I want this car

[Flybrian]

Exposed black rubber and plastic slapped on the sides of the vehicle. Cheap as hell.

Anyway, I'd take any Jag (sans X-Type) over any Bimmer any day of any week. They're rarer, far classier, and something not everyone W.A.C. has.

[Sixty8panther]

W.A.C.?

Toma-to Tom-Ato I guess. I'm the opposite.

At least we can both agree the X-type is junk.

[Flybrian]

W.A.C.? 

181090[/snapback]

With Approved Credit. Granted, most people lease Jags, too.

I just know I'd rather have an XJ over a 7er. Who can't love a car made from aluminum?

[Camino LS6]

Now this is really odd, an argument I can't takes sides on.

I like all of the cars in question.

Just a couple of points:

- Jag (and other British cars) are traditional as a matter of course. The details noted earlier in this thread are more a function of sylistic differences rather than advancement or lack of it.

- An insane neighbor of my parents let one of these cars in decent condition sit until it became one with the earth. A true crime against humanity.

- My Jag is WAY newer (1979) than this one.

[balthazar]

Flybrian: >>"Exposed black rubber.... Cheap as hell."<<

But luxurious, no?

Camino LS6: >>"Jag (and other British cars) are traditional as a matter of course. The details noted earlier in this thread are more a function of sylistic differences rather than advancement or lack of it."<<

Is this conjecture or fact and how would you prove it?

What determines whether a feature/method of doing something is either a stylistic difference, or --based on the product's competition-- merely an outmoded anachronism?

And if the former, when that specific feature/method of doing that same thing is changed and now matches the rest of the industry practice, has stylistic uniqueness been cast aside or has something else happened (and is it called 'progress')?

[razoredge]

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....

180859[/snapback]

Hello ! NOOOOOOOOOO!! I pointed it out and once again just because you cant seem to absorb any text...............this photo is from the 3.8 sedan as in.......... say the Skylark rather than the Electra...........can you understand that ???????????????

[Sixty8panther]

this photo is from the 3.8 sedan as in.......... say the Skylark rather than the Electra...........can you understand that ???????????????

181211[/snapback]

Crank windows or not I bet the price is closer to Electra than

any compact American car. I'm not seeing any amount of

60s luxury here and I grew up in Europe.

[balthazar]

and this from the cheaper 3.8 sedan, complete with window cranks.......

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 ?

Unless you're referring to another pic that's not loading for me, the 2 levers are the window crank and the door handle. Since the quarter window pivots, what else could the 2nd lever possibly be?

I pointed it out and once again just because you cant seem to absorb any text...............this photo is from the 3.8 sedan as in.......... say the Skylark rather than the Electra...........can you understand that ???????????????

Where did I call the model into question in answering the crank question? And why would that matter?

Aren't all '61-64 Mark Xs 3.8L cars? What is this with the "cheaper 3.8L" comment??

[razoredge]

Wow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well now I read the rest of todays ramblings and engineering wanna bees and all I can say is your all prejudice...................MORONs........ [said in jest, but to make a point as well]

All except Camino and Blu who seem to have some understanding of tradition, cultural and economical lack of technical advancements within their own countries that were no way in hell playing on a level field with war prosperious and war technology advanced America. I mean America was up and ready to go with lots of learned tec and enlarged factories properous from lots of gov $ and a vast supply of work hungry war vets and by gosh the future was bright. In Europe they were all doing the "I think I can, I think I can"............... How dense can one man be.

But there just isnt any sence in repeating that over and over because Balth just doesnt give a &#036;h&#33;, he only likes the big three and that is the end of it, all others suck, he dont give a damn if they were companies 1/10 the size, building cars by hand, factory totaled out in a 1958 fire....... nothing. I wont bother trying to explain that that my be a large part of the reason the Mark IX seems fimiliar...........cause none of that counts to old Balth............if you dont have the stainless & tecnology to stamp out thousands of Caddy dashes in an hour and would rather instead craft this Mark X dash from solid Walnut..................your just way out of touch with "modernization".................and have nothing to offer the "luxury" market...........only the pretend to be's...............

And BTFinW what the f@#k is with this "painted wood" bull&#036;h&#33;.............this aint GM, you would be laughed right out of Europe if you released a "luxury car" back at this time with "painted wood"...............geeze, just grow up already, each and every piece of that is solid wood. Wow...............

Sylvester having grown up somewhat................in a part of the world that never even got over the real war............... WWII........ should be far less ignorant but perhaps hes forgotten from where he came ?

Now lets once again forget all those manufacturing concerns that confronted, England, Germany, Italy and France. Just forget all that because to old Balth thats just making excuses for.............showing rubber France never recovered, gone were Bugatti, Ballot, Delage and Delahaye, all they seemed to scrap up was a Citroen that looked a bit like a VW.

But never mind all that, just forget it................in Englands case what about all that stiff upper lip, proper "pride". I cant explain it, dont completely understand it, I have a bit of an idea, being more tied to the past than the future.............a quality that has never appeared in Old Balths character............ .

Lets just take a look at the rubber issue. My 64 Alpine, a car I owned just to prove my " sedomasichist" nature. That Sunbeam (64) had a windshield that was completely trimed in stamped Stainless..........however there was a thick rubber gasket between the glass and the stainless as well as between the frame and the car body, the molding was somewhat sculped for lack of a better word so there was some attention to detail and there was nothing cheap going on either, in fact maybe they felt the "Domestics" skimped on the rubber? Now go back 2 years to a 62 I parted out............it had frame trim that was chromed, it was heavier material than sheet, maybe more like bumper thickness. I cant say now, its been gone for years so I cant go and check but it was of entirely different construction methods, I remember making note of that way back. This tell me a few things, their tecnology was in change around this period. They also liked to see a stout gasket with a certain amount of craftmanship or design applied to it. Now this was a cheap Brit sportscar with chrome or stainless and yet the luxury Jaguar has nothing but rubber and steel wheels, where the XKE has similar attributes to trim detail as my Alpine but has expensive chrome spoke knockoffs..............could it just be that this underworked area of the car was "proper" ? Take a look at old Bentleys, very little fancy trim, perhaps this was thought to be boyish and for the sportscar crowd ? Look at Bentleys and Rolls into the 70's........80's even, still very understated in these areas, and still very old school styling traditions. There has to be something behind it, like it or not, because the Brits obviously showed some glitter on their sportscars.

Or did the "proper" Brits lead the way for the "blackout trim" that became so "proper" to be a cool car in America 30 years later...................

No wait................. " Is this conjecture or fact and how would you prove it? ".......................

As for the BMW thing, I like them just as well, but they have been a different kind of car until more recently. Older interiors were not even trying to be luxury. Its just a different kind of car, and one just cant deny German engineering intelligence. Still none the less they too were bound and determined to stick to the program and make sure a BMW still looked like a BMW. A Porsche like a Porsche and a Mercedes like a Mercedes. Well that just dont cut it with Old Balth......... gowl dang them old world people anyhow.................bastids !

