I was under the impression the 340 had slimmer bumpers than the earlier Mark 2 cars. Although I have seen a few 340 cars with the smaller bumpers I have also seen bunches of the larger earlier Mark 2 bumpers fitted to the 340 including the 340 I am in the process of buying. Can anyone clarify this?.

 

All this is correct, my 340 has the thick bumpers as fitted to the MK 2's.
I have never seen a 340 with real leather seats though, that doesn't mean to say there isn't one.
All the 340's that I have come across had Ambla leather or the North American name, Naugahyde.

So far they all have had power steering.
The acorn head bolts were not supposed to be plated, but mine are.

Mine does not have overdrive.

Mine is left hand drive, and was told that it was not for the North American market.

Do a search here, there is an extensive thread about hem.

EDIT:
I think this is it here,

Jaguar 340 VIN - Page 2 - Jaguar Forums - Jaguar Enthusiasts Forum

Mk2 vs 340 - Jaguar Forums - Jaguar Enthusiasts Forum

What is a "real" 340 in the USA? - Jaguar Forums - Jaguar Enthusiasts Forum

1968 340 questions - Jaguar Forums - Jaguar Enthusiasts Forum

Happy reading.

 

Saul of British Autowood has a mint condition rear THIN bumper for 340. You might check with him if you are looking for the correct bumpers.

 

Some larger bumper cars were sent to the US/NA. ROW had the slim bumpers. S type on the front & unique on the rear. Body panels behind them are quite different rear. All South African 340 Production had slim bumpers.

 

I think all the UK 240s and 340s made from September 1967 had slim bumpers as this was part of the Jaguar/BMC cost cutting measures. Having said that I have seen a lot of 340s at shows with the large bumpers but this is generally an attempt by the owner to fool people into thinking it is an early Mk2 not a 340.
Generally anything after September 1967 was a 240/340 with slim bumpers.

 

You can't just change the bumpers around, the body in the rear will prevent one from doing this.
You can't simply add a thick line pumper on the rear where a slim line pumper was meant to be.
Majour surgery would be needed.

 

I have a fairly decent rear for sale Its perfectly straight, and would clean up £50

 

I appreciate the major surgery but it is amazing the lengths some people will go to try and fool you into thinking they have an early Mk2 rather than its less cool brother of a 340. The other thing they do is buy a private plate for the car or an older plate. In the UK our registration plates are age related. So for instance my 1968 registered S type has the "F" suffix donating a 1968 car, Prior to 1963 which was the start with an "A" suffix cars did not have age related plates.People can buy a plate which is older than the car making the car appear to be pre 1963. With a pre 1963 plate and big bumpers the owner now has what looks like a cool early Mk2 when in fact they have a late 340. Why? Well an early Mk2 is worth £35 to £40k where as a late 340/240 is worth £20k. Not that they could sell it as an early Mk2 but it makes them feel good at the shows. I have even seen a 3.8 badge on a 240.

 

I wouldn't go to all that bother, they would have to do the seats too.
And they may even add an over drive, and to do that, I think the rear end would have to be changed, leaving the one from the 340, would end up being too tall accompanied with the OD.

 

The UK DVLA tend to be vague about models. My 1963 3.4 Mk2 is defined by them as a 3.4/340. If they do the same for a 340, no admin would be required to make it into a 3.4 Mk2.

The 3.54 axle shouldn't be a problem for 3.4 engine. Jaguar used it and higher ratios in the series XJ. Personally, I'd find it desirable, offering even more relaxed cruising. And with the tree stump pulling ratio of the first gear (thinking of my Moss box), it would be nicer for starting from rest.

The bodywork in such a conversion is a matter of removing and replacing valences and re-painting. If the car is in good condition, it seems like a lot of work, but, if it's part of a restoration, it's marginal effort. Taking the Mk2 rear bumper off and re-fitting it is horrible in itself.

I'll not comment on the aesthetics. It's personal taste. From a safety point of view, the Mk2 bumpers might protect more in a collision. On the other hand, the proximity of the front bumper to the front wheel is something that worries me. If it’s pushed back in an accident, you can’t steer and a bad impact may evolve into a major disaster. The 340 bumper with a piece of RHS behind it might be the safer option. It would save some weight as well.