trchris Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 Hi Pete l guess the previous owner didn’t question the invoices as there’s duplicated jobs as Stuart says. I remember very well in my earlier days as a jaguar apprentice doing valve caps and shims l still have the cam timing plate and chain tensioner tool in my box somewhere. My very experienced jaguar mechanic teacher at the time, told me that the jaguar factory use to ask if there were any E type owners with a very low mileage 3.8 engines that they would swop for a brand new factory supplied unit as they wanted them for the factory race team as they were already run in ( before my time in the early 60s ) anyway I digress looks like you’re enjoying it and l hope you have plenty of fun, one of my favourite of the jaguars! Chris Quote
stillp Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 That's gorgeous Pete. If you ever feel like a swap back to a TR4A letmeknow! Pete Quote
stuart Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 Like you say Pete the video isnt the best quality but what you can hear is definitely tappet noise not a bucket moving as they clatter rather than the overall steady ticking on yours. Also while we are on I found the original temperature control for the auto choke worked fine, On the top of the water rail at the front you will see a triangular plate thats where the temperature control sender would be mounted, its an "Otter" switch (Thats the trademark name of it) Its thimble shaped under the top plate to sit in the water jacket behind the thermostat and has a wiring tag on top, it cuts out at 35c Owners back in the day didnt very often look under the bonnet and as soon as those cars went into the second hand market the servicing dropped to zero and the temperature switch often failed after a few more years and so the standard fix was to fit a manual switch but then youve got to remember to switch it off, as yours doesnt have air cleaners you wouldnt be able to hear the "Hiss" that they make when the electric choke is running. Its basically a third carburettor in principle and can be tuned to give best performance by adjusting the needle with its adjusting nut. I think Ive got the cam setting tool and the timing chain adjusting tool somewhere in the back of my tool box as well. Stuart. Quote
Bfg Posted February 7 Author Report Posted February 7 (edited) 11. On 2/1/2026 at 4:36 PM, BlueTR3A-5EKT said: Do you want to borrow my body dozer to ‘shift’ the B post? Thanks Peter, don't tempt me The issue with Carmen's seats not going back further was, as expected ..a matter of the re-trimmer unsuccessfully altering the car's interior trim details. I don't know why because the new trim over her B-posts and rear-wheel-arches is not as attractive. They're just a minor trim item I'd like to revert back to near standard. ^ This the what the XK150's rear seat space looks like without trim, ^^ and when retrimmed correctly the rear wheel arch trim is a concave shape around the seat back, just narrow enough for the seat to push further back. ^ when Carmen was retrimmed they covered the arch with carpet, put a lid on top, which a seat belt fastening passes through (unsealed from the wheel arch below) and a box was made to go over the lower section, which has wiring behind it. That box instead of tapering to its front edge is parallel with the inside of the car, and so is 1/2" wider for the seat to (not) push passed. Removing this trimmer's leather-covered box frees up 3/4" in width. Underneath it was a 1/4" thick layer of black felt, which is being used for sound deadening. For the time being I've left that in place (third photo) and covered the hard metal edges with gaffer tape ..just as temporary layer of protection for the leather seats. I'll have this retrimmed at a later date. my first priority is to be able to drive the car. Her cosmetics can wait until later. ^ The seat runner was drilled with another, further back, seat adjustment notch, and the runners lubricated (they were dry and the ball bearing inside locked up beforehand). And of course - usual for me.. the through-the-floor fixings were moved back 48mm. No more as I still wanted them to fasten through the under floor reinforcement plates. . . Result . . . 90mm further back. The seat's upholstery over the bottom corner of the side of the seat was similarly overly fat, but under that is sheet aluminium which easily pinched in with a little bit of wooden mallet persuasion. I haven't yet done the same with the passenger seat yet, but I will. It's seat-to-footwell length is generous anyway, so, like the retrimming of the B-posts - the task can wait until after I've made the car driveable for myself. ^ I'm next looking at modifying the pedals. According to invoices, these are reproduction items for a RHD XK120. As you can see the toe of my size 12 workshop shoes catches on the steering-column tube, there no rest for my foot aside from on the floor switch for main-beam / dip-beam, and the pedal itself comes only half-way-up my foot ...meaning I'm pushing the clutch and brake pedal with my foot's medial-arch rather than the ball (..the 1st Met-head) of the foot, which is both uncomfortable and less effective. I don't have this issue with the standard XK150's I've driven, so I might only guess the pedal's mounting point on the chassis is lower than on the Jaguar 120. This geometry wouldn't even be very good for someone with a size 8 shoe, because I'm sure they'd likewise find the pedal heavy and its motion is abrupt. I'll try and find out what the correct pedals looks like, and I'll either replace these or modify them to suit. I'm also looking to buy some traditional seat belts.. She needs Furflex door-trim-edging too. If it hadn't been the 7-hour round trip to Stoneleigh from here - I would have gone across to the classic auto-jumble tomorrow. Instead I'll have to shop on-line. That's all for tonight, but when it's not drizzling with rain - I am making a little progress. ..albeit small feet-steps at a time I bid you a good evening. Pete Edited February 22 by Bfg Quote