Sylvestor, once again your ignorance shines through, the GT40 was designed and engineered in Fords FAV Ltd. in Slough Bucks............wherever that is, somewhere England. Because they could not compete with Ferrari, litre for litre, they were then brought to Shelby for the H U G E shoehorn and other necessary beef ups to endure such massiveness. They then had great success but did not "destroy" the smaller Ferraris, they simply won more races but not all of them............OK ? And their day was over when the put a stop to the H U G E displacement, and made it so manufacturers had to put some thought into getting more power not just more iron. As we know Porsche won that battle.

I could go on and on and on fighting ignorance but thats in itself is ignorant because ignorance.................is what it is and those that are............are what they are............for good reason...............they are ignorant and well steeped in that tradition.

1963 Bentley S III Continental

OH my GAWD ! Its like.............like................like a 32 Ford

[razoredge]

The standard of the world

I'm not seeing any amount of

60s luxury here

and I grew up here......................

[Flybrian]

In retrospect, maybe I shouldn't have wanted a Jag Mark X...

[razoredge]

OK lets recap, this is how I know you dont really let much sink in, this is a "3.8 Sedan", a lower budget Jaguar, I posted this photo on page one. I see Fly is starting to edit, maybe the photos are taking to much but once again

this is from 61 - ?? 67 ?? where it was replaced by a .........you guessed it, very similar looking car. Yes same engine, all cars, same engine, different tune for the E types. 3.8 DOHC, larger 4.2 and smaller 3.4 (used in the ....you guessed it 3.4 Sedan) This must be the grill/front that the one more modern models went retro on. So I guess you could say if the Mark X was the Electra the 3.8 Sedan was the LeSabre and the 3.4 was the Skylark.

Also remember Jaguar was marketed as "affordable luxury" so was more like the Buick or Oldsmobile and the Bentleys and Rolls more like the Cadillac or Lincoln or Imperial.........but must I remind you.............from a different country, with different preferences, taste, ideals and traditions

[razoredge]

In retrospect, maybe I shouldn't have wanted a Jag Mark X...

181269[/snapback]

yea, the other hot topics about gayisms, toyotas suck, Josh jokes and the likes have always been of more intellectual value and interest. This is the best topic you ever started as far as Im concerned..........................and Im going to end it too.................

In proper British fashion, Ill never surrender but stand and hold my ground or die on it !

[balthazar]

OK lets recap, this is how I know you dont really let much sink in, this is a "3.8 Sedan", a lower budget Jaguar, I posted this photo on page one.

Yeah; but the thread was primarily focused on the Mark X! Those 6-8 pics of the Mk X on the opening page, along with the direct commentary following should've made that crystal clear. My comments sure were all about the Mark X. One pic of another Jag sedan doesn't alter 15 posts about the interior of the Mark X. Why are we jumping to another model?

Again- how does the fact that the 2 cranks were from the '3.8 Sedan' (as opposed to the Mark X 3.8L sedan) have even the most minute bearing on telling what they control?

Answer that, please.

[balthazar]

While not the most expansive shot, I do see the Cadillac's front seatback is 3 times thicker than the Jag, with assist grabs for the rear passengers, it has a wider & longer fold-down armrest, longer door armrests, more legroom (front seat does appear to have been moved forward) and a well-coordinated blend of upholstery textures & materials.

I like the chrome & stainless trimwork enough to consider it another edge, but that has no true bearing on the issue at hand.

Close cropping precludes seeing anything else, but in comparison, those features sure look to provide more comfort & enjoyment to the passengers. How both seats compare in comfort under one's bum I cannot say.

Balth just doesnt give a &#036;h&#33;, he only likes the big three and that is the end of it, all others suck...

Hi, I'm the new guy here! Maybe later I'll tell you guys what cars I like!

Seriously, there are a great many vehicles I like & admire that range far beyond the Big 3.

Here's one: guess you forgot all about the Abarth thread not too long ago, eh?? There I actually thanked you for posting the pics; how come I didn't get a beligerant response there? Oh wait....... I agreed w/ you.

No points for my positive comments on the Mark X's styling either? Oh well.... you lose some, you lose some.

...economical lack of technical advancements within their own countries...

HOW COME we have, on one hand a 'superior' DOHC 6 with great HP/CI yet this very same war- and flame-torn company gets a full pardon on something so simple as a gasket??? Ran out of money?? God, if that were the case you'd think Jag wouldn't have been able to field such a wide & varied catalog of vehicles in this era! In fact, making a thinner gasket should cost less!

The Mark X was specifically built to compete in the American market. If it was priced more like a Buick than a Cadillac, how'd it do sales-wise?If extremely low, was it possibly because the ENTIRE COUNTRY was filled with prejudiced buyers for whom nothing sank in??

[razoredge]

your grasping at straws, one is not better than the other they are only different. The photos side by side speak a thousand words.

The 3.8 Sedan was used if you read the text because I could not find a clear shot photo across the back seat of a Mark X. The first time I used the photo was in answer to Blus question about the styling approach.

OK, so now we need to drop her down a knotch to Buicks level, lets see what I can find...............

wow this is nice, kinda small photo, far better than the more traditional Cadillac

62 Wildcat

62 Electra

Buicks are so nice, I never got the Cadillac thing, its always been like they were trapped in some type of "things must be this way or its not a Cadillac".....hmm sounds fimiliar.

no expensive wood, lots of plastic and steel, no full leather but very modern for that time and in fact Id take either these Buicks or the Jaguars interior design over many of todays cars. Not all but many. But that Caddy........aint for me.

Edited August 17, 2006 by razoredge

[balthazar]

your grasping at straws, one is not better than the other they are only different.

I don't know how you can sit there and type that. Thicker, wider seats, more expansive armrests, assist grips and more legroom are NOT 'straws' but real world advantages to passenger comfort. It's absolutely prime criteria for comparison in this segment. It's biggity big.

Otherwise, no interiors are better than any others- just different.

[balthazar]

'62 GP:

[razoredge]

This is getting frustrating. The only photo of a whole back seat we have here is of the 3.8 Sedan, a cheaper, smaller car than the Mark X.

No proof of any legroom issue in Mark X photos that do not show leg room..........nor center armrest. The door arm rest appears to be the same size, only the Jaguars is curved, does it matter?................not to me, the Caddys rear interior could just as well be some 50's Ford with assist grips from what I see. The seat bottom is not inviting at all, unless your under 5' tall and have dirty deeds with a short girl in mind. On the other hand the photo of the 3.8 Sedan just begs to be sat in.

front seatback is 3 times thicker, means ? If thats 6" the Jag is only 2 ? If so important how come heavy truck seat backs are very thin and yet quite comfortable and designed for the long haul ? Same with sportscar seats, I surely hope you dont mean to imply that in this Caddy, ones back would sink in 3 inches ? I can tell by looking at them they are firm as hell. So yea Id say thats a real straw grab.

