Our VIN numbers on an S Type are far larger than that and hand stamped letter by letter.

 

It's also far too neat. I have seen a lot of them of the past few weeks and none look like this.

Off to look at another one now. Two hour drive to the south of the Netherlands. Hope it will be worth it.

 

Bill I think the confusion is over what is called what in different regions of the world.
On the VIN plate there is the "CAR" number and the "BODY" number. The "CAR" number refers to the chassis number of the car and the Body number relates to the style of body and that has a separate individual number for each body. In Rishis case some plonker has stamped the "BODY" number into the slam panel not the "CAR" Chassis number. Leads me to believe there has either been a lot of damage to the front of the car and the slam panel has a lot of new metal installed or someone has deliberately cut out the chassis number and the "BODY" number has been stamped in by mistake. The fact that the "BODY" number has been stamped into the slam panel does not mean the body of the car actually relates to that number so although Rishi states the body is from a 3.8 and the chassis number relates to a 3.4 just means the numbers have been taken from other cars and put together on one VIN plate but who knows what the true identity of the car is. I would not go anywhere near it I am afraid.
Can't state the Mk2 numbers but on the S Type the chassis is prefixed by 1B or P1B for PAS and ends in either BW or DN gearbox dependent. The body number is prefixed with 4B and the engine for the S Type is prefixed with 7B.

 

Cropped from far larger image. CDA South African built cars with Power Steering started with A1B ~ they left the BW or DN off the end and it only appeared on the plate. Blackheath cars built much later in Cape Town numbers with PAS started with B1B.

 

Back in the early 2000's I was looking for a MK2, being such a famous Small Saloon I test-drove a few of them and at least compared to my 1984 XJ-6, they felt "primitive". One time I even drove to Texas from Tennessee in my XJ-6 to see a Daimler V8 version. What a dissapointment it was.
Then one day I saw an S type, I had never seen one before. I started asking around and was told the S type has the E type's (and XJ-6) rear independent suspension, a twin exhaust, twin fuel tanks, a wonderful wood dash, and it is roomier inside, with better seats, unlike the MK2 which is somewhat cramped inside. I started searching and it took me until late 2004 to find a near-perfect unrestored S type in California. I have never regretted it. It is a better MK2.

 

Can't disagree with the above but I have just driven a wonderful 1965 Mk 2 3.8L MOD. Gunmetal grey with a red interior. Full restoration (body off), engine, gearbox and overdrive fully rebuilt. Extra oil cooler and electronic ignition. Interior is perfect. Paintwork and chrome all perfect. This one drove better than any of the S types and Mk 2's I have driven yet. Engine very responsive and a smooth gearbox. The valuation has it as a condition 2 but I think its a very high condition 2. It does not have the original front seats, I think they are from a XJ6 Mk 1 (big chrome recline lever). Has a full history with more than 100 foto's of the restoration. Huge pile of bills. This one is very tempting but is expensive. €39.5K.

 

The IRS makes the Mk2 feel crude to drive. But both have their good points. The extra weight is noticeable with the S Type but on a road with plenty of curves the S Type is the quicker of the two. In a straight line the Mk2 is the faster of the two.

 

Though they can never achieve the ride-handling compromise of an IRS, live axles can provide good cornering. It's been demonstrated by the (much modified) TWR Rovers and the racing cars of Arthur Mallock. My opinion is that the cantilever leaf springs impose geometric problems on the Mk2. As standard, the effective trailing arm radius of the spring is far too short. It can be improved slightly by either replacing all the leaves apart from the main one with a spacer, and it becomes very soft, or making the spring very stiff. Either way, the gains are small and have undesirable side effects, but keep the leaf springs. A much better solution is to replace the leaf springs with long trailing arms, inclined slightly up to the front of the car, and install coils between the axle and the body.

The usual suspects all supply kits to make the conversion. However, it's not cheap, five or ten times the cost of the same modification on a Ford Escort.

 

Here is an idea. Why not take a Mk2, cut out some of the rear chassis rails and alter it in such a way that you can weld in the rear IRS suspension from say an E Type Jaguar.
Same looks and front suspension as a Mk2 but better rear end handling.
Just an idea I came up with and surprised that no one else has thought of it.

 

There just isn't enough body length in the MK 2 to fit the E-Type IRS.
Notice how much longer the rear end of the Jags are over-all that have IRS compared to the MK 2.

 

In the words of John Bolster regarding the S Type on road test.

"As regards the performance of the S-type, this can be defined as slower than the Mk 2 in figures but faster across country. The more luxurious car is naturally heavier than its smaller brother, but its independent rear suspension allows it to corner faster. Furthermore, the rear passengers receive a much less hectic ride, which again encourages the driver to press on."

 

I think you'll know from reading Jaguar history that it's not a new idea at all. Jaguar did all that in developing their IRS under MK1 cars well over 60 years ago and some years before the appearance of the S type.

These days, it would not only be seriously changing the character of the car, something you or I would never do, but also modifying the monocoque would put us seriously up the creek (in the UK) with our friends in DVLA/DVSA.

More seriously, the coil and trailing arm modif is pretty light compared with many changes people make; such as some of the gearbox swaps that pass without comment.

 

It would certainly be necessary to cut the front off the fuel tank as it has little clearance from the axle and diff. Apart from that, spce shouldn't be too tight. On the other hand, alignment would be difficult without an S type to take very detailed measurements. Fiboy shortened the fuel tank to put a narrowed AJ6 IRS in his MK1.

https://web.archive.org/web/20161015...oy.com/Mk1.htm

 

"Jaguar historian Paul Skilleter has pointed out that many of the essential ingredients of the Jaguar IRS can be traced back to the prototype of the VB, a miniature military runabout capable of being transported by air that Jaguar worked on during the Second World War. However, serious work on IRS for Jaguar cars did not begin until more than a decade later, in 1955. By that stage, the Jaguar engineers felt that they had gone as far as they could with a conventional ‘live’ rear axle. Its weakness was that it compromised handling. If one rear wheel hit a bump or dropped into a pothole, its vertical movement was immediately transmitted along the axle tube to the opposite rear wheel. There were two results. One was a bumpy ride for the passengers – particularly unwelcome in a luxury saloon. The other was a change in wheel attitude, which could cause both rear wheels to lose grip briefly at the same time. This was potentially dangerous on ordinary roads, and was extremely undesirable in the sporting events (and fast road driving) that attracted Jaguar owners. IRS would provide benefits for both Jaguar’s big saloons and its high-performance sports cars, but the limited resources at Browns Lane meant that a single design would have to do both jobs."

 

Obviously dimensions would have to change dependent on application.

 

​​​​​​​Wow. Sorry guys I was being sarcastic. You all know my views on modifying and what I was describing above was an S Type. If you want better handling rather than radically alter an original Mk2 go buy an S type.

 

Don't worry, Rob. We know and appreciate that. Have a good Sunday!