Bfg Posted February 7 Author Report Posted February 7 (edited) 12. On 2/3/2026 at 11:46 AM, stuart said: Like you say Pete the video isn't the best quality but what you can hear is definitely tappet noise not a bucket moving as they clatter rather than the overall steady ticking on yours. I think Ive got the cam setting tool and the timing chain adjusting tool somewhere in the back of my tool box as well. Stuart. Thank you Stuart for your feedback. I greatly value your experience-based opinion. "overall steady ticking of yours" sounds good to me I have a couple of camshaft locking plates in my polytunnel shed, and I seem to remember seeing a camshaft adjusting tool 'somewhere', although until I looked it up - I'd forgotten what it is for, and now I have only the vaguest of idea where it might be. Carmen has the more lumpy 3.8 ltr engine (the 3.4 generally seem to sound quieter to me) and, according to invoices, her engine was rebuilt with 9:1 compression pistons and a D-type production specification camshaft. I guess each of these factors add to being a little noisier than 'standard' XK spec. ? NB. I didn't look to buy a higher compression or those cams, They just happened to be fitted to a car which was otherwise better than others I'd seen for the price. I asked on Facebook 'XK Engines' if they might advise what the tappet clearance would be best set to, One gent post this in reply . . . .. which tells me another 0.04" clearance ..on top of the standard 0.04" inlet and 0.06" exhaust. Another Gent said 0.10" (implying both inlet & exhaust) "on all my Jaguar race engines with the D Type cam". Carmen's pistons came from Gee's Automotive Engines, pt # 20615KR +020" which I've looked on line and see they are still 9:1 ..which this engine was factory built as. Carmen's invoice for the D-type Prod. Spec. Camshafts The prior owner appears to have been trying to bring the car up to 'S' spec. with door badges and triple carbs, but those items have since gone. and we're back to twin HD8's. with open bell mouth intakes. The clutch feels abrupt but its part number suggests it's the standard 9-1/2" diaphragm, so I guess it feels heavy and short travel because the pedal's lever arm is so short (just 6" above the floor without carpets) ..too short for my 12" foot. ! Pete Edited February 22 by Bfg Quote
Bfg Posted February 9 Author Report Posted February 9 (edited) 13. 8th February - Workshop notes ; From my pre-purchase inspection, and the car having been barely used over the past 35 years, I had started to formulate a job-list in my mind. Despite displaying elements of bravado to have bought and driven the car back up from Kent - it would have been stupid too. Likewise, now that the car is up here, it would be dumb to use her, even just locally, without first checking certain things out. My old buddy, Chris the Builder, asked if the car would pass an MoT ? Whether a certificate is, or is not, required by law on this age of vehicle is not the point - any driver has a responsibility to ensure their vehicle is 'legally roadworthy' before using it on a public highway. Sadly I fear that means nothing to 90% of today's road users because they simply wouldn't know where to look. Arguably vehicle maintenance and road sense really ought to be a compulsory part of the school curriculum, but empirical evidence leads me to doubt it is. I explained that Carmen appears solid and driveable, but there are a number of items that would fail an MoT test ; To start off with - there's excessive play in the steering, excessive play in one front wheel (whether bearings or its attachment I suspected but was not sure), there are rubber gaiters which allow grime in, and a mismatch of tyres on the rear axle. Oil leaks may have been an advisory, and I suspect the indicator switch is being ironic ..ie., its operation is intermittent. And then, although the car is 'driveable' ..as I had done when I was buying her, it would be daft not first to check things like the oil level in the gearbox and differential. I wonder how many times showing off a new car has subsequently cost the owner dearly ? With age comes come better, although rarely good, sense ! The other day I sat down and tried to rationalise those into some sort of priority. I did this under four categories ; 1. Maintenance & recommissioning. 2. Usability ..for me (my size) + passenger 3. Safety on today's roads 4. Preservation .. bodywork & chrome / structure / interior / rubber & plastic parts 5. Improvements & personalisation. It adds up to quite a list .. 46 items to start off with, which will inevitably grow as I delve deeper. Even before buying her, based on my recent experiences with Katie & Burble, I envisioned these would probably stretch out over a couple of years. It is necessary to 'happily' accept that as a mindset (as a hobby), not only because I'd be the one crawling around under the car doing those things, but equally because I don't have a bundle of money to throw at her ..nor indeed for repeated postal costs of buying one gasket or seal because I'd forgotten to order it in advance. An example of 'new owner enthusiasm' may be illustrated ; Carmen has a flat tyre in the boot, and an odd size (of unknown date) spare wheel fitted on the rear axle. The four good (apart from one being flat) tyres are 205/70-16" radials which is rather wide. The XK's original spec was 6" - 6-1/2" crossplys. Longstone (vintage tyres specialist) recommend we buy 185/80-16" radials as the best compromise for today's driving conditions. So I enthusiastically thought to myself - I'd like to fit those on her front axle. The 20mm narrower tyres on the front would facilitate lighter steering at parking speeds. And rather than waste money I'd wear the (almost new) 205's out on the rear. But the recommended 16" high-speed rated tyres are expensive .. £235 - £450 each. And with the mileage I do ..at sensible road speeds, I'd would barely wear just two of the four 205 tyres out in 10 years. They'd then be replaced / thrown