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.
Not sure about handling but having had lower profile tyres on my S Type when I bought it they just don't look right. This size of tyre just does not fill the arch and leaves a massive gap at the top. Also you have to remember that a good percentage of the suspension on a Mk2 is the tyre. The springs and shocks will go up and down but they are not modern ride standard so having a low profile tyres means you will feel every little bump in the road.
Unless you are looking to race it what is wrong with the standard handling of a Mk2?
The Mk2 is an understeering pig whereas the S Type with IRS can be coaxed into very mild oversteer. The best tyres that somewhat ameliorate this tendency are 185 VR 15 Michelin XVS or 185 HR 15 Michelin XVS-P.
Both move it closer to neutral steering ~ You don't need the VR rated version other than that. As Cass says they fill the wheelarch far better as a bonus.
Last edited by Glyn M Ruck; May 19, 2023 at 03:02 AM.
The profile/aspect ratio of the original tyres for the car 185 X 15 is in fact 79 to 80 ~ it is not 65 or 70
EDIT ~ The last time I checked Longstone Tyres UK have plenty of stock, I'm fitting 185 HR 15 Michelin XVS-P to my car to replace the 20 year old new Generals now fitted. I don't trust them. Another benefit of the Michelins is that they have substantial rim protection built in and are latest carcass construction..
Playing around in black & white on my camera.
Correct Michelin.
Last edited by Glyn M Ruck; May 19, 2023 at 03:59 AM.
16 inch or 15 inch wheels: this is much discussed for XJ cars. Many fear a loss of comfort; however, of those who've made the switch, I don't recall any expressing regrets. It opens up a greater choice of tyres at a reasonable price. A potential negative is the appearance of a slightly lower side wall, which is a matter of personal taste.
I've always run my Mk2 tyre pressures on the high side, 36F and 33R. It made the steering sharper and easier without PAS, reduced understeer a little, gave even wear across the tread, and didn't seem to affect comfort. The fact is that any old Jaguar has a super smooth ride compared with anything modern, especially compared with most of the German machinery.
For a car that's had its roof cut off, there may be a loss of stiffness in the structure and it might be more sensitive to a reduction in compliance in the tyres and suspension and suffer some creaks and groans.
The Mk2 tendency to understeer can be ameliorated. Apart from tyre pressures, I'd reduce camber and increase castor. The original settings were optimised for reduced steering effort in non-PAS cars. I might also turn the top wishbone upside down to reduce camber change with roll. Increased roll stiffness at both ends of the car would also help, but that's beginning to change the nature of the machine.
Much of the above is opinion and carries no guarantees!
Peter ~ they are pretty much all comfortable. One problem is adequate increase in caster. You can only move it slightly. I would like to see around 9 degrees which is not possible without major surgery.
A fintail Mercedes of similar period is just as comfortable as any Jag with ergonomically correct seats and far higher build standards/quality. Look at all the build/assembly complaints you have about your Mk2.
The UK does not have a homegrown car industry left. Everything built there is foreign.
Last edited by Glyn M Ruck; May 19, 2023 at 05:21 AM.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant any luxury car, and most decent cars, of the 1960s have a more compliant ride than just about any modern car. They may rattle or even vibrate, but you can safely put your tongue between your teeth. According to a report the other day, the most reliable luxury car over 3 years of ownership is an Audi. That's very good, but impression has been that Audi suffer more than most of 'designed for the Nurburgring' which is irrelevant to and unpleasant in reality. My modern XK would be a better car if it were a lot softer. The levels of grip and handling and electronic correction of driver error are so far beyond how far you can see and how stupid anyone around you can be that there's no need for such stiffness - apart from a visit to the Nurburgring. And the XK is soft compared with many of its competitors of the time. There are lessons to be learned from old Peugeots and Citroens, never mind Jaguars. For me Jaguar peaked on the ride, handling, NVH front with the XJ40/X300. Those cars had many faults, but for those aspects the were great.
No one would question the build quality of German manufacturers in the 1960s. Even the most atrocious concepts were extremely well put together.
My modern pillarless Benz Coupe 3.5 Quadcam V6 is supremely comfortable. You can drive it for 10 hours at a shot & get out feeling extremely refreshed & ready for another run. Spot on suspension & ergonomically designed & adjustable in every way, seats. The only downside is I ticked the box for the uprated anti roll bars. If I take a speed bump anything other than straight on it will rock you from side to side. My fault ~ I should have adopted the standard set up. Otherwise it is a massively comfortable car. It may be pillarless but it is as stiff as all hell. Go through a ditch at an angle & it will lift a back wheel. Thank heavens for limited slip diffs. I would rather have it than any modern Callum era Jag.
As a friend of mine put it, the XK X150 is very much the last Jaguar. Too much body roll is undesirable, but minimizing it to near zero has become a fixation. We have some amazing potholes in Oxfordshire. The XK copes with them perfectly in terms of maintaining adhesion and control, but it lets you know the precise dimensions of the hole. An old Peugeot or Toyota Camry would just bounce a little. I thought the old Camry with its soft springs and long wheel travel was a wobbly mess of a car until I lived in Houston and found how well it coped with the discontinuities in road surface there.