One car has "hand grabs" and one has a crazy amount of Walnut trim and "table tops" a trade off ? I sure hope someone doesnt really have to use those seat backs to get in and out of that "luxury" car because if they do its not luxury but a rather poor ergonomically designed car. Perhaps the Jaguars easier to get in and out of ? Or is that early roll over protection ?

This here ? - "Otherwise, no interiors are better than any others- just different." like many other comments..... always going to extremes and exagerations to minimalize of the fact that there is minimal difference and various tradeoffs on behalf of all.

The Pontiacs interior is nice but its not a luxury car, its a version of an American sports car. At least its got full gauges...............down by the knees. Lots of plastic and stamped steel, then, the "must have" for "American muscle" the column mounted tac...............hey I dont mind, but I bet the Europeans find that tac......y. Then we know that shifter has a ? 10" throw ? Another no- no in the performance field, but that had been American tradition for decades, I accept it and understand how it fits the muscle theme of things, you really feel like your getting something done when you slamb that lever up and over with brut force.

Still forgetting the poor location of the gauges and long throw shifter with its horrible leverage the long bend places on the linkage, its a very nice looking designed interior. Extra this and thats on the wheel and dash. More form over function that has a pleasent effect on the eyes...................kinda like many board feet of Walnut and vast yards of leather. Hey at least the keys in the right place.

The engine, well we all know the score with Native Iron V8s, there they are and what they lack in dazzling brilliance they make up for in size and brute low RPM force. Then the engine is nearly at the axle center, another no no in the performance field but the Corvette did make up for this, so I really shouldnt pick on a car based on more conventional production design, I understand it and accept it, same with the engine.

Where as the Jaguar engine was also designed to be jewel like as well as its performance aspects. Which incidently we all know the I6 was felt to be near bullit proof in its day, right ? Not like its more tedious younger V12 big brother, which frankly I dont know the real story behind. I suspect in many instances it was simply over the heads of your typical American iron greese monkey who did more harm to the engines than good by simply touching them.

[balthazar]

I'm still enjoying this.

>>"The Pontiacs interior is nice but its not a luxury car, its a version of an American sports car. At least its got full gauges...............down by the knees."<<

Luxury, is very apparently in the eye of the beholder. If comfort, materials, design, amenities and attention to detail are present, you have a strong argument for luxury right there. IMO the early GPs were luxury cars, it's just that they could also be fantastic performers... all depends on how they are optioned. And Pontiac knew how to load an option sheet.

The trio of guages are aftermarket. Big guage on the console is the factory tach in '62 (in '63 it would move up high, to the left of the speedo). No Pontiac (or other GM) factory tach on the column in this era.

>>"Lots of plastic and stamped steel,"<<

I've owned & been around lots of these cars- there is a very minimal amount of plastic. 2 years earlier GM cars average less than 15 lbs of plastic on the whole car. My '59 Buick's interior only has plastic over the speedo/gauges, a plastic dome light lense, shift knob and the acrylic plastic of the steering wheel. That's really it.

In '62, Pontiac is not much different & still has steel coat hooks, kick panel vents & door lock knobs.

More importantly, every surface & componet in the interior is designed: no flat featureless panels, no disjointed/disharmonious treatments- all levers & knobs match and compliment each other. It's a damned well done package.

>>"Then we know that shifter has a ? 10" throw ?"<<

I don't know but regardless: cars properly equipped were blisteringly quick. Bend in handle does not effect linkage or shifting action: the lever pivots just below the floor and doesn't know if the handle is straight or bent. Pontiac also used HD Hurst linkage as standard equipment: I've seen the shifts described as "smooth & quick as grease". Box is a Borg-Warner unit borrowed from the Corvette.

Doesn't really matter how long the throws are: neither short or long is better, only different.

>>"Native Iron V8s, there they are and what they lack in dazzling brilliance they make up for in size and brute low RPM force."<<

The one above is brilliant for developing 465 HP and ripping a mid-12 quarter miles off. If one has to open the hood to explain why one's motor's better...... the old saying 'Actions speak louder than words' springs to mind.

>>' Then the engine is nearly at the axle center"<<

Nope- part of the formost cylinder is at the axle line- rest of the V-8 is behind the axle. Weight distribution (1965) is still damned respectable: 56/44.

[balthazar]

Another 'Mark X' ('65 4.2L "420") dash:

rear seat area:

I see some new details I like more now.... and some I like less. Let's just leave it at that.

[Sixty8panther]

In proper British fashion, Ill never surrender but stand and hold my ground or die on it !

181281[/snapback]

Kind of like Rover & so many British marques.

Seriously here's the state of the British production car in 2006.

Jaguar --- owned by FORD. (the American lowest common denominator)

Rover --- RIP (bought recently by some Millionare in Shanghai)

Bentley --- owned by VW

AC --- RIP

Rolls Royce --- owned by BMW

MG --- [see Rover]

Triumph --- ?

Daimler --- ?

Mini --- onwed by BMW

What would you say is a bigger slap in the face to a once "repected"

British marque like Jaguar?

1. Jokes about how Jaguars are the only cars costing $80,000 that

have poorer reliability than a 1978 Hyundai Pony.

2. This prestigious company is owned by the company that made

the Mustang II & Escort GT.

I think that's why that dude from TopGear is such a prick and makes

fun of American cars... because the British Automotive industry is at

this point "nonexistant" and it's damaging to his ego.

Kidding (mostly)

[XP715]

For me, Jaguar is the one marque I really have not the slightest desire to own. Call me old-fashioned, but there's just something about not being able to drive my car when the dew point spikes up that doesn't come across as appealing to me. Sure, I'd love to have an old XJS hard top, but not before having a nice Tuned Port 350 sitting on a stand in the corner of the garage and a new wiring harness to replace the V12 and fantastic electrical systems british cars have long been noted for; the saying "Lord Lucas, Prince of Darkness" isn't for nothing, y'know. Princess Diana giving back the XJS she got from Jaguar for free because it was such a piece of &#036;h&#33; in favor of a Mercedes SL500 is also a testament to their superior quality, as well as the quality of other British makes; none of which she chose.

This old Jag's sitting outside the front gate of a junkyard not five miles from my house, the picture taken not even a week ago, with this thread in the back of my mind as the only reason to make me stop and snap a quick photo. And to be perfectly honest, the triple bronze '79 Lincoln Town Coupe down in the back row of the yard breaks my heart being there more than this thing does, and it's a f@#king Ford. Can someone please explain to me what's behind the aura that people think a British car has, because I sure as hell do not see it.

[Sixty8panther]

XP:

I love that silly looking little egg shapped grille... I'd love

to make a RAT ROD out of this guy and not even touch

the paint but that's about it. Just drop it on an S10 frame

and throw a ZZ4 between the fenders attached to a nice

rebuilt Muncie or T10.