away because of then being 15 years old. No., perhaps it's best for me to live with the 205's heavier parking speed steering, and save my money for other more demanding things ..like petrol costs. Similarly I have to curb my new owner enthusiasm, and not just order things like front suspension ball-joint gaiters. I know I'll need them soon, but let's wait a week or two until I have compiled a list of similar items from the same supplier. It will most certainly mean that I can't get on and do just one job, and get that out of the way, but as the analogy goes I'm in a two year 'marathon, not a sprint' ..and I have plenty to get on with. Anyway, moving along . .. ^ Even when the drizzle stops and the February sun comes out for a few hours, a barn-like workshop is a dismal place. Garage envy may be for the space to work around the car, but not in the showroom like workshop, nor in the lack of heat and poor lighting. At this time of year metal tools are cold, and there's a layer of damp clinging to everything. ^ ^ I was down here, under the arches, the other day, The front-left wheel felt very loose in both the vertical and horizontal planes, whereas the front-right wheel has even more loose play in the horizontal (steering rack direction) and non at all in the vertical ..which tells me the wheel bearings are good. The front-left wheel's spline was greased but insufficiently so. I applied a liberal coating of Copaslip to the spline and also to the cones that the wheel's hub must settle tight into. One cone is on the hub, the other is in the knock-on wheel nut. Thankfully, I was right, when the wheel is wobbled and turned and wobbled again during refitting - the wire wheel centred on the cones ..and tightened up nicely. Now there's no play felt in the vertical, and only a slight amount in the horizontal. My task today then ; was to remove then wheel again and to investigate whether the play I could now feel was in the steering rack itself, or in the steering rack's mounting. Note ; The car ramp has a thick block of timber on it and that is under the chassis, same on the other side ..so it's safe to work under the car. Working alone, in a remote farmyard workshop where there's no phone signal inside the barn, it's worthwhile being a little extra cautious. ! ^ The inner wheelarch has removable access covers, which aside from anything allow access to the steering rack mounts. The outside fastenings I could reach tightened up by 1/4 of a turn. I needed to check and tighten the others. ^ ^ I had previously visually observed (although not listed on my job list) that the replacement (..originally a dynamo) alternator's fan belt was not straight (red arrow shows an aluminium straight edge checking just how out of line things were) The alternator had been positioned 1/4" back. And so while access and lighting from the side was 'improved' ..and because it was easier to get to the steering rack mounts with it off, I pulled the alternator. ^ With the alternator removed I could now more clearly see the steering rack mountings. But still I couldn't get to them all because of the lower cowling to the cooling fan. That part of the cowling is of folded aluminium and it rattled. It looked home made, and to me.. didn't actually seem to be doing very much because there's a chassis cross-member under it anyway, so the cooling fan could only draw air through the radiator. Furthermore the cowling was not tight enough to the fan tips to improve their efficiency. It had to be bent to be removed and I doubt if I'll refit it. Now the steering rack mount(s) could be seen and accessed. This steering rack is, I gather from receipts, from a Mk.2 Jaguar and this mounting appears to have been adapted to position it some 2" further forward. The steering rack sits upon a shallow rubber Isolastic block, As a consequence there were, I think, 10 nuts and bolts to fasten ..just for this end. Each were not very tight. 1/4 turns on most, ranging to a few turns loose on one fastening. While at it ; I pulled back the rack's gaiter and greased the protruding end of the rack. I don't know if grease outside the rack makes any difference but it surely won't hurt. Under the gaiter itself, where my hand is, is the inner track rod end, and that does need to be greased. With the wheel back on 95% or more of the wobble has gone. I can now only feel very slight play, which I attribute to the wheel bearings being cold. They'll be checked at a later date when I replace the steering's ball-joint gaiters . . . ^ the top ball joint gaiter is there but not over the ball joint which is dry (aside from the splashes of penetrating oil, I've squirted around all fastenings). This top joint also has no grease nipple. ^ ^ the bottom ball joint gaiter has a 1/8" opening in its side. Passed due replacement (again over the past 30 years). The bottom grease nipple is clear but grease is not coming out of the gaiter's split. I need to focus on one job at a time (..disregarding my switching from seats to steering ) and so I'll look at the RH side of the steering before tackling these joints. Getting things back together though .. the alternator . . . ^ The spacer tube, through the rear hinge of the alternator was central, but is easily pushed to one side, so as to position the alternator further forward. A 6mm spacer between the front lug, and a similar in the adjustment bracket's fastening completed the (rather fiddly and awkward to reach) job. The fan belt now runs true, and I've also noted the belt's part number for when I order spares. The engine oil leak mostly appears to be from the breather. I'll need to research why, and will tend to that later. I've not yet replaced the LHS wheel arch's access panel, because I may still have to pull the steering rack off the car when I look at the RHS. But for the time being several jobs have been done, although just one item ; Front left wheel wobble / steering, ticked off my list. Pete Edited February 22 by Bfg Quote
