So i ordered all the brake parts pretty much 2 years ago so that i had them ready to go when the time came to put them on. Now the time is here to put them on and well would you look at that they dont bloody fit... Not to mention i dished out 300$ for EBC's top of the line stuff... the part number i have is GD239 the black coated rotors. that is what every site i checked says is the right part. buuuuuutttttttttt trying to get the stub axle bolts thru there. nope doesnt line up...

can anyone shed any light as to what i should do?

 

It would be wise to call your order in to make doubly sure it would fit your car,
next time.
Walter

 

calling in wouldnt have made a difference when the EBC catalouge says that this is the right part number. i was hoping someone had info on any changes to the stub axles over time or something?

 

Is they any stamping/ID on the rotors to ensure that you actually got GD239 rather than something else?

What kind of Jag do you have?

Cheers
DD

 

they are stamped gd239 on the side. and i double checked my order history from summit racing. they are the right ones and i have a 1984 xj6 4.2

 

This is a bit of a stretch

For a spell in the mid 80s Jaguar was using differential manufactured by Dana rather than Salisbury. Both the Series III and XJS catalogs show this variant. It's not unusual to find an XJS so equipped (although usually '86-87) but I never heard of a Series III with the Dana-manufactured differential. But, that's just me.

Anyhow.....

Maybe the Dana diffs had a different bolt pattern on the stub axles? The Series III parts catalog shows a different part number for brake rotors on the cars with Dana-manufactured differentials.

Take a peek at the bottom of the differential. No drain plug = Dana-manufactured differential

Cheers
DD

 

got in touch with EBC brakes direct, they are sending me replacements in a few weeks free of charge.

 

What explanation did they give?

Cheers
DD

 

they said what i had was an old part number and that it most likely was supposed to be for another car altogether. All i know is they ordered a set in from the uk and should be here in a few weeks

 

Oh, sweet mysteries of life or bitter ones???


Four equally spaced holes on a 5" circumference where 4 on a 4 1/2 circumference needed?


Few weeks!!! Another mismatch ???


Reminds me of my 53 MG TD issue circa 1954. One night, in over exuberance and reliance on the touted ability of it to navigate sharp turns, I went off road. No serious hurt to me or my passenger. But, the MG suffered some bent tin. And worse, a bent driver side spindle. Easy? I in Germany at the time. Factory just across the channell! Of course not! Two tries for a replacement got a passenger side spindle.


Ugh, "indian fix I self". Fortunately, normal hand tools removed it easily. So, one Sunday. Day off from 50 Mg teaching assignment, I went hunting. Lo and behold, in the German country side I found a small shop and open. A young guy in charge. working on a restoring a derelict of some type. And, even more wonders, the star of his small shop was a big hydraulic press. Language differences not at issue. His slight English and my lessor German adequate. What was unequivocal was the super exaggerated positive camber of my car's left front wheel!!! A coupe of efforts and we got as far as the geometry would take us. Very close, but with a barely detectable + camber. So much better!!! We shared a delicious morning beer. I had Dmarks to pay him. Quite reasonable in my lexicon. I am sure it was quite welcome to him.


At a 4 to 1 script to Dmark ratio, even a 1st Looey was rich!!
Carl