Debatable. Angle of view matters a lot when looking at E types. They actually look silly viewed from the rear because the track is so narrow compared to the wide arches.
I have one on the back burner to restore and have to say that a lot of the manufacturing design was punitive towards those that had to maintain the car. Case in point, the flip front bonnet does more to hinder maintenance than it does to enable it. Let's not even mention the consumable heater tubes, vacuum tubes and wipers that are impossible to service without a full tear down of the interior.
But yeah....in the right light and at the right angle it is a pretty face.
I loved my 1965 Jag coupe - while in grad school I'd burn up the back roads making a 3 hour plus "normal" drive from home to arrive on campus just in time for morning stats class (leaving at 8:30ish, seated in class before 11am!)
Pete, I for one would like to see your e project moved to the front burner. I hope you will document it along the way like you have done in the past on your MG projects.
Fantastic value when new with looks that could kill competitors, and it has been an icon since introduced.
But I agree with NOHOME about the stuff that dies of old age under the windshield. I restored then sold my perfect '66 OTS because the '65 FHC I got to tide me over during that process was more accomodating for road trips and not high maintenance.
Realm aluminum wheels with 205 size tires fixed the proportions, better shocks, intermediate torsion bars, poly bushings and rack mount, a leather wrapped steering wheel, gearing like for the "continent," improved cooling and updating some electrical aspects makes it half way modern, e.g. more relays, a blue tooth enabled distributor and a volt meter that looks like the original and dangerous amp meter.
My major regret now is that other drivers and driving conditions are not like they used to be, more trucks, silly huge pickups everywhere and of course half of the other drivers are constantly allowing themselves to be distracted by trivia or stuff that can wait.
Bought my 64 E-type golden-sand roadster at the factory in September of l963, while working for the US government in Germany. Enjoyed two years driving on roads with no speed limits, did hill climbs, attended LeMans twice and took in most of Europe's road races. Brought my beautiful car back to California where I used it as a "daily driver" while working as a musician and teacher. It is now 60 years old, sporting a rebuilt numbers-matching engine, updated parts, an orignal color factory paint job, and the perfect fit for this 90 year old driver. Believe me, the $5,000 I paid for it was the best investment I ever made and should have bought two of them.
Roomy and easy to get in and out ? A challenge for short people ? I have an E type OTS , am 5'8", not over weight and in fairly good shape and can tell you that I am very comfortable in it, its not easy to get in and out and that anyone over 5'10" is not feeling very "roomy" in an E type!
Not replying to NOHOME, just making a comment since I can't figure out how to make one .
I love the series 1.5 coupes (kept most of the series 1 design details except the headlights) and had the synchro transmission (you really don't want a 3.8 car with a Moss box). North American 1.5 cars got two carbs instead of 3 and lost power, but a friend owns one that he converted to euro spec and it is a pleasure to drive (I've owned Jags - Mk 9, Mk 2 and XK 150, but not XKEs)
Debatable. Angle of view matters a lot when looking at E types. They actually look silly viewed from the rear because the track is so narrow compared to the wide arches.
I have one on the back burner to restore and have to say that a lot of the manufacturing design was punitive towards those that had to maintain the car. Case in point, the flip front bonnet does more to hinder maintenance than it does to enable it. Let's not even mention the consumable heater tubes, vacuum tubes and wipers that are impossible to service without a full tear down of the interior.
But yeah....in the right light and at the right angle it is a pretty face.
That's like finding fault with Miss America or other beautiful women.
I like the narrow track. On the race track it allows you to fit in spots wider cars don't . Plus it helps that little 6 cylinder designed during WW 2 to go so fast because you aren't pushing a lot of air with your big fat wide barge.
Then there is the V12 which is beautiful ( under all those hoses and tubes) extremely well built. And powerful. 237 horsepower sound weak but that's under the new rules.
It actually has more power than a similar year Chevy 454 with only 326 cubic inches. ( 230SAE NET VS 237 DIN net. ). (( DIN is 1.1 percent more powerful than SAE Net))
By Chris Tropea
6/7/23 10:20 a.m.
