I want this car

[Flybrian]

But its from the sixties and from England, so you know its cool.

Jaguar Mark X!

English luxury...

With American style...

And American size...

I really want one.

[Cadillacfan]

Better start saving now. I don't even want to know how expensive that is.

Isn't it sad seeing this car and looking at the Jaguar today. Then, it was a brand that was the best of the best in terms of luxury. Now, it's...well.. made up of rebadged Fords and somewhat bland styling. Fortunately, the new XK is freakin hot but it doesn't really look like a Jaguar. Looks more like an Aston Martin.. not a bad company to emulate.. but you get what I mean.

Edited August 10, 2006 by Cadillacfan

[Drew Dowdell]

What platform is the XJ rebadged from?

[razoredge]

Now that is wood ! I think this car evolved nicely into the early XJ6 & XJ12. Its kinda like the grey poupon kind of car though........................I flip them f@#kers off every chance I get...........................

This is just what you want for passing Prius drivers and locking up the brakes, "then by gosh we'll see how much money they are saving on gas"...............

**if I spelt grey poop-on wrong.............D I L L I G A F ?

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Geeze, the Jag S-Type wants to be a Mark X sooo bad.

If you do buy one Fly, you'd better hope that the seat of your BVDs aren't set on fire by electrical problems.

[razoredge]

Fly............have you ever clicked, sorry SNAPPED one of those switches ? Pure ecstacy !

[ocnblu]

It's cool. Love the interior. The forward-leaning exterior looks like it's in motion, even while parked. Was this the first Jag to start this styling tradition for their big sedans? The newest XJ certainly does pay homage.

[Hudson]

You can actually find those fairly cheap.

[razoredge]

You can go back further on the styling and see how Jag slowly evolved from the same kind of look. Periodically speaking. Even the old XK120-150's "fixed head coupes" and the Mark IX and the 3.4 & 3.8 Sedans of the 50's

I just as glad we car guys had Williams Lyons and Malcolm Sayer as we had Harley Earl, Virgil Exner and Bill Mitchell. They all made our world such a beautiful place.

Mark IX

3.8 Sedan

Edited August 11, 2006 by Flybrian

[balthazar]

I dunno... "Jag" has this reputation, but upon cursory examination, the rep falls down hard in the details!

Mark X Pros: Exterior has fluid, almost athletic lines, and it almost has a semi chopped look ala the 300: slab-sided fuselage, proportionally smaller greenhouse height, and this I like.

Cons: Again- the details- they're NOT 'luxury'. Exposed rubber backlight gasket? 'Poverty caps' with painted steelies? Exposed glovebox door hinges? Interior is blue/grey but the steering wheel is black?? Shift quadrant on the column? Pedals could've come out of a VW of the era. And what's with the key in the middle of the dash? How is it luxurious to see a worn, jingly bunch of random keys scraping the dashboard as a driver or passenger? Should I continue?.... These features are on par with --say-- Ford of the early '50s, not a luxury car of the '60s.

Look: I know it's the '60s and it's british and that means we're supposed to overlook all these things (and more), but the fact of the matter is, compared to domestic luxury marques of the same period, Jaguar was far behind class leading in everything except reputation... which was based on what again?

BTW- do we know for a fact how much of that wood is real and how much is fake?

I like the lines of the car fine, and I could live with & enjoy the interior, as long as I didn't have to pretend it was a luxury car. But:

>>"Then, it was a brand that was the best of the best in terms of luxury."<<

Perhaps on the British stage, but then again, no. On the international stage, no way in hell.

Now, the Mark IX: did Jag & Rolls/Bentley share the same designers & coachbuilders, because damn the resemblance is amazing. Really looks the 'luxury' part, tho; old world classy.

[mute]

i dunno what kinda but wasnt camino selling an ole jag?

[razoredge]

178202[/snapback]

During ?1942? to 43 or 44 England under bombardment from Germany

In 1957 Jaguar plant & tooling totally destroyed in fire

In 1960 Jag bought Daimler

Mark X released in 1962, what you got from 62 to totally show this car up ?

All wood yes, laminate most likely, I have a photo here that shows book matched.

Pedals not your style, OK but how did they work ? The best pedals I ever ran were on a 64 Brit and no they did not go down through the floor like a VW.

