As I've been following and being entertained by bullittandy's Shooting Brake build, a thought has occurred to me. What if at launch, Jaguar had the resources to introduce the XJS as a three model family -- Coupe, Convertible, and Shooting Brake?

Would it have been a smashing success? It would have likely avoided the false perception that the XJS was a replacement of the E-type, but was instead an entirely new class of car. Additionally, I believe more people would have loved the styling seeing it in all three guises. Ironically, I think it might have bolstered coupe sales as it was seen as a choice rather than the only option.

I had never really had an interest in the XJS until the first time I saw a coach built convertible version in the mid 80s (there was someone doing these before Hess & Eisenhardt but can't recall who). 'It should have always been offered that way' was my very first thought back then, and the first time I started to consider buying one. That was repeated the first time I saw the Lynx Eventer.

I know Jaguar didn't have the resources then, and we're lucky they even survived the 70's, but it's an interesting exercise in 'what if'.

 

Good looking station wagons are always in demand. Not that my shooting brake build is being built for a specific utilitarian reason but gorgeous cars that are practical are always appreciated. The Ferrari FF being a recent example.

 

I think the convertible would have helped it's sales a lot, but marketing could have done more to say "this is not the e-type!" Then again, the e-type was out and the XJS was the 2-door coming in, so it couldn't be helped much.

The issue isn't that the XJS is ugly, far from it, the issue is the E-type looks so damn good. To be honest, I thinking finding a 4-speed for it would have done more for sales than launching differently or setting it apart from the E-type.

 

Most intriguing MAC, as a Brit and as someone who was a grownup at the time living in England, I feel qualified to comment. The first thing is it is very hard to reproduce the spirit of those times when considering the matter, as in hindsight we all know that the XJS is the largest-selling Jaguar model ever. Also in the 1970s, because of the Federal safety laws being enacted, discussed and threatened, nearly ALL car makers including many US ones, put developing convertibles on hold. So spending money at that time, developing a convertible was a non-starter for Jaguar.


Secondly, the shooting brake idea you mentioned is, hindsight or not, 100% correct as the best way to market the car in my view. In fact Jaguar, or a very strong faction within the company, were thinking in terms of at least a hatchback as the standard model, and had done design work and (I believe) clay mockups of such a car. Again, financial considerations prevented it being developed as the standard model.


The thinking within Jaguar was also rather set in its ways at this time, as the 2 or 2+2 models right from the E Type, were always considered non-mainstream, and the really important attention went on the saloons. Remember that all through the early to mid 1970s Jaguar had HUGE waiting lists for the saloons, even in spite of their deteriorating build quality. It was not until the late 1970s that saloon sales began to falter as Jaguar regulars became disillusioned with the appalling build, fit and finish, and reliability. By the late 1970s, also, the Ford and BMW and Audi offerings were starting to close the gap between the refinement and ride quality that Jaguar offered and their own models. I had a 3 litre Ford Granada as a company car in the late 1970s and it was one of the best and quietest cars I have ever driven. It cost much less than the jaguar saloon and was as fast and far more economical and reliable. Essentially, this is the sad story of the indigenous UK car industry's decline.


Finally, the actual market segment for all Jaguars was, and just about always had been, the well off, mid 40s onwards, businessman. This is an innately conservative set of people. Younger people loved the cars, dreamed of having one, but they were quite beyond the price range of anyone "making their way". As for having one as a company car, they were "Directors' cars" from a status point of view. So however well you were doing on your way up, your company might supply you with a decent Ford offering, but NEVER with a Jaguar unless you were at the very top. Just as today nobody but the chairman gets a Rolls Royce.


So bearing all this in mind, Jaguar real buyers were indeed somewhat taken aback by the XJS' styling on its launch. As were the motoring press at the time, who were all, in the UK at least, old-school journos who had fallen in love with the E Type as younger men. I can say from personal experience that all the younger people interested in such things, male and female, thought the XJS was just marvellous. At least all the people I knew and worked with. But we were not buyers, just worshippers! FWIW, it is my view that this is why the XJS is becoming such a design classic and is being used in adverts these days. Because the 1970s/1980s younger element can now buy an XJS, and are in positions of influence to include it.

 

At the launch time, the E type was not selling. Hard to believe, but it was considered old-fashioned and very dated. The last few hundred took ages to shift. The car was launched with a manual 4 speed option, and just about nobody bought one (under 400 in the first 6 years of sales).
Greg

 

The other factor from that period is that the XJS launched coincident to the 73-74 OPEC Oil Embargo. Made it look like the absolutely wrong car at the wrong time.

 

sales of the Land Rover EVOQUE are much better than Jaguar cars, so maybe something to station wagons, what makes me wonder is WHY?

 

Ronbros - take a gander at jalopnik.com - admittedly they are a vocal bunch of gear heads, but they all seem to love wagons. If I had to have a wagon to haul gear to clients, I could handle a Benz, Volvo, or BMW - but if bullittandy started a conversion business, who knows?

 

i already own a Chevy Suburban 8 passenger(Diesel), i use it rarely, most for hauling somethings! (very handy for things like 4/8 sheets of plywood,that will fit inside out of weather, most wagons cant haul like that,and get good MPG.)

it is big and comfortable, doesnt exactly handle like a sports car,LOL.

but it is only a second car! wifes car is #1 daily driver, along with Jag as a toy plaything!