stuart Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 Peter the breather arrangement was changed subsequently on 62 cars to comply with California emission regulations and instead of the corrugated aluminium tube down to atmosphere on yours they had an upright spigot fitted with a tube that fed back into the underside of the intake manifold next to the carbs. This was done to stop the loss of oil out of the breather that your seeing. XK 120 engines were rated to use 1pt of oil per 100 miles Stuart. Quote
trchris Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 Hi Pete as a extra to Stuart’s post the gauze breather inside the housing is recommended to be cleaned every service it’s something that’s overlooked if you don’t know, and when removed gives access to adjust the timing chain Chris Quote
Bfg Posted February 9 Author Report Posted February 9 (edited) 14. On 2/9/2026 at 1:12 PM, stuart said: Peter the breather arrangement was changed subsequently on 62 cars to comply with California emission regulations and instead of the corrugated aluminium tube down to atmosphere on yours they had an upright spigot fitted with a tube that fed back into the underside of the intake manifold next to the carbs. This was done to stop the loss of oil out of the breather that your seeing. XK 120 engines were rated to use 1pt of oil per 100 miles Stuart. I knew they had a reputation but ! ! . . . At even 1/10th of that rate I'd fit a catch tank and pour the oil back into the engine. ! I think Carmen's engine's breather is missing bits (..I was investigating this afternoon) ... - vs - ^ From the Moss website - vs - as fitted to Carmen's engine, without even a gasket ...the cheapskates. The studs are too short for two gaskets and a baffle / gauze plate. I'll need to change them. Item 3 offers two alternatives a solid baffle with two holes in it, which is "original for all XK's. It was superseded by the screen baffle." (as illustrated). My sunbeam motorcycle (introduced in 1945) have three one way valves from its rocker cover (..to create negative crankcase pressure), and then a gauze mesh, and then a baffle plate which only the top half is open but which also has a small drain hole at the bottom of that plate ..to allow oil to return back into the engine. It works very well, not least considering the engine has two pistons simultaneously going up or down the bore ..at any given moment at anything up to 5000 rpm. I see the Mk.2 engine breather cap and a dog-leg vertical riser, to catch and return oil ..before its pipe goes going to the inlet manifold. It's unusual not to see the coil mounted across the front on this car, but it illustrates the crankcase breather well. On 2/9/2026 at 1:21 PM, trchris said: Hi Pete as a extra to Stuart’s post, the gauze breather inside the housing is recommended to be cleaned every service it’s something that’s overlooked if you don’t know, and when removed gives access to adjust the timing chain Chris Cheers Chris, I wouldn't have known to dismantle part of the engine to clean a filter out. I have a workshop manual for the Xk120 & Mk VII, and another for teh Mk.2 Jaguars but I haven't studied them yet. "Peter should do his homework on time" Thank you both. I'm enjoying the new learning curve. Pete Edited February 22 by Bfg Quote
stuart Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 (edited) 16 hours ago, Bfg said: I knew they had a reputation but ! ! . . . At even 1/10th of that rate I'd fit a catch tank and pour the oil back into the engine. ! I think Carmen's engine's breather is missing bits (..I was investigating this afternoon) ... - vs - ^ From the Moss website - vs - as fitted to Carmen's engine, without even a gasket ...the cheapskates. The studs are too short for two gaskets and a baffle / gauze plate. I'll need to change them. Item 3 offers two alternatives a solid baffle with two holes in it, which is "original for all XK's. It was superseded by the screen baffle." (as illustrated). My sunbeam motorcycle (introduced in 1945) have three one way valves from its rocker cover (..to create negative crankcase pressure), and then a gauze mesh, and then a baffle plate which only the top half is open but which also has a small drain hole at the bottom of that plate ..to allow oil to return back into the engine. It works very well, not least considering the engine has two pistons simultaneously going up or down the bore ..at any given moment at anything up to 5000 rpm. I see the Mk.2 engine breather cap and a dog-leg vertical riser, to catch and return oil ..before its pipe goes going to the inlet manifold. It's unusual not to see the coil mounted across the front on this car, but it illustrates the crankcase breather well. Cheers Chris, I wouldn't have known to dismantle part of the engine to clean a filter out. I have a workshop manual for the Xk120 & Mk VII, and another for teh Mk.2 Jaguars but I haven't studied them yet. "Peter should do his homework on time" Thank you both. I'm enjoying the new learning curve. Pete You can see those studs arent correct as they should be exactly the same stud as used on the cam covers with a lead in and the retaining nuts are also the same, the two gaskets and screen are very thin anyway. The oil use wasnt through breathing that was actually use out the exhaust! With another reference to the cams I would be tempted to have a look and see if they have actually been fitted at all judging by the rest of the work. Make sure you have the rocker cover gaskets and new rubbers for the seal plate on the left hand cam and the rev counter drive out of the right hand cover. (That`ll test your mettle leaning over to renew those, dont lose the tiny screws that locate them) The cams have part numbers cast on them. Stuart. Edited February 10 by stuart Quote
