Nice one. 29k Series one 3.8 for sale

[Fixed Head]

There was only one style of E-type seats, the same for both open and closed cars, through about the first third of FHC production. This fact Is routinely corroborated when untouched original cars appear, such as the one in this thread, and by the numbers of coupe owners who comment, as here, that their own earlier cars have OTS seats. Yet for some reason the myth that the OTS seats were installed randomly, or when supplies ran low, persists. This is not the case.

[1954Etype]

Thats really interesting. Where do you get that fact from? Reason l ask is that l always believed that roadster seats could have been fitted throughout 3.8 production based on information supplied by either Mick Turley or Eric Suffolk who were working in the trim shop at that time .

[andrewh]

very interesting. it just shows how Jaguar filled the gaps when they ran out of the correct parts. All you chaps who have the OTS seat perhaps you should check that you don't have 3.4 fitted because they ran out of the 3.8! Its written on the side or the block.

[Fixed Head]

Angus, unfortunately Mick and Eric are mistaken about this. I challenge you or anyone here to produce an original factory photo of a 3.8 FHC with OTS style seats, and a known chassis number or production date that corresponds to, let's say, the second half of production. Likewise with verified low mile originals, or one owner cars with documented histories, and having photos dating from the time of first delivery. --Mark

[Fixed Head]

I extend my above challenge to include anyone being able to produce a verifiable original factory photo of a 3.8 coupe with OTS style seats, and the later interior having armrests, door on the center console, and no aluminium dash fascia, even if you cannot provide a chassis number or production date. You wont be able to because such a car never existed.

[andrewh]

I have to say that I am absolutely sure, although I have not bothered to look for photographic evidence, that these FHC with narrow back seats existed. It would be very odd for so many cars to have had their seats changed for no apparent reason. I mean in a FHC they don't even get wet and rot out as they would with an OTS. Why would an owner change a pair of seats?

[Fixed Head]

Andrew, with all due respect, I don't think you've carefully read my comments here, nor do you seem to recall similar comments I made on a thread you were involved in on 3.8 fixed head seats awhile back. I have specifically stated that 3.8 fixed head coupe seats were ALL the narrow-backed OTS style up to a certain point approximately one-third of the way through production, after which they were ALL the wider-backed style we associate with coupes. It was never "mix and match" or whatever was on hand at the time, and I stand by these statments. I do know you will disagree based on the seats you have in your own coupe, which don't conform to this pattern. --Mark

[andrewh]

hi Mark, you sound very knowledgeable on the subject. If your assertion that the first third of FHC had OTS narrow back seats is correct then the change came between the car on this thread and my car at 860897, because I will assert that they are original and my car car was totally unmolested. As is the opalescent dark blue car that is on the factory thread and a very similar age to my car also has the wide back seats. Did you work at Jaguar or in a dealership during the period? I would be interested as you are very certain on the seats issue.

[1954Etype]

Ok Mark, so where is your indesputable evidence? I'm not saying you're wrong but without evidence it's rumour!

[christopher storey]

It is a shame that Mark's "indisputable evidence" that only OTS seats were fitted for a period is torpedoed by a certain FHC which was indisputably original and bore the registration 9600HP. Quite how anything about an E type's fitments can be indisputable after 55 years is something of a mystery to me , particularly given Jaguar's known propensity for reaching into the parts bin without looking

[Fixed Head]

Christopher, 9600 HP had square-backed seats of a prototype nature that were/are unlike either the production coupe or roadster seats. Since everyone here seems to just want to attack my information rather than consider it on its own merits (why not take up my challenge about producing documentation or photographs to dispute it) you should at least get your facts straight.

My information is based on long-time observation and careful research. Can you all say the same?

[andrewh]

Mark, I don't think anyone is attacking, just asking for the research behind your observations.

[1954Etype]

Mark, l am not attacking you. This forum is not about that. I have heard rumours, facts and even lies in the 40 years l have been involved in these cars. I base my knowledge primarily on what l see from original cars, period photos and eyewitness accounts. I don't disregard production data but it has been proven to be wrong on numerous occasions.

You have extensively researched your subject and l applaud you for it but, is there any chance you can share your findings as it would be really interesting and maybe even put a few people right!

[christopher storey]

Mark : since you ask, I was at the factory the very week that the E type was announced at the Geneva show ! Can you say the same ? Your problem is, if I may say so, that you ignore evidence which does not fit with your thesis ( such as the undoubted broad seats which 9600HP possessed from the very start ) but fail to produce evidence ( rather than your ex cathedra pronouncements) to support your theory . In any event, does it matter ?

[Fixed Head]

Andrew, I thank you for a kind and reasonable response, it was appreciated.

Angus, I think when a forum moderator starts talking about, what was it, "indisputable evidence" (never a term I used) instead of perhaps actually considering the proposed information on its own merits, it sounds a bit like a an attack. If you were to hold the authors of most of the published E-type information to that same standard you would find there wouldn't be much left that is useful. As for basing your own knowledge on "period photos" and "original cars", that is precisely what I had suggested you try to do to confirm my information. Yet you don't seem at all interested in that. And that was the whole point of my original post; when known original cars come to light it confirms the information I am trying to present here. In the future you might want to pay closer attention to those original cars and photos - you might be surprised to find yourself coming around to my point of view on this.

Finally, Christopher, 9600HP was an experimental car with prototype seats that had backs more akin to the later 4.2 seats than either of the 3.8 variants. These seats were NEVER seen on a subsequent 3.8 including the earliest press and show cars and they are totally irrelevant to this discussion. I can tell that you and I are probably never going to see eye-to-eye on any of these things, but allow me to suggest that you might not want to take me on regarding the very earliest E-types.

As I think I said last time this subject came up, there doesn't seem to be much point in going on with this discussion any further right now.

[Heuer]

We do know the seats were re-designed to have increased rake to coincide with the scalloped bulkheads in June 1962 . I suppose one way to confirm this either way would be to see if any FHC (wide) seats have the 10° rake angle because if so they are earlier than June 1962. If they are at 20° they are later and would not fit the flat bulkhead cars. All the info we have on seats: http://www.myetype.co.uk/forum/viewtopi ... 779#p52779

[Fixed Head]

GOOD POINT DAVID! Here's another challenge I will make, that no one anywhere can come up with a coupe-style wider-backed 3.8 seat with the earlier more upright rake to it (unless maybe they've got one that was so rusty it was welded back together at the wrong angle or something).

[Heuer]

Yes, but instead of issuing challenges how about you do some leg work and report back here. Any evidence (one way or the other) can be added to our Factory Fit thread. The easiest way is to look at FHC's prior to June 1962 on XKEdata and see if any are fitted with the wider seats. My hunch is the wider backed seats came in after June 1962 when Sir William took it upon himself to re-design the FHC to make it into more of a Grand Tourer: http://www.myetype.co.uk/forum/viewtopi ... 665#p58665

[christopher storey]

but allow me to suggest that you might not want to take me on regarding the very earliest E-types.

As I think I said last time this subject came up, there doesn't seem to be much point in going on with this discussion any further right now.

Frankly, I am not in the least bit interested in "taking you on" . I have better things to do with my time . Your combative attitude is one which, by and large, this forum has avoided over its history of some 8 years or so, and I still entertain hopes that it will continue in that vein

[Heuer]