Sometime around '73 or '74 the US Government required that a car had to be able to run into a wall at something like five mph and not sustain any damage. The rear had to be able to do it at half the speed as the front. I had a '74, 340 Duster that had the same sort of big rubber bumpers, but they were not quiet this large and did not look nearly as hideous as they do on this car.

 

We all had to put up with that first gen. "fix" to the mandate; it made for some bad-*** ugly fixes until the designers and engineers got it together. However, that was then and this is now; no-one will ticket this owner for not having the rubber. The cleanup could be done in a reversable way if some collector comes along and insists on going back to the uglies. I nominate Phil to do the design work. And once that work is done, the leaper can become a paperweight.

 

[QUOTE=mike66;851080]We all had to put up with that first gen. "fix" to the mandate; it made for some bad-*** ugly fixes until the designers and engineers got it together. However, that was then and this is now; no-one will ticket this owner for not having the rubber. The cleanup could be done in a reversable way if some collector comes along and insists on going back to the uglies. I nominate Phil to do the design work. And once that work is done, the leaper can become a paperweight.[/QUOTE
You have no idea how relavent this is!! My second car at 17 was a black XKE with those awful overriders. My brother and I took them off and he made Fiberglas replacements that looked so much better. He has a photo somewhere I've got to find it. Mine had a leaper on it too! It had been a dealer add on a previous owner had done. But it was a HUGE leaper!! A jealous guy in high school kicked it off last day of school because I won best car. Really damaged the bonnet.

 

What I would like to see, even if just photoshopped, is an XKE bumper/grille like this:



on the front of an XK8. Maybe you would have to fill in the fog light holes, but I think it would look awesome. Add some louvers near the rear of the bonnet....

 

I am the poor guy who started this thread. I was just kind of playing around as a new member learning how to navigate the system. I had no idea it would generate so much interest. It has been great fun getting beat up by you guys (and gals?), but it was in a good cause. It did not take me long to agree that it would be a mistake. I am now in the "No" crowd.

BTW, I happened to be in the Sacramento Jaguar dealership the other day. My XK150 drew compliments and got photographed. That got me to talking with one of the employees. I mentioned my ill-conceived post on Jaguar Forums about the leaper on XK8s. He said they were doing a land-office business putting them on new XJ's and XF's at $800 a pop. As for the XK8, he said he had just moved from Florida where he saw lots of XK8's with leapers.

Now that I am in the "No" camp, I guess I should make some remark about the bad taste of Floridians, but I am not going to. Whether those folks are right or wrong, they are all pursuing beauty. And whether you are in the "yes" camp or the "no" camp", this whole thing has demonstrated how passionate people are about Jaguars and their styling. MB's and BMW's may draw comments about whatever it is people like about them (speed, German engineering, whatever), but I don't think there is any other car in the world where almost any model from any year will draw the compliment "what a pretty car".

I have three of them from 1958 through 1999, and that has been my experience.

(That said, I have now learned that you can't say anything about a Jaguar without touching a nerve on some enthusiast, so I will admit right now: my father's 4.2G MAYBE wasn't so pretty.)

 

This car was NEVER meant to have a leaper, have seen a couple that had one installed, look's very tacky.

 

I would be less offended to see one of those 1980's boomerang limo aerials on the boot of an xk than seeing a leaper on the bonnet! ;-)

 

[QUOTE=rrmillsap;851518]Now that I am in the "No" camp, I guess I should make some remark about the bad taste of Floridians, but I am not going to. Whether those folks are right or wrong, they are all pursuing beauty. "[QUOTE]


Florida is the land of retirees, many are living out their dreams down here.

They always wanted a "Jag Wire" and they expect it have a leaper on it too. The dealership is all to happy to oblige for an extra $800 markup. The dealer really doesn't care about the classic look of the car. They want to get the deal done and make some extra profit, good for them.

It's not a "Florida" thing, it's folks buying their dream car with excess retirement funds and wanting it to look like a "Jag Wire."

BTW, as I said before, I know this story, my neighbors Mom bought her "dream car" a 2001 XK8 and she had a damn leaper put on the hood. She probably died happier knowing she had owned her Jag just the way she fantasized it to be. Good for her........ It sits in the garage with 16K on her now.....


Now.....If you middle aged guys want to add one to an XK8......NOOOOOOOOO
Vector

 

This topic never ceases to amaze me. At the end of the day, if someone likes and wants a leaper, install a leaper. If they don't, then don't!! IMO, the only thing that really bothers me personally is a leaper and a badge on the nose. They don't bother me if the badge is moved to the grille. Not so stacked. I also like to see a leaper body colored on most colors. They look less obtrusive and unique. That is if you like it on the car in the first place.
As I threatened, my next leaper will be magnetic!! He can come and go at his leisure!! Lol

I'm surprised someone hasn't dissed my chrome mirror covers!!

 

Robert; XK150's are beautiful!

 

Vector, some of us retirees have owned more than one Jaguar.........don't disparage the dream car thing, it keeps the company going. Paint 'em polka-dot for all I care, it's their money and their car.

 

Ok, now my cat has lost it on this topic!! Lol

 

Hey, Tommy. What year is that beauty?

Sandy

 

I thought it was a '69 and Googled "69XKE" and found this photo.



1969 Jaguar XKE
by Peter Urbanski

 

Hmm. Covered headlights say Series 1 (pre-'68), but turn signals below the bumpers say Series 2. Overall looks like a '68 or '69, but a stunning car no matter the vintage.

 

According to Peter Obanski, who took the photo, it is a '69. Yes, I too was wondering about the covered headlights, but the turn signals said '69 and I figured the owner may have retrofitted the covers.

Be that as it may, that looks like the most pristine '60s XKE that I have ever seen.

 

Yep. If I was in the market for an E-Type...

 

I might add, that if you click on Peter's name, you will see some truly great photography.

No, I am not related do, nor do I know him.

 

One PRIMO Jag. Amazing color. And --- sooooo classic.

Thanks for sharing!

Sandy

 

An XK8 needs a leaper as much as a motorbike needs an ashtray!
I'm just saying........

ArtyH