The 'E' Type Forum

Our dipstick is in need of tlc... all the plating (originally cadmium? or chrome ? or..?) has come off the main stem (above the ring), though the top tab with the instructions is ok (chrome plating intact). There's no evidence of plating on the part that sits inside the engine (lower stem and the actual measuring strip below that). A plating company has said "they were chrome plated all the way top to bottom", but I'm not convinced - I think they just want to make their job easier! Any advice on what the original coating was for each section of it? Thanks! Rebecca

Not that I ever thought about it, but just out of interest I went and looked at my original 1967 4.2 FHC dipstick.
I had replaced it many years ago with a new - possibly now a repro - dipstick. If it is a repro item, it is correct in every detail right down to the detailed lettering on the end. The old one certainly was only plated - looks like chrome to me - down to the engine seal area, with the internal engine area unplated. I just pulled my present dipstick to check that one and that one is plated completely.
I bit of a bizarre question to such detail as I can’t see it makes any difference either way, but as we are aware of Jaguar’s extreme lengths to save money in period, it could make sense that only the external part was plated and the measuring element - which appears to be doubled back into the main tubular body - was left unplated.









Definitely one for the Concours people !
Cheers,
Dave

You definitely wouldn't want chrome plating below the seal seat. Chrome is as hard as hell and would chew your bearings in no time if it flaked off.

It probably isn't plated below the seal because there's lots of oil to protect it.

Regards

Thanks all for the helpful replies - we'll therefore just get the top part plated (eg the "cap" and above). Agree with the logic that the oil would naturally protect the lower part, and I was also concerned about chrome flaking off into the engine.