by JCS » Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:17 pm
John
Probably the first time I have read, on any Jaguar thread, some sensible reasons for minor specification changes, beyond annual changes for different markets. I am not offended and in fact embrace the discussion. The following is my own opinion and like yours not intended to offend anyone.
Members of the S Type register are naturally, like any other club member, interested in a particular model and especially in their own specific car. Often, very often, they make judgements between change points on their car and those on either later, or earlier cars, believing the changes / differences were deliberately incorporated as a model enhancement. Soon these changes are “converted” by owners dividing the cars into “better than”, or “worse than” models.
The common denominator is that the average classic car owner was far from the sharp end of the automotive industry when (mid 60’s changes) took place, and never has got to grips with why particular parts changed. That is a pity because an opportunity is lost to learn more about the cars. For instance why is it probable that Jaguar changed the HT lead arrangement for a technical reason, instead of just a supplier issue? (see the discussion in another thread)
There always will be early snagging lists on new models, but that does not make later models necessarily better, those late models often suffer dollar cuts with alterations to materials as designers overstepped the mark.
The S Type was fairly well developed for its time period, you could say it took the best of the MK2 and added the best of the E type, and in consequence did not suffer too many major engineering changes. What the model did suffer from was from two shortfalls that were not directly the fault of Jaguar at that time, and these are not exhaustive…….
(
A) Major labour troubles, very often from indirect sources like Pressed Steel workers on strike against Rover. In fact mid 60’s labour wildcat strikes were probably 95% of the reason for parts mixes. Not just Jaguar changing parts to reduce cost but because of the necessity to keep a production line flowing under duress. Changes and strikes occurred so frequent that a change of a glove box handle was a miner hassle, changes of gearbox more of an irritation.
(
B) The start of more serious issues developing around emissions, health and safety and especially the NADA (North American Dollar Area) regulations. Crash testing into 30 ton concrete blocks was well underway at MIRA which I often visited. This imposed a heavy workload on already stretched Jaguar engineering resources
From my perspective I have witnessed hundreds of changes in at least 35 production plants, all operated in a similar fashion whether it be Toyota in San Antonio TX or MAN in Germany. Production parts not on station were replaced with an alternative under what was known as a “Concession”. In such cases when the changes were very frequent they were never recorded in parts books under the terms of the concession. If the part change was permanent with luck it would be recorded in the next issue of the parts book….if there was such a thing. There is, and was, always a production standard vehicle at any one time, it may have even run 10 concessions, changing frequently in bad times, but never the less traceable IF you have access to the necessary records.
For my own choice I chose a 1965 3.4 S deliberately, not a 3.8 S, using my past engineering experience, which we all fall back upon, a better choice to me but that is shear opinion.
Apologies for running off thread but many of these points are interlinked and running off thread is almost mandatory. If you have a S Type, from whatever year and you are satisfied with its performance.
(a) You are lucky
(b) Keep it
(.c) Drive it and Enjoy it.
Norman
John
Probably the first time I have read, on any Jaguar thread, some sensible reasons for minor specification changes, beyond annual changes for different markets. I am not offended and in fact embrace the discussion. The following is my own opinion and like yours not intended to offend anyone.
Members of the S Type register are naturally, like any other club member, interested in a particular model and especially in their own specific car. Often, very often, they make judgements between change points on their car and those on either later, or earlier cars, believing the changes / differences were deliberately incorporated as a model enhancement. Soon these changes are “converted” by owners dividing the cars into “better than”, or “worse than” models.
The common denominator is that the average classic car owner was far from the sharp end of the automotive industry when (mid 60’s changes) took place, and never has got to grips with why particular parts changed. That is a pity because an opportunity is lost to learn more about the cars. For instance why is it probable that Jaguar changed the HT lead arrangement for a technical reason, instead of just a supplier issue? (see the discussion in another thread)
There always will be early snagging lists on new models, but that does not make later models necessarily better, those late models often suffer dollar cuts with alterations to materials as designers overstepped the mark.
The S Type was fairly well developed for its time period, you could say it took the best of the MK2 and added the best of the E type, and in consequence did not suffer too many major engineering changes. What the model did suffer from was from two shortfalls that were not directly the fault of Jaguar at that time, and these are not exhaustive…….
(
A) Major labour troubles, very often from indirect sources like Pressed Steel workers on strike against Rover. In fact mid 60’s labour wildcat strikes were probably 95% of the reason for parts mixes. Not just Jaguar changing parts to reduce cost but because of the necessity to keep a production line flowing under duress. Changes and strikes occurred so frequent that a change of a glove box handle was a miner hassle, changes of gearbox more of an irritation.
(
B) The start of more serious issues developing around emissions, health and safety and especially the NADA (North American Dollar Area) regulations. Crash testing into 30 ton concrete blocks was well underway at MIRA which I often visited. This imposed a heavy workload on already stretched Jaguar engineering resources
From my perspective I have witnessed hundreds of changes in at least 35 production plants, all operated in a similar fashion whether it be Toyota in San Antonio TX or MAN in Germany. Production parts not on station were replaced with an alternative under what was known as a “Concession”. In such cases when the changes were very frequent they were never recorded in parts books under the terms of the concession. If the part change was permanent with luck it would be recorded in the next issue of the parts book….if there was such a thing. There is, and was, always a production standard vehicle at any one time, it may have even run 10 concessions, changing frequently in bad times, but never the less traceable IF you have access to the necessary records.
For my own choice I chose a 1965 3.4 S deliberately, not a 3.8 S, using my past engineering experience, which we all fall back upon, a better choice to me but that is shear opinion.
Apologies for running off thread but many of these points are interlinked and running off thread is almost mandatory. If you have a S Type, from whatever year and you are satisfied with its performance.
(a) You are lucky
(b) Keep it
(.c) Drive it and Enjoy it.
Norman