on J-L (and here) is probably just a crazy coincidence. lol
Indeed. My new role as Editor of the Jaguar Journal gives me access to cars and info I did not have hitherto, provided to me so that it can be reported for the readers, like any motoring correspondent. Whether one regards that as useful extra data, occasionally interjected into discussions, or irredeemable bias against people of a differing opinion, is purely in the eye of the beholder! As a scientist by training, I am always careful to leave the door open to being proved wrong, because apart from being arrogant it is also foolish to state something is impossible and then have it happen. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt :-( But that same training tells me that hard evidence from reliable sources trumps theory or opinion every time, although forums are by definition the place for sharing all opinions so that all may learn and better inform their own view.

As I mentioned, in the matter of 3.8 radiators, notwithstanding the fact that is is presumably confirmed that some cars DID get replacements very early, if eventually enough evidence emerges that a number of known unchanged cars (not 'assumed', 'hoped-for' or 'believed' original) had a factory-fitted non-catalogue radiator the those who compile the JCNA originality rules might amend them. Dunno, definitely not my scene, but since I'm unaware of any other body having anything remotely as well researched or documented, the onus is on those desiring an amendment to present a compelling case. Good luck to them, because it is always better for the likes of JCNA to update stuff (as they have done) than to argue an incorrect case. I think Bob Stevenson has done a stellar job. People may not realise that Jaguar, in common with most other exporters, kept fully-equipped rectification workshops major ports of entry to repair damage in transit, which sometimes bordered on total loss. Extensive body and even mechanical repairs were occaionally carried out before cars were even despatched to the dealer.

The more complex an object (in general) the more the opportunities for failure of some kind. The stacked-plate 3.8 radiator has always struck me as a great way to maximize cooling surface area but a nightmare of potential seepage seams. I could easily believe that one or two per thousand reached their destination with evidence of seepage that was not apparent after hot running on road test or that just developed by capillary action over the first few months or so of coolant fill before sale. If that resulted in an odd local repair or replacement part, I could believe it and it wouldn't require an undocumented change in true OEM spec. The E-type radiator layout is very similar to several GM and Ford off-the-shelf rads, which is why I brought two Ron Davies alloy radiators back one time for about 150 quid each.

Driving, not concours, is my scene though, so I leave others to get this sorted. And just to show my 'perks' are not all a dream job, I spent most of yesterday feeling very rough due to passengering a Porsche-racing journalist from Detroit on two hours on canyon switchbacks before we swapped seats. It quite ruined my day, although it was exactly how the car needed to be driven. Experiencing high lateral and vertical G from the passenger seat is unpleasant in a way which is not the case when driving. Last time I felt that rough was after an especially vile ferry crossing. Yeuch :-(

Pete,

Perhaps it's time for you to ask the owners of J-L to look for your replacement. The conflict of interest is evident.

Regards

Durango2k · Post by **Durango2k** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:01 pm

Well,

My instinctive feelings says that Pete is a very integer type of guy, I can't see a conflict.

Wherein would it be ?

Carsten

Pim · Post by **Pim** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 7:16 pm

Pete,

Perhaps it's time for you to ask the owners of J-L to look for your replacement. The conflict of interest is evident.

Regards

Pardon me, but what conflict, and whose interest?

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

The 'E' Type Forum

1964 FHC Barn Find

#1 1964 FHC Barn Find

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

#12

#13

#14

#15

#16

#17

#18

#19

#20