Now that I have both the original 60s S-Type & it's new millennium tribute. It's interesting to compare the two cars side by side. Initially I thought the 60s car was a lot more compact. But standing the two together there's very little difference in the external measurements. Internally though the newer car is a lot roomier. This is mainly due to the white car's heavily raked front & rear windscreens, which add a lot more internal space. In fact the front windscreen is so close on the 60s car it's rather confronting, especially with the lack of airbags! i can only imagine how scary these cars must have been to drive fast when they didn't even have seat belts.



The small passenger cell of the 60s car is very noticeable when the two cars are viewed in profile, as is that large boot/trunk, which was widely criticised for ruining the aesthetic profile of the Mk II, which it does IMO. & this is the main reason that Mk II values have always been stronger than the S-Type, despite the S-Type having the better handling/brake package from the Mk X. Ford addressed this aesthetic problem by repositioning the rear wheel of the tribute car further back, utilising the space freed up by the increased rear deck. & the car looks better proportioned than the 60s car, in my opinion. Though I have to say that this only holds true when the car's viewed in photos. In the metal the big boot/trunk is far more harmonious, & gives the car a very luxurious limousine look, with it's long sleek lines. In fact I'm very impressed with how well the Jag Boffins managed to graft that big bum onto the car. When I first considered buying the car I was very worried that it couldn't make it up my steep dirt driveway, & was sure I'd be scraping that long boot/trunk. But it actually handles the rough stuff better than the newer car, with the angle of the undercarriage worked out perfectly.



I always liked the Leaper on my white car, but it's looking quite inadequate compared to the muscled up Cat leaping off the bonnet/hood of the blue car.




Who'd have thought that pinning a large tail on a car could affect it's long term values so profoundly?

 

Given a choice I would take the 64 any day of the week.
I generally don't like the look of modern cars.
The sheet metal on them is so thin they have to add all these creases to add strength and the modern S-Type is no exception.
The creases and the bump down the side would look better if it wasn't there.

I also don't like the front and rear bumpers incorporated into the body, especially the front end.
All modern cars are like this, the very low front valance bottoms out at the same level of the rocker panels _ never liked that look.

The Germans did this to the new Silver Ghost RR and made the front end look like an SUV.

 

I didn't think I'd find much love for the newer car in the classic section. Opinions would probably be reversed if I posted this thread over in the modern section. I think both cars have their strengths & weaknesses, which is why I'd like to keep both. However should economic realities force the sale of one of them it will be the white car that will go, as it's just a depreciating old Ford in a Jag suit, & will probably never be valuable again. Whereas the blue car is already appreciating & will only continue that climb as they become rarer.
While I don't disagree about the thinner metal of modern cars, & the white car would definitely look better without that crease, which is a real dirt trap I must say. It should be noted that the main beneficiary of a more solid car is the car itself, with them brushing off minor bingles that would scrap a modern car. But their passengers don't fare nearly as well, with all those crash forces transferred directly to flesh & bone. Whereas newer cars are designed to crumple & absorb those forces. I also have to say that I'm surprised how conditioned I've become to having an airbag in front of me, & while I know airbags have caused their share of injuries, even death! I feel a lot more secure knowing there's one in front of me. ABS & cruise control are another couple of modern features I wouldn't mind if the blue car had. & of course, remote central locking is also sorely missed. But you don't buy a classic car to whinge about it's lack of modern features. So apart from a stereo upgrade & hopefully a retro A/C system (if & when funds allow) I won't be modernising the old girl any time soon.

 

I think they did a decent job of a modern update to a classic design but for me I prefer the classic body yet with my version of making it better.


That is one of the reasons for my 1963 restomod S-type. I kept the body stock but now it has: 245 wide tires on 17" rims, full coil over adjustable suspension, power steering, AC, blue-tooth/wifi, rearview camera, electric leather Jaguar seats with head rests, modern high end car audio with hidden separates/subs, tire pressure monitoring system, Wilwood 4 piston front brakes with vented rotors/E type rear brakes, 450 HP aluminum V8 with modern fuel injection/computer control, full LED lighting, and more. Now I have the looks of the classic but it will do 0 to 60 in 4.0 seconds, handle much better, and is way more reliable to be a daily driver.

 

R.E.S.P.E.C.T!!!!

