An interesting question, which I'm sure will garner it's fair share of witty responses. But I'm wondering why the 420 is in the Mk V-X forum, when it's more closely related to S-Type. Ok, so it's like an in-between model. But why does it get lumped in with the big saloons & not in with compacts? I suppose it does have to go somewhere. But why there? I'd ask the 420 Owners where they think they belong. But then I'd have to start another thread in their forum!

 

Yes the poor Jaguar 420, the baby MkX/420G with adoption papers!

 

The Jaguar Enthusiasts Club puts the 420 in compact saloons, maybe the UK version is smaller !!!

 

Well, the 420 is not in the MkV - Mk10/420G forum

Those not familiar with Jaguar model names, (which are a bit of a dog's breakfast, to be honest !), will know that two models have 420 in their model name. There is the 420G, which was what the Mark 10 became when it got the 4.2 litre engine, and there is the 420, which was a development of the S-type.

The new XJ6 development ran rather late and Sir William Lyons was worried that the S-Type was not getting the expected sales. The Mark 2 was long in the tooth, and the E-type, whilst selling well, could never make the revenues the company needed to keep afloat. SOmething was needed to keep sales up until the XJ was ready for sale.

So in a very great rush, the 420 was developed. It essentially consisted of a new front end and slightly modified rear, plus some minor interior changes, and, of course, got the 4.2 litre engine.The S-Type never got this. Announced in 1966, very few 420s were made because the XJ6 finally came on sale in 1968 and the 420 then became yesterday's car.

Sales of the Mark 10 that became the 420G were always disappointing to Jaguar. It was not popular in the UK or in the US, some calling it a British version of the 1950s Hudson.

 

OK, that makes sense. I always knew that Jaguar had a mish-mash of models throughout the 60s, which many put down to Lyons advancing years & a lack of focus on the future. The culmination of this was the sell out to BMC, which Lyons always rated as his worst business decision ever. The XJ6 did clean up a lot of the model confusion. But Lyons was gone by that stage & the corporate Bean Counters were already hard at work looking for "synergies" & other cost cutting measures that would ultimately ruin the company's hard won reputation for building quality luxury cars at an affordable price. & gaining that awful reputation that it's only just starting to loose.

 

an issue of styling, nobody likes the S type's rear, and nobody likes the 420's front. They are both ugly as hell.

that's why I made my own: an S type Daimler. or a Daimler S type?

 

I like the S-Type's rear. Not so much in photos but it looks just right in the real world to me. Though I do know I'm in the minority on this one.

 

so do I, the MK-2's rear looks "short" ? "chunky"? like a Renault 2CV ? Like a Volkswagen? Well, even the tail lights look Volkswagen. Sorry boys, Defenders of The Order Of The Mk-2, no offense, please do not send me to the dungeon.

I like the 420 too, I would like to have a matched pair, but like Santana's song says, "I ain't got the money".

 

I'm rather surprised- no Mk2 hardliners have suggested the S-Type/420 are the Kim Kardashian's of the Jaguar world

 

Only Kim's made a lot more money from her large assets at the rear, than Sir William ever got back on the S-Type.

 

ok, here's my Christmas gift to all of you, (with permission from the S type Register), a copy of the current Newsletter discussing the S type and 420.

If you want to read the followup article next month, (which promises to be more in-depth), you need to become a member of the S type Register.