I was looking at some of the original XKEs and did not recall this one with the leaper. Was the leaper standard on this model, a 1974 V-12 XKE?

Now, I do admit that with those horrendous bumper protectors protruding out and distracting the eye, it is less offensive than on our newer models, but maybe this is why some people actually want them on the newer ones?

 

I could be wrong, but I don't think any of the original XKE's or E-Types had leapers. And if any of them did, they shouldn't have.

They look right on the sedans, but not on the sleek, low coupes and ragtops, in my opinion. Not even the old ones.

 

OK, I answered my own question. I went and looked up some more images of that model year and they did not have that leaper. The thing that threw me off at first was that that photo was from Wikipedia, so I falsely assumed it was some sort of "official" photo.

If I was into the Wiki thing, I'd go on there and replace it.


Jaguar E-Type - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Are those grotesque black rubber bumpers fitted OE for the '74 US XKE or is it some aftermarket deviation?

Graham

 

 

They were OE. Part of the new wave of safety trend in the US at that time.

And while I'm here I want to thank you guys for more confirmation that the leaper does not belong on the XK8. I think this might finally convince my wife that it just doesn't look right on her car. Thanks guys.

EZDriver

 

Those were required for the US market. The US came up with a regulation that the front bumper needed to handle something like a 5 mph collision into a wall with no damage to the car, and the rear had to withstand something like a 2.5 mph collision, so the car companies put those hideous "bumper guards" on the cars to comply. My 1974 Duster had them, but not nearly so obtrusive as the ones on that Jag.

 

Were they 'energy absorbing'?

The UK and US spec XK8/XKR have different bumper components. Your US ones are energy absorbing but ours just have plain brackets.

Graham

 

Only insofar as the large rubber piece provided. What they did was to mount them directly in front of the strongest part of the frame on each side so that the impact went directly to those two specific points.

It was pretty quickly realized to be a stupid regulation as the truth is that the likelihood that a car would run directly into a solid wall in a perfect 90 degree angle the way that the test was conducted is extremely remote. If you hit any other part of the bumper as you would in 99%+ of actual collisions the entire concept was useless.

Eventually, they re-engineered and did put some shock absorbing devices behind the bumpers and some plastic pieces on the sides so that the bumper could actually take a minor hit and move back without damaging the metal body.

 

What they really needed was something to stop people stomping on the go pedal instead of the stop one and driving into a shop front, there seems to be one on the news every week.

 

They've got one of those. They call it "the human brain", but, as you note, it is subject to frequent malfunction.

 

As written by Kevin
The problem, about 50% didn't get one.

 

Like those who need big rubber lumps in case they drive into a wall at 5mph.

 

Looks like the rubber bumper designers then moved on to Drive-In Deli design?

Graham

 

I am a believer in originality, but if that was my E type I think I would go with an earlier series bumer and grille. And loose the leaper.

 

Made me shudder to look at it! I hate to say this, but it almost reminds me of a pimp-mobile.

 

I had a similar set of bumper extensions on my 1974 Mazda RX-4. In fact, they were identical. The first time I was hit from the rear it broke the extension off and the shock was severe enough to break my seat tracks where they bolted to the floor. I think the impact was at about 5 mph. So much for "protection".