Bfg Posted February 13 Author Report Posted February 13 (edited) Thanks Stuart, I'll add those rocker cover gaskets and seal to the shopping list. 15. Breather Update : Without the correct baffle plate or gauze-in-plate (yet) - I came up with my own quick n' easy solution . . . I had an off cut piece of gauze, from where I made pick-up-pipe filters for inside the fuel tank of my post-war Sunbeam motorcycles. It was what I had to hand ..and I just wanted to get on with the task of fitting an oil separator ..and not wait upon my shopping list, ordering, picking, packaging & postage, which would have taken things into the middle of next week. The gauze sheet was cut to size and simply rolled into a tube, which projects the full width of the breather cover. You can work out the surface area of gauze ; 2-1/2" long x 3/4" diameter ..which is larger than the mesh area on the gauze-in-plate part;. The gauze cannot go anywhere because its rolled length includes the full length of the tube onto which the aluminium breather pipe fits. As I didn't have a cornflake package to make a gasket from (only one needed) I cut it from the card of a pizza box ..Oh how times have changed ! I applied a light smear of non-setting gasket cement to help its seal. It's a temporary fix as I'll order the correct baffle plate, x2 gaskets and the longer studs ...and fit them in due course. In the meantime - it's back together again, and I can wash down the front of the engine, of its oil leak residue, to see if this was the only source of the leak. ..always an optimist p. Edited February 22 by Bfg Quote
Bfg Posted February 21 Author Report Posted February 21 (edited) Update 16. - Carmen's work-in-progress. ..first to finish up with the crankcase breather. After sleeping on it I realised the gauze I fitted would help separate the engine oil from the crankcase mist, but what oil got through would then just flow out of the breather tube. I decided to put obstacles in its way, firstly by fitting a low dam, and then I followed that up with a slightly modified breather pipe run. . . ^ In the end of the breather cover tube you may be able to see that I fitted a segment of rubber grommet, to provide a low wall that crankcase air may go over, but which would encourage any oil sitting in the pipe to run back towards the engine. The revised breather pipe was easy - I simply took advantage of it being ductile aluminium.. to bend its route upwards by 1/2" (second photo) before dropping its route down to chassis level. Pending minor seepage from the jubilee clip, this will definitely encourage engine oil, separated from the crankcase mist to run back into the engine. Job done. I started the engine and allowed her to warm up, with the water temperature gauge reading 85 deg. And let her tick-over for 20-30 minutes. My home made gasket worked.. There is now no oil leak. And perhaps the gauze was also working as hoped, because there was absolutely no oil from the breather pipe at all. The concrete under the breather pipe was perfectly dry even of crankcase condensation. Naturally the engine was only at tickover, but I'm confident that this minor battle is won. Why have the engine ticking over for so long ? ..even after the water was hot. Well, I wanted to assess the 150's standard cooling fan, and whether it was enough at tickover to prevent overheating. The earlier XK120 and 140 didn't have nearly so many blades on their cooling fan, and they had a reputation, even from new for overheating if left to stew in their own heat. Carmen appears to be fine. whether that will still be true after a fast run down the motorway and then sitting in Dart-tunnel traffic congestion remains to be seen, but as a workshop test, it proved reassuring. I did however find the cause of another worry, that I'd noted during my pre-purchase inspection. That was an occasional but inconsistent slapping sound. I feared it might be a slack valve timing chain or a faulty tensioner. More optimistically I hoped it might be the fan belt occasionally sticking in the deep V of its pulley, but that's not the case. This car doesn't have deep V pulleys. The belt is a C-19524 duplex / double-V type. as used on the E-type S1. The noise I heard turned out to be one or more of the cooling fan's blades occasionally catching the inside of the after market (fibreglass) fan cowling. Why it should only catch occasional ? is a mystery ..perhaps something to do with oscillating resonance or something, but it was an easy task to turn the fan by hand and feel (cannot be seen) which fan blade tips were closest, and with those being made from aluminium, to ease them away from that cowling. Another worry seeming sorted. In answer to Stuart's query, as to whether D-type spec. camshafts were actually fitted ? I haven't yet bought gaskets and so without venturing to lift the rocker covers ..I suspect the following suggest that they were / are . . . ^ Peeking through the oil filler cap, on the engine's exhaust side, with the help of camera with flash - I can see a pretty extreme cam-profile. Certainly in my experience with (at their time) powerful British bikes, and subsequently quite an assortment of classic cars - I've not seen the likes. Together with the the hi-torque starter motor being 'marginal' against the engine's compression, and the general lumpiness of this engine until hot (possibly a consequence of it having twin HD8 2" carburettors rather than the HD6), plus the sound of wider than 0.004 - 0.006" tappet clearances, I'm inclined to suspect that Carmen's engine might prove to be somewhat of ..a beast waiting to be unleashed. That's not really what I wanted, As I may have said before - my first choice would have been a standard spec. 3.4 ltr. 190 bhp or 210 ? whatever.. But with Carmen, I was simply buying the best (structure / body / chrome / interior trim / electrical & mechanical) condition XK150 FHC within my budget, I didn't choose a 3.8, and certainly not a highly tuned one. Despite having the workshop manual's supplement for the 3.4 ltr XK150 and XK150S, and a number of other books and manuals, I can find very little information on the 9:1 compression ratio engine, as supplied by Jaguar, but I believe it was originally fitted with twin 1-3/4" HD6 carbs. The straight port type 'S' engine had 9:1 compression ration, but its cylinder head was different and it had triple