When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Franken car is right and these new pictures make me think it's a kit car from the 1950's to maybe mid 60's era when the design of sports cars was following the period English roadsters of the post-war era.
The body looks to be fiberglass construction since there is little evidence of rust like you'd see from 20+ years of sitting in that location uncovered. There's evidence of rot for sure but mostly from the invasion of the moss and other plant life as well as the normal deterioration of early glass bodies from that period.
The motor bears no resemblance to any Jaguar twin-cam inline six I've ever seen be it 3.4,3.8, or 4.2 liter and certainly never sat in an XK6 or XJ6 body. Also the electrical system is being run by a generator and not an alternator and although there were still generators in use into the mid-60's I'm betting the engine is more likely from the 50's and is of overhead valve design instead of being a cammer.
I sent the pictures along to a guy in Tampa who runs a website called "Forgotten Fiberglass" to see if he can give us more clues but don't hold your breath.
I cannot tell much from the images but TR3 came to mind.
By the way, I once ought a rare 1976 TVR with a tree growing up through its center. Fortunately, someone else upped my bid and hauled it off before I could pick it up.
Back in 1976 I spent an afternoon test driving a new TVR but decided against buying it due to the then extraordinarily high insurance cost. I ended up buying a '76 Camaro 350 4spd.
I have to admit that the TR6 engine in the TVR was a lot of fun though as it had tons of low end grunt.
In 76 the TVR factory had a fire and the always limited production was cut in half. That would have been a good year to own. My TVRs all had Ford V6 engines but I did like the earlier ones, actually I liked them all. Not as practical as my 1970 and 68 1/2 AMX's though.
Healey 3000?
Last edited by MiamiTVR; Dec 20, 2014 at 01:01 PM.
I had a '70 AMX that I special ordered with the 390 and about every option in the book. I had this car for about as short a period of time of any car I've ever owned as the gas mileage was atrocious even for 1970, I couldn't keep exhaust manifold donuts in it due to the side exhaust shaking so much, the engine was done a 5100 rpm's, and compared to my previous '69 Shelby GT350 it was a pick-up truck.
Stinson here's a message I got back from the guy in Tampa who runs Forgotten Fiberglass.
Bob… I can help but need photos that show more of the car. The close ups don’t help. I need to see shapes so I can determine type of body. Clean off the garage on the car before shooting. And get some shots of the chassis so we can help ID. Glad to help but need your help above first.
Like I said, I wish I could see it too, as I am sure I could identify what it is. Not saying I am a master of cars, because I mainly know Japanese cars and not British. I am going through a friend on this, and the lady who owns it "isn't the most friendly." Let's just say she is very... um... suspicious of the government.
I'll try and get more.
As far as the engine, you may be right. I just went off the fact that she said it was a jag, and the fact that there is there is an XK120/XK140 hood hanging from a tree (That's what the badge is on)
She has nothing but a mess on here hands, before raising her suspicions to an unreasonable expectation, offer her a small amount of cash and go get it. You can probably have a ton of fun and you might even make a little cash at least for parts.
Good luck have fun
Franken car is right and these new pictures make me think it's a kit car from the 1950's to maybe mid 60's era when the design of sports cars was following the period English roadsters of the post-war era.
The body looks to be fiberglass construction since there is little evidence of rust like you'd see from 20+ years of sitting in that location uncovered. There's evidence of rot for sure but mostly from the invasion of the moss and other plant life as well as the normal deterioration of early glass bodies from that period.
The motor bears no resemblance to any Jaguar twin-cam inline six I've ever seen be it 3.4,3.8, or 4.2 liter and certainly never sat in an XK6 or XJ6 body. Also the electrical system is being run by a generator and not an alternator and although there were still generators in use into the mid-60's I'm betting the engine is more likely from the 50's and is of overhead valve design instead of being a cammer.
I sent the pictures along to a guy in Tampa who runs a website called "Forgotten Fiberglass" to see if he can give us more clues but don't hold your breath.
That IS most definitely an early XK engine, the stove enamelled exhaust manifolds, the smooth (at one time polished ) cam cover with chrome domed nuts is all classic XK engine.
As to it wearing a dynamo ( generator ), the XK 120 was first released well before alternators were invented.
MK 2, MK X, S Type, E Type all came with dynamos, only nearing the end of their production runs did they come with alternators.
We are picking it up sometime soon, as we now have arrangements for somewhere to store it. What is the value of an XK6 engine/hood anyways, completely ignoring the body?
Yep, after a lot of looking and enlarging pictures and comparing what I think I can see compared to what I should see I have to agree. that it is indeed a Jag 6. The displacement is unknown but if it hasn't been open to the elements to the point that the internals' are one massive rusted piece of forged carbon the motor could actually be worth some bucks. Add to that a possible transmission and rear-end and maybe even a chassis and that could make Stinson a great Christmas present<G>
Don't forget the value of a possible transmission and chassis. They actually do restore basket cases every bit as bad as this appears to be if there is enough left to work with.
Yeah, transmission too. The body I plan on keeping and possibly pro-streeting it. The market is too clustered with pristine show car Healeys, so one won't matter
And even if the engine is frozen, it would make a cool table for post-college housing!
-The engine is and XK6 twin cam, most likely from XK120 or XK140
Evidence:
-Pictures have proof: 8 domed valve cover nuts, chrome valve cover, it just is. -From the bonnet backwards, it is an Austin Healey
Evidence:
-The seam along the rear fenders is 100% Austin Healey. It does show proof of rust, therefore it is not a fiberglass repro.
-The angle of the door is also 100% Austin Healey unique.
Front end, I have no idea yet, but it doesn't look Healey. That's that
So i went over, checked it out, and dug some stuff up (literally and figuratively). First off, story is the owner drove it to California for school, then allegedly hit a tractor and ruined the Jaguar, because it was a jaguar at the time, an xk120/140. Because the body was ruined, he started customizing it. This is the fun part:
-The frame is from the xk120/140. Has the full drivetrain, suspension, the whole works.
-from the firewall back, it is an Austin Healey body that has been chopped to fit the frame, kinda.
-The front half is a mix of galvanized steel, fiberglass, and Healey headlight buckets.
Very, very, very strange mix of parts. She also has drivers side XK120 door, hood, trunk lid, grill, and glass, including membership stickers.
My confusion is with the engine.
The numbers on the block say C4353, c being the engine series. However there is no "c" series listed in the records. The block says, in large front on the carbureted side, "Jaguar 3 1/2 litre" but, xk's were not sold with a 3.5 liter engine. Also, the 3.5 liter engine does not have a twin cam on it stock, 3.5 liter engines were all pushrod, which would mean the block is not compatible with a twin cam head? Anyways, very interesting stuff. I will post pictures later tonight.
