***Jaguar E-Type V12 (Wimmer Pics)***

[cawimmer430]

Spotted today. Nice engine sound too. 

[Submariner]

Ooooooo lawdyyyyyyyy

[NomisR]

Golf clubs?!?!

[cawimmer430]

Golf clubs?!?!

Guy is obviously a "wife beater". 

[nickdrinkwater]

I love those things.  Though I prefer the looks of the earlier (pre V12?) cars.

[Colin]

Sehr schoen......... merci viel Mal!

[ChrisV]

Oh, my god! Covered headlights and little bumpers certainly make it look vastly better than what we got here! Last covered headlight E type we got was the '67 4.2 Series 1.5, Which is my favorite E type. But while I never wanted the US spec V12 E type, I'd take this one in a hot second!

For comparison, what we got here:

[cawimmer430]

I think this elongated design E-Type looks much better than the somewhat "squashed" standard E-Type that is usually meant when someone says "Jaguar E-Type".

This guy also let the engine rip. I was too stunned to switch to video mode but the engine sound was awesome and the smell of exhaust was in the air - I breathed it all in. Screw cancer! This was worth it! 

[ChrisV]

holy hell, I just looked them up on ebay. the '67s are cresting $100k for the converts, and the previously unloved V12 cars are heading towards $60k average, themselves.

[Byteme]

Oh, my god! Covered headlights and little bumpers certainly make it look vastly better than what we got here! Last covered headlight E type we got was the '67 4.2 Series 1.5, Which is my favorite E type. But while I never wanted the US spec V12 E type, I'd take this one in a hot second!

For comparison, what we got here:

All Series II and III E-types world wide came from the factory with exposed headlights. There is a German company that makes the covered conversion kits for the headlamps for Series II and Series III E-types.  Expensive at something like $2,500 but it's suppose to be a first class kit.

The first year of Series III cars had smaller overriders like the car in the pictures, even those shipped to the US.  they grew in 1973 and became positively huge in 1974, like the one you show.

[ChrisV]

I think this elongated design E-Type looks much better than the somewhat "squashed" standard E-Type that is usually meant when someone says "Jaguar E-Type".

Squashed?  





vs



I like the little fender flares on the V12 car, but I think the shorter door length on the earlier cars is better proportioned. But the later car will probably have more cockpit room

[cawimmer430]

Squashed? 



I like the little fender flares on the V12 car, but I'm not really seeing enough extra length, other than the bumper overriders.

Ah, I think it is the roof which gives the "squashed" impression. That's not the case it seems. 

[ChrisV]

The first year of Series III cars had smaller overriders like the car in the pictures, even those shipped to the US.  they grew in 1973 and became positively huge in 1974, like the one you show.

I guess I've never actually seen a '72 V12 car. I'd bet that it would look better just removing the overriders and grille surround bars.

[ChrisV]

Ah, I think it is the roof which gives the "squashed" impression. That's not the case it seems. 

yeah, the doors are shorter on the early car.

I also wouldn't mind a 2+2. The roof is longar and slightly taller looking, and a lot of people don't like them (which is reflected in the prices), but they'd probably make better overall cars.

[nickdrinkwater]

The best looking one.

[cawimmer430]

yeah, the doors are shorter on the early car.

I also wouldn't mind a 2+2. The roof is longar and slightly taller looking, and a lot of people don't like them (which is reflected in the prices), but they'd probably make better overall cars.

With the roof gone, the car looks sleeker and "longer". I hate how our eyes play tricks on us. 

[Byteme]

yeah, the doors are shorter on the early car.

I also wouldn't mind a 2+2. The roof is longar and slightly taller looking, and a lot of people don't like them (which is reflected in the prices), but they'd probably make better overall cars.

The 2+2, introduced in 1966 has a 9 inch longer wheelbase,  The rear box members in front of the rear end was redesigned to allow the addition of seats for two amputees or kids. The front seats have a bit more fore-aft adjustment and there is more headroom as the roofline went from 48 to 50 inches.  Also there is more room for luggage if you have no  one in the back seat becasue the rear seat squab (backrest pivots forward about 10 inches.  We can get about 10-12 bags of groceries in the back of ours.

