Re: Where Jag went wrong
Discussion
PistonHeads said:
The bar was set by the Le Mans winning C-Type and D-Type of the 1950s, raised higher by the glitz of the '150mph' E-Type the following decade, and then knocked off by the portly XJS from 1975. So what happened?
erm so what about the PAS equipped, automatic long wheel base Series III E-Type?Can't exactly see how the XJ-S was really that different in what it offered.
| Length | Wheelbase | Height | Weight | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1971 E-Type | 184 | 105 | 51 | 1499-1533kg |
| 1975 XJ-S | 191.5 | 103.2 | 49.5 | 1681kg |
The XJ-S was also available with the 4 speed manual and considering it met much stricter crash regulation (roll over regs) and was more roomy inside a 148-182kg increase probably isn't as bad as it could be. The current e92 BMW M3 weighs as much.
Luca Brasi said:
telecat said:
BMW know they HAVE to supply a manual or the market for the car is severely curtailed.
You would think that but I wonder how many manual E60 M5's and M6's they actually sold in the US.ZesPak said:
Put the XJ next to the 7-er or even the S-Class, the XJ just looks the part.
Funny that, to me it's the complete opposite. Think the new gen XJ looks wilfully awful.Edited by Luca Brasi on Thursday 15th November 12:14
Why has everyone forgotten about the XJ220, one of the most radical supercar ever to be released for the road. Primarily built by a race team and Jim Randall (jag chief engineer) chucking cash at them. If my anorak serves me, it won Le man in 1993. The fatc it was disquified is trivial 
cookie1600 said:
Where Jag went wrong?
1968 when they merged with the British Motor Corporation, later to become British Leyland - need I say anymore?
Where Jag started to get it right?
Somewhere around 2008 when Tata took over.....
Sounds about right1968 when they merged with the British Motor Corporation, later to become British Leyland - need I say anymore?
Where Jag started to get it right?
Somewhere around 2008 when Tata took over.....
Edited by cookie1600 on Thursday 15th November 17:08
I don't agree with anyone that says Jaguar never lost the plot....they most definitely did. Poor rust protection, bad build quality and some uninspired styling. An XJ that barely changed through the 70's through 80's. And then there's the jelly mould S type. Hideous beyond belief.
I grew up with Jaguars....loved them, surrounded by them as a Kid. Now generally driven by the same old boys that had them new when they were proper cars. Now labelled as the old mans car.
New F type looks sensational
E Type was ALWAYS going to be a hard act to follow. Maybe that's why they did not do so (besides all of the in fighting during the take over years)!
I was lucky enough to have a 3.8 FHC (second hand of course) as my drive way back when -I think it was circa 1970!
The new F Type looks fantastic and brings the ethos bang up to date.
Very nice indeed.
Steve
I was lucky enough to have a 3.8 FHC (second hand of course) as my drive way back when -I think it was circa 1970!
The new F Type looks fantastic and brings the ethos bang up to date.
Very nice indeed.
Steve
Why all the comments, mainly at the start of the thread knocking the XJS?
It sold very well and stayed in production for year and years, hardly a failure by any stretch
There weakness was reliability more than anything else, which has been vastly improved in the the modern cars and build quality is also much better now aswell
It sold very well and stayed in production for year and years, hardly a failure by any stretch
There weakness was reliability more than anything else, which has been vastly improved in the the modern cars and build quality is also much better now aswell
jamieduff1981 said:
I like the S-Type because it looks different to all the Euroboxes. Unfortunately that's what the XF is. From a distance it could be anything. The F-Type can't replace the E-Type. Only TVR have been close to embarrassing supercars for normal car money in recent years.
I've never quite got the S type's relevance. I get the X Type, it's a smaller engined by comparison to the other models, smaller wheelbase as well. I dont know which came first though, the X or the S or why they're both there PHMatt said:
Yes yes, E-Type wonderfull blah blah,XJS evil naughty bad car....generic nonsense blah blah.
Jag havent made a great car since the e-type..... blah blah
Jag havent made a pretty car since the e-type..... blah blah
Cough cough.....XK.....cough...!
Interesting opinion. Jag havent made a great car since the e-type..... blah blah
Jag havent made a pretty car since the e-type..... blah blah
Cough cough.....XK.....cough...!
Of course, whenever the Jag fanboys get together, it's only
a matter of time before the E-type gets mentioned, then it's
Goodnight Vienna and pretty much end of thread.
Rarely does any other Jag, built in the half century since
the E type started, get a mention, so your mention of the XK
is a breath of fresh air.
Things are not the same with the BMW boys. Rarely does
anything built before 1980 get a mention with those folks,
but pretty much everything since then, except possibly
the lowly Z3, gets actively discussed.
F Type is half a ton too heavy, and just not interesting enough looking. A squashed, tarted up XK with some flash details really, and so very very far away from the f-type concept that everyone actually wanted 10 years ago...
It weighs virtually the same as the XK for gods sake! Come one! Jaguar should be embarrassed, it's appalling, disgraceful design. Jag have a good name, and I like the XJ very much, but they need to get their act together. This should be a cayman rival, not a cheaper XK.
It weighs virtually the same as the XK for gods sake! Come one! Jaguar should be embarrassed, it's appalling, disgraceful design. Jag have a good name, and I like the XJ very much, but they need to get their act together. This should be a cayman rival, not a cheaper XK.
I always thought the XJS was a great car but then I was never burdoned with the need to cling to the past or compare it to a completely different car that had gone before, had become boring, fat and out of date.
Much of the E-Type drivel spewed today is by unrealistic dreamers. There is no doubt that they were great cars, and iconic today, but by the 70s they were woefully out of date and no one but spivs wanted much to do with them.
