balthazar

Yeah; but the thread was primarily focused on the Mark X! Those 6-8 pics of the Mk X on the opening page, along with the direct commentary following should've made that crystal clear. My comments sure were all about the Mark X. One pic of another Jag sedan doesn't alter 15 posts about the interior of the Mark X. Why are we jumping to another model?Again- how does the fact that the 2 cranks were from the '3.8 Sedan' (as opposed to the Mark X 3.8L sedan) have even the most minute bearing on telling what they control? Answer that, please.

Unless you're referring to another pic that's not loading for me, the 2 levers are the window crank and the door handle. Since the quarter window pivots, what else could the 2nd lever possibly be? Where did I call the model into question in answering the crank question? And why would that matter? Aren't all '61-64 Mark Xs 3.8L cars? What is this with the "cheaper 3.8L" comment??

Flybrian: >>"Exposed black rubber.... Cheap as hell."<< But luxurious, no? Camino LS6: >>"Jag (and other British cars) are traditional as a matter of course. The details noted earlier in this thread are more a function of sylistic differences rather than advancement or lack of it."<< Is this conjecture or fact and how would you prove it? What determines whether a feature/method of doing something is either a stylistic difference, or --based on the product's competition-- merely an outmoded anachronism? And if the former, when that specific feature/method of doing that same thing is changed and now matches the rest of the industry practice, has stylistic uniqueness been cast aside or has something else happened (and is it called 'progress')?

Oh; in other words: just like far too many auto 'journalist' pieces....

It's true: BMWs styling for like a 25 year stretch was the same exact thing over & over & over, but Jag had numerous different models that were nothing alike and world's better than the utilitarian "eh." BMW fostered off on the consumer. Sure- Jag's styling often ran for long spans of years too, but at least the evolution within the design is apparent at once. The one modern Jag's styling I like most seem to dislike: the Type S. And to clarify- the basic lines & proportions of the Mark X are very nice. Some of the exterior details (again) are not quite to my tastes but I would not call the mark X 'cheesy' at all.

Having public drive events with no official pics being released? {looks at pics....} Why am I thinking of the summer movie that's released with no critic advance screenings? That is one awful-looking SUV. The civic has grown on me, but this mess never will.

GM had 4-speed automatics in the '50s & '60s. Guess they don't count since the competition -for the most part- didn't have any (beyond the 8 brands or so that bought their autos from GM, of course). Just setting the record straight.

All right razor; you're right: I came off a bit acidic. Should've been more.... diplomatic. My wording choice aside, my opinion based on the pics still stands. I see little evidence that that Jag interior is up where the class standard of the time was. I for one would take brushed aluminum & chromed steel over painted 'wood' anyday, but to each his own I guess. Certain aspects very well may be competitive, but others are obviously short. Overlooking them obviously differs person-to-person. Keep in mind the Mk X was specifically targeting the domestic luxury market.... I will be on the lookout for one of these this fall car show season, camera in hand. Can't tell you the last time I've seen one of them, but then again I've never sought one out.

Window crank & door handle, I would imagine. Quarter window latch is at the bottom of the quarter window frame. Ooops- there I go again noticing details....

>>"But as fewer customers are willing to clear those hurdles, the day may not be far off that Smithsonian starts clearing a spot next to its locomotive in the museum for vehicles like these."<< What a head-up-own-ass statement!!

RECAP ~ I addressed the interior and a few exterior details based on the pics above and questioned the car's claim to 'luxury' based on those details. In answer, you crawled under the car and pointed to the rear suspension and referenced HP/CI figures. I admitted more than once that the car itself was fine & had admirable overall styling but fell short of the class standard in those aforementioned details, and you admitted I was in a narrowminded bubble full of ungrounded prejudice. I asked for specifics, but the only one I got was regarding the hinges, which you admitted were less that what you yourself would have preferred. None of the rest of it apparently mattered, yet assumedly those same details in a period Pontiac would make enthusiasts "cringe", in your opinion. We're having 2 different discussions. Once again, you've gone straight to balled fists and knashed teeth as soon as someone disagrees, and there can be no argument: that opinion is wrong. How dare anyone question the staus quo? A Jaguar simply must be a luxury car..... because.... it..... just is. Facts need not apply. To truely have an open discussion, one would have to be able to stand back, push away the sterotypes, the intangibles, the fluff, the claptrap ('tiny country involved in WWII 16 years earlier'), open one's eyes and SEE and ask; what is real here? It is in fact the narrowminded who is unable to do so... and I suspect the beligerence, accusations and personal judgements are more than enough proof of that. Whatever- it's all well & good; passion is a core component for the true auto enthusiast. Razor- you certainly can never be accused of not being passionate about your opinions. Second star to the right and straight on until morning.

Would like a working full-size replica of the 'center-steer' Tucker proposal, plus one of the '53 Cadillac LeMans' (original, not the '59 upgrade). I would settle most comfortably for having my current 3 project vehicles done to my standards.