Americans have always criticised Mercedes seats for being too firm. It's that very firmness that forces correct posture & why you feel fine after 10 hours on the road. Cadillac have to have some of the worst seats on the market. After 10 hours on the road you have aches & pains where you did not know they were possible due to their crap seats that you lounge in. I have never felt the need to use the massage function. I'm just damn comfortable with a firmly supported lower spine.
Last edited by Glyn M Ruck; May 19, 2023 at 05:10 PM.
"The profile/aspect ratio of the original tyres for the car 185 X 15 is in fact 79 to 80 ~ it is not 65 or 70".
Glyn
I acknowledge your profile remarks of the 185/15 tyre. The Australian equivalent is 195/70/15. I have cross checked this against a number of sources.
The difference in overall diameter between 195/65/15 which I am using and 195/70/15 is about one and a half inches.
Perhaps some people mistake the second profile number as being a reduced sidewall depth rather than the aspect ratio.
Cheers
"The profile/aspect ratio of the original tyres for the car 185 X 15 is in fact 79 to 80 ~ it is not 65 or 70".
Glyn
I acknowledge your profile remarks of the 185/15 tyre. The Australian equivalent is 195/70/15. I have cross checked this against a number of sources.
Yes Bill that would make absolute sense as you are going up a size. All that matters at the end of the day is the rolling circumference of the tyre ~ cosmetics aside. My comment came from an extremely irate Frenchman ~ namely the Technical Director of Michelin at the time. He had just got off the phone to someone. We sell them tons of extract at many plants globally and I was sitting patiently in his office opposite him.
The fellow at the other end of the phone got an earful. One Frenchman was trying to explain that prior to aspect ratio in the nomenclature on the sidewall of the tyre that it was 79/80 ~ not 100 and not 70.
I felt like saying that the average man in the street would not know that and that he & I were technical people but the timing was wrong. We calmed him down with a very strong cup of coffee that his secretary brought us & changed subject to capacity of our Star refinery in Thailand and I was able to ensure him that we could meet his demands for product with ease & at the same price. We then went out for a fine lunch.
... and if we recall the last time we discussed tyre sizes, Glyn found the photo (from Lonstone?) that made it clear that some of the numbers on the sidewall are a touch 'nominal.'
BTW Bill ~ The Australian equivalent is 195/70/15 ~ Their is nothing peculiar to Australia about this size. It might be more prolific in Aus because it was standard fitment to a Holden or Ford at some time. They are available in many places around the world including SA where I can buy them off the shelf but they are no good for a show car. Wrong size.
Last edited by Glyn M Ruck; May 20, 2023 at 04:23 PM.
... and if we recall the last time we discussed tyre sizes, Glyn found the photo (from Lonstone?) that made it clear that some of the numbers on the sidewall are a touch 'nominal.'
Fine were definitely not good for American cars.
Peter this is the photo of 185 X 15's that you are likely referring to. It should however be noted that none of these are mounted or inflated to equal pressure. All fitted to classic Jags OE at some time ~ The monster 2nd Right was under the old British cross-ply rating e.g. 640 X 15. It's a Dunlop RS 5. Tyre 2nd to Left is a Dunlop SP41 or SP73 dependent on market. It was known as an SP73 in SA as an example. Cross ply tyres ran at lower pressures than Radials where max 40 psi was dictated by Jaguar & the tyre manufacturers. ~ Source of picture, the UK E Type forum.
I'm sure you recognise them left to right. Michelin, Dunlop, Good Year, Pirelli, Avon, Dunlop, Michelin.
Last edited by Glyn M Ruck; May 20, 2023 at 03:34 PM.
Not withstanding scrub, steering geometry and speedometer error does anybody know how a Mk 2 handles with these low profiles?
Depending on your taste there are many options to keep a classic look to modern. Here is a good tire/wheel height calculator to easily hep show you options, https://tiresize.com/height-calculator/
I believe the stock is 185/60/15, which equals 23.7" in height. Thus you can go with 15, 16,17" and with the calculator you can keep the height as close to stock as you desire. As an example to fill up the wheel well you can even go to a 17" wheel that is 7-8" wide and put a 215/40/17 and you would be 23.8" in height or a 205/40/17 and be at 23.5", also a 195/40/17" and be 23.1".
A 16" you can put a 195/60/16" and be the same as your OEM 15" and go a little wider with a 215/45/16" at 23.6" or a 205/45/16" and be at 23.3"
You can get custom offset wheel that look like the Dunlop Jaguar racing wheel from many places like this, https://www.imagewheels.co.uk/billet-46-alloy-wheel/ and with the right offset you can put a wider tire easily.
I am on the extreme as if you modify the Jag with narrower springs with coil overs then you gain many inches to allow for way wider than above as I am running 245" wide 40 series 17" on my 3.8s with no flares on the stock body. Even by just going one to two tire sizes up say a 195 or 205 or even 215 you should have no rubbing issues and if you use the calculator you can find the right tire that will be close to stock height which will avoid issues.