HD8 carburettors. Likewise I believe the E-type 3.8 ltrs had triple carbs. The Mk.2 Jaguar 3.8 also used twin HD6 carburettors. Perhaps the twin 2" HD8 carburettors and manifold fitted to Carmen were off a Jaguar Mk.10 ? Either way it doesn't effect maintenance, so I guess I'll just have to try the car in everyday use to feel how well it works. - - - To summarise the tasks to date ; I've move the driver's seat back by 90mm ..so I don't have to chop that much off the bottom of my legs I've learnt a lot about this car's history, what she's been through since 1989, and what her current specification is .. or rather how it differs from standard ! So I now have more of a clue when ordering parts and in doing everyday maintenance. Things like ; the higher compression ratio and D-type camshafts, tappet clearances, and twin 2" carburettors also are factors to bare in mind concerning my expectations. ie., re. how the engine sounds Shopping list is growing. Thankfully nothing horrendous yet, nor critically urgent, rather it's things like ; door seals & furflex + more convenient seat belts + rubber gaiters and ball joint rubbers + a few gaskets + the gauze plate for the crankcase breather + Shims and lock washers for the steering track rods + under-the-car paint+ chassis wax injection, + an assortment of stainless steel nuts, bolts and washers. + Spares ; like a fan belt. Steering rack mounting - tightened = worry that the (expensive) steering rack was fkd - pacified Excessive loose play in front-left road wheel - corrected = worry that the wire wheel splines were fkd - pacified Alternator / fan-belt alignment - corrected = Likelihood of premature fan belt failure lessened Fan blade clearance from its cowling - corrected = worry noise eliminated Crankcase breather cover leaking - corrected (if only with a home made gasket for the time being) = worry that the front timing cover or crankshaft seal were fkd - pacified Oil from crankcase mist separator gauze - made & fitted. Although I modified this, and plan to fit the standard plate with gauze, I see no reason why what I fitted should not remain in place as a second layer of oil separation. Engine, gearbox and rear axle cleaned of leaks, so we might yet learn if 7 where there are other leaks. preliminary coolant test for 20 - 30 minutes, as if sitting in traffic with a hot engine. - happy with that So, although there's not yet been a whole lot of work done - there's been a lot of learning, as well as lateral checking.. tightening of nuts by 1/8th turn, lubricating (if only with spray penetrating oil) ..and the tick-list is growing nicely, which equals lesser anxieties and a greater confidence in Carmen. more to follow Pete Edited February 22 by Bfg Quote
stuart Posted February 21 Report Posted February 21 Pete to answer a few of your points in the last post. 1. The cam lobe point your looking at is a pretty standard XK cam, the lift difference on the "D" type cams comes from the back of the cam being a lower profile and it has a very slight increase in duration. Its not a wild cam. 2. The 3.8 engines be they MK1X or MK2 or 150 or E type were always lumpier running than the 3.4. 3. The higher 9.1 compression being achieved by the pistons having raised crowns. 4. The straight port head came in later. 5. The twin HD8s arent MK 10 as they all ran 3 carb setups. They may well have been taken from a set of three though. 6. To fit HD8 to a XK or even a MK2 inlet manifold means opening up the throats of the manifold to get them to fit. 7. TBH I think it would probably run better going back to a pair of HD6. Stuart. Quote
Bfg Posted February 21 Author Report Posted February 21 Thanks Stuart, That's again very useful. Certainly my Daimler 2.5 V8 is a much sweeter engine at tickover, and when cold. I don't have experience of the 3.4 ltr, but I've read that it is wildly consider a sweeter engine without too much of a loss in engine performance, more so when it came to torque. I had the 3.8 ltr engine in my '66 S-type and always thought that was lumpy (for a straight six) and so when looking for a xk150 I would have preferred to find a 3.4 ltr. I like smooth for everyday / around town use, as well as for touring. ^ after you explained that the back of the D-type cam lobe is low profile, I found this photo on Jag-lover's forum which illustrates two different camshafts, The top one having no lift on its back face at all. I would have thought this gives a greater lift rather than longer duration (based on less extreme ramp angles and a larger circumference) but I'll bow to your knowledge. Straight port heads did come in before my car (July 1960) as the 3.4 ltr also offered the S spec. I understand that cars were fitted in May or June 1957 but that type 'S' officially started in March '58 with the Roadster ..although it was not the wide angle 35/40 head fitted to the later D-type. In Sept '59 the 3.8 was introduced, together with the type 'S' specification but I don't know when the wider-head was fitted. I'm glad to know that Carmen doesn't have a D-type camshaft - Thanks. "To fit HD8 to a XK or even a MK2 inlet manifold means opening up the throats of the manifold to get them to fit." Thanks I'll look out for that at some time. I agree that HD6's would probably be better for everyday use.. Bigger carbs often don't work so well at low engine / intake air speeds. Perhaps my finding a pair with manual choke would be better than the enrichment device. I haven't had a chance to look into it yet, but this one seems to be either on at full blast on or off. I yet don't know to get the equivalent of 'half choke', or 'just a little choke' when all I have is an on/off switch to override its automatic operation. Pete Quote
stuart Posted February 21 Report Posted February 21 S" spec doesnt refer to straight port, it refers to the triple carb fitment. The straight port head didnt appear until the 340 in late 67 early 68 with the black ribbed cam covers. To make the choke work slightly less aggressively you tune it by screwing the nut down under the main needle to the point where the car just starts nicely and pulls without hesitation. Always done when cold for best results. HD6 carbs with the choke enrichment are around and not hugely expensive (You only need the front one for choke operation as the rear doesnt have it) If you really want to go to a fully manual choke operation (Youd need to make up a certain amount of linkage and a cable) then look for the carbs from an old Rover There are these available now HD6 pair Stuart. Quote
Bfg Posted February 21 Author Report Posted February 21 Thanks again Stuart, I'll try the car as she is, and adjust the enrichment device as you suggest. If I'm then less than chuffed, I'll look for a pair of HD6's with manual choke similar to what I have on my Daimler, which simply drop the main jets down a bit. I don't want to go buying others, even when they appear to be inexpensive as those in your link are, because I already have one or two sets of TR4A carbs which I really ought to clear off the shelves. Pete Quote
Bfg Posted February 21 Author Report Posted February 21 (edited) Update 17. - Carmen's work-in-progress. Another thing which I'm not sure what's happening is with the battery's discharge. The hi-torque starter motor only just copes with starting this 3.8 ltr high compression engine, and so I assumed the battery was not fully charged. I reasoned that with long periods of standing the battery must now be close to useless. Upon investigation, I discovered the battery discharges even when the after-market isolator switch is turned off. But once recharged and off the car holds its charge at 12.75 - 12.85 volts. Not having to buy a new battery is an unexpected bonus. With the battery isolator switch turned off I'm seeing 0.04v between the solenoid and earth. I lifted one end of each fuse out of their holders, to isolate all circuits, and still the meter read 0.03v. 12.85 volts with the switch back on. So it seems to me that the isolator switch is not quite isolating and somewhere there's a slight drain, which did flatten the battery overnight. That's annoying but easy to sort out, I'll buy another battery isolating switch. ^ I cannot get to the existing isolator switch, which is through-the-bulkhead, because it is in the tight gap behind the engine, So I've ordered another switch which actually fits onto the battery. But that's not easy to get to either.. as the battery is housed in a locker under the LH side front wing. It can possibly be reached through the bonnet opening, as long as those exhaust manifolds are not too hot, and even then one has to reach around a far under the over-sized windscreen washer bottle. I've ordered one whose switch will be just a little closer. It took the seller four days to even provide a tracking number, it seems they don't want future custom from me. I've looked at the battery discharge issue and had thought I was winning after cleaning up and Vaseline each of the fuse holders, the main battery wires onto the solenoid, and the battery terminals themselves. The voltage dropped to 0.02v and then 0.02volts and then finally 0.00 Volts .. but it was fooling with me after I turned the isolator switch on and off again, the previous 0.04v showed. After starting the engine and then turning the switch off again the meter was reading 0.13 volts. Nothing was on in the car, the battery isolator was also off, but there it was ... I guess that's why some call it electrickity. funny thing though is that when I earthed between the solenoid and the engine block the voltage dropped to zero. It's as if something had been charged and was slowly discharging. That might suggest that the battery isolator was working and the voltage reading is from something (..like a capacity ?) discharging. But that doesn't change the fact that the battery does loose its charge when both its leads are on and the isolator switch is off. I don't know much about electronics, but for the time being at least the alternator is working / charging, the battery holds charge as long as both leads are not connected, and (when it arrives, I'm hoping the new battery isolator switch actually does what it says on the packaging. Pete Edited February 22 by Bfg Quote
Bfg Posted February 21 Author Report Posted February 21 (edited) Update 18. - Carmen's work-in-progress. Another rattle found. Between the radiator filler and the cooling fan cowling. The cowling wouldn't move and without a massive amount of disessembly to alter things, a piece of rubber between the two sorted that one out. RH side of the steering rack - excessive play . . . I could feel the play was in the track rod's inner ball joint ..lots of it.. With the (damaged) gaiter pulled back to reveal the offending ball joint, I found the lock washer well and truly chewed up and reused. I need new ones, but they are specific. The mainstream suppliers (Moss and SNG Bartratt) appear to offer a three-eared lock washer. But the assembly is a little different, which I found in a Guy Broad parts list diagram . . . Bottom Left hand corner of this illustration and you'll see the track rods, the same items being offered as parts or as complete assemblies. Item 40, the complete assembly option, shows the outer track rod end, and the inner track rod ball joint together with its male-threaded-end ...which goes into the end of the steering rack (item 29). In the end of that rack you'll note the cut indents for a locking washer (item 28). But within that inner ball joint - there's a second locking washer (item 27) which locks into the male-threaded-end .. so belying engineering belief ; the steering rack-track rods include a lock washer to secure the nut around the inner ball joint, which otherwise locks into the male-threaded-end ..which also relies on a tab washer. If it weren't bad enough that one safety-critical tab washer essentially relies on another .. the big (36mm AF ) nut has very round ends so it's a sod to lock in place at all. Nope, it's not practical to use Thread-lock compound because the assembly is swamped in grease. Never