E Type Jaguar still has the looks
Discussion
I'll say something controversial.
Yes the E-Type was quite brilliant, but the X100 XK8 took the ball and ran with it to produce a better, and a better looking, car. It does everything an E-Type would, and more, it has more space, it is more comfortable to travel in with the roof down, more effortless, more powerful, better finished, more reliable, less prone to rust and if it is a soft GT that was what was called for by the market. You can make it as sporting as you like, if you are so inclined. it doesn't have the James Bond badge but it is a far more flowing and coherent design than the DB7 and indeed any contemporary competitor.
The E-Type may be more classic, and the XK8 may have stood on a giant's shoulders to get where it did, but the XK8 is the superior car, as you would expect for something that came out 35 years later.
Yes the E-Type was quite brilliant, but the X100 XK8 took the ball and ran with it to produce a better, and a better looking, car. It does everything an E-Type would, and more, it has more space, it is more comfortable to travel in with the roof down, more effortless, more powerful, better finished, more reliable, less prone to rust and if it is a soft GT that was what was called for by the market. You can make it as sporting as you like, if you are so inclined. it doesn't have the James Bond badge but it is a far more flowing and coherent design than the DB7 and indeed any contemporary competitor.
The E-Type may be more classic, and the XK8 may have stood on a giant's shoulders to get where it did, but the XK8 is the superior car, as you would expect for something that came out 35 years later.
RDMcG said:
I love the E series 1......a magnificent car. The X100 is indeed a pretty car, but I hated the interior and the fact that the Vert was cheapened by the lack of a disappearing hood.
To some of us the neat little tonneau cover looks good. The trouble with disappearing hoods is that they disappear into the boot. An X100 has a colossal boot, the new X150, and particularly the drophead, is tiny. the convertible X150 is fine but it is a little bit like an origami exercise. Even today, few convertible GT's have the looks of an X100, maybe the Aston DB9 Volante. Nothing else. I also liked the interior, particularly the original fluted seats, the fly off handbrake and the three dials.if you want to tour France and bring back a few cases of champagne (and the chance would be a fine thing) there is really only one choice, well, that or a Bentley CGTC.
cardigankid said:
I'll say something controversial.
Yes the E-Type was quite brilliant, but the X100 XK8 took the ball and ran with it to produce a better, and a better looking, car. It does everything an E-Type would, and more, it has more space, it is more comfortable to travel in with the roof down, more effortless, more powerful, better finished, more reliable, less prone to rust and if it is a soft GT that was what was called for by the market. You can make it as sporting as you like, if you are so inclined. it doesn't have the James Bond badge but it is a far more flowing and coherent design than the DB7 and indeed any contemporary competitor.
The E-Type may be more classic, and the XK8 may have stood on a giant's shoulders to get where it did, but the XK8 is the superior car, as you would expect for something that came out 35 years later.
Why would you even compare a virtually modern car with an old classic....it has no relevance at all.Yes the E-Type was quite brilliant, but the X100 XK8 took the ball and ran with it to produce a better, and a better looking, car. It does everything an E-Type would, and more, it has more space, it is more comfortable to travel in with the roof down, more effortless, more powerful, better finished, more reliable, less prone to rust and if it is a soft GT that was what was called for by the market. You can make it as sporting as you like, if you are so inclined. it doesn't have the James Bond badge but it is a far more flowing and coherent design than the DB7 and indeed any contemporary competitor.
The E-Type may be more classic, and the XK8 may have stood on a giant's shoulders to get where it did, but the XK8 is the superior car, as you would expect for something that came out 35 years later.
Of course it has more space and is a nicer car to drive if thats what you're looking for.
Me....Id rather ride my bike that drive a boring lump of bloated lard.
cardigankid said:
I'll say something controversial.
You're comparing two different genres. XK8 is a big grand tourer, an XJS replacement (which in turn was supposed to replace the E-Type but they lost the plot).The spiritual successor to the E-Type was the cancelled F-Type. A win to the accountants but a loss to everyone else.
Developed from the XK180 concept:
Is that drop-dead gorgeous or what?
Suddenly the XK8 looks a bit lardy
vpr said:
Why would you even compare a virtually modern car with an old classic....it has no relevance at all.
Of course it has more space and is a nicer car to drive if thats what you're looking for.
Me....Id rather ride my bike that drive a boring lump of bloated lard.
1. Because all the E-Type worship and the sums now being paid for good examples (not for the first time) would seem to imply that current cars are worse by comparison. I am saying, yes, fine, but the world has moved on. Also, based on looks, the XK8 can hold its own with anything current or classic.Of course it has more space and is a nicer car to drive if thats what you're looking for.
Me....Id rather ride my bike that drive a boring lump of bloated lard.