Keys, wrong place but its not the end of the world either, as in, Im sure I could pick Caddys and Buicks apart to, most likely loaded with early plastic and steel dashboards with nice fancy paintjobs. Potato/potato. I doubt a Jag owner would have keys a jingling on the dash, they would have had one of those big chains hanging from their belts like a good ol boy...............with huge fancy animal key fob made of gold

Jaguars rep in England vs America was as Cadillacs rep was in America vs England, no one makes excuses for either nor is forced to overlook anything due to location, logical people would recognize that perhaps there was different trends, desires, expectations, and plan of attack from two different cultures. This is a charming interior and by no means is low budget moulded high production

Slab sided fuselage ? Id say the sides look more like a torpedo, the look that GM used in the 90's, mainly on the gawful LeSabre, a car thats solely responsible for my not enjoying the look of this car and the XK6 & 12 so much anymore.

Shifting on the column..............?? I must have missed something but as best I recall the wealthy and old school felt that was proper for a lux car and that the "stick" was for young sporty puppys.................Column shift was common in Domestic into the 70's for standards and always on automatics.........hell until mid 80's & 90's. Perhaps these origional Jag owners would critize a Caddy for having a bench seat ?

Ford never had anything "on par" with this car in the 50's let alone 62. What ? The Galaxy 500 ?

"Jaguar was far behind class leading in everything except reputation... which was based on what again?" I guess you'll never know if you continue to refuse to accept or learn anything outside your box, dont get me wrong I have friends that feel like you, no matter what, they will refuse to learn anything or listen or try anything different. But instead will just look for what they can pick apart...........most of them are into Chevy muscle cars.............................need I continue ?

Pretend its a Luxury car ? "Perhaps on the British stage, but then again, no. On the international stage, no way in hell." ................your beginning to sound like the media you so often question....................need I continue ?

Jag, Rolls, Bentley somehow seem to come off a bit like Olds, Buick, Cadillac. Then thats from a country thats not much larger than Florida.................godang them for not having all the resources in that little island population to keep up with the "big boys" if one really feels they did not keep up. After all only having their tiny Island bombarded into oblivion less than 20 years earlier, no big loss..................then lets see, a complete total loss fire in 1957 just 5 years before this car was released............no biggy. I believe in 57 GM was working on the 63 Stingray, hmm.............sounds like Im making excuses, no, not at all , just the facts. Id say they did damn good to produce this car by 62 the E type by 61.

Myself I prefer not to keep the door closed and never accept or enjoy anything that comes from outside your circle. This was the British idea of what a luxury car should be. They were also slow and somewhat financially incapable to accept change..............sound fimiliar ?

Would you be happy if Jaguar and Ferrari went the way of Tucker ? If so then what would you have to complain about ? Would this be a more beautiful world ? Well at least I get it. Thank you Jaguar for producing this car and all others before and since, not bad for a bunch of low budget grocery getters wagon builders....

[balthazar]

>>"what you got from 62 to totally show this car up ?"<<

I'd put a '62-64 Pontiac GP up against this car no problem. The attention to detail is far & above what I see in the above pictures.

Maybe that's not fair; comparing pictures to reality (I've owned 7 '64-66 F/S Pontiacs), but what I see is glaring to my eye. The thick black rubber backlight gasket is not refined and not befitting of a luxury vehicle. Same goes for exposed hinges and the like. The bare raw construction of a luxury car is not supposed to be visible & obvious. There's certainly no grace or charm in it.

My '64 GP: no exposed window gaskets, no exposed hinges, no fat woven windlace weatherseals, a design & color-coordinated steering wheel, pedals (yes: suspended, for about the 9th year or so) with a touch of design instead of almost industrial rubber pads... it's just a far better designed & built machine AT LEAST in these areas. No- it does not have as lofty a rep, but maybe it should.

>>"Keys, wrong place but its not the end of the world"<<

No it's not, and if it was the only thing I saw I never would've posted, but these are the details that can make or break a car in a competitive market. Keys should not rest/rub/scratch against the middle of the dash when they can be either column-mounted or mounted low on the dash to preserve the finish/appearance of the car. It's simple practicality. Can't cost anything more to mount it at the bottom edge of the dash instead of scraping the painted wood finish off, and I strongly doubt it would impede apon any 'expectations/desires' of british motorists.

>>"Shifting on the column.....?? Column shift was common in Domestic..."<<

Not column shift; I said shift quadrant. The gear selector indicator, you know: P-N-D-S-L-R. Last car I saw that had one on the column that pops into mind was a '70s Maverick. Just about every upscale marque had it in the dash by the mid '50s.

>>"your beginning to sound like the media you so often question"<<

No; the media deals in perception, ill-researched (if at all) 'facts' and outmoded stereotypes. If I did the same I would bring up quality issues, rust issues and the notoriously-awful electricals. Or I could've make assumptive judgments on the 'quality of materials' merely from a pic. I did none of these things. My comments are all inarguable facts: the features I listed are right there in the pics.

The design is nice, the interior overall is nice and yes: to a degree-charming. But it's no where near where the class leaders in this segment --or even numerous non-luxury makes-- were.

I guess what I'm saying is: as a Jaguar- it's nice. As a 1962 it's a stark anachronism.

Edited August 10, 2006 by balthazar

[razoredge]

The Brits are and were heavily steeped in tradition. I actually believe they probably wanted the hinges exposed. I also doubt they had huge key rings dangling, most likely just a single key hung on a rack for the Chauffeur. The hub caps was most likely another tradition because the E type came with knock off chrome wire spokes. I suppose a Cadillac came with alloys or something ? All this crap your throwing at the car doesnt make it not a luxury car as you stated. I didnt ask for your preference I asked what showed this car up. Wheres the class leading Cadillac ? They actually called this wood work cabinetry, no suprise, thats what it is. Therefore I would guess thats what was expected. From what I have researched that was handcrafted Walnut and included Walnut tables on the back of the front seats with vanity mirrors. I suspect this car as with most Rolls and Bentleys had chauffeur driven in mind. More English tradition much less common in America with oil barrons in Texas running a big fat set of longhorns on the hood......................

Well perhaps this is no more class leading than a Cadillac but it did have a little 3.8 DOHC inline six engine producing 265 hp. It did have fully independant suspension, it did have four wheel disc brakes.....................Im sure Cadillac trumped all that with class leading engine, suspension and brakes................tables in the back seat...........and enought Walnut to make a hutch............

but surely all this still'll equals.............. " These features are on par with --say-- Ford of the early '50s, not a luxury car of the '60s."

exposed window seals........BFD did they seal or did they rust the window channel? I suppose they should have hid their poor workmanship with gobs of pop on mismatched stainless ?

I love fat woven windlace, its something I miss. Is it possible the Brits also saw this as proper, its more detail rather than just rubber.

Bad electronics.............so you heard.............nothing that ever plagued a Domestic ?

Well I continue to pretend a Jaguar is a luxury car and you continue to pretend a Pontiac is a luxury car. Ill understand reality and you continue to live in your narrow minded bubble. Form over function right ? Didnt domestic luxury from this era have plastic tissue dispensors..........

[balthazar]

No: domestics had painted & chromed steel tissue dispensers, the ones I have for a '57 Pontiac & '59 Buick are. Jaguar even offer one in this era or is it tradition to have a crumpled wad of loose tissues in the glove box?

Yes: Cadillac had alloys- the first in the industry: '55 Eldorado: Sabre Spoke. No poverty caps available.

Yes: Cadillac had Walnut tables in the back, and footrests, by the early '60s in the S60S and earlier in the Series 75. In a '68 ad, Cadillac claimed 167 different interiors (trim, color, options, models). I'd guess Jaguar had about.... 12.

Cadillac had 270 HP by '55 and 345 by '59. I'm sure Cadillac's brakes & suspension were far more competitive with Jag's than Jag's interiors were with Cadillac's. And I'd put the brakes of Buick against Jag's discs anyday. Oh wait; we already know the outcome.... because it's a "Jag", right? Because Buicks are for old farts who can't drive, right?

Cadillac pioneered LSA independant front suspension so Jaguar & the rest of the industry could use it.

I didn't even go with Cadillac because it's so grossly one-sided. I also did not get into mechanicals (deflection)- I stuck with the interior of the Jag alone. In that instance a Pontiac will compete nicely, regardless of the 'image' or 'perception' of a "Pontiac".

Having no A/C and manual steering was also a 'tradition' for many decades- but at some point certain features are expected hallmarks of certain classes of vehicles. Certain treatments of details & construction were abandoned years earlier by numerous more plebian marques, then, eventually, Jaguar abandoned them too, following in the other's footsteps. None have returned to those methods- why? Where is the modern thick, buldging black rubber windshield gasket? They all sealed- which one looks more refined? How can this not matter in this class- would it be fine & dandy to have it be twice as thick? Three times??? At what point does asthetics become an issue with British cars, or is whatever they do sheer perfection?

I am no more 'close-minded' than you are by refusing to see things objectively and deflecting critiques. Sounds mightily like you're calling a Jag "luxury" just because it's a "Jag". Now who sounds like the media?

What about the above pictures says 'luxury' to you, razor? Maybe I'm just not seeing it; enlighten me.

[Sixty8panther]

Better start saving now.  I don't even want to know how expensive that is.

178104[/snapback]

Expensive... yeah.

You must be referring to the electrical gremlins, or perhaps the

ludicrous parts prices, or the craptastic UN-ease of maintenance.

[Flybrian]

Recently attained experience with mid-60s Jaguars?

[daves87rs]

Recently attained experience with mid-60s Jaguars?

178811[/snapback]

Actaully, yes, now that you ask. :AH-HA_wink:

A friend's uncle has one, and it's hell to maintain sometimes. It's also caught on

fire (luckly no damage)

But I've driven in it, and Fly-it's well worth it.

[Flybrian]

Wow. I'll have the most beautiful smoldering hulk on the block!

If I win the lottery, I'm just going to have a garage filled with rare, hard-to-maintain cars.

[razoredge]

What about the above pictures says 'luxury' to you, razor? Maybe I'm just not seeing it; enlighten me.

178783[/snapback]

Everything !

but only because its a Jaguar..............................

So just how H U G E was that Caddy engine............a real "class" leader Im sure..............

I got no problem with Cadillacs, I dont jump in on Cadillac topics to chop them down.........even through, they, for the most part have been gawd awful ugly......in my eyes

You want to damn everything and everybody that did not have the same industrial might and vast resources and engineering advancement as America post WWII. For such a great historian, you at the same time seem anxious to dismiss certain complications involved in the balance. You want to damn another country for being steeped in tradition, that was struggling to just get back to where they were after WWII let alone lead the way. Then of course once again its a country little larger than Flordia, and a company much smaller than any of GM's divisions...........How dare they not have "everything" and yet the nerve to be called "luxury". Then there was one final great gigantic trump card that America had and it was Harley Earl, a totally non traditionalist. Though he later did become steeped in his traditional wings and rocket fuselage with gigantic holes for and aft and 100's of pounds of stainless gawd..............something that most of his understudies hated. Still, one has to wonder had it not been for Mister Earl would Americans have been building bicycle fender cars well into the 50's ? Exner seemed lost after his great years in the mid 50's..........would Harley too have become trapped in his creativity ?

Hey I can see it, just not sure you can. I bet you wish you were with the Big Three in the 50's and Jag and Ferrari and all other European brands that you so loath were also under Domestic control and you'all could have crushed them like Tucker and all others that fell to the big money boss's pull. I mean in one topic you will lament Tucker for their fate and in another curse a survivor of similar unbalanced scales. Manufacturers who only survived those days due to the fact that they were within their own countrys and their own countries pride. Well, damn them to hell, how dare they see things differently. Perhaps all those extre thousands of miles between them and California left them a bit in the dark ......... ponder that ?

" Maybe I'm just not seeing it; enlighten me." Ive grown to not care what you "can see" because I clearly see you are narrowminded and cant except all differences that make for different products and approaches from different locations. I guess in todays world this would mean you would be a typical Lexus buyer and blow right passed the Caddy.

Jaguar never "followed" anyone and stuck to what they deemed proper for a Jaguar. One only needs to look at the few models they produced over the years to see they did not copy anything, always unique and uninspired by others. That in itself takes class in my eyes. It was also their demise but I got to love them for it. Today they are Fords with a touch of Jaguar throwback.

"What about the above pictures says 'luxury' to you" That car is all class, its that simple, myself I can only hope those hinges are brass, because if I had built that dash they would be...........polished brass, I may have even detailed them a bit and placed them entirely exposed.................like those of a high standard trunk. Speaking of which, I still love exposed finely crafted chromed trunk hinges........and here today everyone is complaining about "intruding trunk hinges"........we'll hey I got the answer.................in one day and time that would have been thought of as fine craftmanship I guess today it only means "not luxury"...........

I have a photo of a 63 Grand Prix placed nicely in my collection of fine motorcars, including the likes of Jaguar, Ferrari, DeSotos, Bugattis, Pagaso's, Maseratis and Buicks. Makes me smile to think of the cringing that would be done by the narrow minds of the "enthousiasts" on both sides of the pond to see such cars side by side.

[Flybrian]

Consider this - England had the daylights bombed out of them for four years, and they managed to build a car like this. Not bad.

[razoredge]

62 Fleetwood

"caps"

[razoredge]

Sorry the fleetwood was the wrong year, just a mistake

I found this for the Cadillac engine and performance

"Cadillac's long-running V-8 got its first major revision in 14 years for 1963. Bore and stroke were unchanged, as were valves, rocker arms, cylinder heads, compression (still 10.5:1), and connecting rods. But nearly everything else was different: lighter, stronger crankshaft; a stiffer block weighing 50 pounds less than the previous one; ancillaries relocated to improve service access. While all this did little for performance, the revised 390 was much smoother and quieter. Then again, performance was already good. The typical '63 could reach 115-120 mph, do 0-60 mph in 10 seconds, and return about 14 miles per gallon."

this is what I have for the 63 Jaguar engine......no now wait a second my book says the Mark X was introduced at london motor show in 61 but none the less.

"The Mark X used the 265 hp 3.8 litre (231 ci).............to record some impressive statistics for a big car: 0-60 in under 11 seconds and a top speed of 115."

Boy they were way off the mark with that one...............

So by 65 MY they increased to 4.2 litre with the same HP but 10% more torque and top speed of 122.

[razoredge]

For priceing I only have

"Remarkably, a Series 62 still cost as little as $5026; the Eldo Biarritz was only $6608."

only have XK E-type for 61 I believe

"$5,595 for convetable and $5,895 for the coupe ". yes that is US dollars. Im sure the MarkX was more or so one would think.......but then again the XKE with its chrome spoke knock offs "could reach speeds of 151 and 0-60 in seven"

again way off the Mark..............

I ponder what the first domestic production car to reach speeds of 150 was, then I bet there was no involved...................

[razoredge]

OK, now Im up to speed with theyears agian so were back to 62 Cadillacs. Heres the highly acclaimed Coupe Deville in economy caps

another ?? with caps

Im not finding leather yet, I better go look for an Eldorado

"Ill be back"

[razoredge]

OK, here we go 62 Cadillac Eldorado convertable with alloys..........no wait..those are caps

so now we know what constitutes a luxury car in 1962

and what doesnt ?................

[balthazar]

[Flybrian: >>"Consider this - England had the daylights bombed out of them for four years, and they managed to build a car like this. Not bad."<<

No; it's not bad. Who said it was bad?

There is .... some....... span of years between 1945 and 1961.

For the record: from the 'bombed-out' country, Jag was in production immediately after WWII, and managed to bring out new saloons quite often; the '48 Mk V, '50 Mk VII, '56 Mk VIII, '58 Mk IX and the '61 Mk X.

One would assume still more models were designed & built to fill out the numerical order. Fairly productive after all.

[balthazar]

>>"You want to damn another country for being steeped in tradition, that was struggling to just get back to where they were after WWII let alone lead the way. "<<

I said nothing about the U.K. or how overlong their tea has steeped.

>>"Then of course once again its a country little larger than Flordia, and a company much smaller than any of GM's divisions"<<

This is irrelevant. Product quality has never been proportional to square area of a country nor it's population. Russian/Chinese cars, anyone?

>>"Still, one has to wonder had it not been for Mister Earl would Americans have been building bicycle fender cars well into the 50's ?"<<

Would that have been deplorable..... or "traditional"....?

>>"I bet you wish you were with the Big Three in the 50's and Jag and Ferrari and all other European brands that you so loath were also under Domestic control and you'all could have crushed them like Tucker and all others that fell to the big money boss's pull."<<

You obviously have no idea of my attitude towards the industry's history.

>>"Ive grown to not care what you "can see" because I clearly see you are narrowminded and cant except all differences that make for different products and approaches from different locations."<<

Check back: I did not knock the car as it was EXCEPT for the fact it's branded "luxury" when there are no contemporary hallmarks of luxury visible in the pics above; indeed, to the contrary. I have nothing against the car as a stand-alone; in fact- many of those features I called out I find endearing in my '40 Ford 8-ton truck.

>>"Jaguar never "followed" anyone..."<<

No- never. Every new advance ever introduced came from quarantined Jaguar think tanks.

>>"always unique and uninspired by others."<<

'58 Jag:

'55 Bentley:

>>""What about the above pictures says 'luxury' to you" That car is all class, its that simple"<<

Is it? Can we get a single, tangible specific to support this, or should I just shut my eyes and 'feel' it? Seats really great, comfortable, supportive........ anything??

>>"myself I can only hope those hinges are brass"<<

Yes, let's hope.

>>"I may have even detailed them a bit and placed them entirely exposed.................like those of a high standard trunk."<<

Just when I think we're in a different universe, now you're getting into it! A partially-exposed, 1-inch common hinge is naught but cheap work.... but a detailed, polished brass hinge, perhaps with a bit of scroll-work or florish, THAT'S the kind of detail that marks a luxury car. A hinge is utilitarian and neccesary, but it can rise above that, it can become a thing of engineering / beauty.... OR... hide it completely. Make the basic interesting and/or thoughful or conceal it. THIS is "luxury": the extra touches, the extra effort, the extra cost. None of those aspects are evident in that exposed hardware store-grade hinge. And as I said- it is but 1 example.

Edited August 14, 2006 by balthazar

[Sixty8panther]

Razor:

No offense but you're making me laugh. I would not take

a dozen '63 Jaguars over that white Fleetwood, never

mind the black drop-top. Also your "economy caps"

annalogy makes NO SENSE.

Anyone who drove 115mph on 1960s public roads with

bias ply tires in a 1963 anything was retarded.

If I win the lottery, I'm just going to have a garage filled with rare, hard-to-maintain cars.

178839[/snapback]

You're off to a good start with your FWD sedan that

has a transverse-mount DOHC V8. A Jaguar X-type

would be a great addition to your fleet.

Edited August 14, 2006 by Sixty8panther

[Flybrian]

You're off to a good start with your FWD sedan that

has a transverse-mount DOHC V8. A Jaguar X-type

would be a great addition to your fleet.

180008[/snapback]

OMG 4REALZ IT TAKES ME 5 MIN TO CHANGE MUH AIR FILTAR 40 MIN TO CHANGE ALL MY PLUGS AN WIREZ AN 5 MIN TO GET AT TEH THROTTLE BODIE WAT A PIN IN TEH @$$!!!1!1!!1!111!1!111LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[ocnblu]

To this day, Europeans show signs of austerity and adherence to tradition in their cars. The pervading need to economize that grew out of 2 World Wars largely fought on European soil might be a reason the Jaguar appears relatively primitive. Edited August 14, 2006 by ocnblu

[razoredge]

So gald Im not narrowminded. Balth, you have shown nothing but predudice critique and snide little meaningless comments you may actually fit in quite well with the stiff upper lip set sippin tea. I see two different approaches to the same ends. The Caddys while more "modern" are cheap stamped this and thats from a more industrial advanced and unscathed country. This Jaguars interior on the other hand was hand built. What ever they lacked in stamped stainless trim and spot welded hinges on the glove box they made up for elsewhere.

You asked what was class leading and then blew off the fact that this cars independant suspension, disc brakes and aluminum OHC engine producing far more power per cube and close enough final performance results as nothin because of what you prefered. You want to make large of unhidden ruber and make little of other advancements..............I guess that speaks volumns of your objectives, which are little more than belittlement and oh so similar to what the media does to GM today that you object to.

I cant believe you just now realized the corrolation of Jaguar, Rolls and Bentley. Something I would never even waste my time on. Should we throw up a 58 Chevy, Pontiac, Olds, Buick with a 57 Caddy predesessor to show the vast "differences" They always looked nearly the same to me. Hell go grap a Packard while your at it.

Sylvestor - laugh all you want, Id rather be "funny" than be like you, which there is never any chance of.

I placed the pictures of the Caddy to show that if that is luxury so is a Jaguar. If a Jaguar is not , neither is a Cadillac.

After all that is what blew this topic all to f@#kin hell.................the statement that a Jaguar was NOT a luxury car................how ignorantly stupid.

I could give a damn who would prefer what 62 car to this Jaguar, that was not what the topic was posted for. I have many others I would take over this Jaguar............including other Jaguars............but what was the f@#king point in popping in and saying a Jaguar is not a luxury car..........................huh ??????????????

Edited August 15, 2006 by razoredge

[balthazar]

RECAP ~

I addressed the interior and a few exterior details based on the pics above and questioned the car's claim to 'luxury' based on those details.

In answer, you crawled under the car and pointed to the rear suspension and referenced HP/CI figures.

I admitted more than once that the car itself was fine & had admirable overall styling but fell short of the class standard in those aforementioned details, and you admitted I was in a narrowminded bubble full of ungrounded prejudice.

I asked for specifics, but the only one I got was regarding the hinges, which you admitted were less that what you yourself would have preferred. None of the rest of it apparently mattered, yet assumedly those same details in a period Pontiac would make enthusiasts "cringe", in your opinion.

We're having 2 different discussions.

Once again, you've gone straight to balled fists and knashed teeth as soon as someone disagrees, and there can be no argument: that opinion is wrong. How dare anyone question the staus quo? A Jaguar simply must be a luxury car..... because.... it..... just is. Facts need not apply.

To truely have an open discussion, one would have to be able to stand back, push away the sterotypes, the intangibles, the fluff, the claptrap ('tiny country involved in WWII 16 years earlier'), open one's eyes and SEE and ask; what is real here?

It is in fact the narrowminded who is unable to do so... and I suspect the beligerence, accusations and personal judgements are more than enough proof of that.

Whatever- it's all well & good; passion is a core component for the true auto enthusiast. Razor- you certainly can never be accused of not being passionate about your opinions.

Second star to the right and straight on until morning.

[NOS2006]

OMG 4REALZ IT TAKES ME 5 MIN TO CHANGE MUH AIR FILTAR 40 MIN TO CHANGE ALL MY PLUGS AN WIREZ AN 5 MIN TO GET AT TEH THROTTLE BODIE WAT A PIN IN TEH @$$!!!1!1!!1!111!1!111LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

180100[/snapback]

:rotflmao:

[Sixty8panther]

Some would say the curernt Avalon is a Luxury car.

This does NOT make it so. Jaguars mostly suck.

Lucas electronics, the lack of refinement in many

areas & the typical quirky British B.S. that comes

with Jaguar ownership is enough for me to group it

more in the "pseudo-luxury" segment that is so often

shopped by the want-to-look-sophisticated crowd.

I'd love an E-type or a Series II sedan but I'd love

a bunch of American Cars much more.

[razoredge]

just some various demeaning quotes that started this well deserved &#036;h&#33; !

I dunno... "Jag" has this reputation, but upon cursory examination, the rep falls down hard in the details!

Cons: Again- the details- they're NOT 'luxury'. Exposed rubber backlight gasket? 'Poverty caps' with painted steelies?

bla

bla

bla

Should I continue?.... These features are on par with --say-- Ford of the early '50s, not a luxury car of the '60s.

Look: I know it's the '60s and it's british and that means we're supposed to overlook all these things (and more), but the fact of the matter is, compared to domestic luxury marques of the same period, Jaguar was far behind class leading in everything except reputation... which was based on what again?

I could live with & enjoy the interior, as long as I didn't have to pretend it was a luxury car. But:

>>"Then, it was a brand that was the best of the best in terms of luxury."<<

Perhaps on the British stage, but then again, no. On the international stage, no way in hell.

Really looks the 'luxury' part, tho; old world classy.

it's no where near where the class leaders in this segment --or even numerous non-luxury makes-- were.

Sounds mightily like you're calling a Jag "luxury" just because it's a "Jag".

What about the above pictures says 'luxury' to you,  Maybe I'm just not seeing it;

overlong their tea has steeped

it's branded "luxury" when there are no contemporary hallmarks of luxury visible

I just shut my eyes and 'feel' it?

A Jaguar simply must be a luxury car..... because.... it..... just is.

Apparently if they had painted the Walnut black on the dash top and covered the front with stamped stainless..........oh and hidden the "horrible" small detail the hinges throw into the picture...........a black steering wheel is acceptable............. The hanging conditioner and lack of flowing consoul is also probably "acceptable" because most likely the Jaguar does not have AC........or if it did it would be a "horrible Lucas" system...........which as we all know from personal experience could no way be as reliable as that ?_?_?_?_?

So we can clearly see from these photo comparisions "On the international stage, no way in hell" I quess Ill have to "close my eyes, and pretend both are luxury cars"

I cant find a good rear seat view so Ill go with this

and this from the cheaper 3.8 sedan, complete with window cranks........."oh gawd, it cant be "luxury".........

yep even if I close my eyes and dream "Second star to the right and straight on until morning" am I able to see how one of these cars is "not a luxury car of the '60s". I realize I should "not even go with Cadillac because it's so grossly one-sided" but maybe "the rep falls down hard" when ones eyes are closed and they spend too much time pretending they are "compared to domestic luxury marques of the same period"..............

apparently even the great Harley Earl and Bill Mitchel were setting the target too low when they set sites on Jaguar for the Corvette and Riviera..........I mean why would they want to build a car and call it a sports car if they were thinking of Jaguar and why would they want to build a personal luxury "grand sport" car while having Jaguar in mind ?

I dont come here to shoot wits and determine who can be the most cunning at the lips. I come here to enjoy cars.

So yea................LETS RECAP!

Flybrian  Aug 9 2006, 08:07 PM Post #1 

But its from the sixties and from England, so you know its cool.

