Assuming Factory Spec with no Modifications which Car handles better an XJS or an 'e'type?

 

On the same tires... E type. Front suspension is from the D type race car and is un-bushed.

 

Having never driven an E type. (always wanted to) I would think theoretically the XJS would be better stock for stock, because of the improved tires, wider and lower profile, as compared even to the last E type's. Would the E type having almost solely wire wheels make a difference in handling prowess, compared to the alloys? Or am I looking for needles in a haystack???

Jack

 

I really think the question needs to be clarified.

My experiences with the XKE (Series I 6-cylinder) is that it feels more responsive and nimble than the XJS...which one would expect given that it's a much smaller, lighter car. I have a more 'connected with the road' feel in the XKE. The manual gearbox and lower gearing makes it easier to add engine power into the 'handling' equation....to reduce under-steer, specifically. That's all subjective stuff.

Objectively, on a skid pad measuring actual lateral acceleration, my bet is that the XJS would equal or better the XKE. Of course variables enter in---tires, pavement temperature, etc.

In a race on a really tight road course....tight, twisty mountain roads for many of us.....I'd say the XKE would take the lead. On a not-quite-so-severe course, it would probably be a bumper-to-bumper.

Cheers
DD

 

Having owned and early E Type and a late XJS, I would say the XJS no question. The E Types have the front subframes bolted to the "tub" that forms the unibody and that's a very flexible joint. Somewhere I saw the results of a torsion test on an E Type body Jaguar did and by modern standards it is very flexible and offers little torsional resistance.

The XJS is a much heavier car and can feel it, but it terms of what it can do it's a very capable car if you're willing to push it. Later cars have lower and wider tires and that helps too, and solid wheels. The E Types ride on 80 series tires and the wire wheels are also far more flexible than a cast alloy.

All that being said, if any of you have seen or ridden with the late Jerry Mouton from Jag-lovers it was amazing what he could make his E Type do in the twisties. I was still able to keep up in a Series III V12 saloon though

 

Huh? There are lots of rubber bushings in the E Type front suspension. Upper control arm, shocks and anti roll bar are all rubber mounted.

 

The XJS will leave the E Type for dead on any circuit; or on any handling slalom-type test you care to name. It is also far, far more stable at high speed. As Jagboi mentioned, the torsional stiffness of the E Type is extremely poor compared with the XJS coupe, for the reason Jagboi also pointed out. The car does not have a full monocoque, entirely for cost reasons; and the tubular cradle the entire front of the car forward of the bulkhead sits on is not in itself that stiff, and is not bolted up to anything (ie the rest of the car) very stiff either.
But, it must be said, the entire world, from Enzo Ferrari downwards, fell in love with the car because it was so impossibly gorgeous looking at the time; I mean maybe Audrey Hepburn was not the greatest actress, but who cares? Also at the time the E Type was a much better sports car than just about anything else in existence. No good criticising the Wright Brothers because their aircraft wasn't the P51 Mustang!
My point concerning the XJS is that it is not in my view the least bit outdated dynamically; which is an extraordinary achievement considering when it was designed.

 

After being allowed to try a Series III V12 and compare it to my XJ-S at the time, I'd clearly say XJ-S. That XJ front axle is a masterpiece when it comes to stability.

Of course youvm have to consider, that the E Type was never intended to be as bloated with a huge V12 at the front, so that took a huge toll on the handling. My feel was, that the torsion bars at the front were not really capable of springing the V12 around. At least not sportily and swiftly. The Series III had become a very fine cruiser, no pure sportscar as was the Series I. So that of course contributed to the general feel.

I have yet to test a Series I E. Possibly a lot more nimble and so. But going by the Series III, even an XJ6 (Series I) would easily outpace the E on a curvey road.

​It always felt so nervous around the front. What other cars have in the rwar was in the front. Odd but, well, just odd.

 

You can't think of *any* circumstance where the greater size and weight of the XJS would put it at a disadvantage? Let's start moving those slalom cones closer, and closer...and closer together !

