Got your attention?

Good.

Have you ever studied the overall design of an XJS? I mean just spent time walking around the car, looking at its lines from various angles, distances, and elevations?

It's a gorgeous car. Is it not? It's long and low, with a long "phallic" hood, comparatively short rear deck, and that wonderful flying buttress roof line. I get stares, smiles, thumbs up, compliments, and comments from people almost every time I drive one of my XJSs. I drive my red '88 32 miles round trip to work every day, so that adds up to a lot of attention over the course of my 12 year stewardship of these cars. In all those years nobody has ever said a single negative thing about the way the car looks. Quite the opposite, they have all praised it's looks, said they wish they owned one, etc., etc.

So why do I see so many things I would like to change when I look at the car?

Just look at those hideous rubber bumpers at each end. Or, how about those driving lights that look like they were tacked on as some committee's afterthought? Maybe it's those wimpy little exhaust pipes that apologetically snake their way out the tail end. Those things would look more at home on Grandma's Rambler than on something powered by a legendary V12. And who can overlook the huge vinyl panels behind the side windows? Vinyl??? Really???? Don't even get me started about the cheesy chrome plastic headlight surrounds on the quad headlight US models.

Don't sit there acting all shocked and offended. Who among you hasn't seen some little thing about your car, and thought "They really could have done something to make that detail look better."?

I'm saddened when I think about the criticism the XJS recieved in the press, how it never quite stacked up against it's Italian contemporaries, and how it languishes near the bottom of the barrel in value and collector-car status today.

So I asked myself the following question:

Aside from giving the V12 an additional 300 HP and an 8,000 rpm redline, what would I do to alter the overall design of the XJS, without wandering too far from Sir William Lyons' vision of the car?

The attached drawing is what I came up with. The major thing I would change is to keep the 102 inch wheelbase, but, move all four wheels forward 6 inches, take 8 inches out of the car behind the rear wheels, and give it proper chrome metal bumpers. This preserves the original ride quality, eliminates the useless rear seat, improves the balance and handling by placing the heavy V12 behind the front wheels instead of over them, shortens the car overall by 11 inches, lightens it by several hundred pounds (a lighter XJS is a better handling and faster accelerating XJS), and makes it visually less bloated. I think it also gives the car an "Italianesque" silhouette.

What do you think? Like? Dislike? Think it's sacrilege? I know others have thought about these things. What would you do?

 

Well, being opinion time the answer is naah! Some trim details could have benefited from better quality, and I would have moved the rear wheels a wee bit further back while giving the arches a treatment more like the front and a slight swelling over the hip, just a hint to break the long flat line going into a concave curve to align with the buttresses.

 

whachootalkinbout? different times change different points of view!

my 78 XJS only weighs in at 3360lbs, much lighter than the 4000lb factory #s.
i have more HP and lighter weight= better overall performance,than stock factory!

i restored/rebilt mine 16yrs ago, it wasnt 2-3weeks after i finished it,when i stood back(with a more open mind) when i said i should have shortened the rear of the car at least a foot.
your look is just a modern view that is programmed into your mind,(by media advertising).
but i agree,it does look kool, with less overhang on both ends,being more modern styling.

adding bigger wheels will make it look like a smaller car!

 

Are you saying that you would actually lengthen the wheelbase? That would be pretty detrimental to the handling.

 

Modern?
Not at all. If anything, I'm harkening back to vintage European styling with metal bumpers, and short overhangs, such as on an old Alfa 6C, BMW 2002, Ferarri 250GT or even a Jaguar C Type.

 

before this topic loses some reality, if one was to go to work and effort of wheel base changes, logic says,(MOVE THE ENGINE BACK FURTHER), so as to take weight off the front wheels,and add weight to the rear wheels, for a more balanced frt to rear.

course, thats if handling is that important, in whole scheme of things, mine handles pretty damn good as is,WEIGHT IS THE ENEMY.

anyone up to an ALL ALUMINUM XJS?? hehe, see starting to lose reality.

 

talk about short overhang,, look at a 2012 Bugatti Veyron! side view.

i do believe that Sir Lyons wanted to sell cars in USA , so we ended up with a BIG trunk/ boot.
we Americans do like to travel heavy. for some reason that i have no idea WHY!

thats it, we travel long distances, and need stuff for the end of trip.

 

That's exactly what I have done by moving all wheels forward by 6 inches. I have shifted not only the engine weight, but, nearly the weight of the entire car off the front wheels, and more onto the rear wheels. Yet, I have retained the original wheelbase (ride quality), and not sacrificed legroom in the process of transferring the weight rearward, which is what would happen if one starts moving only the engine (and firewall) back.

 

Meh.

I like the original to your shorter one.