 

So bearing all this in mind, Jaguar real buyers were indeed somewhat taken aback by the XJS' styling on its launch. As were the motoring press at the time, who were all, in the UK at least, old-school journos who had fallen in love with the E Type as younger men. I can say from personal experience that all the younger people interested in such things, male and female, thought the XJS was just marvellous. At least all the people I knew and worked with. But we were not buyers, just worshippers! FWIW, it is my view that this is why the XJS is becoming such a design classic and is being used in adverts these days. Because the 1970s/1980s younger element can now buy an XJS, and are in positions of influence to include it.[/QUOTE]

I think that this is really a valid observation. in 1975 I was just two years out of high school. I had been extremely interested in cars since I was a kid. Yes, I was very taken by the early E series but in my high school years the series III E was not that great a looker except as a convertible. When I saw the new XJS I was really impressed, this was the "hot new thing", It represented the future of Jaguar, not the past. As a young person I was interested in the future not the past. No matter how impressed I was by the XJS there was no way that I could be an actual first buyer customer. Truth be told, I never could have been an actual buyer. Fast forward back to today I'm in the same situation with the new F series. While I might be able to swing a new model, at my age 61 years , I don't think that buying anything that will see such crushing depreciation is a worthwhile move. However,

This still leaves a wonderful selection of twenty plus years of veteran models available to play with at much friendlier prices. I think many 40,50,and 60 year old enthusiasts will want to buy those XJS' that they admired for so many years.

 

Well, in my opinion, the XJ-S and later XJS WAS a success... Nearly 21 years of production. More than 120.000 made. That makes it the to date (afaik) most successful Jaguar coupé/convert made...

Now, regarding the models... I personally think a shooting brake would have made the lineup better. Getting rid of the cabriolet (with that stupid landaulet style rear roof and T-Tops) and instead launching the car with a convertible option would have been better BUT legislative of the States made it uncertain, if a convert would be sellable or not (there was supposed to be a ban of them afaik).

Launch could have been the coupé as we know it. Followed by a shooting brake a year or two later and then, as the laws allowed converts, a full convertible in the H&E style (fully hidden rag top).

The greedy XJ-S was launched into an oil crisis. It was then revamped in a new "rich" period. I think, to make it more successful, the 6 cylinder should have been launched a lot earlier... Chuck in a good 4.2l I6 from an XJ6 and that would have made a great start. Maybe even use the 4.0l I6 with supercharger from the XJ6R and perfect.

I think the biggest limit to the XJ-S/XJS was the limited amount of engines. 3.6/5.3 and 4.0/6.0. Some people would have liked say a 4.2l. Or a 2.9l as an "entry level" model. With cloth seats and no air con and co. Kind of like a Golf. But at the same time, the XJ-S was an executive's car. So it was priced accordingly.

I still think 120.000 cars built is a great number for a car "deemed" to fail...

 

I'd like to throw another factor into the mix, the competition. I was watching some car videos on Youtube when I found a link to interesting video about the Jensen Interceptor. I believe that it debuted in 1969 or 1970. The interceptor is a very interesting car, The styling is really rooted in the coming decade. It was described by the manufacturer as a high powered luxury Gentleman's GT. They never referred to it as a sports car. It was very fast and distinctive, even though it had that Chrysler V8 it was clearly seen as a British product. At this time the series three E type was looking kind of long in the tooth. Since the series three was based upon the 2+2 body the proportions were kind of off with that tall greenhouse. It's styling suffered in comparison with the Interceptor. I would imagine that Jaguar lost quite a few sales to customers who were looking for a more modern design. It was no wonder that Jaguar realized that it needed an Interceptor competitor which is the slot that the XJS fit into. It matched the image of the Jensen while providing comparable luxury features and performance. In my opinion the XJS styling is superior, and of course the V12 sealed the deal. Compare the Series three and the Interceptor and the E type comes off looking pretty dated. The XJS really was the right move.

 

Totally agree about the Jensen from the styling point of view. At the time it really did put the E type in a previous era. A friend of mine has nearly finished restoring an Interceptor, I haven't the heart to tell him that dynamically and speed-wise, it cannot live with the XJS. The Interceptor has a cart-sprung live axle and a huge underpowered, carburettor-fed, cast iron V8. But even so, a lovely looking car. There is a company in the UK who rebuild them like new, with more powerful engine, etc etc. The first thing they do is install a Jaguar rear axle!
Greg

 

Today I was watching an episode of Jay Leno's garage about the Bertone Piranha, built in 1969 off of a 2+2 Jaguar E type platform. This was a one off show car built by a British newspaper as a publicity promotion. The designer of the car later designed the Espada and the Muira and you can see the design resemblance. You can also see some design cues that are used in the XJS- the wide flat hood with quad lights. The horizontal attitude of the grille opening and bumper. The long low flowing straight lines of the sides. Quite interesting. The Piranha was reportedly hugely popular at the time and featured in many US car magazines. I remember seeing it on the cover of some magazines. Although this was a show car it was a fully functional car that was sold to a private owner who used it and kept it for years. This was a luxury GT coupe with a plush interior A/C and other conveniences. The design was obviously a real break from the old E type. The Jensen Interceptor had arrived a couple of years earlier and it's design was a smashing success. So it's no wonder that Jaguar went to the luxury GT concept for the design of the XJS. Interestingly enough, when I park my 1997 XJ6 next to my XJS you can see a real design connection. Both are very low, sleek and wide. The hood of the XJ6 appears very long and wide from behind the wheel and the flatter straighter lines of the XJS flanks are echoed in the side design of the XJ6. It looks to me like both cars could have been sold at the same time, the family resemblance is very strong.

Since we love to think about our XJS' there is an article comparing the XJS and the XK8 in the newest issue of Jaguar World. Both are featured on the front cover!