Salvageable, or Not? 1976 Jensen GT

Disclosure: This site may receive compensation from some link clicks and purchases.

Why is it that Jensen GTs are almost universally mistreated? The car was designed with a luxury interior just a bit shy of the much more expensive Jensen Interceptor, including optional leather seating and a wood dash. It was hand assembled. Its Lotus motor was ahead of its time. Yet, sadly, the overwhelming majority of examples – while not in quite the shabby condition of our subject car advertised here on craigslist – are non-running and/or cosmetically challenged to the point of near extinction. I like the model – who knows why – and have passive “searches” set up on a number of venues to find one, but every time a result is returned to me (rarely!), it has “project” somewhere in the description. And, in answer to the title for this article, a resounding “no” – the highest and best use here is likely for parts.

The Jensen GT was a last-gasp effort to save Jensen Motors. It had been selling the Jensen-Healey roadster for a few years with limited success but Kjell Qvale decided the company needed a shooting brake for upscale customers wanting a “family car”, not unlike Lotus with its Elan+2. Donald Healey was still running Jensen, but resigned shortly after the board decided the GT should not bear Healey’s name, reasoning that the new car needed differentiation from the entry-level aura of the roadster. The GT was built on the roadster platform with substantially the same Type 907 twin-cam four-cylinder, displacing 1973 ccs, breathing through two Stromberg carburetors and generating 140 hp. Lugging around 300 lbs more than the roadster, performance suffered slightly: zero to sixty came up in ten seconds and top speed was about 114 mph. Hilariously, the ad states “Drive it home today”, but this example looks like it hasn’t seen the road for years.

The cabin contains a few useful parts – the steering wheel, gauges and vents, seat frames, perhaps even the basic dash, needing refinishing. The upholstery is an expression of Qvale’s odd sense of style – he developed a strong fondness for a particular blue floral fabric, most clearly seen on the door panels and rear seats here. It’s amazing this survived. The shamble-y condition of our subject car obscures the fact that the GT’s accommodations are comfortable and sporty.

The car was designed in-house with a hatch-style rear window; folding the rear seats afforded a fair amount of cargo space, but ingress was limited as loads had to be lifted above the tail panel. Looks like this one contains a host of parts. The unattractive rear bumpers were a product of US safety rules. Only 511 Jensen GTs were produced from 1974 to 1976 before Jensen shuttered its factory. Meanwhile, here’s the market’s opinion of a barely-running but cosmetically acceptable GT project. For my money, I’d opt for the green car, rather than this sad pile of parts, but what do you think?

Auctions Ending Soon

Comments

  1. Derek

    Rare beastie. Looks like it’s been sat in the same place awhile. Motor and Getrag box both have value. Price? Hmmm…

    Chuck in the Triumph beside it, tho’…

    Like 3
  2. Aussie Dave Aussie DaveMember

    I love the shape, it was rare when new, how could anyone let this happen?
    I ditch the 4 banger, and install a period correct Jag 6 pot.

    Like 1
    • Tim Engel

      The Jag 6-cyl is simply too large… too tall. A good option would be the BOP or Rover 3.5 litre V8. Being all aluminum, it’s still reasonably light. And Rover continued development of the engine, going larger in steps up to 4.9 litres. Since the Jensen GT was designed to fit around a Lotus 907 (ie, half of a V8), the 3.5/4.9’s fit into the engine bay shouldn’t be much of a problem. I’ve seen 3.5 V8s in Jensen-Healeys, and the fit looks very “natural”.

      Tim

      Like 1
  3. JDC

    I will never grasp why anyone would let such a rare and cool vehicle just rot.

    Like 3
  4. Joey MecMember

    The roadster Jensen Healeys were rare enough and I had a friend in our car club back in the 90’s who had one. It was a fun drive with that Lotus 911 motor. These GTs were so rare and yes, it is a shame to see this go by the wayside. It’s not the prettiest car, but alas when I was young, the prettiest girls weren’t always the most fun either…… and I say that in the most positive way!!

    Like 6
    • Joey MecMember

      I correct myself…. it was the 907 Lotus motor….. I have a later model Lotus Eclat and that has the 911 which is the upgrade of the 907 motor.

      Like 0
      • Tim Engel

        The 911 was never used by Lotus… at least not in their own car. It was a 2.2 Litre engine developed specifically for the “Sunbeam Alpine Lotus” World Rally car. It was quite successful.

        The 911 was the first Lotus 2.2. In many ways, it was very much like the later “Lotus” 912 2.2, but there were some significant aspects of the engine’s design that were uniquely “911”… much more than a different paint job. Significantly, it was the first 9XX engine to use the second generation cam carriers and covers. The ones on which the “down hill” sides were filled in with an aluminum wall that wrapped up & around to the top, and only a flat-plate cover was necessary (it was far less leak prone.) Variations of that theme were later used on both the 910 and 912 engines. But again, there were unique 911 features that were too significant to say it was simply a Lotus engine with a different name tag.

        Tim

        Like 0
  5. Joey MecMember

    Yes, the motor and trans have some value but the carbs are off and that is not a good sign as to whether the motor turns or is stuck……….

    Like 1
  6. Howie

    Someone needs to be kicked hard in the you know what!!

    Like 3
    • Aussie Dave Aussie DaveMember

      Kicked? No, seeing as this is a pommy car, a cricket ball would do more damage , lol.

      Like 2
      • Nevadahalfrack NevadahalfrackMember

        Made us look up “pommy”😆

        Like 1
      • Marko

        Got a great big laugh Aussie Dave, for your use of the term Pommy.
        (P.O.M.E.)

        My grandfather used to have International Exchange Students, hired on his farm in the 1970’s. First one he had was an Aussie from Western Australia, who enlightened me to the term.

        Great car to be saved here. Don’t let it go to the crusher.

        Like 0
  7. Big C

    I haven’t seen a Jensen GT since the days of my youth. And that was in a car magazine! I understand that vehicle storage can be tricky. But good Lord! That reality show Hoarders, has nothing on some of these owners.

    Like 1
  8. William

    I have a friend up in Portland who vintage races a JH (when he’s not running his 100M), and drives another one which he has used daily since it was new. I’ll tell him about this- he may (or not) see some use for it.

    Like 1
    • Michelle RandAuthor

      Excellent. We love facilitating new homes for the cars we feature – hopefully your buddy sees some value here.

      Like 1
  9. gippy

    Ol’ Serge Abirama says “drive it home today!” then in the fine print he says ” needs to be towed”. I suspect he will pull some of that blue fabric out and have a custom tuxedo made for himself.

    Like 0
  10. justpaul

    That’s just criminal, on so many levels.

    Like 0
  11. Chinga-Trailer

    I worked for a Jensen dealer in California when these cars were new. Absolute rubbish, garbage, worthless automobiles. There, that’s why people let them rot away, they should have just gone straight from the port upon import to the crusher to come back as Pintos and Vegas, which were, frankly, better cars!

    Like 2
  12. Martin Horrocks

    Couldn’t find a market when it was new and nothing has changed since.

    Like 2
  13. cityspike

    I worked on nothing but Jensen’s at Quavale’s flagship store in San Francisco in the late 70s and early 80s. I remember we had about a half of a dozen unsold GT‘s tucked away. It seems like they were the last thing that anybody wanted, but I thought them, rather nice. They weren’t much different from the roadsters excepting for the obvious. I didn’t realize they had a leather option.

    Like 1
    • Chinga-Trailer

      Yes, and as you probably remember they blew oil out the cam towers, threw timing belts regularly and were made of special steel, probably licensed from Fiat that rusted upon exposure to sunlight, fresh air, paint, oil, the sound of human voice etc. etc. etc.

      Like 1
  14. Joey MecMember

    Like many older vehicles which were ‘dogs’ in their day, now they are looked at
    as being classic obviously because they simply don’t exist anymore. It’s very similar to the Edsel; It was absolute junk in its day, although Ford attempted to give it the best materials. Now people with restored Edsels have quite an investment… maybe not good drivers… but something to behold (whether that be good or bad!!) and certainly not for me!! Car were meant to be driven!!

    Like 1
  15. david

    Sigh. If I was Bezos rich I’d set up a shop and pick a couple cars a week, maybe some like this, for body off restorations. Drop by a couple times a month for a beer.

    Like 1
  16. Tim Engel

    The Jag 6-cyl is simply too large… too tall. A good option would be the BOP or Rover 3.5 litre V8. Being all aluminum, it’s still reasonably light. And Rover continued development of the engine, going larger in steps up to 4.9 litres. Since the Jensen GT was designed to fit around a Lotus 907 (ie, half of a V8), the 3.5/4.9’s fit into the engine bay shouldn’t be much of a problem. I’ve seen 3.5 V8s in Jensen-Healeys, and the fit looks very “natural”.

    Tim

    Like 1
    • EL Grecko

      While the early 3.5 BOP motors were very light, not much more than an all iron 4 cylinder, the later bigger displacement ones weren’t much lighter than a LS. You’d have a LOT more power and torque from an LS than from a 215. And yes you’d have to replace the rear end to something that could take that much torque. Still if you’re going to go to the trouble of a swap you might as well go bigger, like a LS6 and 400 hp sounds about right. Go big or go home…

      Like 0
  17. Wademo

    Would be a great looking body for a tube chassis drag car.

    Like 0
  18. Joey MecMember

    @Tim Engel. Thanks Tim. It’s good to learn something new and I appreciate that. I have a bit of dyslexia and I mix number up sometimes. My Lotus Eclat which was recently purchased has the 2.2 motor. Maybe it’s a 912. I will do more reading on it but first I need to get it started!!!

    Like 0
    • Tim Engel

      Joey Mec – – Even if the engine turns over, and acts like it’s trying to start, do not start it until after you have replaced the timing belt & tensioner bearing, properly timing the cams in the process, and correctly tensioning the belt.

      The Lotus 9XX engines are “interference engines”. That means if the cam timing is off by more than 3 teeth, or if the belt breaks while the engine is running (even if only at idle), the pistons will wipe out all the valves in a heartbeat.

      That engine appears to have been sitting for a long time without maintenance. I would NOT trust that timing belt!

      Tim Engel

      Like 0
      • Joey MecMember

        Thanks Tim. I will replace the belt and tensioner. I am well aware of interference motors and the havoc they create when is the belt is not changed. My engine has been sitting in storage and that work will commence next spring here in the northeast. I appreciate all your comments!!

        Like 0
  19. 59poncho

    I completely forgot about the non convertible version………..

    Like 0

Leave A Comment

RULES: No profanity, politics, or personal attacks.

Become a member to add images to your comments.

*

Barn Finds