I think the S types look okay and represent great value buying.

In an S type can't you still get ; that great 3.8 motor, the 4 speed Moss Gearbox with Overdrive, the leather , the wood and the Olde world charm?

What is the stigma about them?

I know I'll probably create WW3 here with this post but just asking

Pete

 

what stigma? If any of the Jaguar small sedans has astigmatism, it is the Mk-2 with its primitive rear suspension, cramped rear seat, and half-finished dash. The S type is the refined small saloon. Twin fuel tanks, twin exhaust system, the E type's rear suspension, un-cramped rear seat, totally wood dash, The 1963 S type is the start of a new design philosophy at Jaguar which lasted until the XJ-40 was introduced.

 

Well Jose is obviously a fan of the S-Type so...

The 1960s S-type I don't have a problem with. I like the look for the most part, but I like the MK2 a lot more. The newer S-Type? Not for me :P Looks like a Ford with funky lights.

I love the curves of the Mk2 - and the 60s S-Type to a lesser degree. And almost everyone I show my un-restored MK2 loves it. I don't think most non-Jag people could tell you 2 differences between the MK2 and 60s S-Type.

I forgive my Mk2 any "shortcomings" that the S-Type addresses. My "restore" may become a "resto-mod" if I want to make my automobile "as good" as Jose's
Cheers!

 

Gene, yes I am talking about the Classic S type, not the 1999-on car of the same name. And to answer the original post question which I missed: yes the S type came with 3.4 and 3.8 liter engines, the 4-speed + overdrive transmission, and a wonderfull walnut dash. Same steering wheel as MK2, but reclinable front seats standard, wrap around bumpers, huge boot as a result of the space needed for the independent rear suspension.

 

In answer to your question, it isn't so much that the SType is maligned; it is just that it isn't a Mk 2! There is no question that the S Type has a better rear suspension and a better, more luxurious interior. The problem, I think, is with the appearance of the rear end; it just isn't as well balanced visually as the Mk 2.

 

I bought my 'modern' S-type primarily because of it's resemblance to the first generation. Like all cars that are not of the cookie-cutter style , appearance is usually love it or hate it.

I've never once heard a negative word about either generation of S-types from anyone whose opinion I valued and truly knows and enjoys the marque.

One the other hand some of the newest models do look like Volvos- to me.

 

Thanks Guys

The query was about the 1960's S type

I reckon they represent great value

As I am just looking for Classic motoring in a Jag, an S type might fit the bill , at better value than a MK 2

But I would still love a Mark 2

 

I personally think the S-type looks better as the shape is more sleek in the rear and to me looks more balanced. Mechanically it is a much better design with full independent suspension on all four corners, 4 wheel disc brakes, and much more elegant wood interior than the MKII. I get a lot of thumbs up as people always comment on how nice the car looks as any of these early Jag sedans are rare and not something one sees that often. Again buy what you think looks better as the car should always about what will make you the most happy not what others think....

 

I owned and S-type around 10 years back and am now restoring a MK2, the S-type is the technically superior car (as has already been pointed out), to me the back end is better balanced with the front than the MK2 where the boot looks a bit small compared to the front.

The only bit that really lets them down (in my opinion) is where the rear wheel arch is so different from the rear door line. Its clearly a carry over from the MK2.

I did see one once where someone had fitted round rear wheel arches and to me it looked fantastic. If I did another one it would be something I would consider doing.

The best thing about the S-Type is the price compared to the MK2 (Although prices are quite rightly rising now).

At the end of the day buy which ever one you want as we all have different opinions on style.

 

Like this, and I agree, it looks much better following the rear door line.
Although it hasn't been done quite right here in this photo, but it gets the point across.
It makes the rear end look less heavy and more sporty.

 

That is the visual cue that is unliked about the S type, the rear wheel arches. But they are similar to the E type's, the MK-10's, the 420's, the 420-G's, and the Series 1, 2, and 3 XJ-6 and 12 wheel arches. Jaguar stuck with that wheel arch design until 1992. To me, the S type looks like a Bentley of the same period in the rear, even the tail lights are similar to the Rolls Royce and Bentley tail lights. The MK-2 tail lights look like Volkswagen tail lights, just chromed. Not putting the MK-2 down, it is a great car second to none. The S type is another type of Jaguar. Less than 25 thousand were made for the entire world in the 4 and a half years it was made, it is a rare Jaguar model.

 

But only the Mk2 has a racing pedigree, which makes all the difference. In the early 60s context, the Mk2 was what kids like me dreamed of in Europe :-)
After all, the D type had a rigid axle..
JP

 

I'm going to sit on the fence & say I like both models. I toyed with buying an S-type but ended up with a Mk2 when I struggled to find a decent S on the market at the time.
Needless to say, after purchasing the Mk 2, literally dozens of S's showed up!

Now I just need to figure out how to hide an S type in the garage without the missus noticing...............

 

I really like your thinking Sir! One of both

 

The man that figures this out can make millions!

 

I initially was not sure about the rear fenders but once I lowered the car and installed custom off set wheels to fill in the fender wells especially the back, I think the 3.8s rear fenders look much better than the MKII and I get a ton of comments on how cool the car is. I get a lot of compliments on the car with a fair amount pointing out how they think the rear fenders look cool with those big rims.


I think JPG is right that a car with racing history often draws demand. In my opinion the 3.8s looks better to me and with the improved suspension, etc. the 3.8s would have been a better car than the MKII in a race scenario.

 

You don't have to give excuses to justify what you like about the car, as long as it makes you happy and that's what's important.
I like the partially skirted fender on the S Type, it's just the way the rear door line doesn't merge with the wheel well.
I think Jaguar could have done a little better job here, but that's only my opinionated opinion.

I've had people come up to me and criticize my colour choice on my Mark VI Bentley, they don't think the two tone light and dark metallic bronze is suitable for 1951, some people just don't like the colour.
Who cares, I really like the colour and the people who find it inappropriate or dislike it, can go and jump in the lake.

 

the rear wheel arches of the S type are very attractive when you consider the S type is not trying to be a MK-2 but a "much more developed Small Saloon".

two different cars, comparisons just don't work here. Back in the mid 1990's I wanted a MK-2 too, UNTIL I accidentally saw a S type, took a lot of asking around not to mention searching for one in mint condition. Found one in 2004 in San Francisco Calif. Totally preserved.

In the front, the "eyebrowed" headlights of the S type were carried to every Jaguar model made until 1992, except perhaps the XJ-S.

who are we to outguess Jaguar designers? We either like them or we don't.

The last news I hear is that S types are selling for $55k USD in France and $40K USD in England.

Primaz's car will probably fetch around $80K USD if he can show it over there.

 

Jose,


Thus far I have had one offer for $70K and another for $75K but I have no plans to sell it as it was way too much work to get it completed. I think over time the 3.8S will rise as they just did not manufacture that many compared to the MKII. This car is such a blast to drive and the positive attention it gets daily is priceless. This car was well worth the time and money and I am amazed as I am already over 40,000 miles on this daily driver!

 

for my taste, the S type's rear wheel arches or "openings" or whatever it is they are called, are more elegant as they were designed. I do not like the S type with MK-1 or MK-2 wheel arches or "openings" or whatever it is they are called. The S type is THE S type, it is not trying to be a MK-2 or any other Jaguar, so trying to incorporate MK-2 elements into an S type is called "butchering".