Right. After all, the design goes back to the late 50s. No ventilation, no amenities, tiny cockpit, etc. It comes from a period where merely having roll-up windows in a sports car made it "luxurious"

Cheers
DD

 

Yep, just try driving an E-type for two hours. Your **** will be aching and your back sending out distress calls. All the while, the chap in the XJS will happily and silently be cruising along at 120mph with one hand on the wheel

 

Funny but true. Two totally different rides.I took my Etype to Europe and fought the narrow streets, bad roads,pot holes and even worse unbridled drivers.Niether the car nor I liked it.
Getting into the XJS with a v12 and hitting our North American Hyways is orgasmic or rather nirvana.

 

Here's a question: if the XJS hadn't come along, is there another car that would have brought all of us gushing to one forum? I don't think there is. What other car has the spec AND "je ne sais quoi" [Mark J] of this one?

 

There isn't anything else that can match it for the money that you can buy one for; Astons, Bentleys, Bristols (wahaay!); they will waft you along nicely but very expensive whether new or second hand (mind you, £10,000 will buy you a 20 year old, 6.8 litre Bentley Mulsanne Turbo, 0-60 in 6.7 seconds which isn't too bad for a 5000lb car.). MGs, TRs and Healeys are not very wafty and the latter 2 cost way more than an XJS.
So the XJS it is then; it seems to fill a gap that nobody even realised was there!

 

Interesting comments; much appreciated.
Regarding my Camaro handling comment, which is in regards to the Muscle era, late sixties cars, it is what I've heard before from various sources, including the very Mecum commentators, where the car's described performance attributes tend to add the "straight line" disclaimer..

However, I do have personal experience with early Mustangs ('67 and '69). As long as the drive remained "nomal" it was all fine, but sudden, emergency manuvering could get scary. This includes watching other people strugling with the car, or doing a 360 when braking hard. As spectacular as my '69 looked, my wife and I refused to give it to our daughter as her first car for above reasons. I wonder if the car's special versions (Mach 1, etc.) had a better suspension.

Cheers,

 

I pulled out the original 1975 AUTOCAR article on the XJS and decided to try and find it online and came across this....interesting read.

Jaguar XJ-S development history

 

There's nothing out there I would rather drive. If not my XJS I would have probably ended up with a Mark 2 or a Series 2 or 3 XJ.

 

I'd probably be driving a 70's / early 80's Mercedes 280.

I always like those cars too, and they are in a similar price range.

 

Obviously that was a deliberate mistake to make sure everyone was paying attention :-)

 

damn JagZ, thats a nice lookin engine!

you tell them like it is!

 

i owned a 1967 Etype back around 1972, it was not a great car, paid $850. had a knock on #1 cylinder , bad rod bearing, did a backyard(used car tricks)to make ready for sale, poor bas##%td who bought it!
hey nothing last forever,i was young and badly influenced!

i was turned off on Jags till i saw my 1st XJS, everything changed.

now some reality, in an interview with Bob Tullius this spring at Sebring FL he said that the series 3 V12 E type couldnt hold a candle to a proper XJS on a race course!
and he modified both for racing use!

it all boils down to UK losing faith to the world powers, so they complained about everything that related to there status in the world! and did all they could to belittle the XJS(E type old world,, xjs new world). and the dumbos with the money follow like sheep!

and i'm from English heritage(with a little IRISH), HE,HE.

im starting to rant, over&out.

 

Yes, obviously
I think I would have rebutted by saying that the 24,000 per second included all the tiny electrical explosions that occur at the many electrical components in the car, including both ends of the spark plug leads, inside the relays, etc. I can see 24,000 explosions per second in that scenario.

 

Thanks Ron.
I'll just be happy if I can get it to fire up when the time comes, after wiring in this Electromotive ECU, and custom engine wiring harness.

 

Yeah, the 60s vintage cars were pretty bad.

In 1970 Chev and Pontiac starting tweaking with Camaro and Firebird suspensions: rear anti-roll bars, better tires (for the days) etc. They were leaps and bounds better than the earlier cars and only got better as the years went by. Some of the earlier Mustangs were halfway decent....Boss 302s and the like.

Speaking broadly the Mustangs, Camaros, Corvettes (and to some extent, 911s) and others relied heavily on "stiffer = better". Besides the comfort factor there's the problem of getting skittish if the corners get bumpy...as they often do in the real world.

Jaguar always favored a softer suspension (even on the E-Type) for comfort. Naturally a bit of the edge was lost....but still and all Jags corner well and you won't go jumping across the road if you hit a rough corner!

Cheers
DD

 

For me my SIII E type is comfortable enough, she's automatic, she has A/C and power steering and to my standards feels modern enough. It's not the same experience as my XJS for reasons already colorfully illustrated in my first post, but I can not say that I come out of my E type in a state of bodily pain. By S3 the E type had deeper floor pans, better seats and more of a GT feel. If you want a really primitive feel, try a XK150. I personally consider myself more of a XK150/XJS guy as far as aesthetics are concerned, but I could not have an XK150 for the simple reason that it's not drivable in today's traffic.....no A/C, no power steering and it's not possible to add them aftermarket without major work. An XK150 would just sit in the garage. My series 3 E braves Houston traffic rush-hour at least twice a week without a problem.

 

Those Mercs are truly excellent practical classics. The M110 engine is like a lickle jag twin-cam inline 6, very nice. Great ride too though neither the handling nor je ne sais quoi of a Jag. Driving a W123 always made me feel like I was in a Cold-War Era spy film. I had three.

 

Actually, Vee, maybe the Mercedes 280C/CE/S/SE is the kind of car that draws a certain enthusiast. They aren't quite as beautiful, slinky, alive as a Jaguar but they do have their own special character built on straight-forward competence. Also there are plenty out there with 5.0 Ford V8s etc so the lumper guys are in on it too. The coupés are particularly nice cuz they're hardtops. Open all windows and the roof and it's almost a convertible.

They have a damn fine 4-speed auto that responds (a bit) to manual shifting, four wheel independent suspension and disc brakes, power windows, central locking, climate control on many...

 

Not to add to thread drift, but I have always had a soft spot for the W108/W109 cars. Growing up my next door neighbour had a 71 300SEL with the mighty 6.3L The thing was a tank and went like a rocket!! I saw a 280SE 4.5 version the other day and all those memories of riding in the back of that car came flooding back

 

There are a number of older MB models I'm very fond of; very cool and handsome cars, and technically interesting as well.

I've had opportunity to spend some time behnind the wheel of a couple W111 cars and dabble in some minor repairs. Pleasant to drive (though hardly sporting, IMHO) and charming in their own way. Like Jags, some "interesting design features" (translated: "what in the world were they thinking?"), some neat stuff, some disappointments.

But, like the E-Types, we're talking about cars from a different era.


When it comes to older cars my tastes a pretty broad. I can find something lovable in just about every one. My "if I were a millionaire" wishlist would probably have a hundred cars on it. And, to be honest, only a few would be ultra expensive mega icon collector's items.

But, at the end of the day, it's the Jags that really do it for me.

Cheers
DD