mind, hide it all under a rubber gaiter and you'll note even be able to see it working loose ! So, to ensure of its total safety in the steering - the prior owner reused, previously reused lock washers. . . Rich Crew-Read advised me that the adjustment of free-play in these was via shims. I thought it must be just tightening that big nut down. Rich was correct (item 35 on the illustration). Non were fitted ..which accounted for the steering's looseness on this side. I cannot understand how there are were several MoT's passes .. after this steering rack was bought and one presumes fitted (as the previous PAS one was part exchanged). I'll order new parts, but in the meantime I've placed a washer in place of shims, to eradicate the free play. But it'll all have to come apart again sooner rather than later, The rack appeared dry of grease so I slapped plenty under there before refitting the gaiter. The outside end of the gaiter (usually cable tied to seal) was missing so I made a new end from a wrap of innertube, bonded and sealed to the gaiter with silicon. It's an easy fit which I've used before and is twice as strong as it originally was. Another task checked and temporarily dealt with, even though I need to get parts and do all again .. properly this time. I think she's getting fitter to pass a genuine MoT. Pete Likewise a gaiter repair was needed on the LHS end of the steering rack. ..an offcut of inner tube rubber, wrapped around the track-rod and pushed against (the cleaned first) gaiter bellow ..which had a bead of silicon sealer (sold as engine-gasket stuff) around its frayed end. The inner-tube was then cable tied in place to hold it, before a second bead of silicon sealer was smoothed around the outside. It might seem like a bodge but it works very well ..in fact better than the original thin-walled gaiter end tube Edited February 23 by Bfg Quote
Bfg Posted February 21 Author Report Posted February 21 And to think, so many people pay a premium to buy cars from a reputable dealer because they feel it's altogether safer. Quote
RobH Posted February 21 Report Posted February 21 Pete - are you sure there isn't something still connected to the battery even with the isolator turned off ? Maybe something which can't be isolated like an alarm unit for instance, which would have to have power all the time ? There is a suspicious-looking red lead in your photo. You can't really tell what is going on by measuring voltage - as the meter current is so low the meter will show voltage even if the path is very tenuous which is probably why the readings don't make sense. You really need to measure the leakage current by lifting one lead off the battery and measuring in series on the current range - it doesn't matter which lead, so the earth one would do. Quote
Charlie D Posted February 21 Report Posted February 21 21 minutes ago, RobH said: Maybe something which can't be isolated like an alarm unit for instance, which would have to have power all the time ? Clock? Quote
Lebro Posted February 22 Report Posted February 22 Tracker ? I have one, & it is the only item not be wired through my isolator switch. Bob Quote
Bfg Posted February 22 Author Report Posted February 22 (edited) Thanks Gents for the suggestions The red lead to the battery is for trickle-charging / maintaining the battery. There was also a black lead to the negative battery clamp. The lead would have been useful because the battery is out of sight under the front wing and so is otherwise awkward to get charger clips onto. ( I think..) I pulled that wire completely off the battery clamp and tested it, and there was no benefit, but I'd have to do so again to be sure (...it's been flipping freezing and with poor lighting in the barn, so I have to consider the possibility of my having made a mistake). It is possible that red wire has been spliced into ..near the top two-pin connector. The isolator switch is difficult to see, and has rubber boots over the terminals, but as far as I might gather there's no extra wire from that. It's on the negative polarity. Of course a wire could be taken from under the booted terminal, and then led straight through the bulkhead to be hidden under the carpet. There's no additional wires taken from the solenoid itself, which I've removed and refitted the other way around on the bulkhead. But again that doesn't mean there's no wires taken off from the fuse box, or further into the loom. Neither of the time pieces appear to be working, as indeed nor do the auxiliary gauges or the additional oil temperature gauge (top centre). And I don't yet know what three or four of the switches are for. I don't know about a tracker, or an alarm - There's nothing in the box file about one, nor any mention of it by Justin banks the dealer. If there is, then where the power wire is taken off is presently a mystery. No alarm has yet sounded, and no SWAT team has yet burst through the doors ! 15 hours ago, RobH said: You can't really tell what is going on by measuring voltage - as the meter current is so low the meter will show voltage even if the path is very tenuous which is probably why the readings don't make sense. You really need to measure the leakage current by lifting one lead off the battery and measuring in series on the current range - it doesn't matter which lead, so the earth one would do. I will try to measure leakage current. Thanks for explaining how to do that. I didn't know. I have lots to learn. Thanks for your help and suggestions, Pete Edited February 22 by Bfg Quote
RobH Posted February 22 Report Posted February 22 Start on the highest current range on the meter - looks like 10A but you will need to swap the leads around to use that. Meters usually have an internal fuse which protects the current ranges. If you get no reading on the meter the fuse may have blown - it is easy for that to happen ! Quote
Bfg Posted February 22 Author Report Posted February 22 ^ Thanks, yes I see 10A. I will give this a try later sometime this week. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.