Series 2 aesthetics

[288gto]

Steve,
Mine's a Sept 69 car. I still think it was a quick cheap fix at the time to meet the requirements of US legislation. I wonder how far evolved the series 3 was by 1969?

Jeff,
I've not given up on the idea of doing something with the lights, possibly MG, possibly a different Lucas fitting. I thought I'd found the answer with Rover P6 ones as they have the integrated reverse light, but unfortunately don't have a reflector. I've also toyed with the idea of just using the original square reversing light lenses but with a flat led panel so that they could be mounted flat to the back panel rather than dangling down.
Work in progress, alas hindered by working to pay for it all.

Simon

[Simon P]

Tell you what, that Mona Lisa would look better for a perm and a push-up bra too....

[288gto]

Tell you what, that Mona Lisa would look better for a perm and a push-up bra too....

Now now Simon.

I see it the other way round, the Series 1 rear end being the the Mona Lisa, and the Series 2 being a bit more Kardashianesque to appeal to the American market.

I'll probably spend hours messing and then put the Jaguar lights on and Series 1 tailpipes.

Simon

[mgcjag]

Its a S2......let it look like one........you cant even see the rear end when your driving it......if you think thats bad then get a 2+2 like mine and listen to all the wineing about how they dont look right........as far as i see it as soon as you have something non standard there will be people knocking it

[Simon P]

Its a S2......let it look like one........you cant even see the rear end when your driving it......

Think there must be something wrong with me. It's not even a case of I can't see it when I'm driving: I actually quite like it! It's been on the back of my car since my Dad bought it, and in those 46 years I've become rather attached to it!

[mgcjag]

Hi Jeff.....its called banter not criticism. ..thats why we put the big grin

[Steve Marshall]

This thread should really have been in the 'E-Type Upgrades' section, as it is really about putative upgrades.

I can't really agree with Jeff that drag from the rear lights would have usefully added to the braking capacity of the beasts, it is more likely that the intent was to lop a few mph off the top speed for safety reasons. Nobody would have noticed the reduction in mpg at normal speeds.

Ever noticed that when you look on Wikipedia or whatever the S2 top speed is always quoted several mph lower than the S1, even with the same engine and diff ratio? But if it isn't true, why are they denying it?

Also the cavity on behind the lights on the early models seems to me to be much larger than the spherical dimples on later ones, not smaller. However, the bulb holders definitely do poke right to the back of the vee on the early ones.

Anyhoo, I had a bit of a think about what a light unit which actually fitted an S2 might look like, and below I reveal it to a waiting world. Leds could make it possible with flat-back version of the standard fitting, with the bulb recesses machined off.

[Steve Marshall]

Jeff

Of course I knew you were being ironic, we all know that the open headlights were the primary method used by Jaguar to increase the drag factor for the S2.

We kept the triple SU's over here, with the same quoted 265hp output, but I have never seen a top speed close to 150mph quoted for an S2. I think (I haven't checked this properly) that we kept the same diff ratio too.

I was lucky, my Texas S2 had been converted to SU's before I repatriated it.


Sobering that i responded to Quattrofrank's post then completely forgot it. But his mod's a good way to go. Looks "S2" but without the clunkiness, you could imagine that the designer in 1968 would have done that if the technology had been available.


Steve

[PeterCrespin]

The Feds saw to it that some seventies Es got lower compression too, for reduced NOx.

Pete

[Herzeg]

Fellas

I know that the S2 lights are not the nicest but they are what the car is. What I thought was ugly was the change to a square number plate, which was not typical in UK.

I've got rid of the trailer board and the reversing lights, used Marek's lights with built in LEDs and put a new number plate on. Shortly the exhaust will be replaced with S1 tailpipes and then you have a cleaner, nicer looking rear end but still an S2 in essence. I love it, although still doing a double take when looking at it. I wouldn't change the lights, it would just look like a bitsa car.

Just my opinion

John

[Nickleback]

That makes two of us, because I have done exactly the same a year ago and am still very happy with it !

[Gfhug]

Let's remember the S2 got it's rear end only because of Federal Regulations.
So, Jeff, we can blame your lot for any questions on the S2 aesthetics

Oh, what fun!

From Geoff (note the correct spellin' )

[PeterCrespin]

Fellas
I've got rid of the trailer board and the reversing lights, used Marek's lights with built in LEDs and put a new number plate on. Shortly the exhaust will be replaced with S1 tailpipes and then you have a cleaner, nicer looking rear end but still an S2 in essence.

Which is exactly where we had arrived, complete with photo, by the second post of this thread more than four and a half years ago...

[Steve Marshall]

Peter

The original post just says that the rear lights are improved, but there is only a shot on the centreline of the car, from distance. I thought it was just the incorporation of the reversing lights which constituted the 'improvement'. The shots on Marekh's links are from the same angle, which doesn't really show whether they are mounted flush or standoff.

Any chance of a close-up, sideways-on, of your rear lights? and a bit of narrative on what was done?

I don't really have that much of a problem with the size of the S2 rear lights, it's the baling wire and twine mounting which offends. And the crappy chrome shrouds that go with it.

On the subject of heresy, I am not that fond of the twee S1 rear lights either. There, it's been said, I do feel better now!

My other car is also a Skoda, but the rear windscreen decals are no longer stocked by Barratt's

Avid Fan

[PeterCrespin]

WYSIWYG. They were just Lotus lamps with built-in reversing lamps and from memory no side chromes in that photo. Not that long afterwards that car and my S1 FHC were stolen.

[Steve Marshall]

When I mooted moving this thread to an 'Upgrades' thread, it was in order to leave this thread devoted to members with innovative ideas about how to do nothing at all to S2 rear ends. That deserves its own thread, judging from the popularity

Steve

[288gto]

Out of curiosity does anyone know who commissioned the Lucas L807 lamp body as fitted to the S2, S3 and Lotus.
Was It Lotus or Jaguar?

Simon

[Simon P]

Me and my "butt-ugly" rear end c.1981:



And you know what? The car's brown; it's got a Webasto; the wheels have definitely seen better days; and I've got ridiculous hair - but despite all that and the butt-ugly rear end.... damn we look good together!

[Gfhug]

Simon, do you agree that only owners of S2s should be allowed to comment on their aesthetics? All the others should butt-out.

Geoff (guilty of some none standard amendments)

[Mark Gordon]

Me and my "butt-ugly" rear end c.1981:



And you know what? The car's brown; it's got a Webasto; the wheels have definitely seen better days; and I've got ridiculous hair - but despite all that and the butt-ugly rear end.... damn we look good together!

Yeah, but in that photo, you've GOT hair. Don't complain!