I agree, Jaguar is an unimpressive marque. They're

sometimes decent looking cars other times stunning but

most of the time not that special cosmetically. Sure they

do well when they are raced but so does BMW, Cadillac,

Mercedes & Audi.

For the record XP has worked on a Jaguar several times

in the past year. A co-worker has a gently used but

tempermental 1980s XJ6. Even he makes Jaguar jokes.

[Sixty8panther]

Damn I love that 3" thick patina on the paint though.

I hope my eventual '59 Buick looks like this but is solid

underneath like an Arizona car. This kind of patina is

always cool on a old car.

[Flybrian]

Princess Diana chose an SL500 for its superior reliability? Shows how much she knew.

[razoredge]

Sylevestor and........XP ___

So whats the deal here guys. You dont want anyone comming here and posting topics about car you hate ? If they do your going to tear them apart and make them just hate being here. I mean you've done it to me before. What am I supposed to do...................go dig up my dead parents and smack their bones around for giving birth to someone with as poor of taste as myself ? what am I supposed to do..................join a Nova club...............then Ill be ........cool and fit in ?

What the f@#k is your problems ? I cringe at ever Monty Carlo, Chevelle, Impala topic that pops up.............do you see me there telling everyone they are a piece of &#036;h&#33; ? I gave great evals of the situation here on behalf of all cars mentioned and it must be it got so hard to accept this Jaguar you resulted in stooping to complete insults, folklore and total disrespect.

Yea you guys are a laugh a minute.

Balth.........most of the above applies to you as well. So glad you can minimalize the short falls of American autos and make large of Europes. All items I pointed out are true and to the point and are very much design faults. Your response reads more like an advertising campainge than anything. I just try to rationalize differences..............that, once again I understand and accept...........

I cant just keep going on and on with this, some short falls you will accept from American cars if you can rally an advertising campaigne around them and any little thing you can find with a European car you will carry on like the rags do with American cars.........................which are soon to be owned by Asia..................

and you still wont get it........................................

Glad you had fun

[razoredge]

yea Fly..........your a real idiot for finding any stimulation in this car. If only we lowlys would just learn our place and sit silently in the corner and watch the bad ass's run around pissing on everything.

Oh look,

my puddles bigger than yours is

nah na na na nah na...................

[XP715]

Um, razor, in the only post I have made thusfar on the subject, all I really did was toss in my two cents about why I personally have no interest in owning a Jaguar; an opinion I have formulated primarily by talking to past and present owners, seeing them worked on, and in some cases even working on them myself. I don't remember telling anybody they were a piece of &#036;h&#33; because their opinions weren't exactly like mine. If that were the case, I'd hate anybody that didn't have a 1977 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme sedan squirreled away in their friend's side yard! After working on my friend's '94 XJ6, another acquaintance's XJS, seeing various models being fixed in my father's body shop for the past decade, and hearing horror stories from damn near every XK8 owner I've ever talked to, one of which had been a Jaguar owner for thirty years previous to owning his '98 XK8 (the car that ended his unwavering allegience to the brand), I was definitely not impressed by their mechanical and structural quality, but do find the vast majority of them to be extremely aesthetically pleasing. You couldn't pay me to own in its current state my friend's '94 XJ6, a car I have spent many an hour working on to keep running in spite of the marque's notorious electrical gremlins, among other things, but I can definitely tell you I never get tired of looking at it; it's gorgeous. This leads me to the only statement I made that really warranted a response, which was when I asked if somebody would please explain to me why everybody feels that British marques such as Jaguar have a sort of aura surrounding them and where they get this great reputation from, because I don't get it. Looks can only account for so much if the damn thing's not gonna run on a rainy day, y'know? I gave my opinion about Jaguar as a whole, and am now asking anybody that wants to take the time to do so to field a response that might help me to see the issue in a way I previously couldn't or wouldn't. How does that translate to "stooping to complete insults, folklore and total disrespect?"

[balthazar]

XP- you're wasting your finger's breath asking that {>>"please explain to me why everybody feels that British marques such as Jaguar have a sort of aura surrounding them and where they get this great reputation from"<<); I asked nearly the same question 3 pages ago but got no answer.

It's like there's this..... Reputation, and you cannot question or challenge the Reputation in anyway or you are a balls-to-the-wall, first-rate hater. It's one thing to resort to stereoypes and generalities or even singular experiences (none of which I did), those may warrant some small degree of outrage, but when merely pointing to specific, pictorial evidence, still the Reputation overrides all. Sometimes I feel like I'm insulting the actual designer of these cars by questioning 'why'? It's just not allowed.

[Sixty8panther]

I cringe at ever Monty Carlo, Chevelle, Impala topic that pops up.............do you see me there telling everyone they are a piece of &#036;h&#33; ?

181941[/snapback]

I get it now. GM cars suck unless they're FWD & Chevys are lame.

Your problem Sir is that you're on the wrong "enthusiasts site".

You might want to take your biased dislike of Cadillac/GM to one

of these forums.

http://www.jaguarforums.com/

http://www.jag-lovers.org/

http://www.jaguarforum.com/

[razoredge]

I get it now. GM cars suck unless they're FWD & Chevys are lame.

Your problem Sir is that you're on the wrong "enthusiasts site".

You might want to take your biased dislike of Cadillac/GM to one

of these forums.

http://www.jaguarforums.com/

http://www.jag-lovers.org/

http://www.jaguarforum.com/

182081[/snapback]

you off your medication lately ? haveing problems comprehending simple statements ? What lines are you reading between ? Is it because your eyes are crossed ? Whos on the wrong "enthousiasts" site ? You can dish it out but cant take it ?.........hell I didnt even dish it out, I just said topics on these cars make me cringe, I didnt give my opinions on the cars, no insult, nothing, just said they make me cringe............So when you get tired of bouncing off the walls at home, you come here and bounce off ours ? Must give your wife a welcome relief........................

Edited August 19, 2006 by razoredge

[razoredge]

The one above is brilliant for developing 465 HP and ripping a mid-12 quarter miles off. If one has to open the hood to explain why one's motor's better...... the old saying 'Actions speak louder than words' springs to mind.

seems to be a discrepancy here

" Where the similarities end is the "official" deletion of the two 389-425A Trophy powerplants. In their place were two regular-production 421 HO engines. The first was the single 4-barrel version, a 10.75:1 block that kicked out 353 hp at 5000 rpm and 455 lbs.-ft. of torque at 3400. The top street engine for 1963 was the 421 HO Tri-Power. With 370 hp at 5200 rpm and a whopping 460 lbs.-ft. of torque at 3800, there was little for a Tri-Power HO to fear on the street, especially if it ran the optional 4-speed and 3.42 gears.

A 1963 Grand Prix so equipped for a Motor Trend road test clicked off a 0-to-60 time of 6.6 seconds and covered the quarter mile in 15.1 seconds at 94 mph. Very respectable for a car of that size and weight!"

yep, very respectable but not "mid 12's"

but the reality is

" The powerplants for the '63 were similar to 1962, but some changes were made. The base engine was still the 303-horse 389, again with 3-speed, 4-speed, or automatic."

This engine probably put it closer to the 0-60 in under 11 seconds like the Mark X or Caddy...........just guessing

Ive looked into this 63 quite a bit now and it is a very nice car, not so crazy about 64 changes to the body

Edited August 19, 2006 by razoredge

[balthazar]

No discrepancy: different motor.

The 370-HP 421 HO is indeed the top 'street' engine, but the (rated) 405-HP SD-421 was tested and revealed to develop 465 HP. These motors (there were 3 different-tune SD 421s along with 2 SD 389s. SD cars would dip into the 12's in factory tune with skinny bias-ply (shaved tread = 'slicks') tires. SDs were regular options produced in limited quantities. Pontiac built 177 SD cars in '62, plus an additional quantity of over-the-counter engines. SD program ended cold turkey when GM pulled the plug on facotry-backed racing in Jan '63.

As one article stated: the Pontiac Trophy 389 has performance to "amaze your friends and confound your opponents".

Car Life~

'62 GP, 303/389, 3-spd auto, 3.23. 0-60: 7.2 sec, 1/4-mile: 15.9.

Motor Trend~

'62 GP, 303/389, auto, 3.23. 0-60: 8.0, 1/4 mile: 17.2.

Motor Trend:

'64 Cat, 303/389, auto, 2.56. 0-60: 10.0, 1/4 mile: 17.2.

My '64 Cat (267/389, auto, 2.56) sure felt quicker than 11s to 60, but I never timed it officially. It out-accelerated most every other regular daily driver on the road, and this with the much-ballyhooed Roto HydraMatic.

I'm partial to '64 over '63; a '64 GP was/is my first car and 2 other '64s followed it. I like the 'refinement' of the front end, the 'krinkle-cut' fender tops, the 'boomerang' taillights & the way the front & rear bumpers match in profile.

[razoredge]

Oh, I see, then you must be talking about one of these........... three............

" While the 421 HO Tri-Power was the top street engine for 1963, it was possible to order a 421 Super Duty Grand Prix for competition purposes. Only three were ever built, one with the 390-horse NASCAR 4-barrel 421 SD, and two with the 405-hp 421 SD with dual quads and aluminum front ends! Unfortunately, none of the three are thought to survive today."

seems like these 0-60 times you posted are not in typical corrolation to the slow 1/4 mile times, not that I have spent much time worrying about what a car can do in 18 seconds or less. Somehow though a 17 second car achieving 60 in 8 just seems off. A 17 second car is like an 80's mph right ? that means it took like 9 more second to gain an additional 20mph ??????????

So through all this you could then admit that a little 231 I6 pushing a large lux.......sorry....... large pretend to be lux to 60 in less than 11 pretty darn good ?

[balthazar]

Yes- there were only 3 '63 SD GPs; the rarest of SD models, 16 in '62; the bulk of SD installation was in Catalinas. Like I posted above, there were 177 SDs built in '62, more from '61-63 and some over-the-counter in '60, plus '61-63 over-the-counter engines. It was a production program. Anyone could buy one, tho dealers were understandably told to discourage sales to those without known racing experience.

'62-64 Cat/GP auto 1/4 miles are hampered by the Roto HydraMatic 375. Altho I had no problem whatsoever with my '64 Cat's trans operation/performance, the box is characteristic of losing a lot of RPM between gears. The '62 GP that did 0-60 in 8.0 and the 1/4 in 17.2 @ 85 shifted into 3rd at 67 MPH. The larger RPM drop is during the 1-2, but it's at least a partial contributor.

A random counterpoint: '60 Chrysler 300-F Torqueflite: 0-60: 7.1, 1/4 mile: 16.0 @ 85. ChryCo's 3-spd TrqFlt is a more straightforward 3-spd auto, so I would call it's numbers much more typical (tho again- the deep breathing of the 300-F's ram-induction 413 are also a (positive) contributor to posting a very good 1/4-mile time vs. it's own 0-60 & the Pontiac's numbers).

3-spd manual Pontiacs are not common in the road test arena, and most 4-spd were either/or Tri-Power/421 cars, so those numbers don't really apply.

But the Pontiac 389 is a great, strong, motor that responds very well to mods and definately performs 'better than it should'.

3.8L Jag performance is decent if it's under 11 with 265 HP (or is it 220 HP as a couple sources I looked at said?). Ci is much lower but power output is not so far off (265 vs. 303). I saw no torque rating for the 3.8- do you know them? 303/389 torque is 430 in '64.

I also saw 2 widely different weights for the Mark X, one was about 3800, the other 4250; which is right? A '62 Cat 2-dr would weigh right about 3850- I can't believe a 202" long Mark X would weigh 4250.

Unless it's all that lumber weight.

Edited August 20, 2006 by balthazar

[razoredge]

{>>"please explain to me why everybody feels that British marques such as Jaguar have a sort of aura surrounding them and where they get this great reputation from"<<); I asked nearly the same question 3 pages ago but got no answer.

Oh, so somehow you figure I should be qualified to answer this question like I am the one that decided Jaguar should have an "aura" which clearly in your eyes, they do not deserve ? Boy thats putting alot of weight on my shoulders. Am I supposed to get all Shakespearian and puff up something that reads like an add campaign ? Even if I was qualified somehow it would make me sick to sound like one of those magazine writers getting all mushy with terms we are all so sick and tired of hearing................just doesnt sound like me does it ? Did you read my review of my own G6 GTP, I didnt know what to say because I sure as hell wasnt going to sound like the same old broken record we read over and over, "the controls are all well within reach, the knowbs fit perfectly between my fingers, the DIC is easily operated and legible, the shifter is stimulating to the touch, the clutch pedal pressed with the silky smoothness of a rose pedal" .....................aint me man........as you can see I cant even pretend to do it. All I care about is I cant heal and toe the damn brake and gas peddle............something Im sure couldnt be done on the 63 GP either. However Im nearly 100% positive that could be done on the E type............now to some sports cars drivers that could be a considered luxury ?...........NO ! Not really, that is a prerequisite !

So are guages you need not look down by your knees to read. Then combine those round poorly located gauges with the ribbon speedo or whatever they call that style and you dont have uniformity or as you said "compliment each other". That is a modern dash the puts form over function. In your opinion a miss placed key is terrible but in mine poorly placed gauges or lack there off is a biggity biggy. Im not downing that type of speedo either, my 86 LeSab and 75 Olds has that style and I love it, reminds me of Dads cars when I was young...........I understand it and accept it...however a full set of individual round gauges w/chrome bezels gives me solid Walnut .............now, ponder why Jaguar used black bezels on its luxury car when clearly chrome bezel gauges were available...........there has to be something behind it..........like it or not......probably the same thing behind the lack of fancy exterior trim.

[razoredge]

Weight - I dont know, but just look at the car, thats alot of sheetmetal either way, looks beastly just like a Cadillac to me.

Mark X used E types 265 engine. The 3.8 Sedan and others used the standard 220 engine. Then the 3.4 Sedan used the old 3.4 engine that was the origional engine designed on fire watch during the bombing like so many things in England were.

I believe the 3.4 Sedan is the car in the photo posted by XP. This is an actual quote from a 1959 add for the 3.4

"Versatile beauty, Responsive as a sports car yet meticulously fitted with all the appurtenances of supreme comfort. Tailored for family driving."

my book goes on to say

"The 1959 Jaguar 3.4 Sedan offered everything a Jaguar owner would want in a compact sedan. For less than $4,600, a buyer could obtain performance of an xk150 (same engine and tranny) with the traditional luxury of a Jaguar sedan, all in a compact package. "

This 3.4 had 210 HP which was 1 per cube and they were quite impressed with themselves. That was good at that time and even beyond especially when you consider the gas situation in Europe. Ive read various articles on race cars and how engine requiring high octane needed to be avoided in Europe becaue the gas just wasnt there to run high compression. I cant find any compression listings for Jags in my books. I know a 64 Sunbean Alpine had 9.2 where standard engines had 8:1. I dont think there was any going up to 10:1 or beyond in Europe. It just pops up from time to time in articals I read. Just something to remember, this is why they (euros) were always smaller trying to build more HP other ways..........gasoline.

As for torque, as is typical even today, these DOHC engines produced less torque than HP so any torque numbers I find are 3-10 less than HP.

You just have two different approaches to two different types of performance vehicals be they sports or be they luxury. More separation than just the Atlantic.

[razoredge]

their mechanical and structural quality..........notorious electrical gremlins

So which is it ? As far as I know most problems have been electrical like none of them will run when its humid or raining ? yarite ! I also have heard people cant tune them or very few that is.

Well, what do I say ? I say, it seems to me that has been a problem with all big dollar cars from the 80's & 90's, that were trying to be state of the art and meet all the CAFE and Emmisions standards. Look at the 86-93 Rivieras(Reattas) and Toros, lots of electrical problems. Many a great car went to the JY because people just got tired of trying to figure it out. Then theres the stories about expensive BMW repairs and Mercedes problems, nothing I know anything about so I wont speculate. I had a friend with a 84? SL380 ?...........engine electrical problems. I realize Jaguar was "notorious for this" but boy so were alot of other cars, but they came from manufactures that also had simpler cars to offset the stats.

Mechanical ?........well shall we talk about the Standard of the World 2/4/6 ? Or how about the 4.1, 4.3 & 4.9 Standard of the World ? then theres the old rock solid 304 Olds engine which I understand and accept but yet look at all the bashing that poor old boy gets. What about the GM Diesels ? What about the early 3.8 RWD carbed engines that have recieved plenty of bashing ? What about the Olds 350 that was choked down to 185 HP by '75 ? Nearly any car can be a punching bag, we've seen it all happen here. Jaguars are not the only cars I have hours into defending around this place.

What about my very own 75 Datsun L20B, known as bullit proof and one of the first high mileage with low maintenence engines, infamous in its day. Yep..........electrical problems! engine would not run right, electrical carb system haveing substance abuse problems, no one could figure it out. Cured by replaceing with an aftermarket Holly made for that problem, that only required a hot wire for the electric choke.........problem solved.

How many domestics have we seen that some "have wrenches will turn" has gotten wires all over the place, burnt, new ones pulled all over, looking worse than a bad hair day.............must be those systems were designed by Jaguar ?

I drove my Lucas electric 64 Sunbeam for 2 years that included two winters, every day, rain, snow or shine, sub 0 to 90's. Just touch the key and it was ready to roll. Fastest starting car I have ever had. I go so used to it I could start it where the starter was nearly unheard. Never a problem, notta none. Replaced the starter with a used starter so I guess that was one problem because I never replaced a starter in any other car..................... Lights always worked, wipers always worked, fan always worked, it was a simple system, 2 fuses and many gauges were mechanical, Jaegar gauges, that always worked and looked great. Then I became self employed and pickup truck and chainsaw became the center of my mechanical spare time so the poor old Alpine sat, outside up on blocks for over 15 years, right beside a creek in a N.E. mountain gorge. No humidity here............ Undercarraige went the way of the world so I sold all my stuff to a Alpine guy. Before he came, I freed up the rear drums, front calipers were fine, cleaned the carb diaframs and oiled the little plungers, files the points by passed the old fuel with a hose into a antifreeze jug full of gas and hit the starter, was running in a second. All electrical still worked, took him for few last blasts up and down the road just for memories, it hurt like hell.

My 64 Fordson County Super Six a large 4 WD tractor was built entirely in England, in fact all casting say EnFo on them, really classy. It has a Lucas system. I replaced the generator with a one wire Delco because I got tired of replaceing the tail bushing every year, it never failed, it just started squeeking, I wasnt great at oiling the thing which is a requirement. The stater has never let me down in 20 years of dayly use for hot starts to sub zero mornings of some pretty good abuse. When I took the starter from my 65 GMC that was tired, to an old Italian man that rebuilds starters, alternators and generators. I mentioned that Lucas starter to see if he would know how to rebuild it, I had been expecting it to fail anyday, he told me that Lucas starter is a piece of work and dont believe the tales. Still to this day, 25 years since I bought "Ol' Clyde Dagenham" he still starts "on a dime" with the same damn Lucas starter...................go figure.

Myths and Legends fits so well into the English country side dont they ?

[Sixty8panther]

I'm not married Razor................................................................... just FYI.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m301...181/ai_79007325

[balthazar]

razoredge= >>"Oh, so somehow you figure I should be qualified to answer this question like I am the one that decided Jaguar should have an "aura" which clearly in your eyes, they do not deserve ?"<<

No; you not supposed to decide it, but you apparently recognize it. All I asked is what, specifically, do you recognize that supports the claim. No puff, no grandeose absolutes, no tangents on world events or economic hardships- forget all that; all we have in 2006 is a car (pics) sitting in front of us. We can see the car, we know or can find the segment leaders well enough; does this one measure up, let's talk specifics. If we can't talk specific details, we're still having two different discussions, tho I AM trying....

>>"So are guages you need not look down by your knees to read. Then combine those round poorly located gauges..."<<

You must've missed it: plain & simple and again: those guages "by your knees" are aftermarket, not Pontiac.

>>"Then combine those round poorly located gauges with the ribbon speedo or whatever they call that style and you dont have uniformity or as you said "compliment each other"."<<

Horizontal speedo will do. At least all the dash knobs/switches match.

>>"solid Walnut"<<

Hey, Pontiac uses American Walnut in this era, too. BTW- saw in online resto pics that the Walnut in the Mark X center section is a veneer, not solid. It's a veneer in Pontiacs, too ('63-66), and tho thinner, I doubt either owner would be able to tell how much so without disassembly. Maybe the dashtop is solid, tho solid wood -as I'm sure you know- will warp & crack in temperature extremes and over time- not a smart choice for longevity, tho it may sound good in ad copy.

>>"now, ponder why Jaguar used black bezels on its luxury car when clearly chrome bezel gauges were available...........there has to be something behind it..........like it or not......probably the same thing behind the lack of fancy exterior trim."<<

Oh good; specifics. OK- why?

[balthazar]

Here's a '66 Mark X. Unfortunately, I can't link to the pics.

http://www.hymanltd.com/search/Details.asp...&recordCount=53

With a $100,000 restoration, this has to be the finest example in the country. I am shocked the asking price is only $29K.

This one supposedly weighs 3930 (ironic: the exact shipping weight of my '64 GP) and the 4.2L six claims 265 HP. Seems weird that the 3.8 also put out 265 in the Mk X- like I said, I saw 2 sources that said 220.

I wonder if the DIN/SAE conversion issue is at play here: Another source showed a DIN HP of 201, which works out to a SAE figure of 270. Same source also said TRQ was 353, but I'm not buying 353 TRQ from 231 CI (No unit of measure on TRQ).

[razoredge]

I have never seen this car before its 2006

Wow, thats a beautiful interior.......................and distinctly creative sheet metal...............very classy front grill/headlight treatment.

I have never seen this car before in my life............its 2006 and Im a ignorant Nova lover that thinks the last great car was the 72 Nova.................Im walking through a car show that has 18 Chevelles, 20 Malibus, 12 Novas, 8 Camaros, 10 Mustangs, 9 Galaxies, 11 Fairlanes, 14 Monty Carlos, 13 Impalas then there these "other things" like 1 Buick something or other, 1 Oldsmobile something or other, 1 Cadillac something or other and some strange thing that cant be from this planet............Im going to think I died and went to haog heaven. Am I going to stop and look at those "other cars" ?..............

OK I have never seen this car before, its 2006 and Im an Buick Oldsmobile Freak...................... what cars at this show am I going to walk right past and what cars are going to make me smile ?............................

I cant believe we are having this conversation......................

To me this is a segment leader, that is why I put the effort into those Caddy pictures, ONCE AGAIN..........while I recogonize the MODERINIZATION of the advanced AMERICAN Cadillac dash I do not find its seats or other features as classy, nor do I find the dash as classy, this and other luxury Jaguars have this touch of elegance be there nit picky flaws or oversites they are still very classy elegant. Like I siad that went right over your head............they give me solid Walnut wood :AH-HA_wink:

I love those switches, I love whats going on down by the heater or whatever that is, I love that consoul, I love those old style door levers, I love that old style steering wheel, its classy tradition, same as old 60's GM is felt to be classy today, maybe Im just too old or the extra nearly decade put me more in line to like this type of auto...................Im still not big on the 50's Domestic which you are, I dont question it, I understand it and accept it, Im also not real big on this Jaguars tubular bulbulous body but I find it classy ..................now take a 74 XJ12C and once again I got solid Walnut.

I also love the American detailed steering wheels of the era, I also love the interesting door levers seen in the Buick pictures I posted that we have seen in so many GM's including my favs, the G1 Toros and G2 Rivieras

Still somehow, by some amazing freak of nature I still find a Jaguar very appealing, sexy, inviting, stimulating, classy, elegant and highly desirable...........apparently they have had this effect on a certain portion of the population and this has created an "aura"

damn all our poor tastes right straight to hell.....................

[razoredge]

I somehow know about Wood, not sure why but I do. I have no problem with veneer, it gives better utilization of rare trees, makes book matching grains more interesting and workable. I have no idea solid or not, my book has a Mark X Jaguar advertisment that says "Cabinet work is of hand crafted Walnut, mated and matched. Walnut tables, each with its own vanity mirror" I believe I already quoted this, what now seems like nearly light years ago.............

photo of a 67 340, an economy version of the 3.4 Mark II economy sedans shows and states " These economies reached inside the car in the form of vinyl upholstery rather than the origional leather and thinner padding on the seats (can't wait to hear my already predicted responce to that) The burl walnut veneer dash, however, was retained from the mark II sedans, as was the TRADITIONAL round, white on black instruments"

This dash is also laid out exactly like the Mark X dash and the E type dash............I dont know what it is, and I dont really care, this is how they felt all their cars should be, a specific location for all switches and yes even the key, its not my problem and I really have better things to worry about as to why there was insistance on this. Wireing harness versatility, cheapness, lazyness, stupidity or tradition I really dont give a &#036;h&#33;...........I like the dash !

"4.2L six claims 265 HP. Seems weird that the 3.8 also put out 265 in the Mk X- like I said, I saw 2 sources that said 220. "

I also already posted on this what seems to be lightyears ago, way back when I showed the 3.8 Mark X had nearly identical performance to the 63 Cadillac. I have posted all the information on the various tunings of these engines(excluding the 250hp 3.4 used in the racing D types) and I know my sources are accurate so look all you want I cant just keep repeating myself, over and over. If your finding 220 Mark X's either the motor was changed or your really finding the lower scale 3.8 Sedans. I realize the confusing nature of them not nameing thier cars and using the same engine, but by now...............

I realize in WAR this is how you ware down the opponent for ultimate victory but once again that is not why I come here nor is it the way I choose to enjoy cars. If it was I would be on here trying to destroy all topics concerning Novas, Chevelles, Malibus and 4 dr hardtops, that is not me. I even contributed to the 4dr hardtop topic................only to have &#036;h&#33; shoved in my face less than a month later because I contributed to a mid engine topic and someoine had a boner over the new Camaro and couldnt control their hyperactivity...................true colors !

" I am shocked the asking price is only $29K." Much like Buicks and Oldsmobiles, comparitively speaking these cars are a "bargin" in collector car terms because they are not the hot item like origional low milage "hemis", Elleanors or Copos..........in my eyes that is a win win, not that I care about collector cars for myself anymore, got over that one. Other bargins relitively speaking are two of the worlds most venerable supercars from the 70's. The fastest things to hit the streets at that point in time..............the 512 Boxer and the Countach..........nobody wants them.........this is somewhat fueled by expense of rebuilds as well as out of current taste wedge styling but still...........to me Hemi Charger < Boxer, for the money no interest in one and large interest in the other. 25,000 for a Boxer + engine rebuild, and I'd still come in under a restored Charger and have 10 times the car.

But there I go again with my sick and twisted taste buds.......................

[balthazar]

The Mk X is in fantastic shape and it is classy. It's just some of the details that strike me- not because they're 'bad', just because they're dated. By '66 the bulk of the segment (and most outside the segment) have moved so far on. Yup; that makes the Jag more distinctive (a hallmark of luxury), and I value distinction, but at the same time it just doesn't fit my preferences. There are also a completely different set of expectations when I'm looking at a -say- 1935 car vs. a 1965 car. Just as I don't expect A/C and PW in a '35, I don't expect exposed screws & hinges in a '65.

