The XJ40 is better looking than the MkII (IMHO) thread...
Discussion
The MkII has it's place as a representation of a certain age and style, but for me the XJ40 shows new wave Jaguar with its low slung rocket sled shape combined with a hint of '80s razor edge. Sharp suit beats baggy cord jacket...
Was the X300 a real advance as an XJ40 facelift or just Jag running scared into the "safety" of their heritage?
Peter
Was the X300 a real advance as an XJ40 facelift or just Jag running scared into the "safety" of their heritage?
Peter
6speedmanual said:
The MkII has it's place as a representation of a certain age and style, but for me the XJ40 shows new wave Jaguar with its low slung rocket sled shape combined with a hint of '80s razor edge. Sharp suit beats baggy cord jacket...
Different animals. Mk2 is medium sized sports saloon; XJ40 is full-size prestige limo.6speedmanual said:
Was the X300 a real advance as an XJ40 facelift or just Jag running scared into the "safety" of their heritage?
It's always heathly to remember where you came from and what the public know you best for.Ferrari - make a big thing of heritage - still going.
TVR - cut it up with a chainsaw and burn it - f
ked. 6speedmanual said:
The MkII has it's place as a representation of a certain age and style, but for me the XJ40 shows new wave Jaguar with its low slung rocket sled shape combined with a hint of '80s razor edge. Sharp suit beats baggy cord jacket...
Was the X300 a real advance as an XJ40 facelift or just Jag running scared into the "safety" of their heritage?
Peter
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.Was the X300 a real advance as an XJ40 facelift or just Jag running scared into the "safety" of their heritage?
Peter
Whether the XJ40 == 80s razor edge styling or a low point in the otherwise graceful history of the XJ.
Certainly the Mk2's styling is very different. The Mk2 is very much a 50s early 60s design. By the latter part of the 60s it was out of fashion. Jaguar were then moving to the squarer front from the Mk10. The top of the Mk2 family, the 420, had the Mk10 style front end. For most classic car buyers this is very much the poor relation. Mk2s are worth massively more these days than their upmarket "ugly" sister, the 420, or even than the Mk10/420G.
All these cars were swept away to make room for the XJ.
The XJ goes through 3 series, the Series III is is a lovely low graceful curvy creation.
The XJ40 then went all boxy at the front, usually with big square headlights. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
To my mind, the X300 marks a return to the beautiful curves of the earlier XJ, most particularly the Series III and marks the Zenith(*) of the the design.
- yes I know that Zenith is the Mk10 :-)
I would have to agree that the two cars are very, very different beasts. And the XJ was never seen as a replacement of the Mk2. The Mk2 always was a small / mid size sports saloon. I have had the Mk2 parked in the office car park and when looking down on it is very small indeed next to today’s cars an Astra looked like it had a larger “footprint” while the XJ is a proper large “limo” of a car.
In my view the XJ40 was a dark period as far as the exterior style goes, and it was not due to its lack of looking like an old Jag as the new range of cars are modern looking and I think would still look good in 20 years time. It is just not quite the coherent design we have come to expect.
The X300-308 (yes I know I am not very independent on this) returned the XJ to the sleek, smart cars they were intended to be. I love parking them next to an X-type as the X-type is a nice looking car. Until a XJ is next to it
then they just look too high and narrow.
In my view the XJ40 was a dark period as far as the exterior style goes, and it was not due to its lack of looking like an old Jag as the new range of cars are modern looking and I think would still look good in 20 years time. It is just not quite the coherent design we have come to expect.
The X300-308 (yes I know I am not very independent on this) returned the XJ to the sleek, smart cars they were intended to be. I love parking them next to an X-type as the X-type is a nice looking car. Until a XJ is next to it
then they just look too high and narrow. Funny thing is, I feel that the XJ-S and the XJ-40 have something in common with eachother.
Both cars are not as revered as their predecessors but if you look under the surcafe today of a modern Jaguar (even the newest stuff) and the intent of the '40 and the 'S are there to see.
I say the inetent because both cars are undeniably Jaguar, though both shunned the classic look.
XK8 is the XJ-S concept tautened up and made pretty.
XJ (post XJ40) are classic styling cues wrapped over modern equipment, modern equipment that was in may cases pioneered in the XJ40 (microprocessor controls and J gate transmission etc etc).
Both cars are not as revered as their predecessors but if you look under the surcafe today of a modern Jaguar (even the newest stuff) and the intent of the '40 and the 'S are there to see.
I say the inetent because both cars are undeniably Jaguar, though both shunned the classic look.
XK8 is the XJ-S concept tautened up and made pretty.
XJ (post XJ40) are classic styling cues wrapped over modern equipment, modern equipment that was in may cases pioneered in the XJ40 (microprocessor controls and J gate transmission etc etc).
6speedmanual said:
The MkII has it's place as a representation of a certain age and style, but for me the XJ40 shows new wave Jaguar with its low slung rocket sled shape combined with a hint of '80s razor edge. Sharp suit beats baggy cord jacket...
Was the X300 a real advance as an XJ40 facelift or just Jag running scared into the "safety" of their heritage?
