Last post on May 20, 2013 at 3:46 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views
What is this discussion about?
#25744 of 32331 Re: Class [stickguy]
Jun 19, 2012 (12:02 pm)
I turned 16 in 1962 and any car I got to drive was the new best thing. My mindset was blank to anything but traveling down the road by myself with the windows open and the radio blasting. No concept of handling, performance, soft touch materials, or how bad the brakes were. Just a big smile on my face. Heck, I'd have been happy with a car that drove like you were being dragged down the road sitting on a shovel. Except for maybe some farm kids, I think that attitude is pretty hard to find these days.
#25745 of 32331 Re: Class [jayrider]
Jun 19, 2012 (1:18 pm)
I felt the same way in December 1979 when I turned 16. Couldn't wait to drive myself wherever I wanted. My first car was a '65 Bug with a "Baja" kit added to it. Totally unreliable, but I loved it.
I think the current generation is more interested in technology than automobiles. I know we had to force our stepdaughter to get her license (and a job!) and my son didn't get his license until he turned 18.
#25746 of 32331 Re: Class [michaell]
Jun 19, 2012 (2:10 pm)
I was the same way, but I was also a car guy then too (in a big way). So style still was a concern. Just not much i could do anything about.
My kids both wanted to drive. My daughter could not wait, and is a maniac about always wanting to drive when we go someplace. heck, Sunday she was bugging me to just go take a drive, just for the heck of it!
It is a different time now though. Cars we had, if you let your 17YO loose in one, DYFS would be knocking on your door! So safety is a concern, and some measure of relaibility.
at least with my son, the 1st car (POC countour) was only about $2,400, and the Acura TL that replaced it was a cool $2k! hard to pass up that (family) deal, which is how he ended up with such a nice car (it did have 145K on it at the time). Besides, a better car up front can save money in the long run (repairs and aggravation factor)
#25747 of 32331 Re: couple more oddballs [qbrozen]
Jun 19, 2012 (8:02 pm)
gbrozen: Actually the X Type shared some platform parts/pieces with the European Ford Mondeo - not the US built Contour. Its a common misconception. I agree - they did look a lot like a scaled down version of a Taurus/Sable.
#25748 of 32331 Re: couple more oddballs [ateixeira]
Jun 19, 2012 (8:21 pm)
From what I've read on the forums when I used to own the Jags - The 4.0 Liter version of the S-Type was essentially a Lincoln LS. The early S-Tpes even had Ford Trannies in them. Then in either 2004 or 2005, Jag upsized the V8 to 4.2 liters (300 HP N/A or 400 HP supercharged), went to a ZF 6 speed tranny, and extensively modified the rest of the car. The engine Ford used in the LS lacked some of the enhancements that the Jag version had, and, made less power. I drove one of the first year Jag XFs with the N/A 4.2 - it didn't feel as athletic as my S did, because the XF is a bit heavier. Didn't Ford stick the Lincoln version of this V8 in the new Thunderbirds as well?
#25749 of 32331 Re: X & S Type Jags [nyccarguy]
Jun 19, 2012 (8:36 pm)
The S-Type Rs are cheap these days - I suspect the last ones built could be picked up for $15k or less - if its nice and reasonably low mileage. Not that bad for a car that'll do 0 - 60 in 4 something seconds.
#25750 of 32331 Re: X & S Type Jags [oldbearcat]
Jun 20, 2012 (6:44 am)
I wonder what it would cost to service and repair, though.
If you have to ask....
#25751 of 32331 Re: X & S Type Jags [oldbearcat]
by kyfdx HOST
Jun 20, 2012 (7:54 am)
Here is one for $11K
'03 Type R
#25752 of 32331 Re: X & S Type Jags [kyfdx]
Jun 20, 2012 (8:25 am)
That's a lot of car for the money. It is a decade old, but wow...
Jeez, at least dust the interior.
#25753 of 32331 Re: X & S Type Jags [kyfdx]
Jun 20, 2012 (8:33 am)
I'd have to think that an E55 AMG or an M5 might be the better (more reliable) buy in this particular vintage.