When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Being an S type owner it is ugly in my opinion.
No S type was made like this from the factory, it is an after market addition to make it look possibly like a Coombs. It changes the rear lines of the S Type from a low rakish look to something that has been on steroids with air ride suspension. Just my opinion and everyone has different thoughts. What is good to one is bad to another.
Here are a couple more that have been altered but not very well.
This is so high it looks like one of those American giant trucks.
Square front arches to match the square back arches
A Rat Rod S Type.
Not an S type but someones idea of altering the front lights on a Mk2.
The only thing that looks nice about it is the skirt fitted below the front bumper. The rest is an abortion from many angles. I've seen that car in the flesh when living in Aus with it's inverted steering wheel. It needs a wider rear track for one.
It works on a Coombs Mk2 because of the boot/trunk & roof line. It was done originally for racing to make rear wheel changing a quick affair. It improves a Mk2's looks immensely. The plant should have adopted it instead of the lousy spat.
Last edited by Glyn M Ruck; Apr 6, 2023 at 07:28 PM.
it's a custom job to try to make the S type look like the MK-2.
the rear wheel arches of the S type are what many don't like. The low openings are ugly and they are a problem when removing a rear tire with wire wheels. Some of us need to uninflate the tire to be able to remove it, if not already uninflated.
I like the modification. The car looks more proportionate and sporty. Finding someone who can do a proper job is another story.
A mod to an original design is always tricky. What seems a good idea in the mind's eye can hit compromises. Here, following the curve of the lower rear door-door post puts the arch high relative to the boot. Did they use a front arch repair panel and cut out a piece at the top? In addition, the opened arch needs a wider wheel or wider rear track to fill it. Still, as Cass has demonstrated, whatever you feel about one attempt, there's always someone who can do far worse both in style and execution.
Though William Lyons usually got it brilliantly right, even his mods to his own work and Sayer's weren't always totally successful. I'm thinking of stretching the wheelbase of the series 2 XJ and some of the fussy detail on the E type. And dare I mention the sidelights he added on the tops of the Mk2 wings?
to be fair, this style of low rear wheel arch came from the E type, then to the MK-X, then S type, then 420, then 420-G, and then to the Series 1, 2, and 3 XJ and Daimler versions.
Modifications to 55 + year old Jaguars bodywork just doesn't make sense.
I think Sir William Lyons had a very capable eye in deciding the bodywork and styling of the 1950s and 1960s Jaguars
Vehicles of this age need preservation/restoration for future generations.
Go ahead and hack your Fords and Chevs and whatever into the hot rod configurations you desire,
At their peak in the 1960s Ford was turning out a new vehicle every 31/2 seconds. Info- Fords " A new car is born". (on Youtube.)
Jaguar was considerably behind these sort of production numbers, but the interesting point is that they still sold well in the USA as well as the rest of the world.
I am not against upgrading old systems of running gear and engine but don't endorse major modifications to the overall ethos of the cars appearance.
Cheers
it's a custom job to try to make the S type look like the MK-2.
the rear wheel arches of the S type are what many don't like. The low openings are ugly and they are a problem when removing a rear tire with wire wheels. Some of us need to uninflate the tire to be able to remove it, if not already uninflated.
I like the modification. The car looks more proportionate and sporty. Finding someone who can do a proper job is another story.
I agree, i've owned an s-type and the bit that looks odd on it is the rear arches, in particular where the door line is in relation to the arch. Sadly Jaguar kept the MK2 door line with the lower S-Type arch which just looks really odd, more so on cars in light colours where the door gap is more visible. The round rear arches look far better and i suspect is the main reason why the MK2 has always been far more popular and more valuable than the S-Type.
One thing to consider though is that the MG Midget originally had rear arches like the S-Type and then in around 1973-74 they made them round before going back to square because the round arches were less strong in a rear end shunt.
As I said at the beginning it is a personal thing. If you compare the three photos below you will see the red Coombs Mk2 flows at the back. The rear arch matches the contours of the boot line and the front and rear arches are the same size so the tyres sit in the arches perfectly. As the rear arch is larger the line between the rear door and the arch is non existent and is perfect. The length of the overhang at the front mirrors the overhang at the rear. It is all in proportion even though the boot is shorter than the bonnet the overhangs are the same. Just stunning.
