3.8 FHC Seats and Slides

[wilkinsi]

Earlier this year I discovered (to my consternation) that my 62 FHC 886763 was in fact fitted with roadster seats - I had thought that it may have been one of the minority of cars that ended up with roadster seats at the factory but further investigation has confirmed this is not the case.

What we have discovered is that the seats are in fact early roadster seats suitable for a straight bulkhead car which mine is not (September 62). The rear mounting holes are well forward of the upright rear section and this difference is exactly illustrated on Page 60 of Thomas Haddock's Restoration Guide.

After having spoken to the previous American owner who purchased the car in 1984 he is unable to shed any light on the situation but possibly in the 70's the early seats were the cheapest option secondhand.

It also follows the seat slides are the early short travel ones and after removing numerous paint layers the makers details are engraved on the front of the lever in a circular stamping about 15mm diameter.

The details are (around the circle) are "A W CHAPMAN LTD LONDON SW? " and across the middle of the circle is the word " LEVEROLA ".

I seem to remember having seen a post about this but can't seem to find it under the Search facility.

To cut a long story short I have purchased new FHC seat shells from Martin Robey's which whilst not absolutely exact in that that the strengthening ribs in the base are not there (obviously done with a die originally) are of good quality construction with thick heavy gauge steel and strong welded gussets at the rear mounting holes.

I am planning to sell the roadster seat shells which are in good rust free condition plus the slides and I would be very interested in an opinion as to the kind of money they would be worth.

Thanks Ian Wilkins
Melbourne, Australia

Edit: Sorry that should have been Page 70 of Thomas Haddock

[Heuer]

Everything we know about 3.8 seats can be found here: viewtopic.php?p=52779 Everything we know about seat runners is here (and the subsequent post): viewtopic.php?p=33205&highlight=leveroll#33205

Many FHC's (including mine built March 1962) had roadster seats and the spread seems to be random. They used whatever they had to hand. There are two versions of the bucket which differ in the rake angle of the back. You should consider very carefully before dismissing parts on your car as 'wrong' or basing decisions on various text book observations. The balance of probability is the seats will be original to the car. If someone wanted to change the seats later on I would have thought they would have adapted the more comfortable 4.2 seats to fit?

As far as we can tell the rake of the seats changed with the introduction of the dished bulkheads so your first archaeological test should be to measure your originals!

[wilkinsi]

Many thanks for that most informative reply David

Cheers Ian

[SEJohnson95]

My friend Richard's 3.8 (860927) also has roadster seats fitted, he's due to trim soon so I don't suppose he'll mind measuring the angle if you like. He's away at the moment mind you but back soon.

[wilkinsi]

I have just compared the old roadster seats with the new Robey shells and the angle on the old one's is certainly more upright. Having looked at the thread in detail it does appear that the new seats were introduced around June 1962 when the recessed rear bulkhead was introduced.

[Fixed Head]

Ian, it sounds as though you might be about to discard your correct original seats for an incorrect pair of reproduction seats. The 'roadster' seats were in fact fitted to about the first third of the 3.8 LHD fixed heads. It was not at all a small number of cars, or an occasional car, nor was it 'random' or based on whatever was available or left over. Why the parts books or Spares Bulletins don't reflect this is a mystery - perhaps because the later seats were essentially interchangeable, in pairs. While I would expect that your more upright seats would correspond to an earlier straight bulkhead car, there is absolutely no question that the later style wider-backed FHC seats would be incorrect for your car.

[wilkinsi]

Sorry but I have to beg to differ - the 1963 J30 Spare Parts Catalogue on Page 245 clearly states that the longer slides - Part No BD22810 were fitted to Chassis No 886093 and subsequent.

I completely agree that the factory may have inadvertently fitted the earlier equipment lying around to solve any production bottlenecks but in my mind the essential question is "what part should correctly have been fitted to the car "

Away from these more esoteric issues there is the practicality of an extra 1.5 inches of seat travel provided by the bulkhead recesses which at some point when I am long gone could be the make or break for a sale to a person of taller stature.

[Fixed Head]

I think we are both focusing on different aspects of this issue Ian. You seem more concerned with the angle of the seat backs, and the associated length of the seat tracks, while my whole point is about the look and design of the seats, the differences between coupes and roadsters, and when this changed. If you re-read the final sentence of my previous comment, you will see that I agree you should probably have seats with more rake to the back (and therefore longer tracks) but I state that your car should not have the later, coupe-style seats, which it appears is what you have purchased from Martin Robey.

In the beginning, there weren't coupe and roadster seats, but just E-type seats. They were the same in both models. When the angle of the seat back, and the travel of the seat, was modified, it changed in both models, coupes and roadsters together, but they were still all the same, just E-type seats. Later on, the STYLE of the coupe seat back was modified. It was made wider at the top. This is the change that for whatever reason, does not seem to be recorded anywhere, as to exactly when it occurred. So whenever someone has roadster-style seats in a coupe they treat it as though it is some sort of anomaly, when in fact it was normal (and consistent) production equipment for much of the model run! So... FWIW, it is my opinion, based on much research, that you should have roadster-style pointed-back seats in you coupe.

[andrewh]

My friend Richard's 3.8 (860927) also has roadster seats fitted, he's due to trim soon so I don't suppose he'll mind measuring the angle if you like. He's away at the moment mind you but back soon.

well my totally un messed with 62 FHC, 860897 does not have roadster seats. One way may be to look at the colour of the original leather, which will just be visible by pulling the centre panel away slightly. I have a OTS with black trim but the seats have been red and painted black to match the rest of the trim. I guess all this will tell you is if they are a different colour to the rest of the trim they are not from that car originally.