Jaguar Mark X!

English luxury...

[ocnblu]

(Searching for window cranks)

[razoredge]

(Searching for window cranks)

180774[/snapback]

What are the two levers seen on the rear door of the small photo of the 3.8 sedan I posted ? I understand one but there is a second ?

[NOS2006]

What are the two levers seen on the rear door of the small photo of the 3.8 sedan I posted ? I understand one but there is a second ?

180793[/snapback]

For the quarter-window?

[balthazar]

Window crank & door handle, I would imagine. Quarter window latch is at the bottom of the quarter window frame.

Ooops- there I go again noticing details....

[balthazar]

All right razor; you're right: I came off a bit acidic. Should've been more.... diplomatic.

My wording choice aside, my opinion based on the pics still stands. I see little evidence that that Jag interior is up where the class standard of the time was. I for one would take brushed aluminum & chromed steel over painted 'wood' anyday, but to each his own I guess. Certain aspects very well may be competitive, but others are obviously short. Overlooking them obviously differs person-to-person.

Keep in mind the Mk X was specifically targeting the domestic luxury market....

I will be on the lookout for one of these this fall car show season, camera in hand. Can't tell you the last time I've seen one of them, but then again I've never sought one out.

[Sixty8panther]

Balthazar:

Just a thought... not to be rude but you complain often about how little

BMW's styling evolved from the 60s to the 90s... how about Jaguar?

I think they're a worse example of stagnat designs just getting old and

aging poorly while chrome is replaced by plastic & rubber.

1980s & 1990s Jaguars are even more cheesy & ugly than this one IMO.

[balthazar]

It's true: BMWs styling for like a 25 year stretch was the same exact thing over & over & over, but Jag had numerous different models that were nothing alike and world's better than the utilitarian "eh." BMW fostered off on the consumer. Sure- Jag's styling often ran for long spans of years too, but at least the evolution within the design is apparent at once.

The one modern Jag's styling I like most seem to dislike: the Type S.

And to clarify- the basic lines & proportions of the Mark X are very nice. Some of the exterior details (again) are not quite to my tastes but I would not call the mark X 'cheesy' at all.

[Sixty8panther]

Hmmm.. interesting.

I love BMW's evolution from the early 70s to the late 80s.

The CSL, 2002, 5-series, 3-series, 6-series & 8-series all

seem to have a very evolutionary line to them from one

decade to the next. I think the Mark X is very much a

1992 Jaguar with quad round headlights instead of square

ones. It's the same line & basic styling from one decade

to the next.

I actually love the S-type. I think it's a great retro version

of the Mark II salon. ON the flip side I hate the X-type's

styling with a passion... and the 97% Ford mechanicals

ruin the car completely for me.

On the otehr hand look at these photos and see if you can

see the evolution in BMWs. Just being a devil's advocate.

[Sixty8panther]

[ocnblu]

razor, I swear to God, that second picture wasn't on my monitor when I posted that thing about cranks and their yankers.

[Flybrian]

One picture would've sufficed. I didn't need to see a bunch of chintzy, dime-a-dozen German cars in a thread about luxury vehicles.

[Sixty8panther]

One picture would've sufficed. I didn't need to see a bunch of chintzy, dime-a-dozen German cars in a thread about luxury vehicles.

181017[/snapback]

It's all relative.

I'd crush about 75 "perfect" Jaguars to save one 1987 BMW M6.

Jaguar's reputation for craptastic reliability is something you

can not ignore. True, today BMW 3-series are a dime a dozen

but at least they deliver what they promise in performance &

at the end of the day they start & drive.

Even people who are obsessed with British cars admit that you

have to be a sedomasichist to own them.

[Flybrian]

Wish my car had lots of rubber and plastic like an 80s Bimmer...

[Sixty8panther]

Wish my car had lots of rubber and plastic like an 80s Bimmer...

181026[/snapback]

Your Aurora with its plastic nose has just as much if not more

plastic & rubber than most 1980s BMWs. Just because it's

shaped like an aerodynamic lozenge doesn't mean it's not so.

Ever notice how the coolest cars to come out of the UK are pretty

much just cars styled in the UK but they have powerplants from

the USA or Germany?

McLaren F1 = BMW V12

Shelby (AC) Cobra 427 Roadster = Ford 427 dry sump

Sunbeam Tiger = Ford 289 power

My neighbor's frined's dogwalker's cousin's 1983 Jaguar XJ: Chevy 454 powered.