MK2 radiator
#1
#3
#5
#7
Correct. Jaguar knew they were replacing all of the sedan range with the XJ6 so no effort was put into making the 240/340/380/ legal. It would have required a change of the entire facia--re engineering the brake system to dual master cylinder or dual braking system along with hundreds of other details. Canada imported the 240/340 and perhaps a 380 but not US.
Trending Topics
#8
Question though Jeff, if the Mk2 Slim line bumpered 240/340 was not imported to the US due to DOT issues why was the S Type still being imported into the US in June 1968?
Both the S Type and the 240/340 were built on the same platform, other than the rear suspension set up. Same wooden dash, single master cylinder brakes, single circuit brakes and so on. The 420 was a little more safety conscious in that it had a padded dash top but still had as far as I know single circuit brakes and single master cylinder and yet this was also still being imported to the US in 1969!
Both the S Type and the 240/340 were built on the same platform, other than the rear suspension set up. Same wooden dash, single master cylinder brakes, single circuit brakes and so on. The 420 was a little more safety conscious in that it had a padded dash top but still had as far as I know single circuit brakes and single master cylinder and yet this was also still being imported to the US in 1969!
#9
Cass Jaguar only put efforts in the E-Type to update for the 1968 NITSA or DOT standards. They did Not place any effort on any other sedan as the XJ6 (S1) was to be the range in the US. 420,420G,340,240, and S were not imported. It is possible there was unsold stock in the Tariff Free Zones (and most likely was) which could be sold as new but under the 67 rules. THese cars would have already "passed" inspections and were just held. The XJ6 was late to the US (69) so there was a void for a short period.
#12
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Llandudno, Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 5,138
Received 1,357 Likes
on
1,053 Posts
There are always anomalies in this DATA. On the S Type register we have a LHD 3.8 S Types with a manufacturer date of June 1968 in the US but who is to say this is not a later import from Europe or Canada. Thank you for information. They say learn something new everyday.
Last edited by Glyn M Ruck; 01-28-2020 at 08:05 PM.
#14
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Llandudno, Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 5,138
Received 1,357 Likes
on
1,053 Posts
Yes basically. The 420 was fully compliant. Another thing they had to do was reduce the size of the 7" headlights that the body was pressed for. So they installed a chrome filler piece so that the 420 had 4 ~ 5.7" approx headlights to meet US regulations. i.e. 4 small lights instead of large outers & small inners. Can't think of anything else offhand.
Last edited by Glyn M Ruck; 01-29-2020 at 06:22 AM.
#15
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Llandudno, Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 5,138
Received 1,357 Likes
on
1,053 Posts
#16
You know I had never noticed the smaller lights before Glyn. First glance without knowing and you think they are the standard 7 inch the same as the S Type then you see the large chrome insert to make them look bigger that the inner lights. Also the fact that all four lights are on the same level unlike the S type where the Fog/driving lights are lower than the main lights.
Very interesting and thank you.
Very interesting and thank you.
#17
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Llandudno, Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 5,138
Received 1,357 Likes
on
1,053 Posts
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)