Next you have the original S type with the flat topped rear arch. This also matches the contours of the boot line and makes the car look low and rakish at the back. The tops of the rear tyres are hidden making the car look as if it is sitting ready to pounce. The longer tail needs the tyres to be partially hidden creating a boat tail effect. The line of the rear arch matches the long line of the rear boot. The rear section of the roof line has been lifted, 1. to give more head room in the rear seats but also 2. to lengthen the roof line to match the longer boot. It is all in proportion with the length of the boot matching the length of the bonnet. Just as stunning as the Coombes.
Then we look at the modified S Type which I have called the Abomination. The front and rear arches are not the same size like the coombes so the car looks as if it has the wrong springs on the front but if you look closely the sills are parallel to the ground so this is not the case. The rear arch looks too close to the back door line which is an optical illusion due to the length of the S types boot exaggerating the overhang of the boot at the rear which does not fit with the front overhang. Although the rear arch looks close to the rear door in reality there is a large piece of the wing between the arch and the door in comparison to the Coombes due to the smaller size of the arch. It looks clunky and not well thought out.
The difference between the genius of designers like Sir William Lyons and someone with too much money, whose contribution to design is an inability to colour between the lines of someone else's drawing with a large crayon.
Funny how tastes vary. To me the S Type rear wheel arch is one of it's great features as it is on the 420. The back of the arch even blends with the tail light angle.
Last edited by Glyn M Ruck; Apr 8, 2023 at 07:03 AM.
Funny how tastes vary. To me the S Type rear wheel arch is one of it's great features as it is on the 420. The back of the arch even blends with the tail light angle.
Hard to improve on perfection Glyn. I love the way the Sun shines off the rear arch in your photo. Sets it off perfectly.
You know that me wish if I had the money though would be to create a long wheel based S type like the XJ LWB.
And then there was this that came up on the S Type forum many years ago. An S Type estate or shooting brake or Limo with lots of leg room. Not quite sure.
It actually turned out to be a photo shop as I found the original photo it was doctored from. Shame it was not a factory option one off. Would have been worth a fortune. lol.
The rear arch just needs to be higher on this one so the curve matches the curve in the rear door, if this were done it would look fine to me. Personally not something I would do if I had another S-Type as I might as well just buy a MK2 but each to their own.
I think that the Maroon car in the 1st post looks "lighter" with the rounded openings. I dont like the whitewalls on the light blue though. I wouldn't have done this myself, rather just get a Mk2 and call it good. Im not sure why one would want to make an S-type look more like a Mk2. That maroon is a nice color.....
Sadly Jaguar kept the MK2 door line with the lower S-Type arch which just looks really odd, more so on cars in light colours where the door gap is more visible.
This is my S Type in Old English White (Cream) and the door gaps can be seen as you say on this more than on Glyns BRG S Type but I still prefer the flat topped rear arch on the S Type than a round arch. Odd? I don't think so. Having round arches looks odd but again personal preference.
The rear door does not bother me. It echos how one might enter the car & rear seat angle. If the Mk2 did not exist there would be no comparison ~ merely a styling detail. Fortunately I admire my S Type like I admire my Merc Coupes. What others think is of little consequence. I'm the one that has to like it & I do which is why I sought out a rust free example & restored it at great cost to myself ~ not to make money out of. i.e. properly whether seen or unseen down to the last harness. The only other car of the era that appealed to me was the Aston Martin DB6 but I could not find one for sale, Kamm tail & all to restore. I found the rear of the DB5 a bit of a shed in the bottom of the garden job. Mainly the lighting. 3 of the cheapest Lucas lights per side.
Last edited by Glyn M Ruck; Apr 8, 2023 at 02:33 PM.
Engineering evolution always comes with legacy that is expensive to eliminate. The door frame cost here would have escalated in complexity and was largely out of Jaguar's direct control in The Pressed Steel Company, who were already struggling to produce acceptable bodies for the Mk2. I can imagine the conversation Lyons, Heynes, Crouch. I think they made the right decision: keep it simple and accept the compromise.
