Are Jaguar "E" types overpriced?
Discussion
TooMany2cvs said:
swisstoni said:
It's not that hard frankly ...
Indeed. Just avoid anything but the lovely original s1 roadster and FHC.So avoid the s1 2+2; the s1.5 roadster, FHC and 2+2; the s2 roadster, FHC, 2+2; the s3 roadster and 2+2... Just over 60% of all production, basically.
swisstoni said:
Nope. Didn’t say any of that.
Yes, you did. The bit ascribed to you in the quote box was your exact words.https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=17...
coppice said:
I know it's sacrilege but I have never like E-Types as much as I should , even as a car crazy lad in late 60s . Narrow track , priapic bonnet, and progressively uglier as they got updated . 911s - early ones -look even sweeter now than they did then and as for the 275GTB ...I saw my first in Leeds in 1967 and it was quiet the loveliest , sexiest man made I had ever seen , even if its bonnet is also phallic . It is still one of the best looking cars , eclipsed only by the Miura and the 330LMB .
It's a good thing that different people like different things. Some people like phallic bonnets and some squashed beetles, just imagine how much more overpriced E-Types would be if everybody wanted one.Still I suppose if everyone else only wanted E-Types the price of an XK140 might drop back to something I could justify to SWMBO.
275GTB's I have never liked. Fat body, small windows and the proportions aren't right. I could stand and look at a 250GT Lusso all day though. Same with some Astons - with the possible exception of a DB4GT (with bumpers please) the sixties stuff does nowt for me. A four headlight seventies V8 though - a styling masterpiece.
iSore said:
275GTB's I have never liked. Fat body, small windows and the proportions aren't right. I could stand and look at a 250GT Lusso all day though. Same with some Astons - with the possible exception of a DB4GT (with bumpers please) the sixties stuff does nowt for me. A four headlight seventies V8 though - a styling masterpiece.
The E-Type was a "working class hero" - - a tantalisingly obtainable proposition for the average Joe if he had a bit of luck, got his timing right & had his ducks in row.
It was a car to impress non-car people - they'd seen a good few of them, the local spiv probably had one and it reeked of suburban aspiration.
The Fezza 250 SWB, 250 Lusso & 275 GTB (esp the 4 cam) - were unobtainable Gods. Really seen in '60's Britain outside of race tracks & the conveyance of choice for the Global jet-set.
You can't compare the two - except for value for money - which was the E's trump card.
There may not have been any hand-beaten alloy body work or a dozen small cylinders snorting through a couple of banks of Weber's - but it looked sporty - even if the 150 mph figure was a fiction.
The E was the local village councillor, the Fezza's were European Aristocracy - breeding is in the genes.
It was a car to impress non-car people - they'd seen a good few of them, the local spiv probably had one and it reeked of suburban aspiration.
The Fezza 250 SWB, 250 Lusso & 275 GTB (esp the 4 cam) - were unobtainable Gods. Really seen in '60's Britain outside of race tracks & the conveyance of choice for the Global jet-set.
You can't compare the two - except for value for money - which was the E's trump card.
There may not have been any hand-beaten alloy body work or a dozen small cylinders snorting through a couple of banks of Weber's - but it looked sporty - even if the 150 mph figure was a fiction.
The E was the local village councillor, the Fezza's were European Aristocracy - breeding is in the genes.
iSore said:
275GTB's I have never liked. Fat body, small windows and the proportions aren't right. I could stand and look at a 250GT Lusso all day though. Same with some Astons - with the possible exception of a DB4GT (with bumpers please) the sixties stuff does nowt for me. A four headlight seventies V8 though - a styling masterpiece.
Yepp, controversially I much prefer the DB4GT to the Zagato bodied ones. As you say it really should have the bumpers still fitted.I like the 70s V8s, but I also love the look of the wide bodied Virages, I don't think anything on the planet has got the rear view mirror presence those Vantages
"Out of my way little peasant"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d-gAn3piaA
I'm sure I remember another version of this video with more dramatic music.
AH yes, I think this is the original version.
https://thewikihow.com/video_0Q39KiKg-GY
Travel the world at the epicentre of your own personal earthquake.
Edited by a8hex on Friday 1st June 14:00
Edited by a8hex on Friday 1st June 14:03
Penguinracer said:
The E-Type was a "working class hero" - - a tantalisingly obtainable proposition for the average Joe if he had a bit of luck, got his timing right & had his ducks in row.
Spot on. Much like the original Mustang in the US, early examples of which in the right spec go for big bucks.Penguinracer said:
The E-Type was a "working class hero" - - a tantalisingly obtainable proposition for the average Joe if he had a bit of luck, got his timing right & had his ducks in row.
It was a car to impress non-car people - they'd seen a good few of them, the local spiv probably had one and it reeked of suburban aspiration.
Out of interest, because I was too young to know at the time, and because I have one, what was the TR6s image "in period"?It was a car to impress non-car people - they'd seen a good few of them, the local spiv probably had one and it reeked of suburban aspiration.
Being old, when the TR6 came out after the TR5 it created the same impression on me as the difference between the svelte E-type and the bulky XJS. Both had poor mechanical reputations, the Triumph because of fuel injection problems and the XJS because of the general car industry quality control. I saw a TR6 the other day and I still don't find it that attractive but it doesn't somehow seem as bad either.
Penguinracer said:
The E was the local village councillor, the Fezza's were European Aristocracy - breeding is in the genes.
Not sure that's fair - the S1 E-type looks very D-type to me when you open the bonnet, and I would class the D-Type (and the C before it) as Lemans royalty. In 61 the E-type had a race bred chassis and brakes - the engine was no Columbo V12 but it was durable, torquey and wasn't pulling much in the way of weight. At the time it was introduced it was a game changing car, rather like the XK120 before it. Edited to add : I am clearly biased.
