|Open Two Seater|
|Left Hand Drive|
|Work In Progress|
|Other Jaguar||La Verne|
43 more photos below ↓
Record Creation: Entered on 15 February 2009.
Photos of 670640
Click slide for larger image. This car has 44 photos. (Dates are when image was uploaded.)
Exterior Photos (4)
Detail Photos: Engine (1)
Detail Photos: Other (2)
Restoration Photos: Start (5)
Restoration Photos: Metalwork (27)
Uploaded July 2016:
Restoration Photos: Frame (5)
We now require an email address to leave a comment. Your IP will be recorded in an effort to reduce spam. (Report problem posts here.)
2011-07-27 00:42:14 | -Dave G. writes:
The cars pictured don't appear to be 670640. Is the poster potentially the original owner of 670640? If so, please contact me. I have 670640, but only have documentation of ownership back to 1966. Thanks!
2012-05-15 12:32:22 | Anonymous writes:
I am shure I have the original 670640 with the original chassis and chassis numbers in the chassis. Please look for the original numbers in your chassis and not the chassis plate or engine number .
I am a Jaguar specialist for more then 30 years and see the differents in original or fake.
2015-08-01 15:24:20 | Dave G. writes:
Numbers stamped in chassis locations, engine, and body tag all match the original plaque, and the letter from Coventry. The last bit of verification I'm in the midst of is to get pix of the chassis # stampings in cars with near chassis numbers to be sure the "font" and manner of stamping match to verify this one was stamped at the factory in '50.
All the best,
2016-07-17 10:24:15 | Peter M writes:
Car is imported from California to the Netherlands in 2009
2017-02-13 19:22:43 | Anonymous writes:
please show me a picture of the chassis stamping in your chassis
2017-02-14 14:22:10 | terry mcgrath writes:
something fishy going on here.
If you look at the photo of the rusty coloured chassis you will note red patches where the chassis number was stamped.
For such an early car I would not expect the chassis number to be stamped on top of LH actual chassis rail but on the plinth a little further back.
Certainly some middle range cars it was stamped here but as noted I believe 670460 is to early for this to be the case.
My educated guess is that the chassis number of the rusty chassis then with new body is probably 679640 making it an XK120FHC chassis!
This is born out by the playing with of chassis number on front cross member.
The other potential giveaway is that it looks like the rear gearbox mount early type has been welded on?
2017-02-15 10:03:44 | dgb writes:
Looks like a 'new' Eastern European made chassis.
2017-02-15 23:10:34 | Mike May writes:
I don't think the chassis is newly made, only the body.
Bob Sheridan had this car at my location in CA in 2009. Both the front and rear ends of the chassis had been bobbed for the weird body.
I believe he said the car was originally a FHC. and it had its original drive train. It appears to me that the photos of the chassis number show 679649 made to look like 670640 and that front and rear chassis extension have been restored. If there were better photos of the metal in front of the front chassis number I would guess you would be able to see where the FHC body mount has been removed.
2017-02-16 06:44:13 | Peter Ingram writes:
Currently 679649 is an unknown/lost car. But one of the last to maybe have studless cam covers & self adjusting front brakes (from 679648
2017-02-16 14:08:19 | terry mcgrath writes:
speaking of 'new' Eastern European made chassis
www.ebay.com/itm/Jaguar-XK-120-140-150-chassis-or-rolling-chassis-with-identity/351978070974 ________ st. myjava, default, Slovakia
Approximately US $2,490.50
New chassis with identity so I asked the question as to what identity
[I]New message from: jaguar_xk_1980 (57 )
This price is only for chassis.
Identity from damaged car are extra cost...
So apart from offering chassis on ebay with identity at a price the identity will cost extra!
secondly you cannot assign an identity from an old rusty chassis to a new chassis!
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.
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.