5 reasons why you should buy a Jaguar E-type

https://www.youtube.com/embed/PDZ3YkZlU5s

What makes the Jaguar E-Type a classic British sports car worthy of any collection?

Classic Motorsports Editorial Director David S. Wallens presents 5 reasons why in less than 5 minutes.

Watch more videos

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!)

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.

I had my 69 Coupe for about 20 years.....loved it every time I drove it.....

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.

MiniDave said:

I had my 69 Coupe for about 20 years.....loved it every time I drove it.....

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.

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

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)

NOHOME said:

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)) 

frenchyd said:

NOHOME said:

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)) 

Your reply is like saying any woman with blond hair and pouty lips could be a supermodel just because you like blond hair and pouty lips. Eye of the beholder and all that.

I like the looks of the E-type, but not any more than a lot of other cars built in that era.

Owned my E-Type since 1971 ('66 OTS). I agree 100% with Mark as far as comfort. But it's a beautifully refined sports/GT for its era. Keep in mind this is basically a 50's design. Looks are subjective. However I love the lines as much as I did when I saw my first one in Road & Track at age 10. 

Much less tossable, but also less twitchy than my long hood 911. 

All cars have their fans and detractors. I've had or driven most every sports car from the 60s, 70s and 80s (and newer). The E-Type is the only one I've kept for 50+ years.

ToManyProjects said:

frenchyd said:

NOHOME said:

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)) 

Your reply is like saying any woman with blond hair and pouty lips could be a supermodel just because you like blond hair and pouty lips. Eye of the beholder and all that.

I like the looks of the E-type, but not any more than a lot of other cars built in that era.

Well it's one point that Enzo Ferrari and myself agree on. 
 

I will allow you to disagree.  ( but in my heart of hearts I'll know you're wrong) ;-) 

In reply to frenchyd :

We can agree to disagree on the posterior aesthetics, but if left unsupervised, this would happen in a heartbeat:

There is another shell in the corner that is a bit too ratty and picked over to restore to original, so combined with the spare LS floating around the shop, this might be a possibility. I could then address the underfilled rear wheel wells at the same time. I will float the idea since I would rather do a resto rod than a restoration.

I've got a friend who's in love with the E-type, and I've agreed that if he ever comes off the cash to buy a "project" I'll help him resto-mod it exactly as NoHome suggests.

In reply to NOHOME :

If I didn't like the width of an XKE's rear end I'd contact Dayton wire wheels  and have some center laced 8" wire wheels made.  Center laced moves the back spacing out  over two &1/2 inches  plus the extra width of the 8" rim over the stock 6" rim.  ( only the series 3  has 6".   Series . 1 & 2 are 5& 1/2 ) 

  With a low enough profile tire (20/30 aspect ratio) and a 16-17 inch rim you probably would get away without  too much body work.  
  The reason for staying with the center lock chrome wire wheels  is the flash and sparkle  they exhibit.   
   As for the stove bolt ?   Stop over and look at a V12. sometime.   The extra strength stuff you need to make a stove bolt reliable on the race track  is stone stock on the Jaguar.      Have you ever seen the inside of a top fuel drag engine?    That's what the inside of a V12 looks like .  Massive strength Oh you can put a set of Weber on top and it will look interesting but won't make much power  450hp @5.3 500 hp @ 6.2 550@ 7 liter  

If you want real power without doing a lot of work, a pair of E Bay turbo's  can get you 1200 hp using E85     

wspohn said:

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 goy 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)

Actually the series 1 got the 4 speed syncro  when it got the 4.2 to replace the 3.8   Plus the series 1 had the glass cover over the headlite  while the series 1 &1/2 didn't. 
 

NOHOME said:

In reply to frenchyd :

We can agree to disagree on the posterior aesthetics, but if left unsupervised, this would happen in a heartbeat:

There is another shell in the corner that is a bit too ratty and picked over to restore to original, so combined with the spare LS floating around the shop, this might be a possibility. I could then address the underfilled rear wheel wells at the same time. I will float the idea since I would rather do a resto rod than a restoration.

You don't happen to have a ratty/ rusty roadster rear shell do you?  
       I want to go racing.  Can't afford one but I can straighten out a  body and take a splash mold off it before I return it. 

PetervonA2 said:

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.