2. Why would you buy an 'old classic', by which I mean an E-Type? By current standards it is slow, rust prone, handles badly, poorly equipped, uncomfortable. Yes, it is truly classic, but at pushing 75k for a decent one, you have to ask yourself, 'Why exactly am I driving around in a museum piece?' Same question could validly be asked about DB5's at 250k plus. An XK8 delivers on every front except fuel economy.
3. Can you explain what is wrong with a car having space and being nice to drive?
4. I'm not saying that its a Lotus, but not everyone wants to drive a Lotus. If you compare it item for item with the contemporary Sports GT's, then, despite all of the snobbery and supercilious nonsense that people spout, it is actually right up there with Porsche Aston Maserati and Ferrari. That is before you look at doing a few things such as polybushed and lowered suspension, easy upgrade to 500 bhp plus etc etc. If you check out NormanD's car, who commented above, you will see what I mean. All in a vehicle which can take you from here to the Cote d'Azur and back in real comfort and style. With your luggage.
5. On what basis can you describe it as boring?
6. I wouldn't ride your bike if you offered me a considerable amount of money to do so. You may get thrills you wouldn't get in an XK8, up to and possibly including getting killed in a minor road accident. You are either a biker or not, and as you have probably gathered, I am NOT.
There is always a temptation to believe that because something costs more it must be better. When the price of E-Types is at such a level that only billionaires can afford one, the rest of us might feel excluded from a unique experience. I hope that I am the kind of car enthusiast who values things for what they are, rather than what they cost. The reason I am championing the XK8 is that it is a car that gives you all the best of the E-Type experience, and then some, for a cost far more people can afford. For much less than the cost of a new Mazda MX-5, any of us could have a top class GT car in their preferred state of tune and fettle, and one which can look good in any company. I have seen perfectly usable XKR coupes for around £6k. This situation is not going to change anytime soon with around 91,000 of them made. That is democracy.
Edited by cardigankid on Sunday 17th July 15:18
Simpo Two said:
Developed from the XK180 concept:
Is that drop-dead gorgeous or what? Suddenly the XK8 looks a bit lardy
Simpo, you and I both know that the XK180 was developed on XK8 running gear with heavily XK8 derived looks, designed by the same team including Keith Helfet and Geoff Lawson. Yes it's lovely, but they didn't do the F-Type because there wasn't a big enough market for a hard edged two seat sports racer. And for all the garbage that is talked about 'an E-Type successor' the E-Type was actually quite a soft GT.Is that drop-dead gorgeous or what? Suddenly the XK8 looks a bit lardy
cardigankid said:
Simpo, you and I both know that the XK180 was developed on XK8 running gear with heavily XK8 derived looks
Actually I didn't, but whatever is underneath, the XK180 looks nothing like an XK8, which to me has always looked a bit 'wrong' around the headlights and rear. The XK180 looks more like a modern D-Type if anything.cardigankid said:
they didn't do the F-Type because there wasn't a big enough market for a hard edged two seat sports racer.
I saw it as a classier alternative to the BMW Z3/Z4; in fact I had a deposit on one back in 2000. I thought what killed the F-Type was costs, especially the roof - essentially they couldn't make it for the price point.cardigankid said:
And for all the garbage that is talked about 'an E-Type successor' the E-Type was actually quite a soft GT.
I think everything was soft in those days The XK8 is your fave Jaguar; that's fine, but there are not many cars you can run your eyes over from front to back and find nothing wrong with.
cardigankid said:
Simpo, you and I both know that the XK180 was developed on XK8 running gear with heavily XK8 derived looks, designed by the same team including Keith Helfet and Geoff Lawson. Yes it's lovely, but they didn't do the F-Type because there wasn't a big enough market for a hard edged two seat sports racer. And for all the garbage that is talked about 'an E-Type successor' the E-Type was actually quite a soft GT.
I saw it years ago..here is an old slide I took:
cardigankid said:
Simpo, you and I both know that the XK180 was developed on XK8 running gear with heavily XK8 derived looks, designed by the same team including Keith Helfet and Geoff Lawson. Yes it's lovely, but they didn't do the F-Type because there wasn't a big enough market for a hard edged two seat sports racer. And for all the garbage that is talked about 'an E-Type successor' the E-Type was actually quite a soft GT.
The F type or X600 was not based on the xk180 on anything but styling. It was to be a proper light weight sports car (about 1100-1250 kgs target weight). It was going to be middle engined with the transverse AJV6. The range topper would have been the 330 Bhp supercharged engine out of the 'X type R' which was stillborne. However the more interesting powerplant to my mind would have been the 260 bhp N/A V6 which would have been a free revving version of the 3 litre JV6. Contrary to popular opinion- the AJV6 of the time made good torque, was a lightweight power unit, and made good power per litre-with very little in common with the contemporary Ford Duratech- short of the block design.There was a big enough market as illustrated by the Porsche Boxer but they didnt do it due to stretching of resources and prioritisation.
cardigankid said:
vpr said:
Why would you even compare a virtually modern car with an old classic....it has no relevance at all.