Perhaps I put too much focus on the year/era it is, or the domestics are too deeply ingrained into my soul. But I can't help but notice these things and they irk me. Couple those observations with 'Jaguar is the ultimate in luxury' (as some fans & ads gush) and I get a bit incensed.

I have no use for Chevys or Fords at car shows- never even look at them (unless they're pre-war). I've been going to cars shows for over 20 years; I've seen it all. Hell, I'd already seen it all on the roads- these cars hold no interest for me. Hershey is a car show I enjoy attending- last year's biggest treat: my first Hudson Italia (25 built).

[razoredge]

This is why I keep stressing the huge cliff that faced all of Europe post war, it just wasnt a level playing field. They had one thing in mind and that was to get back to where they were, kinda like that "south is gonna do it again" or little red chu chu attitude, that is where the Jaguar pride came in. Read a book on them if you could bare it, details inside mine as brief as they are indicate all the hardships and bring to light just how small the company was. American sales reached a peak of 24,464 in '86, not much financial clout behind that for keeping up with the Jones........especially in this narrow segment of sport or luxury cars with no bread and butter economy cars.

I had a 74 Jaguar sales booklet back then at 16 and was impressed. There was 4 models which in reality was 2 with 2 different engines. The XJ6 and XJ6C and the XJ12 and XJ12C. These are what started my love of Jaguar. I knew about the XKE but thats about it, learned more since. Prior to this period I thought 66-70 Mustangs and 74 Cudas were the end all of automobiles, then I began to find the more feminine body lines of European sports cars and real roadworthyness far more appealing. Then in the 80's and 90's I began to appreaciate the Domestic luxury 60's cars I just took for granted or even ignored because they "werent cool" somehow around 96 or so I realized I never even knew the G2 Riviera existed, I just paid no attention, all caught up in "muscle cars" as a boy. I did have faint memories of the Toro as well as the Boattail but never anything on the 66-69 Rivs...........today they (both2A/2B) are high on my list of styling statements..........though the dashes aint much, the consoul is interesting.

This photo could best define why Jaguars have an aura in my heart

this car failed in the market and was dropped in two years . Now I like 73-76 B GMs, bumpers and all, probable more than anyone but come 77 what did GM have that could hold a candle to this styling ? Nothing in my eyes. The 77-85 years make my eyes sad excluding a few specific models that I only cut some slack just because............

http://www.julesverne.ca/jaguar/xjcbrochure.html

[balthazar]

I believe Jag used those same brochure pics in print ads; the red one against the 'copters sure looks familiar. I have a small quantity of vintage Jag print ads in my collection.

RE: values- no doubt the big ticket Jags are the models 'where Jag came from': the XK-120, -140, -150 and the E-types, not the saloons. Some Buicks of the period hit very high numbers; the '58 Limited convertible (836 built) in #1 is often in the $90K range, but lower series are no where near that.

I know you feel I'm "trying to wear you down", but that's completely wrong. I'm just talking cars here. I question to learn, not instigate.

If the 3.8 in the Mark X developed 265, why did Jag bother enlarging it to 4.2 only to develop the same HP? Just curious- not trying to re-write your books. Seems like a waste of precious engineering budget, unless increased TRQ was the objective with the cars growing larger & heavier.

Personally- I had only a fledgling interest in muscle cars; I have always gravitated towards the F/S versions: Pontiac 2+2 over GTO, Buick Wildcat 2x4 4-spd over GS400, Chrysler 300-F over Hemi Belvedere, etc. Performance is always appealing, but style & substance is just as much so for me. Camaros & Novas? Never been interested: far too common. 2G Riv and 1G Toro?- always admired them and it feels like I've always known about them.

[razoredge]

maybe the cam grind was different because torque was all they gained according to book. They were probably paying attention to American V8's being how that was the competition and whatever Mercedes had at that time. Knowing low RPM grunt was better for typical driving.........perhaps they camed the larger 4.2 for more torque ?

Actually my book says the Sedans were the "bread and butter" but they had too many lines and it financially stressed them in mid 60's. There were 2.4 & 3. something Sedans too, we didnt get into them and Im lazy now and dont want to pull out the book. That was the cure the XJ series was supposed to help correct, it was a downsizing or consolidation of sorts. All of England was scrambling at that time, thats how British Leyland came to be, it didnt help. Chrysler bought and destroyed Rootes Groupe (Sunbeam, Hillman, Singer and I believe Talbot but I forget)

My books reads like the engines were dirty and already struggling, loosing HP to be on the American market and meet polution requirements as early as late 60's. It states that this is partly why they developed the V12 because the old I6 just wasnt enough engine anymore. I guess the I6 in the XJ6 was a "totally" new engine not the old 3.4 or 3.8.

The XK's and E types are still a bargin compared to muscle cars today. Its good to see the muscle cars finally get their time but now they belong to the rich guys not we lowly, I can even see here in our Wantadd, that now, thanks to Barret Jackson and the rage, everyone that has any kind of junk seems to think its a gold mine. No matter to me now, I know whats involved and I've lost interest. Though I do still have two projects that probably still wont get done........... and the 75 Delta, how can I afford to do Sunday drives in it, even at 15 miles to the gallon.........I surely have dropped all hopes for a 68/69 spec Regency engine, what were they now? 365/510 ?.....wow I forgot, imagine that........ I'll have to stick with the denutted 350, it does get a clear 15mpg, better under continous cruising.............

Wanna know more about how Jaguar got its acclaimed reputation...........through the raceing success ? I can get into that tomorrow night. Its my last face card...........

I believe we are nearing the end for Jaguar...........another one gone and another one gone, another one bites the dust........................

Edited August 21, 2006 by razoredge

[balthazar]

I would not question/debate Jag's racing successes.

[Sixty8panther]

The XJ12C is a true hardtop. This is great and has always made me

every so slightyl attracted to this car. BUt the hardtop roof aside, &

take away the V12 motor and the XJ12C is just lame. The styling is

downright drab and uninspired... it's plain & not very luxurious

looking to my eyes and even with its decent RWD stance it's just not

very attractive. It lacks the one other thing that makes certain

Jaguars every so attractive to me: the leaping cat H.O.

The more I get told in this thread that Jaguars have great styling the

more I try to see where those attractive lines and luxurious styling

lies but I can not see it. Sorry.

I do think Peter Egan's E-Type and most "pre-bumpreettes" E-Types

are very exotic & elegant even if they do resemble a phalis.

Here's a few Jaguars I might call "Beautiful" and not nit-pick too

much (at least stylistically) but you can keep the rest. These few

and the S-type are all that I can see beauty in. As a matter of

fact the rest can get fed into a Crusher to make more Coke cans

for all I care. (kidding... sort of)