Debatable. Angle of view matters a lot when looking at E types. They actually look silly viewed from the rear because the track is so narrow compared to the wide arches.
I have one on the back burner to restore and have to say that a lot of the manufacturing design was punitive towards those that had to maintain the car. Case in point, the flip front bonnet does more to hinder maintenance than it does to enable it. Let's not even mention the consumable heater tubes, vacuum tubes and wipers that are impossible to service without a full tear down of the interior.
But yeah....in the right light and at the right angle it is a pretty face.
6/7/23 11:30 a.m.
I loved my 1965 Jag coupe - while in grad school I'd burn up the back roads making a 3 hour plus "normal" drive from home to arrive on campus just in time for morning stats class (leaving at 8:30ish, seated in class before 11am!)
6/7/23 2:01 p.m.
In reply to NOHOME :
Pete, I for one would like to see your e project moved to the front burner. I hope you will document it along the way like you have done in the past on your MG projects.
6/7/23 2:59 p.m.
I had my 69 Coupe for about 20 years.....loved it every time I drove it.....
6/7/23 2:59 p.m.
Fantastic value when new with looks that could kill competitors, and it has been an icon since introduced.
But I agree with NOHOME about the stuff that dies of old age under the windshield. I restored then sold my perfect '66 OTS because the '65 FHC I got to tide me over during that process was more accomodating for road trips and not high maintenance.
Realm aluminum wheels with 205 size tires fixed the proportions, better shocks, intermediate torsion bars, poly bushings and rack mount, a leather wrapped steering wheel, gearing like for the "continent," improved cooling and updating some electrical aspects makes it half way modern, e.g. more relays, a blue tooth enabled distributor and a volt meter that looks like the original and dangerous amp meter.
My major regret now is that other drivers and driving conditions are not like they used to be, more trucks, silly huge pickups everywhere and of course half of the other drivers are constantly allowing themselves to be distracted by trivia or stuff that can wait.
6/7/23 5:49 p.m.
6/7/23 6:21 p.m.
Bought my 64 E-type golden-sand roadster at the factory in September of l963, while working for the US government in Germany. Enjoyed two years driving on roads with no speed limits, did hill climbs, attended LeMans twice and took in most of Europe's road races. Brought my beautiful car back to California where I used it as a "daily driver" while working as a musician and teacher. It is now 60 years old, sporting a rebuilt numbers-matching engine, updated parts, an orignal color factory paint job, and the perfect fit for this 90 year old driver. Believe me, the $5,000 I paid for it was the best investment I ever made and should have bought two of them.
6/7/23 7:53 p.m.
In reply to NOHOME :
Roomy and easy to get in and out ? A challenge for short people ? I have an E type OTS , am 5'8", not over weight and in fairly good shape and can tell you that I am very comfortable in it, its not easy to get in and out and that anyone over 5'10" is not feeling very "roomy" in an E type!
Not replying to NOHOME, just making a comment since I can't figure out how to make one .
Mark
6/8/23 11:29 a.m.
I love the series 1.5 coupes (kept most of the series 1 design details except the headlights) and had the synchro transmission (you really don't want a 3.8 car with a Moss box). North American 1.5 cars got two carbs instead of 3 and lost power, but a friend owns one that he converted to euro spec and it is a pleasure to drive (I've owned Jags - Mk 9, Mk 2 and XK 150, but not XKEs)
6/8/23 11:41 a.m.
That's like finding fault with Miss America or other beautiful women.
I like the narrow track. On the race track it allows you to fit in spots wider cars don't . Plus it helps that little 6 cylinder designed during WW 2 to go so fast because you aren't pushing a lot of air with your big fat wide barge.
Then there is the V12 which is beautiful ( under all those hoses and tubes) extremely well built. And powerful. 237 horsepower sound weak but that's under the new rules.
It actually has more power than a similar year Chevy 454 with only 326 cubic inches. ( 230SAE NET VS 237 DIN net. ). (( DIN is 1.1 percent more powerful than SAE Net))
Displaying 1-10 of 33 commentsView all comments on the GRM forums
You'll need to Log in to post comments.