Agreed. It's amazing, isn't it?

I'm still a bit in awe of my '88 XJS. Stability, control, adhesion, response.....all first rate and never felt the least bit outdated in my book.

Cheers
DD

 

I hope you get a chance to. Everyone should. It's an icon.

It's a bit of a thrill; emotions are involved. The sound, the feel, the bulged hood rising up in front of you. The dials-and-switches cockpit sensation. The gearshift falling 'readily at hand'.

But, truth is, icons don't always live up to expectations. It's like waiting years to meet your favorite rock star: after the initial thrill you discover that he isn't quite as awesome as you thought

The XJS doesn't feel outdated. The XKE does. IMO.

Not that I wouldn't love having one, mind you. But if I could choose only ONE iconic two-seat sports car it wouldn't be the XKE.

Cheers
DD

 

Absolutely, it's a very fun car to drive. You don't have to be going fast to enjoy the drive, it is a unique feeling. One thing that is very different is the feeling of liveliness, the car has a great power to weight ratio. The XJS feels ponderous in comparison, you're aware of a great amount of weight being moved. It can move it with a V12, but it doesn't feel as responsive.

Part of the reason I sold my E Type was I could never cure the exhaust. After a drive of any length I absolutely stunk of exhaust, and longer drives gave me a headache, no doubt from CO poisoning. I replaced the entire system, but was never able to cure the exhaust from coming into the car. Upon reflection, I probably should have tried extending the tailpipes, but I didn't.

More times than not I found the keys for the VDP in my hand, rather then the E Type as I could always find a reason not to drive the E Type. When I was driving it under 200 miles a year I thought it was silly to keep owning it and sold it. Paid off the mortgage on my house, which I thought was a better use of the funds.

 

Hi Doug

I'm hoping to Test Drive an 'e' type at 'Great escapes' this Summer, in order to compare it with the XJS

But do you think this Icon is going to disappoint me, bearing in mind what you said about 'Rock Stars'

Or will it be love at first sight, to the extent that I make promises my Check Book cannot keep

You can buy a lot of XJS's for the price of an 'e'type

Meanwhile I'd like to go 'Window Shopping' are there any 'e' type Convertibles for sale on the Forum or any Dealers you could recommend

Where a Convertible 'e' type wouldn't cost the price of a house

Don't mind LHD as I can get it converted V12 or 4.2

 

I suspect love at first sight. But we all know that sustained love requires the ability and willingness to overlook shortcomings.

So much depends on what you're accustomed to and what your expectations are.

The XKEs are cramped inside, hard to enter/exit, have an archaic heating/ventilation system, the pedals are awkward...it isn't all a bowl of cherries. There are other iconic sports cars that I would find easier to live with, personally.

I think a 6-cylinder 5-speed XJS would be worth considering. Bit more of a sports car flavor than a V12/auto...but no downsides !

Personally ...hope nobody wants to clobber me for this...but as iconic 60s 2-seaters go, a mid-60s Corvette would be my choice over an XKE if I had to pick just one or the other.

Having one of each would be a lot better, though!



Cheers
DD

 

i have an article by Grp44 , they raced both types modded for racing V12s.

Tullius words were the XjS would run circles around the E type, on track conditions!

 

I've heard the XJS referred to as a "4,000 lb miata." We all have pretty old ones at this point, so they a bit squishier than they really should be. My impression is the XJS is a pretty good handling car, obviously it did well in racing.

I think an XJS would dominate an e-type in terms of handling. I've seen specs where racing tires were put on an XKE for an improvement on the skidpad, at 0.82g. The same year SEDAN was said to go around the skidpad at higher speeds than the E-type. I think the XK8, which is fairly similar to the XJS in suspension and tire size, does like 0.85 or so stock.

For reference a MGB will pull as many g's on a skidpad as a 2016 camaro SS. Not all cars are necessarily as good or bad as you would assume.