[wilkinsi]

Thanks for that post Andrew - by coincidence the build date of your car is 14 days different to mine (3rd September 1962) so most interesting that it was originally fitted with the wide back seats.

Maybe the LHD cars like mine got any old stuff the factory determined but I feel better that your RHD car had the later seats. A good friend who is the register secretary of our Jaguar Club has LHD FHC 888555 from April 1963 also fitted with the later seats.

On another topic I see from your blog that the hinges on the rear hatch door
do not have the protective covers that have been fitted to my car - is it correct to leave them off for 62 build vehicles?

Ian Wilkins
Melbourne, Australia
62 FHC 886763

[andrewh]

Hi. Glad the post was of help. Yes there are no door hinge covers on 3.8 FHC of this age, perhaps right through to 4.2 production. It should be in one of the books, Haddock perhaps?

[Heuer]

The very original FHC at the start of our Factory Fit thread has the wide back seats: viewtopic.php?t=2006&start=0

[Fixed Head]

Yes David, the Op. Dark Blue FHC 887530 has the later wide-backed coupe seats, as it should since it was built shortly after the change occurred. This is a car I have known for 30 years, in fact I even have some original parts taken off it, and it provides an excellent data point for the study of this issue, as do other, equally original cars, when they can be found. 887530 would have been built almost 45% of the way through LHD FHC production, so this is totally consistent with my previous statement that about the first third (or more) of LHD coupes had roadster-style seats.

I think we've probably gone far enough with this issue here. Look for something to be published on the topic in the future. --Mark

[andrewh]

Everything we know about 3.8 seats can be found here: viewtopic.php?p=52779 Everything we know about seat runners is here (and the subsequent post): viewtopic.php?p=33205&highlight=leveroll#33205

Many FHC's (including mine built March 1962) had roadster seats and the spread seems to be random. They used whatever they had to hand. There are two versions of the bucket which differ in the rake angle of the back. You should consider very carefully before dismissing parts on your car as 'wrong' or basing decisions on various text book observations. The balance of probability is the seats will be original to the car. If someone wanted to change the seats later on I would have thought they would have adapted the more comfortable 4.2 seats to fit?

I am a little confused David. I have a June 62 OTS , 877488 which has had seats changed and came with a set of original 3.8 seats thrown in with the purchase. I have looked at the seats and the holes at the rear seem to be about 1/2 behind the strengthening rib on the inboard of the seat. They are not attached to runners yet but having sat in them they do feel quite upright compared to my FHC. Both cars have the bulkhead detent but I had never noticed a difference in the rake of the seats I wonder if my OTS seats are for a flat bulkhead car? Parts book does not suggest a change? Thoughts would be good. If i were to buy a new set of reproduction seats for an OTS do we know which ones they would be?

As far as we can tell the rake of the seats changed with the introduction of the dished bulkheads so your first archaeological test should be to measure your originals!

[andrewh]

I spoke to Mick Turley today about the 3.8 seats and he thought that there were two types of 3.8 OTS seats but that the greater rake versions were altered at the factory by cutting the backs and bending them back and re welding them rather than a completely new design. What would be interesting to see is both variants without leatherwork to see what is going on . Perhaps the greater rake type was an attempt to create more room for tall drivers allowing their shoulders to move towards the back of the car rather than a standardised design? . Parts book does not indicate two OTS designs as far as I can see .

[Fixed Head]

It is just plain incorrect to suggest that the seats with greater rake to the back were not a 'standardised design'. They in fact comprise the vast majority of 3.8 OTS seats. The rake of the seat back, in both coupes and roadsters, increased at or around the time that flat floors and the (slightly later) straight rear bulkheads ended. It was a production change, not just a modification to some existing seats. It certainly wasn't done just for a few taller drivers.

[andrewh]

ok, well thats fine. Is there any proof of that? I don't want to be proactive and fully expect that you are correct, I just cannot find anything other than anecdotal evidence, i.e it is not mentioned, that I can find anyway, in the parts book. I appreciate that not all changes are mentioned in the book. I have a June 62 car 877488 and want to find out whether I have the correct seats that came with the car. They are pretty upright and I find them much less comfortable than my September 62 FHC, which of course has the FHC seats which may explain the difference. If I can establish that there were two OTC seats then I would be interested to discover how they differed and whether the early seats can be "adjusted" to replicate the later. So if you could provide some proof of your statement, if you will, it would be useful information.

edit, just re read my previous post, I did not suggest, or at least mean to, that the seats were altered at the factory on demand, more that they were made by cutting and rewelding the original design. I am only passing on thoughts rather than facts, but a bare later design against a bare earlier design would likely solve it.

[64etype]

I have a June 62 car 877488 and want to find out whether I have the correct seats that came with the car. They are pretty upright and I find them much less comfortable than my September 62 FHC, which of course has the FHC seats which may explain the difference. If I can establish that there were two OTC seats then I would be interested to discover how they differed and whether the early seats can be "adjusted" to replicate the later.

This string might be of interest to you.

viewtopic.php?t=6023

[andrewh]

thanks for that. I had seen that before and is a great help if I decide to "adjust" my original seats. I guess I am being a bit pedantic in that I am trying to establish the factory original set up for the two different types. I am not so big as to make it that uncomfortable. I had a flat floor a few years back and found that hard work but mainly due to the fact that the floors did not allow your knees to be lower and it also of course, did not have the bulkhead recess. My OTS has, by specifically looking for this derivative , both these advantages but being an alloy dash as well. so for me anyway the best of both worlds. thanks

[andrewh]

having looked in detail at my seats today, it seems I have the so called early type with holes 9 inches apart, which is a little inconvenient as my new seat slides are 10 1/4 between studs. I will either have to adjust them or swop them for the later seats if anyone has any they would like to swop. please let me know.