Of course it has more space and is a nicer car to drive if thats what you're looking for.
Me....Id rather ride my bike that drive a boring lump of bloated lard.
1. Because all the E-Type worship and the sums now being paid for good examples (not for the first time) would seem to imply that current cars are worse by comparison. I am saying, yes, fine, but the world has moved on. Also, based on looks, the XK8 can hold its own with anything current or classic.Of course it has more space and is a nicer car to drive if thats what you're looking for.
Me....Id rather ride my bike that drive a boring lump of bloated lard.
2. Why would you buy an 'old classic', by which I mean an E-Type? By current standards it is slow, rust prone, handles badly, poorly equipped, uncomfortable. Yes, it is truly classic, but at pushing 75k for a decent one, you have to ask yourself, 'Why exactly am I driving around in a museum piece?' Same question could validly be asked about DB5's at 250k plus. An XK8 delivers on every front except fuel economy.
3. Can you explain what is wrong with a car having space and being nice to drive?
4. I'm not saying that its a Lotus, but not everyone wants to drive a Lotus. If you compare it item for item with the contemporary Sports GT's, then, despite all of the snobbery and supercilious nonsense that people spout, it is actually right up there with Porsche Aston Maserati and Ferrari. That is before you look at doing a few things such as polybushed and lowered suspension, easy upgrade to 500 bhp plus etc etc. If you check out NormanD's car, who commented above, you will see what I mean. All in a vehicle which can take you from here to the Cote d'Azur and back in real comfort and style. With your luggage.
5. On what basis can you describe it as boring?
6. I wouldn't ride your bike if you offered me a considerable amount of money to do so. You may get thrills you wouldn't get in an XK8, up to and possibly including getting killed in a minor road accident. You are either a biker or not, and as you have probably gathered, I am NOT.
There is always a temptation to believe that because something costs more it must be better. When the price of E-Types is at such a level that only billionaires can afford one, the rest of us might feel excluded from a unique experience. I hope that I am the kind of car enthusiast who values things for what they are, rather than what they cost. The reason I am championing the XK8 is that it is a car that gives you all the best of the E-Type experience, and then some, for a cost far more people can afford. For much less than the cost of a new Mazda MX-5, any of us could have a top class GT car in their preferred state of tune and fettle, and one which can look good in any company. I have seen perfectly usable XKR coupes for around £6k. This situation is not going to change anytime soon with around 91,000 of them made. That is democracy.
Edited by cardigankid on Sunday 17th July 15:18
Besides, my point was you can't compare it to an E the same as you can't compare a DB5 with a DB9....it's always gonna do things better its 40/50 years younger. Even Jaguar moved on in that time.
Compare the E with cars of the same era and it'll make more sense. You obviously don't get classics and the joy of ownership etc that many glee from them....that's fine but I feel it doesn't give you a balanced view on the subject.
Yes, but the title of this thread is 'E Type still has the looks'.
I am just saying, a bit like you are, that things have moved on, and generally for the better. I too had an XKR - an '05 4.2 Coupe, sadly a victim of the credit crunch. I have also driven plenty of other models including the current XK, Aston DB9 (and a DB5) and various 911's, and purely imho, and while they are most but not all a little faster they are in no way in the kind of different class which you seem to suggest. I think that there is a strong element of auto suggestion here.
The XK180 was a 'cut and shut' XKR, but I accept that the F-Type was something else again. I too was one of the suckers who placed an order when they sent all these sexy little postcard images out to the showrooms. I still have them. I have no inside knowledge other than reading the books as to why they did that, but it smelt like a publicity stunt, maybe a few of them thought that if it got a sufficiently good reception the management would give it the nod. The roof was a non-serviceable winky-w
ky concept from the start, but, hey, look at the Porsche Boxster Spyder. Maybe they were ahead of their time. Maybe Jaguar just didn't want to start selling to the boy racer market in that era. If so they were wrong.
I am just saying, a bit like you are, that things have moved on, and generally for the better. I too had an XKR - an '05 4.2 Coupe, sadly a victim of the credit crunch. I have also driven plenty of other models including the current XK, Aston DB9 (and a DB5) and various 911's, and purely imho, and while they are most but not all a little faster they are in no way in the kind of different class which you seem to suggest. I think that there is a strong element of auto suggestion here.
The XK180 was a 'cut and shut' XKR, but I accept that the F-Type was something else again. I too was one of the suckers who placed an order when they sent all these sexy little postcard images out to the showrooms. I still have them. I have no inside knowledge other than reading the books as to why they did that, but it smelt like a publicity stunt, maybe a few of them thought that if it got a sufficiently good reception the management would give it the nod. The roof was a non-serviceable winky-w
ky concept from the start, but, hey, look at the Porsche Boxster Spyder. Maybe they were ahead of their time. Maybe Jaguar just didn't want to start selling to the boy racer market in that era. If so they were wrong.Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 6th August 10:13
Gassing Station | Jaguar | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff