Jaguar

Let's talk about Jaguars

What's your favourite?
What's your least favourite?

I'm interested.

My least is S-Type purely becuase of the bonnet.

From London Bridge,

My fav jag is of course the e-type. I drove an XJ6 once it was like no other car I had driven before or since. It was the apitamy of comfort and refinement with a good deal of performance as well. My least favourite was the huge one before the XJ type it was enormous.

Favourites:



The most evocative of all the Jaguars has to be the "C" type, but that's just dreaming.



Of the ones you can actually *own* the series "1-1/2" FH E-Type has to be the best. You get the combo of 3.8 engine but not the 'orrible Moss gearbox, better brakes than the series 1 but still the faired-in headlights and the sloped windscreen with 3 wipers, the little rear lights and the alloy dash panel with toggle switches. Real classic. Not many made before the 4.2 arrived.



Equal first; XK140 FHC in BR green. Really has the flavour of a pre-war car. Sadly steers like one as well, but at least it has discs and stops!



Worst? ...er gotta be the MK10. Luckily, most have been scrapped to keep other cars running, but it's important that someone should keep and restore one, if only as a warning.

From London Bridge,

Yes, that is the one, the Mark X the worst Jaguar ever. The E type was so cheap it was the price of a Ford Granada when new even though it had a V12 engine.

Originally posted by jonathan kelly on 15 Jan 2007 4:51 PM
Yes, that is the one, the Mark X the worst Jaguar ever. The E type was so cheap it was the price of a Ford Granada when new even though it had a V12 engine.



....er, no. During the classic years, the E-type had the six-cylinder XK engine, first as a 3.8, then as a 4.2.



The Granada/E-Type comparison might come about if you look at the 1962 launch price of the E-Type compared to the 1979 price of a Granada. The V12 cost more than twice as much after a decade of inflation.



The V12 E-type appeared in the early 70's and really isn't a patch on the "real" cars. The original version of the V12 with heron heads was way down on power for the engine size and *very* thirsty - you could reduce it to single-figure consumption. IMO the thing had also grown pretty ugly. The sleek front had gone, replaced with a huge chrome grill and it was built on the stretched "+2" floorplan. Performance was about the same as a good original 3.8 (much lighter). Thankfully, it was only a stopgap car while the xjs was being developed and was killed off pretty quickly. The terrible press and buyer reception of the xjs is another story...........

From Wales,

What's all this disrespecting the Mark Ten??

True she is a fat-bottomed girl but beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

I've owned many classics including quite a few old Jags/ Daimlers, including a Mark 10 3.8Litre, this was an astonishingly good engine and Jaguar used this engine in their XK range to power to many European victories. The car was later re-badged as the 420G by the way with only the 4.2Litre engine as an option. The Mk X / 420G still holds the record for being the widest production car ever made in GB at 6'6" wide. When the car was being designed it was aimed squarely at the US market, they liked Jags but preferred a bigger car so this biggest ever Jag was aimed at giving them the best of both worlds. Quintessentially British with it's handsome but conservative styling, powerful, acres of polished wood, toggle switches and dials galore on the dash and the sumptuous connoly-hide faced armchair that you used to sit in to aim the thing. I once had 6 friends seated on the rear bench seat and no-one complained of being too cramped - although it was a short journey. When you hit the loud pedal she took off with a pleasing burble but the down side was about 6mpg under full steam! They did use to race them as well.

The car had lots of technological innovations when it was introduced and the level of luxury was very comparable to cars costing 3 times as much to buy. It's just a shame that the V12 wasn't available as a power option as this would have made it a truly world class car. They did try some big American V8's in it and it did perform well with these but they decided to stick with the engine they knew.

To put matters in context, the Mk X had a 0-60 time of about 11 secs, (still respectable today for such a large, heavy car) the top speed was 120mph+ and it was designed to carry 5 or 6 people in the utmost comfort. The average 'family saloon' on the road at the time would probably have taken about 20-25secs to reach 60mph and would have had a top speed of perhaps 85mph.

The biggest downer of ownership (apart from mpg) they just won't fit in a conventional garage! I tried parking it in my garage, I couldn't open the door to get out and most of the bonnet was still out on the driveway.

In my humble opinion, a particularly under-rated car and I can't wait until I've got a garage large enough to own another. The fact that they are under-rated is good because you can still pick up a decent one for about £5K.



Guys - don't knock it 'til you've tried it!

Hi. there are perhaps other candidates for "worst Jaguar" that deserve it more on their engineering:



The 2.4 saloon and its successor the 2.4 Mk2, just 'cos they are slugs without the 3.4/3.8 engine

The 2.8 XJ6 for the same reason and also for constantly destroying its pistons.

Neither of these get the slagging the MkX does because they look like other, desirable models.



"Guys - don't knock it 'til you've tried it!"

Actually, I have.

As a kid, the MkX was the first car I was ever driven in at over 100mph and later i did once get to drive one. I remember being aghast at the thing, probably beacuse i was then driving a Chapman Elan - a car at the complete opposite end of the scale. I'd bought a glassfibre car because i'd just had an old 3.8 "E" that i managed to sell on just before the whole rear end collapsed in a pile of rust (endemic problem with just about any Jaguar over five years old then)

From Wales,

Yep, if I'd had to nominate 'worst Jag ever' I'd probably also have chosen the MkII 2.4Litre, the XJ6 s1 2.8L and the s2 XJ6 3.4Litre - basically every time they tried to make a 'no frills economy version' - what is the point? Hand-wound windows, manual boxes, ambla seats, (or worse still on the XJ3.4 - velour, YUK!!!) the pedestrian performance of the 2.4Litre and as rightly stated the nasty habit the 2.8Litre engine had of dropping valves.

I'm not fond of the newer S-type just due to appearance although the interior is good, albeit cramped in the front.

Just to harp on about the MkX/ 420G again, horses for courses. If you want something chuckable, manoeuverable, nippy, etc. and creature comforts aren't high up your ticklist the yes the Lotus will obviously fit the bill better than big Jag. Or you could have the best of both worlds - I usually kept a sports convertible on the road as well as something larger and more comfortable.

Out of interest there is a chap who's fitted his MkXwith a V12 and, by all accounts, it's a very good drive. One of the classic car mags my Dad takes featured a 420G equipped with a large Yank V8, I think it was about 7.5Litre, it had been tweaked to hell, fitted with a couple of Superchargers and Nitrous to give it 1,000bhp! I think the owner had spent an absolute fortune uprating it but it has absolutely mind-blowing performance.

The reason they used to race them is that they're virtually impossible to overturn (unless you're on a very steep gradient) due to the very wide-wheelbase and the low centre of gravity.

If you look at the Jag Mk VII thru to Mk IX and the XJ s1 then put the the Mk X between them, it looks just as it should - an evolutionary step in the marque.

It will always be one of the most contentious Jags but I'm really glad they made them.

From Wales,

Jaguar 420G

"Out of interest there is a chap who's fitted his MkXwith a V12"



Hm - he could chuck that discarded 3-carb E-type spec 6 my way!