Wired Celebrates the Jaguar marque.. what's your most favourite Jag ?

[Racer X]

I just came back to post that. Though "Meg Austin" was sure hot.

[rz]

10.2.8

[voodoopenguin]

Paul

[mrbigstuff]

lots to choose from. I think the most pleasing to the eye sedan ever produced is the XJ-SE from the mid-1970s (I think), and most variants of that but this is the high water mark, IMO.

[davester]

Early E-Type roadster,


or perhaps an XK120,


or perhaps even a C-type.


My mother actually owned a 1975 XJ6. Very nice, extremely fast, stunning looks for a sedan, but probably about the most unreliable year for jags (and that's not saying much).

[OWC Jamie]

I didn't care for 10.2

[Spock]

Many moons ago my father drove an E-Type 3.8L coupé, I had a little MG soft top.

I am still alive today in no small part due to his refusal to let me borrow his ride under any circumstances.

[Thrift Store Scott]

steve... wrote:
The E-type roadsters from the sixties/early seventies were one of the most beautiful cars ever built and WAY ahead of their time style-wise, IMO. Didn't like the hardtops at all.

While I don't disagree that E-Types are visually stunning vehicles, driving one broke me of any desire to ever own one.
It belonged to a friend of mine, and it was old enough that it had the factory headlight covers, but it was in "as new" condition (having rich friends who are into cars isn't a bad thing ).
It had "bucket" seats that truly earned that description, in that they were like sitting in a bucket that's been cut at a 45 degree angle and padded inside, yet they were surprisingly comfortable. The steering wheel was huge by modern standards, but understandably so since the car didn't have power steering. The steering wheel, dashboard, and (seemingly near-vertical from the driver's seat) windshield were all really close to the driver in comparison with modern cars (think early VW Beetle), yet it had no shortage of leg room at all. The lights were controlled by a series of separate chrome toggle switches on the center of the dashboard: One for the instrument lights, one for the parking lights, and one for the headlights (good for traveling in "stealth mode", I suppose). Because of the way the bodywork droops down out of the driver's field of view, those curvy fenders (both front & rear) seem to go on forever and it's impossible to tell where the car ends, so I'd hate to try to parallel park an E-Type.
Purely driving-wise it was okay... not wonderful, not awful, just okay. It was fast but not that fast; it handled well but not that well.

Having driven both, I personally much prefer the Mark II 3.8 sedans over the E-Types.

[davester]

Thrift Store Scott wrote:
[quote=steve...]
Purely driving-wise it was okay... not wonderful, not awful, just okay. It was fast but not that fast; it handled well but not that well.

Not THAT fast? the 6 to 7 second 0-60 times and 150 mph top speed were phenomenal for that time, on par with a number of Ferraris for a fraction of the cost. The handling and brakes were also worlds above everything else on the road that cost anywhere close to (and quite a bit more than) the E-Type. The E-Type was developed directly from Jaguar's racing program, with near race car performance all around.

That said, a modern BMW M3 would out-accelerate and out-handle it, especially if the E-Type was limited to period tires. However, there was virtually nothing even remotely affordable on the road for long after the E-Type ceased production that could hold a candle to it. Perhaps your example wasn't in as great a shape as you thought it was.

[Dick Moore]

Most fave: XK140 coupe. Most fave actually owned: XJ12L.