C-V8 FF Recreation

[johnw]

Fantastic photos . The peripheral tubes also lack the rear cut-in foot access recess like the John Fergusson diagram, so I am guessing the tubes are new.

The early FFs didn't have the cut-in area. Does the John Ferguson picture have them?

No John Fergusson doesn't draw them, you can see it further above in the rear passenger area, the tubes are round. It looks like the car has had new tubes and boot floor, some footwell work, but it looks very much like a later FF, after the first 50. It has the Adwest steering rack, the later suspension balljoints, ant roll bars on the lower arms, all the goodies are there. It is just a shame about the dispute over the identity of the car.

[FFPL]

Does anyone know how much they want for this?

[John Staddon]

pm sent.

John

[Frankoid]

Fantastic photos . The peripheral tubes also lack the rear cut-in foot access recess like the John Fergusson diagram, so I am guessing the tubes are new.

The early FFs didn't have the cut-in area. Does the John Ferguson picture have them?

What I meant is that the John Fergusson diagram does not show the cut-in, and the CV8 FF recreation does not have them either Clumsily worded on my part

[johnw]

What I meant is that the John Fergusson diagram does not show the cut-in, and the CV8 FF recreation does not have them either Clumsily worded on my part

I think a few FF owners and enthusiasts who have not ridden in the back of both Vignale and later FFs, and who haven't got a photographic memory, might not be sure exactly what we are on about I had to make a special trip to go and see a car just to check the marbles are all still there. Well that is my excuse.

25 years ago, I might not have bothered to put the later style cutouts in. More work, for no structural benefit? Almost no one will know or miss 2" extra width, not length, in the rear. It is extremely interesting though that Jensen decided to make that development! Chassis modifications to a car already in production to get 2" more foot room on either side! There must have been some paper trail related to this. Was there another CV8 FF developed/tested further while the early cars were being bodied by Vignale, one that would be scrapped. Would you stop testing such an innovative system during the Vignale implementation/build period? DId Jensen just pen them in without testing and roll them out on all UK cars? Consider that the tubes and cutout need to be gas tight for many years for the new picky at the time Maxaret system! Compared to how innovative the whole 4WD & ABS system was, perhaps that was insignificant?

[Per]

John, my guess is somebody with big feet and shoesize to match tried sitting in the back And as short as legroom is sitting in a twisted position revealed a narrow footwell as well.

The only case of a manufacturer ignoring anything like that is the story about an early customer for the series 1 XJ6. He complained about low seat backs and not enough seat travel. The response was that "when you are as tall as Lofty England you cannot expect to be comfortable in a car".

[Frankoid]

Do we know the first FF to have the cut-ins? I have no idea!!

[FFPL]

Do we know the first FF to have the cut-ins? I have no idea!!

definitely after 45

[John Staddon]

I'm still worrying away at this when I have a moment, which is quite often these days, and prompted by some private correspondence I went hunting on the forum for photos of the underside of an FF, having found some photos I can see that though the rear of the replica looks very C-V8 it is actually FF (I didn't realise they were so similar, but they aren't the same), the rear floor pans as far as the obvious change to something else are FF as well. But something else that is different from a C-V8, though you can't see it from the photos I have posted, is the number of leaves in the rear springs of the replica, 10, but a C-V8 has only 7. Is 10 leaves normal for an FF?

John

[johnw]

I'm still worrying away at this when I have a moment, which is quite often these days, and prompted by some private correspondence I went hunting on the forum for photos of the underside of an FF, having found some photos I can see that though the rear of the replica looks very C-V8 it is actually FF (I didn't realise they were so similar, but they aren't the same), the rear floor pans as far as the obvious change to something else are FF as well. But something else that is different from a C-V8, though you can't see it from the photos I have posted, is the number of leaves in the rear springs of the replica, 10, but a C-V8 has only 7. Is 10 leaves normal for an FF?

John

The FF has one more than the Interceptor. Perhaps the Interceptor has one more than the CV8 because of the heavier body! The whole thing does look like a restored FF chassis, post car no 50 running gear, Girling brakes on the front, are the rear brakes/discs Girling? the mount spacing should be different. The rear brakes would need to be Dunlop with slightly different pipework if any of that is left.

The early FFs had the same rear discs as the CV8, but not the later ones after car 50.

[John Staddon]

There are no clear photos of the rear brakes, but they are partly visible in a couple of photos and the one at top is probably the best. If they were Dunlop brakes, like a C-V8, the name Dunlop would be cast on the body of the brake cylinder and on the replica's brakes it isn't. There is also a shot showing more of the disc.

Jensen_under rear (10).JPG (96.35 KiB) Viewed 4175 times

Jensen_under rear (3).JPG (113.6 KiB) Viewed 4175 times

I may be wrong on the springs, I have found some clearer photos of C-V8 rear springs but on one car I count 10 leaves and on another 9, but people don't photograph springs no matter how many record photos they take so it is difficult to be sure as the photos are not clear enough (I might have to go and count the leaves on my car!).

The front bulkhead is still an issue, did any FFs have the footwell ventilation like C-V8s with sliding panels covering the footwell vents (that's what the holes in the side of the footwell on the replica are for)?

John

[johnw]

The front bulkhead is still an issue, did any FFs have the footwell ventilation like C-V8s with sliding panels covering the footwell vents (that's what the holes in the side of the footwell on the replica are for)?

John

Yes, all Mk1 FFs have a little sliding vent with a black knob on it on the inside of the footwells!

[johnw]

I would say that this shot shows the later Girling type hand brake on the rear axle. Aren't the Mk1 Dunlop hand brakes all above the axle line when fitted, and the Girling below?

Jensen_under rear (5).JPG (100.95 KiB) Viewed 4170 times

[John Staddon]

Yes

Here's a shot of a Mk111 C-V8 handbrake, not the clearest photo but that's the top of the handbrake rising above the exhaust pipe (from Jon Larkin's photo record of his restoration, people like Jon, and Adrian - AdeTCV8 on the forum - who make their photo records available do a great favour to everyone else).

p1030050_8543357530_o.jpg (111.95 KiB) Viewed 4163 times

Something else I noticed but at the front again, in the side of the drivers side toe box there is a grommeted hole, I don't know what that's for as C-V8s don't have a hole there but I can see it on an FF photo I have found of the same area, but another puzzle, the side of the toe box on the replica isn't straight, it changes angle before it meets the fire wall, C-V8s don't have the angle, not like that, but nor does the FF I found but that is a very late Mk1, if earlier FFs do might this be a dating feature as well?

John

[Per]

Thr grommeted hole in the footwell is for access to remove/refit the RH rearmost sparkplug. On the FF the engine sits a bit to the right so the LH grommet is not needed. The Mk 1 Int has the grommet on both sides.