The 'E' Type Forum

Do we have any Series 3 Differential specialists here please ?!

Looking to identify this diff found in my 1962 3.8, not that bothered whether it is the "right one" or not but concerned about ordering the correct half-shaft bolts.

http://etypeuk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5842

The Series 3 exploded-parts diagram I have seen looks right, but doesn't give a reference for the bolts/studs in question.

Any advice much appreciated.

I have 3 diffs in my garage all from ser 3 e types all are numbered differently and all have bolt tags which are also different. The casings are identical and the ratios the same apart from that good luck as I found no literature regarding the correct one.
I sent my original one off to be reconned and still have no idea if its correct, what I do know is its the same one that has been on the car for over 30 years
jon

Turns out it was a 1967 one and correct in every way, just the "correct" J30 parts book only shows a completely different one that doesn't seem to have actually been fitted to many cars ............

rfs1957 wrote:Turns out it was a 1967 one and correct in every way, just the "correct" J30 parts book only shows a completely different one that doesn't seem to have actually been fitted to many cars ............

I must be missing something. Why look in a 3.8 parts manual for checking a Series 3 diff or expect the picture to correspond to a 67? J30 also shows outside bonnet latch wings, which were fitted to even fewer cars. The point being it lists the serial number ranges for each style of part if it changed, instead of new exploded parts diagrams every time.

Which is why the book spells out to give the car's year model and serial number when ordering spares - advice which applies today as much as ever and is highlighted in the Jaguar Journal being mailed out this week (at the request of a vendor who has the headache of dealing with people who think he's snooping when he asks for their car's VIN number).

J30 and I believe all the other classic manuals also spell out in a single stand-alone line of bold type:

"In no case should the illustration plate number be given"

In other words, we're supposed to read the words not just look at the pretty pictures :-) . But yes, as it happens, the diff pictures in particular are iffy, showing separate flange outputs as late as the 4.2 book
[/b]