Early radiator

[peters3103]

Hi chaps,
Can't seem to find when the early finned radiator was last fitted. My reference books say "early" and "later" without being date or chassis number specific.
Radtec lists upto October 61. My November 61 FHC 885175 has the later type and I always assumed this was incorrect but now not so sure. I need to replace it soon so want to fit the correct type.

Cheers
Pete

[Heuer]

According to Clausagher all 3.8's were fitted with the Marston radiator. There are claims by some owners of the very last 3.8's that they have brass radiators but there is no Factory evidence to support this. Check out our 'Factory Fit' thread http://etypeuk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2006&start=0 for some pictures of unmolested late production 3.8 cars to prove the point. Also consider the Fosseway 'Marston' radiator which is, in my view, a more accurate copy.

[peters3103]

Thanks David, I should've thought to go straight to the Factory Fit myself Doh! Clearly all these unrestored 3.8 cars have the Marston radiator so that's good enough for me. Price is a killer though

[SEJohnson95]

Just to throw a spanner in the works here gentlemen, #860927 will have its original (albeit re cored) radiator fitted as part of the restoration which is a brass radiator. It's a October 62 car, any ideas?

[Heuer]

Likely to be a service replacement at some time in its life. It would originally have had a Marston unless, as per JCNA rules, you can prove it was fitted at the Factory.

[SEJohnson95]

unless, as per JCNA rules, you can prove it was fitted at the Factory.

Must be difficult to do that, where would you start?

[Heuer]

You can't, so don't bother trying - all 3.8's (maybe with the exception of the last few weeks of production) were fitted with Marston radiators. To quote Clausager "It is speculated that later 3.8 cars may have had a copper (brass) radiator as did the 4.2 model but it has not proved possible to verify this"

Besides which the 3.8 your are working on is an early car I seem to recall. So you either need to source an original Marston (Richard Smith has some but warns they are not for use) or buy a Radtec/Fosseway copy. If it does not look like this from the front it will not be judged to be correct!:

[SEJohnson95]

I think that given the cost of a Radtec or Fosseway radiator and the fact that every other part on the car is ether refurbished or new and ready to go on, we'll stick with the brass one and make it look like a Marston waiting for the collective backlash now.... She will have a coolcat fan fitted so cooling should be fine with a recored rad.

[Heuer]

No backlash Simon, quite sensible to go with what you have. If ever you want to change it for a Marston clone it is only a couple of hours work and that is with the bonnet still in place!

[Mark Gordon]

"No backlash Simon, quite sensible to go with what you have. If ever you want to change it for a Marston clone it is only a couple of hours work and that is with the bonnet still in place!"

Agreed, David. But since it is a simple job to remove the bonnet and it only takes about ten minutes to remove or replace, why wouldn't you remove the bonnet first and save your back?

[SEJohnson95]

Had a word with Richard earlier and Gerry the P.O. That radiator was definitely on the car when she was taken off the road in 1972, and looked suitably "knackered" for a radiator that had had 9 years use (only got put on the road in May 63) given that if you look at similar aged "original" cars on xkedata, some of them have brass rads rather than the Marston. Clausager has been unable to verify when the change took place, Ken Verity also reckons it probably happened earlier than most people imagine. Surely not ALL of those cars have had brass radiators fitted?

[peters3103]

Agreed Mark, much easier access sans bonnet, however if you're working alone as I often am it's a tricky job to move it by yourself. I had my radiator repaired last year - it has a Kenlowe fan fitted which is attached through the core. It had worked its way loose and the nylon "cable tie" arrangement that passes through the core had filed through one of the tubes. It's now started weeping from between the core and tank near the bottom hose. Time to replace it I'd say. The Fosseway Marston clone looks a great piece of kit but over 2 grand (Aus) by the time I land it here.

Pete

[Heuer]

Simon

Everybody can "reckon" but unless the Factory records support the theory it does not work. To quote Bob Stevenson - "Ever since I've been judging these cars, I've had entrants say, ?how do you know they didn't run out of ???, and use whatever was handy"? And the reply would be, "that's possible, but it's up to you to prove it". So unless you can provided direct documented lineage that the brass radiator was fitted at the Factory .........! The radiator may have been on the car in 1972 but what happened during those previous nine years?

All the 3.8's had a Marston radiator unless someone can prove otherwise. Up to you (or Richard) what you decide to fit to the car but please do not try to reinvent history.

Mark

Agreed on the bonnet but I was on my own and decided to wing it. On balance it was easier than removing the bonnet.

[SEJohnson95]

I am aware of the fact that the aluminium radiators were on the 3.8s and I'm hardly going to reinvest history, far from it David. Merely confusing everyone in the process. Sod it, the brass radiator is going back on anyway, but I simply sought clarification.

[Heuer]

Simon

If only others would seek clarification before acting! A brass radiator is the upgrade option and is what many owners did in period. Today we have the opportunity to use the aluminium Radtec or Fosseway alternatives which have the Marston look with hugely improved cooling. My advice, for what is is worth, is to fit a Fosseway/Radtec radiator and stick with the standard Lucas fan motor.

[SEJohnson95]

Point taken David, I admire the workmanship that goes into those Marston replicas from Radtec or Fosseway, but for what it's worth the brass radiator is staying put. Aside from the financial outlay of said radiator (which is totally justifiable given the quality of the product) the money can be put to good use in, let's just say future projects right now. Further, She'll be a fairly original car with many original panels, even most of the bonnet, even down to the bolts used to attach the bell housing to the block, which I was doing earlier I shall try and seek "further clarification" with regards to this somewhat controversial topic and shall report back, I may come up blank but I'll try and find a bit more out if I can. If only for the collective knowledge of the forum.

