Are the roads that bad that you must use all that "tar" and sound deadner?
Jeez that stuff is a pain. You could save at least 500# of weight if you
got rid of half of it.
I know... Leave it stock, like it was ment to be.
LOL

 

Not sure I understand the context of this post, but anyway.....

What is "tar" ? If it is the sound deadening body schutz and underseal on the underneath of the car, then I don't think using it is a pain at all. Jaguar wanted to produce a refined car, and were nervous that the panels of a monocoque body shell would reverberate and amplify road-generated noise. In addition, this stuff was put there to prevent stones impacting and damaging the paint on the underside and causing premature corrosion. OK, I know the cars corroded badly, but not from lack of "tar" and sound deadener.

The cars weigh a lot because the steel panels are of a fairly generous thickness, thickerer than we would use today. This is because monocoque body shells were in their infancy in the early 50s when this technique came into common use in the UK car industry. Detroit continued using separate chassis well into the 70s and maybe even the 80s.

 

The mk2 is a light car to me. a new mustang weighs in at 35-3700# and I have removed several hundred pounds off the front suspension by going to Chevy power. From past experience they handle much better.
Grace and Space have been maintained and Pace got a kick in the pants