Hot potato! 3.8 or 4.2 advice

andrewh · Post by **andrewh** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:34 pm

I have been asked by a good pal to help him acquire a series one E type. He wants a roadster but does not know whether he should have a 3.8 or a 4.2.
What he does know, is that the 3.8 has less good brakes, seats and gearbox and is more cramped. However, he loves the alloy dash and the bucket seats, and thinks it may be a marginally better longer term place to park his money as its the first of breed ( someone told him to buy the first or last of a model!) He also knows the 4.2 is far more comfortable, looks identical on the road and pretty much to everyone who doesn't know too much and is perhaps easier to live with. He wants a mint restored car, but will use it, I don't mean in bad weather conditions ( i just got an e mail from a mate who lives in London with a picture of a DB5 Convertible parked in his street in Hampstead on salted roads today!) , he plans to drive it to his holiday place in France etc etc.
So , I realise this will be a hot subject, ( I hope ) but which should I advise him to buy? I mean I would imagine the 3.8 with a 4 speed synchro or 5 speed box is just as good, but I would love to hear your thoughts please. oh and he is pretty classic car friendly, so idiosyncrasies such as brakes doesn't really phase him at all. He started with a ratty old series one GT6 when we were at University together.

richard btype · Post by **richard btype** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:56 pm

Good topic Andrew!

It is a subject that my father and I have long debated. We both started with the 3.8, myself the OTS and He the FHC both incidentally in the Opalescent Silver Blue (with which you are familiar!) and both from 1963. He then went on to a 65 FHC 4.2 which he felt was a far better car and after some time driving it myself had to agree, it was 'resolved' by benefit I feel from the continuous development.

There is always a but! Second time round however it was the 3.8 again for me, but why? The 3.8 feels more exciting, a combination of a revvy engine using all of its cc's instead of torque. The alloy dash and centre console is unique to the 3.8 (well not the last one's) but a black dash can be found in the Mk 2's. The gearbox has that god awful 1st gear whine but so distinctive! It feels like a close ratio racecar box which if one can double declutch even feel quite skilled! But is none-the-less tight and accurate, not so soft and porridgy.

The seats are a fabulous design and so period and comfortable to me providing they are the later type with the 20o rake (the earlier ones are too straight backed with 10o rake). I would say otherwise not much differs and have never found the brakes as bad as is often commented on. Oh and finally, drive a 3.8 on RS5 cross plies and it has a driving response and feel that the later radial tyres would die for - wet roads excepting!

andrewh · Post by **andrewh** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:15 pm

thats a great answer and is sort of how I feel but still it seems a personal choice. Will be interested to see what others with experience of both motors feel . Dynamically it seems both cars are probably as quick as one another, but perhaps the 4.2 is easier to drive faster for longer. Anyway, thanks and I look forward to a few more observations.

Post by **1954Etype** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:57 pm

4.2 every time. Door Arm rests, alternator, neg earth, centre arm rest, seats all make for a better grand tourer! (And l have done long distances in 3.8s!).

andrewh · Post by **andrewh** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:23 pm

ok thats one all. Lets have another for the 3.8? I realise this is all very subjective and been discussed before, but its a very interesting conundrum. I mean the press loved the 3.8 , then they loved the 4.2, but the collectors adore the 3.8, and the drivers the 4.2, but then again, perhaps the 3.8?

cactusman · Post by **cactusman** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:27 pm

Mine is a 3.8. The brakes I upgraded with coopercraft four pot front calipers and new discs. The Kelsey Hayes bellows system does work....brakes sorted.

Conversion to neg earth takes 30 mins and costs zero.

A previous owner has fitted a full syncro box so nice change although I have the old Moss box in the garage...gear box sorted.

Mine is one of the first dish floor cars. I think the seats are lovely.

Can't really see why door arm rests would be much use....wind down the window and rest your arm there.....cool....and in the summer you will have the window down anyhow....the FHC gets rather warm in the summer....lol

I have never driven a 4.2 but the 3.8 is a fabulous engine.

After a 200 mile run I climb out feeling relaxed.

And the 3.8 is the e type as originally conceived as a sports car by Jaguar. To me you ain't buying a grand tourer but one of the best 1960's sports cars...Lovely ally dash. Red line at 5500....not that I have ever seen 5500RPM, 150 MPH (well probably 140) - not seen that either....and just the word Jaguar on the back....

You can resolve most of the alleged shortcomings of the original 3.8 while retaining that turbine of an engine. The only thing not easily fixed are the fabulous looking but pretty hopeless headlights....but then the 4.2 lights are the same anyhow...

My advice....3.8

Happy motoring what ever you choose..

Sprytly · Post by **Sprytly** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:56 pm

Greetings. Regular reader, infrequent poster. I've had both at the same time. A 1966 4.2 OTS and a 1964 3.8 FHC in about equal driver condition and used them regularly. I could not keep both however. I selected the 3.8 FHC to retain and have never had a regret over the choice. 3.8 felt better to me because it has a classic feel along with the practicality of the luggage area. Not that I ever load it up. Its just nice to have. I also don't mind positive earth. Shifting the Moss 'box well is an achievement meriting a self pat on the back. I actually like the 1st gear whine. Careful finding your way to second. I too have read about all those 3.8 "shortcomings". I never found myself up against any of them. Other people's preferences I suppose.

Dave K · Post by **Dave K** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:05 pm

I've driven both and both are nice cars to drive, I didn't like the 4.2 seats to be honest the 3.8 bucket holds you better and with a spacer under the front of the seat you can get a happy medium on rake angle.
Arm rests don't sell it for me either.

When I set out to get mine I had never driven or even been in an E-Type I just knew I wanted the earliest car I could get my hands on which is why I went for the flat floor, it suits me perfectly being 5' 6" tall.

