series 3 vs Series 1

[mgcjag]

Thought i would add a couple of photos that show the 2+2 and fhc door openings.....I can understand Bills argument from a seating point of view (assuming the 2+2 seat is in the same position as the fhc).....however with the 2+2 B post being further rearwards there is more room to access the seat....not actually sit in it.......

[Fspp369]

Hello all,
Late as usual. My S3 has been much modified, mostly by the PO ( P Mitchell) with an idea of making it a more serviceable, drivable, less temperamental, relaxed car.
To do this it has:- 5.3 EFi, straighter slightly larger bore exhaust system, 4speed GB with O/D, 2:88 lsd diff, outboard vented discs at the rear, adjustable GAZ Shocks front and back, polybushes throughout, larger extra row radiator, large alternator, Adjustable Rob Beere power steering valve, LED lighting where possible,Twin fuel pumps, twin rad fans switchable from the cabin, and finally XJS modified seats.
It's great to drive, smooth, powerful, more frugal than std, it stays in tune better than std carbs, cruises at lower revs effortlessly, you can see in the dark especially when reversing and others can see you.
If you don't mind the departure from STD car spec and love to just drive the beast, rather than being worried by the alleged drop in value, just do your own thing....you'll enjoy it.
Tinkering with the car now becomes a pleasure to enhance its qualities rather than having to do the thingybob this weekend.
Peter.

[jagwit]

My take on S1 vs S3:

1. S1 no power steering. S3 has. This makes S3 a pleasure in town, but S1 direct feel wins on open road.
2. S1 has poorly turning radius. S3 much better.
3. S1 prices higher than S3 but steady, but it seems to me that S3 prices are gaining on the S1 - which could give the S3 a better ROI?
4. More luggage space in the S3;
5. The "wow" factor under the bonnet of the S3 much greater than S1. Clean S1 prettier though.
6. S1 more difficult to get into and out of. Once seated, no difference.
7. Performance wise, I always thought my "std" S3 would beat a std S1 hands down. But having driven my mate's 4.2 S1 (into which I installed the 123 dissy), I'm not so sure any more. I would go as far as saying that the difference in performance is at academic level. S1 seems more agile on the road, easier/safer to chuck about. I find both exhilarating to drive.
8. S1 manual ratios disappoints. 1st too tall, 2nd too close to 1st, 4th too low. The car can do with a 5sp overdrive. S3 manual ratios seemed better but also desperately needs overdrive (auto as well).
9. S3 ventilated front brakes more confidence inspiring than S1 non-ventilated.

So which one? Get both.

But if budget only allows one : S3

[angelw]

Malcolm Wrote:

As I said, I'm not replying personally anymore, but I was helpfully sent this by an expert on the forum by pm which kinda explains all, so I thought I should share -

"Hi Malcolm...when you next get yours next to a fhc you can tell the difference....door opening 2in higher and the bulk of the B post isnt level with the seat backreast.......so more room to access..." - " the 2+2 B post is further back by 9in.."

Oh, Well. If the anonymous expert says its so, then it must be. NOT!

I’ve never disputed that the roof height of the 2+2 is higher, but it’s nullified by the higher seat height. The seats cushion of the car in the following picture has had one inch of foam sliced from the bottom to give the owner more leg room under the steering wheel. Accordingly, 25mm would be added to the seat height in the picture. Jaguar must have figured out their mistake with the S1/S2 2+2 and used a lower height Seat Riser in the S3 Coupe and lower still in the S3 OTS car.



The following picture is of a FHC owned by the same person, seats are in the same location relative to the “A” pillar.



Position of Seat Back Rest relative to "B" Pillar

[Barry]

Oh dear, such postering, boys! Can we leave it where if you think it’s easier to get in and out of a lab, then fine. And if you don’t, the equally fine!

[Barry]

Sorry LWB not lab! Doh....

[Mark Gordon]

Perhaps we could all agree that it's difficult to get into any E Type because of the insane purchase prices?

[lowact]

Seems to me there has been a steep price drop recently, abowie's post #16 this thread is further evidence? How long before we start to go electric? For S1's maybe ok, the sheetmetal is all that needs to be preserved? S3s on the other hand were very innovative, technologically advanced for their time, would have been more so if fi plans had not fallen through. Save the v12 i reckon.

[cactusman]

It seems FIVA and the FBHVC here in Blighty (and maybe the DVLA too) have said that conversion of historic vehicles to electric propulsion removes their historic status and thus here in the UK they would presumably require an MOT and maybe even the dreaded Q plate and possibly a non zero rated road tax at some future point.

https://fbhvc.co.uk/news/article/the-el ... r-position

Jaguar have abandoned plans to produce the electric e type for now.


Not quite sure what innovative features the S3 had that eluded the earlier cars! They had a magnificent V12 but pretty crude carburation that was later converted to better fuel injection and finally the HE version but the injected V12 version was never fitted in an e type at the factory. other than that the cars were mechanically extremely similar to the S1 and 2 cars....albeit longer, heavier and with worse fuel consumption!!

[jagwit]

"! They had a magnificent V12 but pretty crude carburation"

Well, I don't know what the definition of "crude" is and I don't care.

What I do know is that I have fuel injected 3 jag v12 engines (my own OTS etc) and more than 10 v8 engines and I salute our forefathers for what they achieved with their mechanical solutions.

Coming from the EFI world and only then venturing into carbs, I stand amazed at what the humble Strommie or SU achieves. Sure, EFI does much more, but I have come regard the "crude" SU, Strommie and Carter Thermoquad with great respect.

Whilst they might be "crude", that does not make them bad - unless they are not tuned well. But an EFI system with issues can be as bad.

I love my V12, Strommies and all! (I hate its transmission though. Wished it had a 0.65 4th. The 2.88 diff is helping though)

[cactusman]

Crude in comparison to injection. Keeping three SU in synch is tricky. Keeping four in synch presumably equally so. And they are prone to fuel condensing in the manifold when cold....apparently.....probably why Jaguar themselves converted them to injection but too late for the e type. A V12 e is magnificent but probably not a great innovative leap forward compared to its XK powered predecessors. it is still a normally aspirated engine using carburettors like the S1 and 2 cars..and it was done in part to bring the e type performance back to something like original after the US regs strangled the XK to death...

[AussieEtype]

Crude in comparison to injection.

Maybe crude compared to modern injection but not to that of the time - the first injected V12 engines really were not much better than the carb versions. The first V12s for the XJ and Etype were supposed to be injected but it was just too hard to do at the time. Aston Martin at the time with their V8s went from Carbs to injection and back to carbs and finally when sorted back to injection.

Keeping three SU in synch is tricky. Keeping four in synch presumably equally so.

You presume wrong - never had an issue, likewise on my Rover V8 with the same carbs - no issues at all -once set up they stay set. I have had my V12 for 37 years now and the carbs have never been played with even after very long lay up periods - one lay up period was 8 years and within 5 minutes of first start the engine was sitting at a nice smooth idle.

A V12 e is magnificent but probably not a great innovative leap forward compared to its XK powered predecessors.

What was innovative with the XK engine - maybe for Jaguar but there were plenty of twin cam engines around in the late 40s. The only innovation was using the engine in saloons when other makers were still using sidevalves and keeping the twin cams in their sport models. Likewise with the V12 it was Jaguar that were one of the first to use a V12 in many many years in a mainstream saloon like the XJ series 1.

I think the series 3 was just a upgrade of the old formula is just just as relevant for the time as it predecessors.

Garry

[christopher storey]

Keeping three SU in synch is tricky. Keeping four in synch presumably equally so.

You presume wrong - never had an issue, likewise on my Rover V8 with the same carbs ....

What was innovative with the XK engine - maybe for Jaguar but there were plenty of twin cam engines around in the late 40s. The only innovation was using the engine in saloons when other makers were still using sidevalves and keeping the twin cams in their sport models. Likewise with the V12 it was Jaguar that were one of the first to use a V12 in many many years in a mainstream saloon like the XJ series 1.


Garry


You do like to lead with your chin, Garry, don't you?

