The whole front subframe on XJS is rubber mounted in 4 places and it does move considerable especially when pushed. This affords a compliant ride but at the expense of feed back and immediacy of the steering and handling.

[QUOTE=Doug;1824700]
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 always get a chuckle when I see the E types factory stated H.P. rating of 265 when I know it was more like 170 or so to the rear wheels. That said the car really feels quick. I have tried to hang with my friends E but hard to do with my XJS' extra weight and auto trans.


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 :)

That is interesting as I always compare the early E's with the XJS. I am 6'4" tall so very hard for me to just get into a early series E coupe and then once I am in just does not feel like a GT to me but again that could be partially based on my size and then comparing it to the XJS. Now that I think about it the E type was nicely equipped compared to many of it's european counterparts.


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 !

Good point. I guess I was thinking more about how one model would better handle certain types of driving conditions over the other. Just seems to me the XJS was designed for long highway or freeway drives at higher speeds in virtual silence compared to the E type.

Makes me wonder what kind of car would have followed the E type from Jaguar if the main market for Jaguar was not America with it's long and in many cases hot freeway commutes. Makes a big difference how big and wide a car needed to be to handle things like air conditioning units, power brakes, power steering etc.. obviously Jaguar was paying attention to how many big Mercedes SL's were being gobbled up in the market and how much profit could be made on a well appointed GT car.

well seein as i lived and breathed cars back 1949 onward, i bought NEW a 1957 CORVETTE, i never was beat by any forigen cars , and i street raced ALL i could find!

we had a nice 6 lane divided hyway 3 miles straight , at night no traffic to speak of!

raced the so called XK120/150s, nope no competion , then up came XKEs nope dispatched them on accelleration easily, around 130mph or so they would slowly start to close, we run outta road when my speedo read 145mph. OH well thats life!

then one day mid summer 1958 a guy from Boston MIT university shows up with a 1956 Mercedes Gull wing coupe, again on accelleration left him behind, could hear him shiftin gears( sounded like 1/2 hour changin gears) ,my Vette could shift all four gears at full throttle(NO lift).

just maybe he might close on top end, but never happened , only had 3 miles to get it done , and wouldnt ya know a bunch of the local guys were waitin at the end ,HA HA <LOL.

that car was never beat until the 409 Chevs, 426 Max wedges , Fords 427s showed , and that ended my times, BUT they had to wring them cars till they Squealled.

Yah know kid stuff boys and there toys! and the Vette would still handle better than them cars!

Fuel injected or carburated.

Acceleration in a straight line isn't handling. The question was which handled better, not which accelerated the fastest.

NVH was a big thing for Jaguar. When compromise was needed Jaguar typically went towards a bit more comfort/refinement rather than better steering/handling.

Cheers
DD

.

it came late in 1957 FI/ 4 speed.

well by mid 1958 i put an Iskenderian race cam in it , cam lasted about 2 weeks , chewed up a lobe and lifter metal shavings chewed up the main bearings .

so modded the engine bored it 1/8 over ,301 cu.in. balanced, all new internals(parts were very cheap but good quality).
best cam for my money was the genuine factory DUNTOV (8=18).

ported fuelie heads, race springs,.

after having close encounters with some twin 4 barrels runnin 283 engines, on top speed , the Rochester FI just didnt cut it after 6200rpm(not enough AIR), good mid torque, and MPG.

YUP 2/4 barrels, ported and milled out the center plenums, well that woke up the engine , no matter what said or thought , it would REV past 7800/8000 RPM.

nough said ! also there was no really fast foregin cars at that time , that excelled on the streets!

.
Yes, this is so true. I've always thought that the E-Type looks "elevated", as in far from the ground and also a fairly narrow car. Coming back from a car show, one day I was driving behind a beautiful BRG E-Type, but the car looked so narrow from behind (along with narrow tires) by comparison to cars in adjacent lanes. It seemed so light a car in a manner kind of like a VW bus seems almost fragile. Then, the XJS is exactly the opposite of that, with a great low, wide stance, along with those wide tires, it just exudes strength and elegance.

In regards to handling, I haven't driven an E for comparison, but in my experience the XJS is not a car that likes to be tossed around, so it will present limitations when pushed in a slalom comparison test. It is a heavy car and it does feel heavy, no doubt, and with that longer than usual hood it feels like driving the Titanic. I've driven a lot of cars that are far more agile than the XJS is, my XJR being one of them and the wife's Z3 as well, for certain. What the XJS is, is a grand tourer an awesome GT car, hard to beat and so comfortable to drive and to keep driving for hours.

Cheers,

here is one for you!

back awhile , was at a car show, an XKE was there , along with the people passing by , a young boy and his father, stopped to look, boy said DAD that looks like a BIG BUG, scary!

[QUOTE=LuvmyXJS';1824644]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.


Yeah------- but? Really, who wants to drive a "Honda Accord"???? Unless you're worried about gas mileage? If you were you wouldn't be on the Jaguar "XJS" Forum to begin with.

Jack

.

jagboi; in todays world its called ROLLRACING.

quite popular as most forign cars cant take the drivetrain shock of STICKY tires.

xke versus xjs
 

Having owned a '69 XKE and currently a '93 XJS, I would have to agree with Doug's original statement. In my experience the XKE handled better on normal roadways than the XJS. I find the suspension on the XJS to float more and not be as tight as the XKE.