2xChevrons said:
As for E-types - can you say they're overpriced when they still sell fairly readily even that the big numbers they command now? But, speaking personally, I don't think they're worth the premium. I'd take a Series 1 XJ6 or XJ12 or an XJC over an E-type any day (whoever said that the XJ was the one that was massively underpriced was spot on - even with the recent rise in prices a Series 1 XJ is not worth what I feel they should be given how good and how significant they are). I'd take a Big Healey or a Datsun 240Z over the E-type, to be honest. Most of the hype seems to be about the looks, which I've never quite understood. Even the early 'pretty' ones don't do it for me - all the proportions are wrong - bonnet line too low and symmetrical, windscreen too vertical, glasshouse too tall, track not wide enough for the body. The only good-looking E-type is the Low Drag Coupe because it has a roofline and track in proportion to the rest of it.
You clearly are not an E Type guy and that’s you prerogative obviously. To say you’d take an XJ over an E proves this point. Totally different cars for a different audience altogether. Yod take a Healey or a 240z over an E? I’m gurssing from an aesthetic point of view? Certainly can’t be from a drivers point. The Big Healey is like truck and the Z, though sweet had nowhere near the involvement or sheer magic of the E.
TooMany2cvs said:
swisstoni said:
Nope. Didn’t say any of that.
Yes, you did. The bit ascribed to you in the quote box was your exact words.https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=17...
You can't 'ascribe' anything else to me because I didn't say anything else.
vpr said:
You clearly are not an E Type guy and that’s you prerogative obviously. To say you’d take an XJ over an E proves this point. Totally different cars for a different audience altogether.
Correct. We'll get back to that point. vpr said:
Yod take a Healey or a 240z over an E? I’m gurssing from an aesthetic point of view? Certainly can’t be from a drivers point. The Big Healey is like truck and the Z, though sweet had nowhere near the involvement or sheer magic of the E.
Aesthetics is part of it. I find a MkIII A-H 3000 in a nice two-tone paint scheme much nicer-looking than the Jaguar. Beyond that, I find the Austin-Healey much more 'involving' than the E-type. It does drive like a truck, but it drives like a truck that can do 120mph on leaf springs and bits of Austin Atlantic. That's much more exciting to me than the E-type, which is immeasurably more capable but is simply rather dull and competent from a dynamic point of view. I like my classic sports to have fairly low dynamic limits (hence my fondness for Spridgets) and the E-type is, in that respect, 'too good'.
I'm also by no means a racing driver or even a particuarly skillful 'helmsman' when it comes to fast road driving but what I like about classic sports cars is the way you have to set them up, be very careful and precise with most of your control inputs and the slight sense of 'knife-edge' you get when bombing along an open road in something with very little wheel travel, cam-and-peg steering and a big snarly C-Series under the bonnet, where you can feel the the back wheels scuffling over bumps and sense the 265kg of all-iron straight-six dragging the nose out of line.
Getting an E-type onto (what for me) feels like a 'knifedge' means driving it far more roughly and quickly than I feel remotely comfortable with, leaving aside the safety/legal aspects. So to me an E-type is a comfortable, brisk grand tourer-type of car. And I can get the same level of enjoyment from an XJ6 as I do from an E-type in that respect, leaving aside the aesthetics.
The 240Z I just prefer from an aesthetic and historical point of view. Plus the sole example I drove felt infinitely lighter, nimber and more precise to drive than any E-type I've tried, and with a vastly smoother and rev-happier engine.
I'm not saying the E-type is a bad car. It is an excellent car and thoroughly deserves its place in history and the esteem in which it's held. But it doesn't float my personal boat and if I was going to spending a six-figure sum on a classic car you can bet I'd want that boat to be floating with a lot of clear blue water under its keel!
TooMany2cvs said:
Wasn't it just the same bits as used in the saloons...?
Not at all. All-round self-adjusting and servoed disc brakes for example. The engine was from the precursor, the XK150S 3.8 which was used as a proving ground, but can you show me a Jaguar that had IRS before the E-type? The E-type was a big leap forward in technology in the day, and 40% of the price of a Ferrari. If you weren't around you cannot imagine the furore that it caused. Wind tunnel tested, aerodynamic, thermostatic fan, all of this was exciting and in the main divorced from standard practice. The E-type was a staggering 5 cwt (or about 280 kgs) lighter than the XK150 because again, it was a monocoque and had no chassis. To drive an E-type is to marvel at the suspension control it gives, and incidentally I have done 50 miles in mine today at rather indecent speeds. I never cease to be amazed at the performance,refinement, and yes, fuel economy for a car that was being developed 60 years ago when Mr Average had a saloon that topped out at 75 mph and used just as much fuel.Yes, you are right. Now compare the rest of what I have said. Have you ever driven or compared a big Healey, a Datsun 240Z, many E-types from 3.8 to 6.0 litres, Mk 1 and 2 saloons, a Mk VII or VIII? A Jensen CV8 perhaps? I have, and the E-type was light years ahead of the others regardless of price. Just what was there around at that time that could hold a candle to the E-type, whether it be on price, perfomance or roadholding? The Datsun was a homage to the E-type and much later on, the Healey was comparing a cart horse to a thoroughbred (no insult intended - I am talking technology here although Healey did make a special model with four discs in 1955). Think of other "sports cars" such as a Sunbeam Alpine of the original style. I am sitting here perusing the Autocar of 17/3/1961 and the cars available at that time were poor relatives. No MGB as yet, Facel Vegas were on sale, two years old, for £3,500, even a big Healey already a year old was over £1,000. And a new E-type? £2,000 to you sir.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff