Triple Inlet manifold E type or not ?

johnj · Post by **johnj** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 1:45 am

Hi can anyone tell me what the triple inlet manifold with C24420 SG7246 will fit ,I bought a series 1 1/2 E type with twin carbs & guy who sold car was converting up to triples & this manifold was part of the sale, but not sure if its for an e type, he also gave 3 carbs but not sure were to start with it all
any help advice greatly appreciated

abowie · Post by **abowie** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 5:33 am

The E Type one is C24558.

Not sure what C24420 is from, might be 420G or Mk10. These will not fit under the bonnet on an E. Pictures might help, and from memory the Mk 10 had funny thermostatic chokes.

FWIW Barratts do not list C24420.

christopher storey · Post by **christopher storey** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 8:11 am

The E type manifold differs from that for the Mark 10 in that on the E, the carb orifices are slightly lower than those which meet the cylinder head, so that the carbs sit lower and give bonnet clearance . E type carbs are HD8 with a manual choke . Mark 10 carbs are HD8 with the electric starting carburetter, popularly known as the hisser because of the noise it makes, which is a small device with a black bakelite dome which fits between the front and centre carburetters

rolando38 · Post by **rolando38** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 8:23 am

good to know, I was convinced that some Mk10 wrecks were bought just for their triple SU by E-typers

abowie · Post by **abowie** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 8:49 am

rolando38 wrote:good to know, I was convinced that some Mk10 wrecks were bought just for their triple SU by E-typers

No it's for the GKN nuts and bolts.

JagWaugh · Post by **JagWaugh** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 11:26 am

Aside from the GKN bits, the MarkX/420g is desirable just for its sheer size... Even a completely rusted out hulk still has more metal left over than a new E-Type did - its a question of economies of scale...

OTOH... because of the size of the MarkX, even minor repairs will require enough sheet metal to make a complete MG Midget...

PeterCrespin · Post by **PeterCrespin** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 1:50 pm

JagWaugh wrote:OTOH... because of the size of the MarkX, even minor repairs will require enough sheet metal to make a complete MG Midget...

True, but when the running gear finally gives out they have other uses.

Third world defence ministries were buying them up at one time. With the doors welded shut and a couple of hefty Mercuries clamped on the boot plinth they made a fairly good coastal patrol vessel.

They were less successful on land with a swiveling turret and tracks because the steel was too thin for armour and the rear overhang meant they couldn't climb out of ditches. Which is how they discovered that provided the cantrails were present, they made more than adequate self-propelled Bailey Bridges, occasionally inverted and placed end-to-end across boggy terrain.

Post by **mgcjag** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 3:17 pm

Hi John......i think the numbers on your manifold are the original casting numbers prior to any machining....the blank was used for different models and only after it was machined for a particular model was it given a part number....use the description as above by Christopher or post some photoes

PeterCrespin · Post by **PeterCrespin** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 4:04 pm

mgcjag wrote:Hi John......i think ....the blank was used for different models and only after it was machined for a particular model was it given a part number....

Not sure about that (i.e. no). They are very different castings for the MkX/420G versus E-type.

Apart from the XK150 Special Equipment model there were no other Jags ever given triple carbs. Since the XK150 was either a 3.4 or 3.8 model I can't see it having the 4.2 style manifold. Which leaves only E and MkX/420G, each using a unique casting, not just part number.

Post by **mgcjag** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 5:01 pm

Hi Peter.....my wording was a bit incorrect......was trying to point out that the number on the manifold was a bare casting number and only when the manifold was machined was it given a part number......think this is correct but your the expert on this sort of thing....a photo would be good.......

PeterCrespin · Post by **PeterCrespin** » Fri Jan 01, 2016 1:33 am

I agree with that Steve, but can only go by what's written.

Was merely quoting/contesting the suggestion a given casting is adapted for eventual use on more than one model, being assigned a part number depending on which version of was made by the machining operation.

That's probqbly true for block or gearbox castings etc., but not 4.2 triple SU manifold, of which there are only two versions machined from different castings.

johnj · Post by **johnj** » Fri Jan 01, 2016 2:44 am

Hi all well thank you for your comments, the manifold looks the same as an E type that i have seen pics of ,not saying it is an e type one but just hoping
It will do the trick, I would post a pic but not sure how to those were the only numbers on it so not sure were to go from here any suggestions

thanks John

christopher storey · Post by **christopher storey** » Fri Jan 01, 2016 8:41 am

While we are being pedantic, Peter, it was not the Special Equipment model of the 150 , but the S , which had 3 carbs. Happy New Year !! :D :D

Post by **mgcjag** » Fri Jan 01, 2016 10:05 am

Hi John.....will send you a pm with my email....send the photo and i will post

Post by **mgcjag** » Fri Jan 01, 2016 11:31 am

Photoes posted for John...

christopher storey · Post by **christopher storey** » Fri Jan 01, 2016 12:57 pm

I am going to take a bit of a punt and say that I think that is an E type manifold. In the first place, the inlet tracts seem to slope downwards slightly towards the carburetters, and in the second place there appear to be no drillings to accommodate the starting carburetter pipe(s) . Perhaps Peter Crespin will give a view

Post by **mgcjag** » Fri Jan 01, 2016 1:37 pm

I have a few more photoes if needed

johnj · Post by **johnj** » Fri Jan 01, 2016 1:38 pm

Thanks any input appreciated

PeterCrespin · Post by **PeterCrespin** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 1:47 am

christopher storey wrote:While we are being pedantic, Peter, it was not the Special Equipment model of the 150 , but the S , which had 3 carbs. Happy New Year !! :D :D

I did wonder, which simply makes me more culpable. Now you know why I failed my trial for the British Olympic Pedantry Team - just too slip-shod. :-)

johnj · Post by **johnj** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 1:58 am

so are we all in agreement that this is in fact an E type Manifold Thanks John :D

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

Triple Inlet manifold E type or not ?

#1 Triple Inlet manifold E type or not ?

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

#12 not sure

#13

#14

#15

#16

#17

#18

#19

#20 conformation??