 While you are right, some things were done for beauty  and not for practicality. 
    Oh and yes some parts are not very  durable.  
 But again that's like complaining that your beautiful wife burned the toast. 

PetervonA2 said:

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.

The real flaw with the XKE is it's  like driving around with twin 50 caliber machine guns cocked and loaded. 
  You just can't use them.  
  But then they created  vintage racing!!   A chance to really open up that car to its limit.   Feel what 150 mph feels like.  Scream  right up to the corner and at the last fraction of a second lean on those disks to haul it down with the tires chirping away  letting you know exactly when you're breaking too hard. 
     The  Joy of using the car to its absolute potential and maybe squeak ahead of your buddy at the last corner of the last lap  to edge across the finish line barely in front. 
    Except the next event his car is a little lower and has a bark it never had before. He pulls ahead of you and  you spend the race watching his tailites. 
   So you make changes etc etc etc 

  Like a bad drug habit you count Money spent  for that 10th  of a second a lap.   Maybe his wife puts a stop to it or ••••• 

  Anyway the next time you're alone at the track. The fun is gone.  
  Now they have track days. Show up rent a helmet and just drive.  Use the car as it was designed for.  Keep a little in reserve because it's not a race.   But the feeling is back!!  
  You're not a poseur anymore. You're a real enthusiast. Enjoying it as intended. 
   David Love got his Ferrari Testa Rosa from Enzo personally after a season of racing in  Europe with it.  
 He raced that car right up until shortly before passing. Decades of Vintage racing and because it was so original  it sold for over 50 million dollars. 
    Trust me, he raced!! We'd be on the track and if he could pass he went for it. Raced like a gentleman. Never giving quarter but never abusing it either. 
  Augie Pabst was the same way.  That Scarab still had drum brakes on it  and it was as originally built.  It was so blasted fast because Augie  had a great big pair of brass ones. That and I swear he laid out Elkhart  Lake to fit his car personally. I mean he probably had more time on that track then the next 10 guys combined. What a class guy. 

In reply to frenchyd :

The fact of the matter is that I no longer do projects for myself. I seem to run into interesting people with ideas of what they want and I enable them and post the builds here, sometimes I have input and sometimes I just built their vision.

There is a ratty e type in the corner that was going to get restored before common sense prevailed and a better shell sourced. If I get going on this project I can ask around.

Part of me wants to work a deal to acquire the crusty shell and do Molvo level of work to create something,but the full vision is not yet there. It can't be a rat rod.

frenchyd said:

In reply to NOHOME :

  With a low enough profile tire (20/30 aspect ratio) and a 16-17 inch rim you probably would get away without  too much body work.  

What ? 20/30 aspect ratio ? By all means, please show me one of those in any size less than a dub.

And calling an LS engine a stovebolt is laughable. Don't start into some history lesson either. I know why they called Chevrolets stovebolts, that was 70 years ago. Time has moved on, and an LS will stomp a mudhole into your beloved antique engines. 

It's absolutely true that an engine designed in the 1950's and not released until the 1970's  is not going to beat new technology. 
  However By the time the LS series was built Jaguar built an equally impressive V8 of their own.  And you can do the same things to the Jag V8 you can do to the Chevy V8 with about the same level of out put. 
      But it's about class and character.  Restored cars tend to be far more valuable than "resto Mods."     Doing a great quality resto Mod has about the similar cost of a proper restoration. 
    I understand the desire to "improve" cars.   That's my  interest.   I'm no bloody purist. I would gladly dump the 4 speed manual/ 3 speed automatic  for a Chevy 5-6 speed transmission.  ( and it's a very simple swap)      Update the dated brakes,   Etc.  

    Yet there is something to be said about originality.    Jump into a decently restored 32 Ford roadster and take a cruise around a lake  Or do the same cruise in a 1959 Cadillac convertible.  Totally different but still great pleasure. 
      
       If you want to change things to offend  the Jag audience is too small and they've seen it before.    
    Put a Ford engine in a 1957 Chevy.  Or a Chrysler Hemi  in a 1967 Camaro   
    Much bigger group to be shocked. 
      

Marcoboffi said:

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

 

 I too am 5'9" but seriously overweight and old and stiff  A roadster fits me like a glove. With no problem getting in or out. (top down). 
  But the coupe?   I can't fit in.  I don't fold up that compact.  The basketball I carry my fat in doesn't allow it