>>"You want to damn another country for being steeped in tradition, that was struggling to just get back to where they were after WWII let alone lead the way. "<< I said nothing about the U.K. or how overlong their tea has steeped. >>"Then of course once again its a country little larger than Flordia, and a company much smaller than any of GM's divisions"<< This is irrelevant. Product quality has never been proportional to square area of a country nor it's population. Russian/Chinese cars, anyone? >>"Still, one has to wonder had it not been for Mister Earl would Americans have been building bicycle fender cars well into the 50's ?"<< Would that have been deplorable..... or "traditional"....? >>"I bet you wish you were with the Big Three in the 50's and Jag and Ferrari and all other European brands that you so loath were also under Domestic control and you'all could have crushed them like Tucker and all others that fell to the big money boss's pull."<< You obviously have no idea of my attitude towards the industry's history. >>"Ive grown to not care what you "can see" because I clearly see you are narrowminded and cant except all differences that make for different products and approaches from different locations."<< Check back: I did not knock the car as it was EXCEPT for the fact it's branded "luxury" when there are no contemporary hallmarks of luxury visible in the pics above; indeed, to the contrary. I have nothing against the car as a stand-alone; in fact- many of those features I called out I find endearing in my '40 Ford 8-ton truck. >>"Jaguar never "followed" anyone..."<< No- never. Every new advance ever introduced came from quarantined Jaguar think tanks. >>"always unique and uninspired by others."<< '58 Jag: '55 Bentley: >>""What about the above pictures says 'luxury' to you" That car is all class, its that simple"<< Is it? Can we get a single, tangible specific to support this, or should I just shut my eyes and 'feel' it? Seats really great, comfortable, supportive........ anything?? >>"myself I can only hope those hinges are brass"<< Yes, let's hope. >>"I may have even detailed them a bit and placed them entirely exposed.................like those of a high standard trunk."<< Just when I think we're in a different universe, now you're getting into it! A partially-exposed, 1-inch common hinge is naught but cheap work.... but a detailed, polished brass hinge, perhaps with a bit of scroll-work or florish, THAT'S the kind of detail that marks a luxury car. A hinge is utilitarian and neccesary, but it can rise above that, it can become a thing of engineering / beauty.... OR... hide it completely. Make the basic interesting and/or thoughful or conceal it. THIS is "luxury": the extra touches, the extra effort, the extra cost. None of those aspects are evident in that exposed hardware store-grade hinge. And as I said- it is but 1 example.

[Flybrian: >>"Consider this - England had the daylights bombed out of them for four years, and they managed to build a car like this. Not bad."<< No; it's not bad. Who said it was bad? There is .... some....... span of years between 1945 and 1961. For the record: from the 'bombed-out' country, Jag was in production immediately after WWII, and managed to bring out new saloons quite often; the '48 Mk V, '50 Mk VII, '56 Mk VIII, '58 Mk IX and the '61 Mk X. One would assume still more models were designed & built to fill out the numerical order. Fairly productive after all.

I love the new Challenger. And really, unless you're going to hang out your car's window and wave a picture of a '70 Challenger at a passing '07 Challenger and try and shout 'retro-weenie' over the bellow of it's angry Hemi, who gives a rat's ass; you don't see '70-74 Challengers on the road anymore; they're (big buck) antiques in '06. It's so refreshing to see (again) on the road: bring it on! BTW- numerous scoops were offered on the Chalenger/'cuda- some functional, some not. The one above is the Challenger T/A- that's a completely functional-scoop (hood's fiberglas, too).

Thank you very much-added a fistful to my private gallery!Getting incresingly more appealing with age, IMHO:

No: domestics had painted & chromed steel tissue dispensers, the ones I have for a '57 Pontiac & '59 Buick are. Jaguar even offer one in this era or is it tradition to have a crumpled wad of loose tissues in the glove box? Yes: Cadillac had alloys- the first in the industry: '55 Eldorado: Sabre Spoke. No poverty caps available. Yes: Cadillac had Walnut tables in the back, and footrests, by the early '60s in the S60S and earlier in the Series 75. In a '68 ad, Cadillac claimed 167 different interiors (trim, color, options, models). I'd guess Jaguar had about.... 12. Cadillac had 270 HP by '55 and 345 by '59. I'm sure Cadillac's brakes & suspension were far more competitive with Jag's than Jag's interiors were with Cadillac's. And I'd put the brakes of Buick against Jag's discs anyday. Oh wait; we already know the outcome.... because it's a "Jag", right? Because Buicks are for old farts who can't drive, right? Cadillac pioneered LSA independant front suspension so Jaguar & the rest of the industry could use it. I didn't even go with Cadillac because it's so grossly one-sided. I also did not get into mechanicals (deflection)- I stuck with the interior of the Jag alone. In that instance a Pontiac will compete nicely, regardless of the 'image' or 'perception' of a "Pontiac". Having no A/C and manual steering was also a 'tradition' for many decades- but at some point certain features are expected hallmarks of certain classes of vehicles. Certain treatments of details & construction were abandoned years earlier by numerous more plebian marques, then, eventually, Jaguar abandoned them too, following in the other's footsteps. None have returned to those methods- why? Where is the modern thick, buldging black rubber windshield gasket? They all sealed- which one looks more refined? How can this not matter in this class- would it be fine & dandy to have it be twice as thick? Three times??? At what point does asthetics become an issue with British cars, or is whatever they do sheer perfection? I am no more 'close-minded' than you are by refusing to see things objectively and deflecting critiques. Sounds mightily like you're calling a Jag "luxury" just because it's a "Jag". Now who sounds like the media? What about the above pictures says 'luxury' to you, razor? Maybe I'm just not seeing it; enlighten me.