 

A friend of mine has a 1994 5 speed/4.0, while I have a 94 auto/6.0. It made a very interesting comparison to drive them back to back, certainly the V12 is a much nicer car, the quality of the interior trim is very different.

When we were shopping for the 5 speed I drove 2 cars the same afternoon, both 4.0 and identical in every respect (even colour) except one was auto, the other 5 speed. I thought the auto was much nicer to drive and more relaxing and better suited to a convertible.

I didn't try pushing the 6 cylinder cars very hard, but overall I preferred my 6.0. More power, and the 5 speed didn't seem to be a nice match, I found myself doing a lot of shifting. For the places I was driving and the speed limits I always seemed to be between gears, and that just made it a lot of work to drive, rather than being fun.

Mind you, I don't view the XJS as a sports car, and I think the auto suits it's character as a luxury GT cruiser, certainly in convertible form. The 5 speed might be a better match for a coupe if it was driven harder.

 

Which I think just serves to demonstrate what a useless measurement is skidpan g's.

 

Objective measurements are only one part of the story. Lateral acceleration on a skid pad, elapsed time on a measured course, etc.

For most people, "good handling" or which of two cars "...handles better" is subject to a lot of....well...subjectivity

Cheers
DD

 

The funny thing about this topic is in reality a Honda Accord would likely out handle both the E and XJS on a real measured test if all were stock. I remember when they looked at a early E and a Aston Martin DB4 or 5 on Top Gear and the newer Accord made them look slow and soft by comparison.

I think about the time when the E was first released and what a huge step it took over the XK150 both in styling but also performance and handling. The E is simply something very special and still provides a memorable experience in all aspects of driving. One of my good friends has owned several E's over the years and he states the sound the E made on heavy acceleration was like no other with air being sucked in right in front of you and then being pushed out right behind you.

I personally like the stance of the XJS over the E type. The E is very narrow and stock looks a bit high off the ground compared to the XJS which is wide and lower looking in comparison. My read is if you put a good deal of money updating both cars the XJS would be a better platform to drive hard on.

If you got rid of the slush box automatic in the XJS and put a transmission in the car that allowed it to respond as quickly as the E type out of the corners I think the XJS would really come to life and shine on the twistiest of roads.

The XJS is a heavy and large GT. It was designed stock to provide a relaxing and sublime driving experience. The early E was designed to be just the opposite. When Jaguar tried to make the E a bigger GT with a V12 the limits of the E's chassis was quickly realized.

The reality is if you looked at which car would handle best and be more fun to take on a twisty mountain road for a few hours a series one E type would be the favorite by far. If you looked at which one would handle best for a weekend drive from say Sacramento to Los Angeles on I-5 the XJS would be the best choice- apples and oranges.

 

You're right but, again, a "measured test" is only part of the story.


Well stated !


That's a good description.

Specifically, in my experience, the off-the-line acceleration is brilliant and fun. Yeah, the sound is splendid. As with so many "things Jaguar" there is a unique sensation. It's not just that it's fast. It has a certain feel.



I agree



Well, it was certainly designed as a sports car but not far removed from "GT". If you look at the marketing and reviews it was considered one of the more luxurious offerings of the time, complimented for its supple ride and luxurious appointments. The XKE was not a rough-n-ready sports car of the time. In 1961 there were still lots of sports cars running around with side curtains and oxcart suspensions. And you ordered a heater from the 'optional equipment' list


Yup.

I'm reminded of an R&T comparo of the XKE, Corvette, and 911. In terms of handling the conclusion was [roughly quoted from memory here] "The E-type may not have the absolute cornering ability of the Corvette or 911 but it has a combination of ride comfort and handling that still pleases a lot of people".



I would agree...based as much as the "fun" aspect as anything else



A 600 mile trip on I5 doesn't involve "handling" as (I think) we're speaking of it in this thread. Or maybe it does. I dunno ! That's why I suggested a clarification of the question in my first posting !

For my mother a car "handled wonderfully" if it was easy to park and steer. A 911 owner probably has a different standard

Cheers
DD