Last post on Oct 22, 2009 at 12:59 PM
You are in the Classic Cars
What is this discussion about?
Feb 28, 2003 (8:41 pm)
The XJC is a nice car, but having driven both 2 and 4 door cars, my preference is for 4. Despite the sporty image, does a lack of back doors really make an XJC faster than a short-wheelbase XJ sedan? I didn't think so. I still prefer the sedan, but wouldn't cry if someone gave me the coupe version
As far as the vinyl top goes, some owners have ditched the top, had a little body work done to clean up the seams, and repainted. The car looks good without the vinyl. Some cars, like a '78 Mercury, look better with Vinyl. Jags don't. The C-pillars just aren't substantial enough to pull it off, and they flow into the body too much. If you're gonna do vinyl right, you need an upright, formal looking roofline that hasn't rolled down the assembly line sinse the 80's to make it look good. When Ford redesigned the Crown Vic in '92, they quit making the last car vinyl looked good on. This is going waaayyyy off topic I know. Thus is the internet!
#134 of 152 The Jag HT always confused me.....
Mar 01, 2003 (9:08 am)
I grew up on the 4-door pillarless HTs of the 50s and 60s so I never could figure out why the Jag coupe didn't look as good (to me) as the pillared 4-door.
I think the Mk II was one of the best looking, sportiest sedans ever made anywhere by anyone and I loved the overall size.
There are outfits in the UK that rebuild them from the ground up with modern electrics and brakes etc. I wish I could afford one.
Mar 01, 2003 (9:35 am)
Jaguar coupes don't work for me, and it seems like the majority of buyers agree with me, since the Jaguar coupes do not seem to bring much of a premium as used cars. Mercedes coupes face the same problem--they do not attract too many people.
Mark II prices are going through the roof. It's not a car you'd want to chop up for a project. Better to molest an XJC as it's going nowhere in value.
#136 of 152 I think the problem...
Mar 01, 2003 (10:13 am)
...is that the hardtop is such a uniquely American innovation. The very first ones were merely hatchet-jobs, taking a convertible and actually attaching a fixed roof to it, but after a few years, cars were designed often with the hardtop style in mind. As a result, the hardtops usually looked good, but then the sedans looked ungainly.
With Mercedes and Jag, it's more like the hardtop never really got past the "hatchet-job" stage, although they're finally learning. The latest Mercedes hardtops have beautiful rooflines. Still, with the Jag and Benz, 4-door sedans are their focus, so that's what they concentrate on, and those hardtops were probably created with as little added expense as possible.
The Jag hardtop's biggest problem is that the C-pillar just doesn't blend that well into the beltline of the car. The car itself is actually somewhat angular, in the '60's tradition, where that hardtop roof would've looked at home on a 50's car. Both parts look good by themselves, but just have trouble blending.
Mar 01, 2003 (10:35 am)
Yes, you're right...they just look awkward, like the hardtop was trying to hard to be a hardtop.
#138 of 152 The roofline's too high......
Mar 02, 2003 (11:50 am)
IIRC the classic HTs of the 60s used shorter windshields and lower rooflines to give the impression of "Longer, lower..."
If they weren't lower they suire created the illusion pf being so.
Mar 02, 2003 (2:45 pm)
...I don't know if all cars used a different windshield for the hardtops, but I think most of them did. Even the fairly upright windshield on my '68 Dart is lower and more raked-back than it is on the sedans (found this out when I needed to replace the windshield). I think usually hardtop coupes, sedans, and convertibles shared one windshield, and 2-door and 4-door pillared sedans and wagons shared a more upright one.
There really aren't that many cars anymore that have a similar 2-and 4-door bodystyle...usually there's a big difference (I'm thinking along the lines of, say, Camry and Solara here). I wonder though, if the Grand Prix coupe and sedan share the same windshield?
#140 of 152 Jag Mark II hardtop...
Mar 03, 2003 (9:01 am)
...how's about something like this?
I lowered the roofline a bit, made the windshield a bit more rakish, and brought the C-pillar forward a bit.
#141 of 152 MkII Hardtop...
Mar 03, 2003 (9:50 am)
First thing I think of when I see that is an XK-150 FHC. The 150's just seemed to have that porkiness that the sedans did to me. The 120's and 140's (especially the 120's) seemed a bit more sleeker, a bit better looking to me. Now, mind you, the 150 is not an ugly car by any stretch of the imagination (the only ugly Jag I've ever seen are the early XJS's), and would probably rank in the top 10% of cars as far as looks goes, but when it comes to other Jaguars, the 120's and 140's are, to me, the very best ever made, as evidenced by the fact that their design is still having an influence on modern Jaguars. (Compare the front end of a 120 with a new S-Type, and tell me if you can't tell where the S got it's DNA.)
#142 of 152 Fun with Photoshop
Mar 03, 2003 (10:19 am)
Andre--very nice job, that's exactly what I was talking about. It does look snazzy, I think.
(Keep in mind, I'm presuming this as a _dream car_ -- a sort of "what if Jag had had more development money and did a Mk2 spinoff" -- and NOT proposing a customization of an existing Mk2 sedan. That would be economically foolish and probably functionally dire; I wouldn't go there.)