>>"what you got from 62 to totally show this car up ?"<< I'd put a '62-64 Pontiac GP up against this car no problem. The attention to detail is far & above what I see in the above pictures. Maybe that's not fair; comparing pictures to reality (I've owned 7 '64-66 F/S Pontiacs), but what I see is glaring to my eye. The thick black rubber backlight gasket is not refined and not befitting of a luxury vehicle. Same goes for exposed hinges and the like. The bare raw construction of a luxury car is not supposed to be visible & obvious. There's certainly no grace or charm in it. My '64 GP: no exposed window gaskets, no exposed hinges, no fat woven windlace weatherseals, a design & color-coordinated steering wheel, pedals (yes: suspended, for about the 9th year or so) with a touch of design instead of almost industrial rubber pads... it's just a far better designed & built machine AT LEAST in these areas. No- it does not have as lofty a rep, but maybe it should. >>"Keys, wrong place but its not the end of the world"<< No it's not, and if it was the only thing I saw I never would've posted, but these are the details that can make or break a car in a competitive market. Keys should not rest/rub/scratch against the middle of the dash when they can be either column-mounted or mounted low on the dash to preserve the finish/appearance of the car. It's simple practicality. Can't cost anything more to mount it at the bottom edge of the dash instead of scraping the painted wood finish off, and I strongly doubt it would impede apon any 'expectations/desires' of british motorists. >>"Shifting on the column.....?? Column shift was common in Domestic..."<< Not column shift; I said shift quadrant. The gear selector indicator, you know: P-N-D-S-L-R. Last car I saw that had one on the column that pops into mind was a '70s Maverick. Just about every upscale marque had it in the dash by the mid '50s. >>"your beginning to sound like the media you so often question"<< No; the media deals in perception, ill-researched (if at all) 'facts' and outmoded stereotypes. If I did the same I would bring up quality issues, rust issues and the notoriously-awful electricals. Or I could've make assumptive judgments on the 'quality of materials' merely from a pic. I did none of these things. My comments are all inarguable facts: the features I listed are right there in the pics. The design is nice, the interior overall is nice and yes: to a degree-charming. But it's no where near where the class leaders in this segment --or even numerous non-luxury makes-- were. I guess what I'm saying is: as a Jaguar- it's nice. As a 1962 it's a stark anachronism.

zhawk: Damned straight!! RE: "limited access" cab - always makes me laugh. Seems a good indicator how poorly toyota has a grip on the pick-up market.

RE: Studebaker- I hear you haypops, but the fact of the matter is, sales-wise Stude was in 12th place selling only a little over half of Cadillac's volume in '62. If GM hadn't brought out the intermediate A-bodies in '61, I have no doubt Stude's fine Lark line, revamped for '62, would've carried the corporation farther into the future, along with the other compelling lines. Stude & Rambler were the economical alternatives, but GM jumped into the segment, and with Stude's limited resources in playing on the same dollar level, the future die was cast. I wish it had worked out otherwise....

Her past skeeves me out, but nothing physically about her does.

WTF- no picture????

I dunno... "Jag" has this reputation, but upon cursory examination, the rep falls down hard in the details! Mark X Pros: Exterior has fluid, almost athletic lines, and it almost has a semi chopped look ala the 300: slab-sided fuselage, proportionally smaller greenhouse height, and this I like. Cons: Again- the details- they're NOT 'luxury'. Exposed rubber backlight gasket? 'Poverty caps' with painted steelies? Exposed glovebox door hinges? Interior is blue/grey but the steering wheel is black?? Shift quadrant on the column? Pedals could've come out of a VW of the era. And what's with the key in the middle of the dash? How is it luxurious to see a worn, jingly bunch of random keys scraping the dashboard as a driver or passenger? Should I continue?.... These features are on par with --say-- Ford of the early '50s, not a luxury car of the '60s. Look: I know it's the '60s and it's british and that means we're supposed to overlook all these things (and more), but the fact of the matter is, compared to domestic luxury marques of the same period, Jaguar was far behind class leading in everything except reputation... which was based on what again? BTW- do we know for a fact how much of that wood is real and how much is fake? I like the lines of the car fine, and I could live with & enjoy the interior, as long as I didn't have to pretend it was a luxury car. But: >>"Then, it was a brand that was the best of the best in terms of luxury."<< Perhaps on the British stage, but then again, no. On the international stage, no way in hell. Now, the Mark IX: did Jag & Rolls/Bentley share the same designers & coachbuilders, because damn the resemblance is amazing. Really looks the 'luxury' part, tho; old world classy.

Personally, I bash toyota apologists for hiding behind the "7/8ths full-size" excuse. I bash toyota for being uncompetitive in the segment. But it's hard to call it 'bashing' when it's more factual than anything else.