The reality is that the E Type has been a millstone around Jaguar's neck for decades such was its greatness but the fact remains that the XJS and the XJ6 offered genuine luxo barge, English motoring for many people who wanted something different but affordable. And where Jaguar are today is wonderful to see, finally freeing themselves of the shackles of 60s nostalgia and boardroom faggotry.
Much of the E-Type drivel spewed today is by unrealistic dreamers. There is no doubt that they were great cars, and iconic today, but by the 70s they were woefully out of date and no one but spivs wanted much to do with them.
The reality is that the E Type has been a millstone around Jaguar's neck for decades such was its greatness but the fact remains that the XJS and the XJ6 offered genuine luxo barge, English motoring for many people who wanted something different but affordable. And where Jaguar are today is wonderful to see, finally freeing themselves of the shackles of 60s nostalgia and boardroom faggotry.
Are the Series Jaguars really so forgotten these days? They were incredibly admired - even loved in their time. The XJ40 was also highly regarded when current (though it was never so loved as the Series I-III). I recognise this isn't remembered now; the XJ40 seems to have been swept away by the negative reliability stereotype only the first cars deserved.
I do think Jaguar lost their way for a time, though decades later than the E-Type. Part of this is - the lack of a broad model range, was simply a product of their position at the top of the BL tree. There was no incentive to develop a mid sized executive car which would compete with the Rover.
Ford brought investment and better, modern build techniques - but also the retro styling which stifled their desirability to many people for a long time. The X350 was modern and accomplished, but it didn't look it. I prefer the old school look and feel, but am in the minority. The X350 was very out of step with everything else on offer.
To say "Jaguar went wrong" after the E-type I think is silly. It came later. To herald the F-Type as its salvation is equally silly: Jaguar started to build a desirable, excellent modern looking car when they introduced the aluminium XK.
I do think Jaguar lost their way for a time, though decades later than the E-Type. Part of this is - the lack of a broad model range, was simply a product of their position at the top of the BL tree. There was no incentive to develop a mid sized executive car which would compete with the Rover.
Ford brought investment and better, modern build techniques - but also the retro styling which stifled their desirability to many people for a long time. The X350 was modern and accomplished, but it didn't look it. I prefer the old school look and feel, but am in the minority. The X350 was very out of step with everything else on offer.
To say "Jaguar went wrong" after the E-type I think is silly. It came later. To herald the F-Type as its salvation is equally silly: Jaguar started to build a desirable, excellent modern looking car when they introduced the aluminium XK.
Brands, marketing, focus groups, regulations and lots of other gown-up dull things make 'interesting' cars difficult these days. There is so much to lose, tooling and development costs are in a different league to 1961. Imagine, back then you just designed it, chucked in the engine you had and sold it - there wasn't a massive rule book. The XK120, the first outing of the XK engine, was a quick limited run to show off the motor destined for the new saloon. Nobody really expected it to metamorphose into Le Mans winners. These days its very different.
The XJS is a fantastic car. It's not an E-Type, or a sports car, its a GT. The looks are distinctive. In a world of cars carefully crafted not to scare anybody away, its a refreshing change. You don't mistake one for anything else. It's brave and a bit silly - all that bonnet for a start. And it has buttresses! Time has been kind I think, and it looks better than it ever has. It is also a long distance cruiser par excellence.
New Jags are alright I guess. But there is no love that can replace that of a fourteen your old boy discovering the joys of petrol-powered transport. That sticks. For me Jaguars were part of it.
We may praise cars that are a bit different, a bit quirky or distinctive. Unfortunately the market tends to punish (Citroen). There is a market for specialist cars of course, it is a small one. Our best hope is probably the Japanese., they gave us the MX5 when we had almost forgotten what a small sports car was supposed to be.
It is not 1961, and Jaguar is a completely different company. We have to let go. I find it hard. Part of me shudders when I see a four cylinder diesel Jaguar.
The XJS is a fantastic car. It's not an E-Type, or a sports car, its a GT. The looks are distinctive. In a world of cars carefully crafted not to scare anybody away, its a refreshing change. You don't mistake one for anything else. It's brave and a bit silly - all that bonnet for a start. And it has buttresses! Time has been kind I think, and it looks better than it ever has. It is also a long distance cruiser par excellence.
New Jags are alright I guess. But there is no love that can replace that of a fourteen your old boy discovering the joys of petrol-powered transport. That sticks. For me Jaguars were part of it.
We may praise cars that are a bit different, a bit quirky or distinctive. Unfortunately the market tends to punish (Citroen). There is a market for specialist cars of course, it is a small one. Our best hope is probably the Japanese., they gave us the MX5 when we had almost forgotten what a small sports car was supposed to be.
It is not 1961, and Jaguar is a completely different company. We have to let go. I find it hard. Part of me shudders when I see a four cylinder diesel Jaguar.
cml said:
It is not 1961, and Jaguar is a completely different company. We have to let go. I find it hard. Part of me shudders when I see a four cylinder diesel Jaguar.
They get a rough ride. Maserati make fat bloatmobiles now, not classy 60s cars, Ferrari makes big bloated cars, not Dinos, everyone has the same issues.andy-xr said:
jamieduff1981 said:
I like the S-Type because it looks different to all the Euroboxes. Unfortunately that's what the XF is. From a distance it could be anything. The F-Type can't replace the E-Type. Only TVR have been close to embarrassing supercars for normal car money in recent years.
I've never quite got the S type's relevance. I get the X Type, it's a smaller engined by comparison to the other models, smaller wheelbase as well. I dont know which came first though, the X or the S or why they're both there Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff