impdb.org

IGCD

Movieobjects

Home page

[ Login ]

Advertising

Last completed movie pages

Shark Attack 2; Le dernier des six; Polyana skazok; Blackjack; The Dukes of Hazzard: Reunion!; Armed Response; The Chipmunk Adventure; Lady Avenger; A Beautiful Mind; Underworld; Luz nas Trevas - A Volta do Bandido da Luz Vermelha; Era Uma Vez Eu, Verônica; Amore libero - Free Love; A Good Day to Die Hard; Patroclooo!... e il soldato Camillone, grande grosso e frescone; (more...)

1961 Jaguar Mk.II 2.4 Litre

1961 Jaguar Mk.II in Withnail & I, Movie, 1987

Class: Cars, Sedan — Model origin:

1961 Jaguar Mk.II 2.4 Litre

Vehicle used a lot by a main character or for a long time

Comments about this vehicle

Author	Message
G-MANN ◊ 2007-10-04 22:42	The battered old Jag only has one headlight and only one windscreen wiper (on the passenger's side), which proves problematic during heavy rain. Also the rear wheel skirts are missing. "SCRUBBERS!!" "Up yours, grandad!" "SCRUBBERS!" "Little tarts, they love it!" The car's numberplate (405SBH) is now registered to a 2000 Jaguar S-Type. In one of the DVD commentaries Paul McGann says this was the "classic" Mk.II Jaguar, the 3.8 litre one, not one of the smaller engined ones. He says that when they filmed it he'd only just learnt how to drive and was only used to things like MiniMetros, he said the power of the Jaguar was "scary" and it was a "flying machine". When they first set off in the Jag and he flips down his sunglasses, he nearly stalls it as he pulls out onto the road. In the second motorway scene the Jag had to swerve around the motorway, overtaking cars and he didn't have the nerve so director Bruce Robinson did the driving. If you look very closely you see him driving in that scene. -- Last edit: 2012-03-15 21:18:11
kazimann ◊ 2010-08-04 16:04	It amazes me that two unemployed actors could afford a Jag. Also, this car would have been barely ten years old (as the film was set in 1969), and yet it looks like it was pulled out of a lake!
vintage-and-classic ◊ 2011-02-03 12:56	Whatever Paul McGann drove, or recalls driving, the car in these photos is without doubt not a 3.8 litre MK2 but a 2.4 litre version. This can be clearly identified by the choke lever on the right of the steering column with its chrome surround in the picture posted by G-MANN: http://img165.imageshack.us/my.php?image=withnailjaguar7be0.jpg The choke is actually on in the photo and the factory original choke warning light is illuminated. these mechanical chokes simply don't connect up to the arrangement on the 3.8 litre cars, and there needs to be an extra pair of holes in the wooden fascia to accomodate the assembly. Also in the same photo it can be clearly seen that the speedometer reads to 120mph. Only the 2.4 speedos finished at 120mph - 3.8 litre versions read up to 140mph The 3.8 litre cars were equipped with twin S.U. carburettors and featured a separate S.U. starting device which was controlled by a thermostatic switch. They had no choke lever. Only the 2.4 litre cars had manual chokes with the factory fitted lever which was connected to twin Solex carburettors. The car can also be identified as a 2.4 litre model in the main photograph by the black coloured badge in the grille. Different badges defined in the link: http://www.sngbarratt.com/catalogue/parts/show.asp?id=16365 Thirdly the car has a single tail pipe with the correct body cutaway as it exits the rear valance, clearly seen in the rear end photo already posted: http://img213.imageshack.us/my.php?image=withnailjaguar3yz2.jpg Only the 2.4 litre cars had single tail pipes, all 3.8 litre models were equipped with twin pipes and correspondingly larger cut out in the rear valance to accomodate them. It's a 2.4 -- Last edit: 2011-02-03 13:03:50
dsl ◊ 2011-02-03 13:23	xxx SBH series issued and completed Jan - Feb 1961. vintage-and-classic wrote The car can also be identified as a 2.4 litre model by the black coloured badge in the grille. Different badges defined in the link: http://www.sngbarratt.com/catalogue/parts/show.asp?id=16365 Only the 2.4 litre cars had single tail pipes, all 3.8 litre models were equipped with twin pipes and correspondingly larger cut out in the rear valance to accommodate them. Interesting info - thanks as we have loads of unseparated Mk2s. For interest, what was the 3.4 exhaust configuration?
G-MANN ◊ 2011-02-03 14:02	Thanks for setting us straight there, vintage-and-classic Paul McGann must have just remembered it wrong. -- Last edit: 2011-02-03 14:03:44
vintage-and-classic ◊ 2011-02-03 14:58	Strewth - you don't hang about on this site You're welcome. The only visible external differences between the 3.4 and the 3.8 was the colour of the badge in the front grille and the chrome badge on the boot underneath the Jaguar script which gave away the engine capacity. Both 3.4 and 3.8 litre models had the same exhaust configuration and even the engines were visually identical except for the colour of the paint on the cylinder head. -- Last edit: 2012-03-15 21:20:14 (G-MANN)
dsl ◊ 2011-02-03 15:03	vintage-and-classic wrote Strewth - you don't hang about on this site If you really want an instant reaction, insert a reference to Jeremy Clarkson into your comment, and then stand well back.
chicomarx ◊ 2011-04-30 02:17	G-MANN wrote "SCRUBBERS!!" "Up yours, grandad!" "SCRUBBERS!" "Little tarts, they love it!" What does "scrubbers" mean exactly? The annoying thing about this movie is that whenever it's raining it's clearly a man with a hose. How difficult is it to film on a rainy day in England...
chris40 ◊ 2011-04-30 08:51	chicomarx wrote What does "scrubbers" mean exactly? Marie-couche-toi-là ...
chicomarx ◊ 2011-04-30 19:01	I thought so, what else... But it can't be a word that's still used much. Do not search for "Marie-couche-toi-là" on Google Images btw! It's nuns losing their religion.
G-MANN ◊ 2011-09-19 00:31	I'm not really familiar with the term "scrubbers" (never heard anyone use it outside of this film) but here's another clue as to its meaning: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086265/
G-MANN ◊ 2012-03-15 21:20	kazimann wrote It amazes me that two unemployed actors could afford a Jag. Also, this car would have been barely ten years old (as the film was set in 1969), and yet it looks like it was pulled out of a lake! It is a really beat up Jag. And I think cars rusted a lot back then.

Add a comment