Discussion in 'Wheels, Wings, Mud, and Water' started by savatage1973, Mar 11, 2018 at 6:03 AM.
Great stories all! I love hot rodding!!
Okay, let's hear about your source.
I like how this is actually "lighter" at more than 3100lbs than its predecessor lol. And at almost 400 lbs lighter with a 50/50 weight distribution I think the Jag had the right to call the Vette a pig. 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.
THE AUTO EDITORS OF CONSUMER GUIDE
1961 Corvette Specifications
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). Here are the specifications for the 1961 Corvette:
The three-speed manual gearbox was standard on the 1961 Corvette,
but was offered with a wider choice of axle ratios.
Wheelbase, inches 102.0
front: 57.0 rear: 59.0
Curb Weight, pounds
Mechanical Specifications (2-door convertible)
Jaguar E-Type G.T. Fixed Head Coupe (man. 4 speed)
as offered for the year 1961 since mid-year 1961 in Europe
Production/sales period of cars with this particular specs:
mid-year 1961 - mid-year 1964
Country of origin:
GB United Kingdom
E-Type (XK-E) Series I
E-Type Series I Fixed Head Coupe
Weight distribution f/r (%):
50 / 50
1143 kg / 2520 lbs
Size, Dimensions, Aerodynamics and Weight
NUM. OF DOORS 2
WHEELBASE 243.8 cm ( 95.98 inches )
LENGTH 437.5 cm ( 172.24 inches )
WIDTH 165.7 cm ( 65.24 inches )
HEIGHT 122.5 cm ( 48.23 inches )
FRONT AXLE 1270 cm ( 500 inches )
REAR AXLE 1270 cm ( 500 inches )
FRONT BRAKES - DISC DIMENSIONS Discs (279 mm)
REAR BRAKES - DICS DIMENSIONS Discs (254 mm)
FRONT TYRES - RIMS DIMENSIONS -/- R-
REAR TYRES - RIMS DIMENSIONS -/- R-
CURB WEIGHT 1234 kg ( 2721 lbs )
500 inch axles ? Oh we believe this.
Ya, most likely a metric conversion issue, mm instead of cm
Is this better for you? If you look at the Wikipedia site quoted it has similar numbers only they confused the drop top with the fixed head coupe reversing the weight specs. Convertibles are always heavier than their fixed head siblings.
Below is a screen shot of the specs from Wikipedia, as you can see the numbers are correct but not for the indicated model.
So in conclusion, the Jag is better looking, similar power from its six as the Vettes V8, is better balanced, weighs less, more sophisticated motor with triple carbs, dual over head cam, hemi head, better more sophisticated suspension, four wheel disc brakes, etc etc.
Yes a dodgy electrical system, but once that's worked out its definitely the better car. The engine won Le Mans five times proving it's reliability and endurance. In classic car racing the E-type is king even with its six competing against 427 Vettes, V12 Ferraris, AC Cobras etc.
.....and the damn thing burns to the ground (fueled by the oil leaks), you can take the insurance money and go buy a Corvette.
Too bad the Jags have no room in the drivers footwell, long drives would be a pain.
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.
The 67 is considered the year to have, retained the best of the earlier yrs like covered headlamps, smaller split bumpers, etc, with the added improvements carried over in later models, rocker switches, deeper footwells, better electrical system immune to "rain outages" lol.
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.
It's the flat footwells, this was corrected in later models.
I agree, I wouldn't be able to either, and I've ridden a motorcycle 800 miles in a day lol.
I guess if you live long enough you will see everything typed.
I will give props for having the courage to go against essentially the entire automotive world...
FWIW, my step dad had one when he was in the airforce, on base. they blew up the motor fooling around so a fella from the motor pool put in one of those newfangled 327s (thats a chevy, 4"x3.25") and then it was fairly untouchable
I went with a friend of mine to look at a jukebox over in Livermore (outskirts of the bay area). While in his garage, I spotted something poking out from under a blanket on a shelf, and asked if I could take a peek. It was a Potvin Drive 6-71 blower with Hilborne two-hole injection on it, complete with the chrome tubes and manifold. He had bought it at a garage sale for $100.00
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.
Remember, we're not using figures from Wikipedia because according to arts, they're not credible.
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.
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?
Bullet proof. The 9" Ford could take the power that the GM couldn't. That, and the Ford stuck with the "pumpkin" style where all the innards came out in one piece. Easy to change ratios when needed. GM's later rear ends came apart from the rear, one piece at a time.
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
I'm not hardcore but for old school V8 power on a budget, the Chevy 5.3L LM7 would be my choice. Truck engine long block with bolt ons makes 370 hp. And it will run all day long.
Separate names with a comma.