Could this be a Flat floor?

[vipergts]

Manufactured Sept 62

chassis 860906

Now although this is a later number than one of mine which is not a FF it currently has them


The car has been heavily modified through the years but the floor is flat and the rear bulkhead has no recess.

The original colour is Dark Op Blue and there are clear signs of this behind the dash (Bulkhead) though the car has been many colours since

How could this be explained?

Could it have been an earlier shell that sat around and built later or similar?

Have there been any other examples of this type?

[cactusman]

Clausagers book says that from 860176 the flat floor was changed to recessed? Date was Jan 1962.
He reports recesses were introduced from May 1962 giving chassis no 860581. Gives other numbers for the OTS and also the LHD versions.
So I rekon you 860906 is well past either change and should be dish floor and recesses. About 500 flat floors were apparently produced across FHC and OTS between LHD and RHD.
One explanation would be that someone has "converted" it to flat floor in the hope of making a few extra quid!!!!

For ref mine is 860523 build date May 8th 1962 and has dish floors and recesses....although by Clausagers book there should be no recesses..
J

[vipergts]

The car is a total mess.....found in a field under a tree....been heavily modded in earlier years...big arches...totally different interior etc

It's not inconceivable that a donor body might have been used years ago but it's a big coincidence that it's the same colour.

However 500 bodies later is pushing it

[richard btype]

That does seem strange 860403 april 62, has recessed floor and straight back panel.

Is it clear that the flat floor is original? or perhaps in some earlier refurbishment the flat floor panels being the only ones available at that time?

[Tony]

My car 876959 LHD built mar 62 has dished floor and recessed backs but I suppose the backs could have been flat at one time and I assume the floor has always been dished.?

[38E]

860906 is way too late to be a flat floor.

[PeterCrespin]

860906 is way too late to be a flat floor.

Agreed. Out of the question it left the factory that late in that configuration.

[cactusman]

Hi Tony.
According to Clausager, yes, yours is a dished floor car but, like mine, is a bit to early to have the recess behind the seats. Interesting that both our cars disagree with the book re the bit behind the seat.
I know some have criticisms of Clausagers book but for me it is well researched and laid out. If you are interested in when Jaguar made changes to the E type it is an excellent read. Given the time that has passed since the cars were made and, I suspect, patchy record keeping at the time, he did an excellent job. BTW I have no connection to Anders or the book. I just bought one on a visit to Castle Bromwich.

[Sarthe72]

Cactusman, I think you'll find that the 500 cars you refer to were those with outside bonnet locks of which 91 were RHD roadsters and 4 FHC RHD, the rest LHD. Flat floor cars went a lot further, but I can't be bothered to get Porter's book out and add it up!

[Heuer]

Been discussed recently: viewtopic.php?t=8178

Anders Clausager: "Since there were 2,615 flat floor cars made, nearly 17 per cent or one sixth of total production, such cars are actually not all that rare."

[cactusman]

The definitive answer from David.....still don't think the car under discussion is a flat floor though....simply too late.

[Sarthe72]

Not worth arguing about given Jaguar's record keeping in the day, but Porter differs slightly.

RHD 358 roadsters and 176 FHC

LHD 1582 roadsters and 504 FHC

[trondvo]

Anders Clausager: "Since there were 2,615 flat floor cars made, nearly 17 per cent or one sixth of total production, such cars are actually not all that rare."

Just above 3.6% of total production would be correct, the Clausager statement is out of a context addressing series 1 3.8.

[Heuer]

Anders statement was correct taken in context, which was in a chapter solely concerned with the 3.8.

[trondvo]

Anders statement was correct taken in context, which was in a chapter solely concerned with the 3.8.

Yes I agree that is most likely correct but in the "context of this thread" it would be informative to point out the numbers refer to series 1 3.8. It is not implicit from what I have read so far.

Ie every six of +15k 3.8's
about every 12th of the series 1 E's
approx every 3? out of 100 of total production.

[David Oslo]

Implicit, explicit, context and semantics. Lovely words which are far too seldom used nowadays.

:D

[andrewh]

got any pictures Lee?

I have a mate who has a FF roadster. I went with my Dad and his Dad to buy this car in 1974 from Kidderminster. I remember it in detail. It was totally rotten with a fibreglass bonnet. They embarked upon a full rebuild and now it is a superb OTS restored car. BUT wears an 860... chassis number. My point is that even by 1974 when it was just 13 years old it had been messed with and at that stage we didn't look at the chassis number or even care, that it was a FHC chassis number on a OTS car and log book. Anything can and did happen to these cars back then. I suspect your car was either a written off / stolen car that was ringed into an earlier car. I would be looking for a body tag for real evidence plus other early FF features on the body. I suspect, its not what it purports to be.

[shauniedawn]

Hi.

Interestingly I own 860868 - owned it for 30 years. The floors on mine are flat and the rear bulkhead is flat. I was the first person to remove the rotten floors and replace them. It also took some searching to find rear lights that fitted the contours of the shell as it is a different shape (low roofline it was described to me). On restoring the shell I uncovered the stamped body number on the rear numberplate panel; from memory this was 120 ish. I do have a photo somewhere in an album. When I had my car painted Mike Wilkinson confirmed it was a very early bulkhead as some of the holes were pressed slightly differently - he said on a concrete die. I have always assumed that my shell had simply sat around for a while prior to being registered in November 1962.

Shaun

[Heuer]

[shauniedawn]

Pity it's not right!

My car also had the 'converted' OTS to FHC doors with the leaded in panel.

As I say, it must have sat around a while before the shell was used and the chassis number issued.