Series I cars had the covered headlights and came with two engines and transmissions.  61-64 had a 3.8L with a Moss box, non sychro first; essentially a truck transmission.  64-67 saw a fully synchro 4 speed with an enlarged 4.2 engine.  Starting in 1967 some of the changes such as uncovered headlights began to appear to satisfy US safety regs.  These cars are dubbed Series 1-1/2.

Series II cars indroduced the fully federalized version; non-eared knockoffs, rocker switches replaced toggle switches, 2 strombergs instead of 3 SU carbs, emissions controls and other more minor changes.  The 2+2 windscreen was moved forward about 2-1/2 inches at the bottom increasing the rake and improving the looks.  It lost a wiper in the process going from 3 to 2. 

Series III carried further modifications such as a V-12, wider wheels, 6" instead of 5", forther interior changes and the short wheel base was dropped.  All models , coupe, roadster and 2+2 were built on the 2+2 wheelbase.

As a driver many acknowledge the Series II as being the best, with the 2+2 being the roomiest.


.

[ChrisV]

Cool info. I knew about the width of the series III cars, but not that they all were built on the 2+2 wheelbase. And I never really looked at the windscreen on the Series II. My father in law has had 3 '67 4.2 triple carb convertibles (the last one was supposed to be given to my wife, but when she moved to MD fom CT for work, he sold it... she still hasn't forgiven him completely for that).

[omicron]

Now that's motoring, right there. I can think of very few words more evocative than 'E-type Vee-twelve'.

[Byteme]

Cool info. I knew about the width of the series III cars, but not that they all were built on the 2+2 wheelbase. And I never really looked at the windscreen on the Series II. My father in law has had 3 '67 4.2 triple carb convertibles (the last one was supposed to be given to my wife, but when she moved to MD fom CT for work, he sold it... she still hasn't forgiven him completely for that).

The cars were the same width, they just went to a wider wheel and added the fender flares to accomodate the slightly larger track.

[ChrisV]

The cars were the same width, they just went to a wider wheel and added the fender flares to accomodate the slightly larger track.

The flares were what I was talking about. I didn't used to like the V12 cars (with the exception of Bob Tullius' road race convertible) because of the lights, bumpers, and what I felt was the engine weight and complexity. But this one in another color would be a perfect driver! It looks sooo good!

[Byteme]

Cool info. I knew about the width of the series III cars, but not that they all were built on the 2+2 wheelbase. And I never really looked at the windscreen on the Series II. My father in law has had 3 '67 4.2 triple carb convertibles (the last one was supposed to be given to my wife, but when she moved to MD fom CT for work, he sold it... she still hasn't forgiven him completely for that).

Note how far the windscreen botton is behind  bonnet opening, coupe is the same.
http://www.xkedata.com/_photos/200810/hHtVeb.jpg

compare to the 2+2 in the foreground.  Also note the roadster in the background is a Series III.  Compare the door length with the above roadster picture.

http://www.xkedata.com/_photos/200611/wwdnmy.jpg

[ChrisV]

Pics are blocked here. 

But I did compare the door length on the pics I posted above. Hadn't really ever noticed it before. Wonder how much worse a heavy V12 drives in comparison? I like the 4.2s a lot.

[omicron]

Pics are blocked here. 

But I did compare the door length on the pics I posted above. Hadn't really ever noticed it before. Wonder how much worse a heavy V12 drives in comparison? I like the 4.2s a lot.

'So ponderously nose-heavy and with such minimal roadholding that through Kuringai Chase it couldn't keep up with a paltry 900cc Fiat 127. How embarrassing.'

- Mel Nichols, Wheels July 1972.

Best update the suspension, then.

[ChrisV]

I know just who to talk to about that...

[redbloodedamerican]

Ever seen Harold and Maude?