You never had 3 SU HD8s on your Rover V8s, and in fact the Rover setup was quite complicated in a different way in its need to synchronise throttles with variable length rods . The triple SU setup requires a cool head to get the best results, not least because with the 4.2 manifold there are very large balance passages so that an adjustment to one carburetter affects to varying degrees the mixture strength on all cylinders, and because measuring the air/fuel ratio on the centre carburetter is difficult because it serves both exhaust pipes . So the original post did not "presume wrong ( sic) "

Also, your contention that the XK did not constitute a radical innovation for a series produced engine is, to put it mildly, sweeping. Can you name another manufacturer in 1948 that was producing dohc engines for road use in anything other than penny numbers?

[cactusman]

. You put it better than me Christopher. I guess the S3 vs S1 debate will always be with us. The V12 is a lovely engine...bro has the injected version in his XJ12C. I'd agree with Gary that once set up multiple carburettor arrangements should stay set up....so long as nothing comes loose. But setting them up does require patience and time in my experience at least. I have spent hours getting mine (mostly) right.

The XK engine was a mature and tried and tested unit by the time it appeared in the e type whereas I believe the S3 was the first car to be fitted with the new V12. Wth a manual gearbox it is a fab combination id imagine but many S3 cars had the borg warner auto like the XJ saloons which is not a particularly good match with the remarkably high revving V12 IMO.

I guess the XK was not innovative by the time it appeared in the e type but it was an innovation in its day and became One of the great 50's race engines too....and it outlasted the V12 I think...going out of production with the end of the DS420 in 1992 I believe!

One big innovation that the S1 had (and carried to the S2 and S3) was the independent rear suspension arrangement....I think it first appeared in the e type....Not sure. It had its issues with oil seals etc but in various iterations lasted til the early 90's as a derivative was used in the DB7. Most Jags from the 70's onwards used variations.

all versions of the e type have their good and bad points and all deserve preserving as complete cars IMO...electrification...nope....Not for me.....play on..

[MarekH]

The earlier s1 xj12 had a v12.
The v12 continued in the xjs until 1996.

It is very difficult to compare a s1 with a s3 etype. Aside from small items like nuts and bolts, pretty much the only parts in common parts an early s1 car has with a late s3 car are the bootlid, the IRS tie plate & cage mounts, bump stops, a few suspension parts, U joints, Lucas fuse holders, some chrome trim, bonnet plug and bonnet mounting hardware and the radius arms.

kind regards
Marek

[cactusman]

I stand corrected 're the XJS. However the S3 e type was announced in 1971, the XJ12 in July 1972

[madjack4]

Hi back on the getting in and out i have mazda mx5 seats in my s3 on fossway runners it gives me another 2 inches of space plus the shape of the seat backrest misses the roof mechanism when the roof is down i am 6ft 2in and transforms the car for getting in and out and on a long journey it makes it so much more comfortable plus its so easy to put the original seats back so no resale problems

Regards

[AussieEtype]

You do like to lead with your chin, Garry, don't you?

You never had 3 SU HD8s on your Rover V8s,

No I haven't but Cactusman did talk about 3 SUs and then even though he did not mention them by name he went on to assume the four (stommies) on the V12 would be the same - the V12 did not have SUs, (oh the Rover V8 has SUs and Strommies) - my point is that his assertion about SUs does not apply to the strommies as when they are set up they stay that way.

While I do not have a 6 cylinder e-type my next door neighbour has a 66 4.2 FHC with 3 SUs - he and the experts have never been able to sort the tuning of these things - yes the car runs OK but is just not right - so no personal experience with SUs but the strommies hold their tune a lot better.

Garry

[lowact]

i have mazda mx5 seats in my s3 on fossway runners it gives me another 2 inches of space plus the shape of the seat backrest misses the roof mechanism when the roof is down
Regards

Mad Jack, 2 extra inches, U mean fore/aft not up/down? I’ve lowered my std seats as far as possible, my butt is only mm off the carpet, still my head is in the slipstream (6’5”). I know all about MX5 seats, we put them in the Moke …

[madjack4]

Hi its 2 inch further back but it gives so much more room knees not rubbing against door and tunnel

Regards