usedto
Lunatic Member
Yes a dodgy electrical system, but once that's worked out .................
.....and the damn thing burns to the ground (fueled by the oil leaks), you can take the insurance money and go buy a Corvette.
Yes a dodgy electrical system, but once that's worked out .................
Fixed in the later models, so long I couldn't reach the pedals with the seat all the way back. And the seat backs were adjustable in the later series also. One of the most comfortable cars I've ever ridden in. If my back was acting up a nice ride would often ease the pain. My Ford Ranger, not so much, agonizingly painful after 30 minutes in the driver seat.Too bad the Jags have no room in the drivers footwell, long drives would be a pain.
It's the flat footwells, this was corrected in later models.I tried to get comfortable in a Series 1, not happening. It's not the reach, there is no alternate place other than on the pedals. Prefer my Porsche 911.
I guess if you live long enough you will see everything typed.Yes a dodgy electrical system, but once that's worked out its definitely the better car.
There are all kinds of hidden gems in the racing world,
Two things:And with a rated top end of 150 mph with a six as compared to the Vette rated top end with its straight six of 109 mph, forgetaboutit.
Remember, we're not using figures from Wikipedia because according to arts, they're not credible.If you look at the Wikipedia site quoted ...
... specs from Wikipedia ...
Two things:
1) I'm not sure what year Corvette they're referring to, as 1955 was the last year a Corvette was available with a six. This was probably the one that topped out at 109 mph, although your source doesn't make that very clear. In any case, the fact that they get a simple thing like this wrong doesn't speak well for their credibility.
2) Are your curb weight figures for each car taken from Consumer Guide? I know the Corvette's are, but your post doesn't make clear where the Jaguar's came from.
What was the attraction of using Ford 9” rear ends in Chevies?
Okay, let's hear about your source.
Too bad the Jags have no room in the drivers footwell, long drives would be a pain.
first off, with a leaf spring rear, they are criminally easy to weld up proper perches. then, they are marginally stronger than the gm 8.75, and more so than anything smaller but most of all: the readily interchangeable 'pig' makes street vs strip gears doable at the track.Back on topic? I get why Jag rear ends were so popular in hot rods and early pickups. What was the attraction of using Ford 9” rear ends in Chevies?
Small changes gave the 1961 Corvette a cleaner look and reduced weight. It was quick and powerful, with an official top speed of 109 mph (though many could reach in excess of 130 mph).
Interesting link. Is that your shop? If it is, I may have to defer to your knowledge. Otherwise, it goes to a Montreal repair facility which doesn't appear to supply any archival information whatsoever but offers to hotrod my MG motor for what I'm sure is a hefty service charge. Regardless, I can't see how it's germane to anything we're discussing here.Original factory service/owners manuals.For almost every ''sporty'' car ever made,British or otherwise.
You see,some of us don't need wikipedia for information,we actually have a direct lifetime of experience with the topics we discuss,as opposed to relying on questionable factoids posted on some questionable internet site and regurgitating them as gospel.I guess different folks have different standards where credibility is involved.To each his or her own.
Drop in sometime,if you mom will let you out of the basement
http://www.brittanicar.com/
See quaddriver's post (#163). Actually, with a 4.11 rear, 109 mph is fairly credible, but that also would probably have been its 1/4-mile trap speed. It could also have been geared to exceed 130.Well, as for the 109 mph I only assumed it was the six trying to give the Vette the benefit of doubt, apparently the stock 283 was only rated for 109 mph according to those specs, but they definitely could be wrong. It's also possible the "official" rated top speed was for the nannies in the corporate office, it wasn't unusual for companies to hide just how fast their cars were back in the day lest they be tagged as dangerous.
As for where I got the specs for the Jag, multiple places, they all are pretty much in alignment other than Wikipedia transposing the figures for the drop top & FHC. It's a fact convertibles are heavier due to the additional bracing required when the top is removed otherwise the car would flex too much. These numbers are obviously reversed on the Wikipedia site.
.....and the damn thing burns to the ground (fueled by the oil leaks), you can take the insurance money and go buy a Corvette.