Most Ford "Chop Rods" Use Chevy Drivetrains--Why?

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.
 
Last edited:
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 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.
 
Yes a dodgy electrical system, but once that's worked out its definitely the better car.
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
 
There are all kinds of hidden gems in the racing world,

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
 
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.
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.
 
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.

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?
 
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.
 
Okay, let's hear about your source.

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/
 

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.
 
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?
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.
 
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).

with the standard 230hp 283 (the 1961 engine) and the 3spd, the vette was redlined at 109mph. with the uprated motors (up to 270 claimed hp) and the 4spd wide or close ratio, the axle could be numerically lowered and then the car was drag limited in the 130's

AT this point the car was limited by wind resistance which increases with the square of the speed, but as tuners were discovering and when the 327 came out real soon later, 150's could be had.

Mind you, the first year 283 vette *trapped* at 106. AT the time, that was a fairly good hauling of the bacon.

Im not clear why this is being argued, vette perf numbers are among the most published things on the planet. back in the day, and these days were before my time, you geared the car to (projected) hit the sticks just past the HP peak. Does you no good if there is still motor available but no track.
 
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/
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.

Oh ... by the bye, my mother is dead and none of my houses has a basement, oddly enough. But I will take you up on your invitation if I'm ever in the neighborhood. Which van by the river is yours?
 
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.
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. :biggrin: It could also have been geared to exceed 130.

I think the convertible top assembly along with the chassis reinforcement on a Jag roadster would still come in lighter than the coupe but I don't know it for a fact. There's a lot of extra sheet metal in that swoopy fastback, though.
 
Another bonus of the 9", rear disc brakes could be gotten. Steal them from a 70s land yacht Lincoln and you've got a nice brake upgrade using factory bits. Versailles rears were a real hot item for a while, they were a 9" disc brake that was the proper width for a swap into a Mustang. When those things were still in junkyards it was rare to find one with a diff under it. They're otherwise a relatively underwhelming car. Its just a Grenada with more chrome.


.....and the damn thing burns to the ground (fueled by the oil leaks), you can take the insurance money and go buy a Corvette.:biggrin::thumbsup:

Everything back then leaked oil. Cork gaskets were and are terrible. Thats one place modern tech has really helped older motors.
 
Back
Top Bottom