 

64 3.8S
Pro --- ----------- --- Con
1. Classic looks--- --- No passive safety features, ABS, ESP, Airbags
2. Solid build -------- No crumple zones
3. Sound investment --- Not a Mk II (I'm actually scraping a bit here, as I actually prefer the S-Type to the Mk II for it's IRS & Discs, but it is sadly lacking in value)


99 3.0 V6
Pro------------------------Con
1. 5 star safety rating --- Poor interior plastics
2. Ford reliability --- --- Ford cost cutting
3. Handles well --- ---Depreciating liability

I know there are more, but this is good start. Feel free to add to the lists

 

Interestingly the 1999 on S-Type was never given an NCAP crash test rating in the UK, all the other Jaguars of the time did but not the S-Type.

I had three modern S-Types and a 1960's one, I always assumed that Jaguar didn't think that the car would do very well in crash tests so didn't have it done.

 

I also like the look of the 1960's S-Type as the tail on the MK2 seems a little short but you can't argue with the market values and restoring an old S-Type will be similar in cost to a MK2 but the end result for a MK2 will be worth considerably more.

The only thing I would change on the S-Type is the square rear arches, I think they would look much better round.

 

I would take the classic every day, I have an x-type which is great as a cheap run around, but the classics always come up on top for me.

Primaz, just clocked those picnic tables, are they bespoke or from something else ? Nice job, I really like them.

 

Unfortunately the S-type never had the racing use and being a more rare model they never had as much recognition as the MKII. If you ask non Jaguar owners what they think of the S-type vs the MKII I have experienced more people thinking the S-type looks better. I also have gotten a lot of compliments on the rear fenders as people like the look especially with the wide tires. Comparing an S type with a MKII in a Jaguar group is not to me a fair sample as most Jag owners grew up with the MKII in TV shows, etc. that glamorized them. If you ask general people not Jag enthusiast I would bet the vote would be for the S type. It is like the Datsun 510, Datsun fans love them but most would say it is an ugly box car but due to their fame in racing they have a cult following just like the MKII.


The S-type if was used more for racing to me would do much better with the 4 wheel independent suspension, IRs, 4 wheel disc brakes. What both the MK and S type lacked was enough horsepower. When you put a 400 + HP lightweight V8 these cars will kick butt! and I have real life examples of my 63' S Type outperforming so many cars from sports cars to other modern sedans.

 

I am using all front and rear seats from a Jaguar Vaden Plas. I chose those as they were Jaguar and had the picnic tables yet had the modern electric adjustability, head and back rest. Those half back seats of all the early Jag saloons are so uncomfortable and unsafe. I had to section the rear seats to make them fit but now they look like it came that way.

 

The S-Type's big bum was a direct response to customer complaints that the Mk II's luggage space was inadequate. Specifically that it wasn't big enough for a set of golf clubs. & all new Jags since then have had to pass the golf bag test. So I find it quite ironic that a move to garner more sales has resulted in a car who's values lag a long way behind the almost identical Mk II. & that's despite it's superior suspension & brake package. There are companies that can fit IRS & disc brakes to a MK II, but they ain't cheap, & they do ruin the originality of a true classic. Not that I'm complaining about S-Type values. If they were anywhere near a Mk II's I couldn't afford the entry ticket. So the S-Type represents classic Jag values for an affordable price, to me. & who knows where prices may go in the future? One thing's for sure, I doubt they'll go down. & I'm very glad I've got mine!
BTW Primaz Do you have a pictorial on what was involved in "sectioning" your seats to make them fit?

 

Here are some pics of the rear and front seat mods. This makes the car so comfortable and with the powerful acceleration it is a must to have your full back and head supported.

 

They can do that in the UK? Over here they don't submit a car for ANCAP crash testing, they don't sell that model here. Unfortunately I can only find the ratings for current Jags. So I'm unsure what it would have achieved (yes, I was guessing about it's rating before) But that's because I can't imagine Jaguar putting out a model without a 5 star result. In the section of the market they compete in it would be commercial suicide, & their competitors would have had a field day with it.

 

I'm afraid they did yes, there were no results for the S-Type in the UK, it would be interesting to know whether they were tested in other countries (USA etc.).

 

As the S Type was built on the Ford DEW98 platform as used by the Lincoln LS and Thunderbird, were the data from these deemed sufficient by the powers that be ???

 

Neither were sold here. So probably not.

 

comparing the original S type of 1963-1968 to the 1999 S type is like comparing a the original S type to a Ford Taurus. No relation, not even close, only the name.

The Factory secret code when the S type was being developed was "Utah MK3".

go figure that one.

 

There are enough visual similarities to make a connection, IMO. & now that I own of each, I'd have to say that Ford did a great job of capturing the essence of the original, while resolving the visual aesthetics that plagued it's predecessor.

 

Primaz,
you've been holding out on the pictures. Are those wool's?