You have to make a choice and get the car you really want otherwise you'll deeply regret not getting the other one.

I couldn't make the choice between the two for someone else. As you mention most people won't know the difference but the ones who matter will!

The only thing I have got a real opinion is OTS over FHC every day of the week.

Dave

38E · Post by **38E** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:16 am

Dave K wrote: The only thing I have got a real opinion is OTS over FHC every day of the week.
Dave

I guess for the continental travel mentioned, if he chose an OTS, he could always have his luggage sent on ahead. But if he chose a Coupe, he could take it all along with him.

And the 3.8 of course, for the smoother better revving engine, the alloy dash with proper switches, the lack of plastic bits in the engine compartment (copper and brass instead) and all the other details that make it a pure classic.

rolando38 · Post by **rolando38** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:22 am

my 2 cents:
what is your friend FIRST criteria:
. if it's practicality, everyday use: recommend 4.2
. if it's investment potential : recommend 3.8 (although 3.8 have already met ceiling high prices)

ernie · Post by **ernie** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:42 am

For my six penny worth...both the S1 and S2 3.8 and 4.2cars have strengths and weaknesses....buy the best condition that you can afford, decide OTS or FHC. Choose the one that suits the pocket. Prices of cars currently bonkers, buy to drive and enjoy not worry re investment. Get an expert involved in any purchase..there are several v good ones on the forum....Finally drive it...

They are all great drives and the bar arguments are really about semantics...they are all great cars to drive and own...whatever flavour they come in....

andrewh · Post by **andrewh** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:35 am

thanks Guys for the in-depth replies which I will pass on to my pal. I drive a 3.8 myself and love it, although I did notice the increased torque when driving a 4.2 recently. Since I did not open the car up i was unable to feel how they compared on the road.

To remind the post, this is not about series one or two, FHC or OTC. He KNOWS what he wants and it is a series one OTS. So its a straight fight, 4.2 or 3.8! I think this is going to come down to personal choice ultimately. I just caught the repeat last night of the Classic Car program with Quentin Wilson reviewing the E type, and I have to say, seeing him driving his 3.8 re iterated how right the car was from the start.

Post by **Heuer** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:10 am

Modern rebuild technology means there is little to choose between the 3.8 and 4.2 engines - both can rev equally high, both can produce the same levels of torque. However if your friend wants a 3.8 OTS then look no further than DK Engineering - they have a restored cream OBL on offer at ?449,950!

Note: for the avoidance of doubt they also say it is a "flat floor"

andrewh · Post by **andrewh** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:04 pm

Thanks David. I think that may be in front of his budget. But a standard made to measure 3.8 will suffice I am sure. I will report back all the feedback and he will have to make his own choice . I don't know that I can fully agree with the comment about both engines being comparable with work. I mean 400cc is a lot of difference!

64etype · Post by **64etype** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:47 pm

andrewh wrote:Thanks David. I think that may be in front of his budget. But a standard made to measure 3.8 will suffice I am sure. I will report back all the feedback and he will have to make his own choice . I don't know that I can fully agree with the comment about both engines being comparable with work. I mean 400cc is a lot of difference!

The 3.8 begs for the mid-60s "close ratio" EJ full synchro gearbox. Even better gear spacing than many of the 5-speeds.

andrewh · Post by **andrewh** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:51 pm

64etype wrote:
andrewh wrote:Thanks David. I think that may be in front of his budget. But a standard made to measure 3.8 will suffice I am sure. I will report back all the feedback and he will have to make his own choice . I don't know that I can fully agree with the comment about both engines being comparable with work. I mean 400cc is a lot of difference!
The 3.8 begs for the mid-60s "close ratio" EJ full synchro gearbox. Even better gear spacing than many of the 5-speeds.

ok, do you mean the 4.2 box, or a close ratio version of that? Being close ratio does that not mean you have 1:1 4th gear then?

richard btype · Post by **richard btype** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 pm

Heuer wrote:Modern rebuild technology means there is little to choose between the 3.8 and 4.2 engines - both can rev equally high, both can produce the same levels of torque. However if your friend wants a 3.8 OTS then look no further than DK Engineering - they have a restored cream OBL on offer at ?449,950!

Note: for the avoidance of doubt they also say it is a "flat floor"

That is an exceptional price for an exceptional car at DK but here's a question - would anyone go for it?

andrewh · Post by **andrewh** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:05 pm

not sure its an exceptional car? I don't like the panel gaps at all from the photos, and I think on another thread Heuer pointed out a lot of inaccuracies. HOWEVER, I am quite sure one of their "new" buyers will stump up the dosh. In reality, as a RHD OBL I don't doubt it should be worth the money if correct. My opinion is based upon the importance of the E type as a motoring milestone and icon, and compared to other less amazing machines that fetch considerably more. Whether an OBL car is worth the premium over a non OBL is purely down to rarity of course.

64etype · Post by **64etype** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:19 pm

There were two versions of the full synchro 4.2 transmissions for the short wheelbase cars....the KE from roughly '68 onward, and the more sporting EJ from possibly late '64 to about '67. Both have a 1:1 4th gear. The extra torque from the 4.2 no doubt had something to do with the larger ratio spacing in the KE.

andrewh · Post by **andrewh** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:45 pm

thats good to know. My own 3.8 OTS project has an EJ synchro box fitted so all being well that should enhance the experience. I like the Moss on my FHC and find the whine and sense of satisfaction on a good gear change satisfying. That said, I can see a 3.8 with a slick box will cut the mustard!

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

Hot potato! 3.8 or 4.2 advice

#1 Hot potato! 3.8 or 4.2 advice

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6 3.8or 4.2

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

#12

#13

#14

#15

#16

#17

#18

#19

#20