Peter
The two cars are very different! I am a long term lover of the XJ40 and prefer their style to the Mk2. Despite its current unfashionability the XJ40 is my favourite Jaguar. I also love the series cars, particularly the S1 and S2 - the series 3's bumpers don't quite work for me and the rear lights lack the simple elegance of the earlier cars.Was the X300 a real advance as an XJ40 facelift or just Jag running scared into the "safety" of their heritage?
Peter
I have been a fan of the '40 (and an owner) for a long time. I have watched as their star burned bright and also watched it fall so low it became difficult to even admit I loved them on a car forum like this - such were the attacks. Things are much better now; thankfully many people seem to like them again, though I suspect Jag purists will never be convinced.
I don't think the XJ40 will ever be a major classic car, the MK2 is unususal for a saloon car in achieving this. However I now believe they will become a solid middle order classic as they become rare, something I'm not sure unsupercharged X300s will achieve. The XJ40 is an iconic car, though not always for the right reasons - a bit like the Rover SD1; the X300 enjoyed neither the fame nor the infamy, thus the XJ40 is the more important. The X300 is not an iconic car, it just looks a bit like one.
So I agree! - The XJ40 is better looking than the MkII Controversial!!
Simpo Two said:
Iconic is 'Word of the Year'. Everything is suddenly 'iconic' these days.
A truly iconic Jaguar? E-Type. Go round the streets with a clipboard and check
Leaving aside its original Eastern Orthodox meaning, anything which is an important and enduring symbol is an icon. The E-Type is iconic; it is more than a car.A truly iconic Jaguar? E-Type. Go round the streets with a clipboard and check
So too is the XJ40. It represents one of the British car industry's last hurrahs and is one of the last times a major British manufacturer consciously set out to create the best car in the world. The public responded in '86 and press coverage too was all pervasive. How many cars have their launch reported on the BBC 9 o'clock news and ITV's News at ten? - The XJ40 did, I cannot name another.
But the XJ40 is another totem: it came to embody all that was wrong with BL - unreliability, poor build and unfinished design. That this is unfair is not relevent.
The X300 XJR6 and X308 XJR V8 are mighty and highly desireable but they carry no back story. They are not icons.
I stand by my use of the word.
I had an XJ40 and it was lovely, but I never thought I was driving an icon.
You define an icon as an important and enduring symbol - but that is subjective. It may be an icon to you, but I don't believe it is 'iconic' to the general population. To do that you need to go up to someone and say 'Think of a Jaguar car'. I don't think the XJ40, nice though it is, will get many votes - and that is what happens when you move from a personal definition of icon to what really counts as an icon
You define an icon as an important and enduring symbol - but that is subjective. It may be an icon to you, but I don't believe it is 'iconic' to the general population. To do that you need to go up to someone and say 'Think of a Jaguar car'. I don't think the XJ40, nice though it is, will get many votes - and that is what happens when you move from a personal definition of icon to what really counts as an icon
dbdb said:
The X300 XJR6 and X308 XJR V8 are mighty and highly desireable but they carry no back story. They are not icons.
The X300/X308 are the last svelte Jaguar saloons. If a Jaguar saloon stands for Grace, Space and Pace, then they are then end of the line. The X350 lost the grace, it was sadly a victim the it's forebears success, the product of Ford management not knowing when to give up a winning formula and find the next great thing. The styling clinics must have been full of customers saying "we love the looks, we love the style, don't you dare touch those. But please make it a bigger, please can we have more headroom, my knees ain't what they once were, so please can it not be quite so low to the ground... but don't you dare touch the looks".The XF and new XJ might be great looking cars, but they aren't the svelte, cat like, creation of the XJs of yore. They probably aren't allowed to be by today's legislators.
So the X300/308 mark the end of beautiful saloons before the switch to going after characteristics such as aggression as a design statement.
To me, the X300 is the car that the XJ40 always should have been. Ford's money let them build it at last, where BL could never afford to do the job properly.
Simpo Two said:
I had an XJ40 and it was lovely, but I never thought I was driving an icon.
You define an icon as an important and enduring symbol - but that is subjective. It may be an icon to you, but I don't believe it is 'iconic' to the general population. To do that you need to go up to someone and say 'Think of a Jaguar car'. I don't think the XJ40, nice though it is, will get many votes - and that is what happens when you move from a personal definition of icon to what really counts as an icon
"Iconic" is a clumsy word on reflection, but I couldn't think of a better one; maybe I meant evocative. I understand you now. I guess it depends how widely you define the term, but I think we are talking of different things. Purely as a car which defines a marque as opposed to capturing a time, then Jaguar have probably only produced two iconic cars - the E-Type and series XJs.You define an icon as an important and enduring symbol - but that is subjective. It may be an icon to you, but I don't believe it is 'iconic' to the general population. To do that you need to go up to someone and say 'Think of a Jaguar car'. I don't think the XJ40, nice though it is, will get many votes - and that is what happens when you move from a personal definition of icon to what really counts as an icon
The XJ40 carries a lot of baggage - more than most cars. Unfortunately some of it is rather negative. I do believe it will be remembered longer than the X300/308. Time will tell of course and I am sure the supercharged cars will always be highly regarded, particularly the manual XJR6 which stands a chance of being very sought after one day, more than any XJ40.
Gassing Station | Jaguar | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff