2017-02-17 20:54:52 | dgb writes:

I guess you can transfer i.d. from a rusty chassis to a new chassis depending where in the world you live.
In the U.K. several Land Rovers every day are having the their chassis changed for new galvanised ones, not to mention various Triumph TRs, MG B, Midgets, etc etc.
Even 'in period' it was not unheard of for Jaguar or their dealerships to change a chassis when it was damaged.

2017-02-18 16:11:35 | Dave G. writes:

Glad to see others taking note. I own the real 670640 as I said above. The car is intact with original body, engine, trans and chassis together per the bulkhead plaque and heritage certificate and has never been restored. I think this chassis is actually 679640. The engine number is in the correct range for that chassis, and the chassis stamping is in the correct location for that vintage of car. If it was "restored" as an OTS that would be a shame as it should be a coupe.

2017-02-18 16:27:43 | Dave G. writes:

I'd like to correct the bulk of mis-information here but am not sure how to do so. FWIW, one can find my listings of the real 670640 in the XK registers back to the 1980s.

2017-02-19 23:01:37 | terry mcgrath writes:

You might be able to fit a new chassis to a car you own if the old chassis is rusty or badly accident damaged but then again I have not seen a chassis that can't be repaired.
What I believe you can't do is get a new chassis allocate it a chassis number of a car that you don't think has survived or a number that turns out to be someone else's car buy a new bodyshell and make a XK from scratch. It is happening.
In the UK it is I believe illegal to the then apply for an age related rego number for such a car from Swansea.
In Australia such a car would be considered to be a "NEW" car and therefore required to meet all Australian design Rule requirements ie emissions Safety etc

2017-02-20 10:44:51 | Mike May writes:

Bob, the previous owner of this car in 2009 probably posted the first 2 photos of this car in error as the pictures are not very clear. He has recently sent me this message.
"Hi Mike,

My folder for the 1950 lhd roadster custom racer is archived somewhere in my storage shed. I send a couple picture of the chassis no to the buyer. The pictures are not clear but my best guess is no 670649, built around April 1950."

I will post the pictures he sent me. You be the judge.

2017-02-20 16:40:37 | Peter Ingram writes:

670649 which is not recorded as saved was built 1950 September

2017-02-22 12:58:40 | terry mcgrath writes:

new pic posted Uploaded: 2017-02-20 06:03:37
Almost certainly is LHD XK120FHC 679640 or 679649
with chassis number stamped near exhaust but not on the plinth is is on all early cars it has to be a later car and 679 is the most obvious choice

2017-06-03 04:37:02 | John Elmgreen writes:

Neither 679640 nor 679649 is entered on XK Data.
679640 was seen at Twyford Moors, Chichester, UK in 1999 under a total restoration. Nothing further known to me.
679649 was fitted new with engine W4757-8 - the engine reported above as being in 670640.
Looks like a misquoted chassis number on the Netherlands car, understandable with the difficulties of reading these things.

2019-04-14 11:12:00 | Dave G. writes:

Thank you so much for your time and interest, Terry and John. I agree as per my posts above, that the photos displayed here are all for 679649. The fact that the last digit is 9 is clearly visible in picture 2 under "metalwork", and the location of the number on the rail makes it not a 670 car. Only my opinion, but the bottom portion of the third number visible in the "metalwork" pictures also appears to be narrow like a "9", not wide like a "zero". And as stated earlier, the engine numbers line up. Since this is pretty much open and shut now, is there any way these pictures can be moved to fill in the information on the real 679649? I'd like to share pictures of 670640 here, but it's too confusing to do so as it stands.