[peters3103]

I very much look forward to what you discover. Interesting that the Radtec listing is as follows:

"Early 3.8 radiator (March 1961 to October 1961)" for the aluminium "finned" style
"Series 1 3.8 (October 1961 to October 1964)" for the brass replacement.

Where did they get these dates from

Pete

[Heuer]

No idea but they are missing a trick by limiting their market to 500 cars!

The Marston Excelsior was, at the time, a revolutionary design because it was one of the first 'cross-flow' radiators. Their advantage is they are shorter than the down-flow design so aiding bonnet clearance which was a problem with the E-Type.

It was a hugely costly item to produce as witnessed by the fact each one had a numbered identity plate so faults could be traced back to the production point and also helped diagnose problem batches. The Marston could not be re-built because of its design so if it broke the owner was faced with a hefty bill to replace it. Repair was also difficult. By the time the 4.2 cars were produced the cross-flow design had reached main-stream car production and more economical versions were available, none of which had an identity tag of course. There is a lot of evidence to support the contention the Marston Excelsior was fitted to all the 3.8's:

1. Philip Porter documents about 210 changes to the 3.8 between launch and end of production yet there is no mention of a change of this major component
2. Anders Clausager, JHT archivist, states he has not been able to verify speculation the brass radiator was fitted to the later cars
3. Tom Haddock says he has seen several later cars with brass radiators but "I am not certain this was fitted at the factory, it may be a replacement unit"
4. The SPC J30, dated June 1963, makes no mention of a change of radiator and there is no different part number for one
5. Each Marston was individually numbered and these numbers broadly (+/- 100) equate to car numbers
6. Car #881640 - the red OTS in our 'Factory Fit' thread (one owner, 20k miles, unmolested, fully documented) - is a 1964 car and has a Marston
7. The JCNA Judging Guide written by Bob Stevenson says: "3.8 - Aluminum - black except center section - corrugated sides; 4.2 - Brass - flat top - scalloped sides - black"
8. The Service Bulletins make no mention of a change in radiator design but two dated April 1962 and March 1963 do refer to the aluminium radiator:



Given the car Simon is talking about is a October 1962 FHC - #860927 - it is difficult to argue it was originally fitted with anything other than the Marston at the factory. You could probably talk yourself and others into it if it had been a Sept/Oct 1964 build but the evidence is still not there.

Simon - Might be useful if you could post a photo of the radiator to compare with other claimants. This is the one Dr Tom Haddock has in his book:

[PeterCrespin]

The issue with brass radiators and dates isn't anyone being Bolshy or picky, it's to do with deciding what criteria should be used to develop the best, most certain, 'truth' on originality questions. The JCNA guidelines are based primarily on every known relevant factory record, from spares catalogues, interim parts lists, tech bulletins, service instructions or whatever. Then they use known original cars and other sources as appropriate.

At one extreme many owners don't give a flying fig about originality and that's perfectly fine. They don't take sides in any debate and I wish them good luck and much enjoyment driving the wheels off their car. I've got a lot of time for people like that because that's basically my mind set, except I do like to think there are accurate guidelines should I ever want them.

At the other extreme, there are still some original-owner cars that have never been worked on or where every adjustment is noted and verified with paperwork. You would think those cars are the 'gold standard' and can be used for reference, but even these cars are not necessarily reliable in some aspects. How come? Well, Jaguar had fully-equipped 'rectification' workshops at the ports of entry on the East and West coasts of the USA and similar distributor level arrangements in most markets receiving significant numbers of cars.

There are well-documented cases where cars were re-worked with new body panels or major components including radiators before they reached the first owner. Cars got damaged in transit and (shock-horror) sometimes they weren't perfect when they left Browns Lane. Things like radiator leaks could be missed and they had to be worked on and sometimes have new parts fitted locally before they reached the first owner. An failure rate of a half of one percent (say) would still mean a few dozen cars changed. This is documented to have happened with 3.8 radiators but whether it happened or not for any given car is probably unprovable in most cases. So in the absence of proof that the factory documentation dates and guidelines are wrong, things stay as they are.

Even in the UK, cars were sometimes sent back to the factory and the personal export 62 coupe I recently sold is shown as having had a gearbox change after collection, but before it even left the UK. The gearbox change is noted in the build records and the gearbox originally fitted was presumably refurbed as that is also shown as having been fitted a second time new to a different 62 FHC made a few weeks later.

For those who wonder about originality it's nice to have someone to turn to as a definitive source. Even if they were still making E-types, there would be no single person who'd know it all. One is therefore forced to rely on documents and a collective knowledge, carefully built up over time but based on impeccable sources like factory records or verifiably original cars. Assumptions, guesses, etc. are just anecdote. Over time, if enough people guess the same thing and enough unproven cases of something arise then maybe on the balance of probability a change to original spec could be agreed. It has happened in the case of JCNA guidelines but that's not the same as changing because of forum debates.

It would be madness to lower the standard of proof required or the whole area would become a quagmire of opinion and argument. The people who put the work in and who do the research and checking and got us to where we are, set the hurdle high for burden of proof are doing everyone a favour. Better to change position only slowly and be certain of your ground than flip-flop with every wind of change. Meanwhile, individual owners can think or do whatever they like, which is my outlook, but I wouldn't then argue for someone to change the rules.

All good fun.

Pete

[SEJohnson95]

I'm hardly advocating a change of rule based on a simple discussion on a forum Pete, there's other funny things with this car that we don't know about, not just mechanical parts. I'm sure each car has it's own story to tell, and I am simply seeking clarification on the matter. True, there is substantial evidence to suggest that I am incorrect in my theory, but the truth is nobody will ever know for sure, the original owner is probably long gone, as I know the car dealership who sold the car is too. I will get Richard to email me some pictures later to see if we an shed any further light.