Your shorter one reminds me of an RX-7, or the 944 or something bad. It's beginning to look like more of a hatchback.

Maybe a Datsun 240?

 

Ronbros,

Your Pre-HE obviously started life as a coupe. It's no small feat of engineering to preserve structural integrity when removing the roof from a unibody car, so my hat is off to you. When creating your roadster 16 years ago, did you use any off-the-shelf parts from the then-available convertibles? Do you have any type of top at all for it, or is the car stored inside on rainy days?

 

I love the fact that I have, what might be the largest trunk on a convertible.

I don't golf often, but the guys who pull the bags out of the trunk are always amazed at the space back in there. I wish that spare tire could have been placed somewhere else.

 

I never really thought about it until now, and looking at your sketches I don't think it would be all that hard to do either. Eliminating the worthless rear seats would easily give room to move the engine and firewall back at least a foot. Shortening the trunk would also be easily done without altering the suspension.

If I had a spare XJS and the time and cash I think it would be an interesting project!

 

Takes it from elegant GT and places it firmly into Sport territory. I love the move to chrome bumpers, but think they could be just a tad thicker, to avoid a 'dainty' look and reduce the snub nose effect, somewhat. I'd be curious though whether moving the engine back on the same wheel base would leave enough room for the legs and still allow egress without moving or lengthening the door. I disagree that it approaches a hatchback, those butressess create completely different lines from any other viewing angle. Cool idea.

 

I could be wrong but doesn't this car hold the worlds record for having the exact same body shell design for 15 years and only minor reshape for the rear lights for 5? Which adds up to 2 decades of, for the most part, the same shape. I know Jaguar is known for keeping their body styles for as long as they could partly for cost reasons, but their philosophy was to refine what they had for as long as they could before needing a major design upgrade and even then the cars still looked very similar. The XJS body styling was NOT touched as the years went by and the others were. This MUST say something for the design because the stylists COULD have changed it but they didn't, even though there were many engineering improvements during that time. Not 5, Not 10, Not 15. but 20..TWENTY YEARS!! Even Ford didn't mess with it. Anyone notice that the tail light shape is showing up on some 2012 cars? To sum up, it's fun to play with the shape but the Jaguar stylists couldn't come up with a reason to for soooo long because it's puuurrrrfect, a classic in it's own time and now, and when I'm walking away from mine and turn around to gaze back at it, the only thing I want to do is change my direction! Bud

 

Jagzilla's description of 'Fat and Overgrown' matches both my XJS and me. I guess that explains the TIGHT BOND that I enjoy with my car. Regards, Andy

 

Don't forget that 'those hideous rubber bumpers at each end' were fitted thanks to US safety legislation; chrome would have always been first choice for the designers.
Look at what a mess they made of the MGB complying with export requirements.

 

The Land Rover Range Rover Classic beats it by five years.

As for the vehicle in general, I don't think it's overdone.

The nice trunk is what separates it from toys. It's a perfectly useful daily driver. You can haul a lot of stuff in that thing. Drop the spare for hauling stuff, and it seems nearly anything will drop in there.

It's like magic.

As for the top, the later models with the smooth finish toward the end really cleaned up the styling. I was never a fan of the buttresses, though. I like the lines of the cabriolet.

I plan to make a fiberglass hard top that replicates those lines. I never drop the top anyway.

When it comes down to bumpers, I'm rolling a facelift model, and I think they look fine.

It's definitely well put together. Toss it on a lift next to other cars, and they look like toys in comparison.

 

It'd be interesting to see just what your redesign would look like as a convertible. In another post, I stated that the XJS probably would not achieve collector's status as it is perceived as a "personal luxury car". However, before I purchased my '92 coupe, a friend and I went to look at a black '89 convertible. I had to pass on it, as I needed the "worthless" back seat for my 2 young children, and I'd only seen XJS 'verts with back seats (94-96) and assumed they all had them.

Black, with the wire daytons....my friend stated that it almost looked like a "poor man's Daytona Spyder". And I had to admit, if you squinted your eyes, and slugged yourself with a hammer in the head... it kinda did. Now, if your design were a black ragtop with daytons....we could maybe put that hammer away.

howlinowl

 

I think Ford did. That's why there's a "facelift" edition. You didn't think that Jaguar came up with that awful looking tail light, did you?

They did fix the bumper issue though. Except for that tail light design, and perhaps headlight design, Ford did an outstanding job cleaning up the design without making any landmark changes...to the exterior.

I'm grateful that Ford was able to fix most of the electrical gremlins on the interior!

 

I'd love to see an angled shot of the rear then. I think those buttresses (which I love by the way) might be out of scale. I think you needed a long car to pull that look off, but I could be way off base on that.