S1 vs S2/3

[Michaelg]

Hi Hugo,

I think the reason is that the cars are now being bought as investments and not to drive. A number of dealers I know have customers they are advising on such cars, and they all hype the early stuff regardless of drivability. The said customers with more money than sense fall for it and pay huge sums which ratchet up values even more. Most of them don't drive them and often have dozens of other cars as well.

That being said CMC (not one of the aforementioned dealers) say they have unmet demand for good original S2s which are very difficult to find and rare in original RHD roadster form only some 700 plus being made.

They also say that there is also now almost the same demand for S1 Coupes as roadsters.

Michael

[bobbayers]

My tuppence as a {American emission control] SII OTS owner: agree that the SI parking lights aft are superior, as well as the front parking ones [except for illumination], but really prefer the aggressive looks of the SII headlights and air scoop. As to driveability, the SII hands down [I changed out the dizzy to vacuum advance w/SI spec timing] is better.

[alfazagato]

Of course you can have your cake and eat it with a series 1.5 which has all (except the headlights) the visual clues of the series 1 with the comfort/gearbox/brakes/cooling of the series 2. If you are lucky you can have the series 1 interior too. I drove my first 1.5 some 97.5k miles with great comfort and fun in the 70s.

[Series1 Stu]

Of course, as E Type owners we are all privileged. No matter what the model. They all drive like nothing else. They all look like nothing else.

Good camaraderie, too.

Boy, are we lucky!

[politeperson]

I say just be happy with the S2 styling.

[Hugo]

S1 tailpipes?

[politeperson]

Yes Hugo,

Lotus Elan rear lights incorporating the reversing lens, a flat number plate and deletion of the curved stainless backing plate.

James

[Hugo]

All carefully hidden in the shadows

[politeperson]

Good point Hugo,

The lights are generally in the shadows because they are quite low, below the bumper which is also mounted low. I guess that is why many people don't really notice them.

Show me the face of a beautiful woman who hasn't got some imperfections somewhere. They dont exist. A few freckles, one eye lower than the other. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Its the overall effect that counts. A few imperfections doesn't mean she is not still a beauty.

I found these two pictures.

[politeperson]

This is a nice one from E type UK. I am into Willow and drab greys.

[Hugo]

Not bad - bloody sight better than what Jag turned out - but I still don't like those back lights. They just seem the wrong shape somehow.

[christopher storey]

I am not sure why people are so much against the polished alloy plate across the rear of the S2. Once combined with a long number plate and S1 tailpipes, I think it looks smart. It is the square plate and the rams horn pipes which make the standard appearance so peculiar

[Hugo]

It's concave, isn't it? That's what's wrong in my view. And the lights are too square for the shape of the car. They look like a couple of bricks stuck to the corners of the car. The square no plate looks wrong for the same reason. Not because it looks like a brick - because it is too square I mean. All a matter of taste I suppose.

[PeterCrespin]

It's concave, isn't it? That's what's wrong in my view. And the lights are too square for the shape of the car.

IMO it's not that it's concave per se, but more that it's roughly 4 cm/1.5 inches deeper than the bodywork it covers, making the car look clunkier compared to the fully tapered S1 floor line across the back. The floor and trim have to be that way to match the deeper lamp clusters. Taking the stainless trim off, together with the outer edge chrome trim pieces, narrows the look of dark-coloured cars and lets the shallow S1 boot floor come up nearly as close to the bumper as on the S1. With a long narrow registration plate an maybe On my Silver S2 FHC it looks more integrated and I probably won't remove it.

[Barry]

Don't you love it! This debate will always rumble on, and one man (or woman's!) meat is another's poison! However, this debate was also supposed to include S3 as well. I have had a S1 FHC, S2 FHC, and currently a S3 OTS, and love them all. As an architect, I think I have an eye for proportion and design, so here goes with my analysis of how the S3 OTS (not including the Coupe 2+2 in this debate) resolved many design issues, not just on S2 but S1 as well. The problem with the S2 lights is not the lights themselves, but the way they are mounted on an stainless strip like you attach to a trailer! The S3 resolved that very elegantly because of the intro of the larger petrol tank. The underbody at the back redesigned so at last the lights can be located within the panel. Mr Scrooge himself (Lyons) decided that the S1 should have Mk10 lights, so no carping about purity of design! Two main issues with S1 and S2, is that the windscreen is too steep, and the doors too small in overall proportion. With the longer wheelbase, the doors now look right, and in the OTS, they cleverly designed the rear of the side window to slant forward. In car design, a great way of signifying motion and speed. At last for a OTS, the windscreen height and rake look perfect. I love the original wheel arches, but have absolutely no problem with the flares on the S3. They are an elegant solution to accommodate larger wheels, and lets face it, skinny wheels in an S1 don't do it any favours. It's about filling those arches, as any car designer will tell you. In the S3 OTS, they got it absolutely right. Oh and that engine.....V12 any time. Best till last? Debate!

[Hugo]

I didn't even know the screen angle was different? And those wheel arches make it look pregnant!

[Barry]

Ah, to be visually literate you need to use your eyes, and understand what you see.....and you didn't know the windscreen was a different rake!!!! Take a look at what the Italian coach builders were doing in the late 60's & 70's. Flairing wheel arches was about fitting bigger wheels. Filling them also makes a car look more sporty and aggressive. That's why an XJ6 of 1968 looks so beautiful. The same design philosophy was applied on the Series 3 in exactly the same way. Jaguar moved to 6" wide wheels, because it was the way to handle more power, gave better handling, and looked more aggressive. The XJS which followed carried on the theme. And so do cars of today....

[AussieEtype]

Yes - the Series 3 looks masculine where the 1 and 2 look girlie with their narrow track, skinny tyres and from the front or rear the body looks too big for the track.



Garry

Oh - yes I am biased

[Gfhug]

No! The Series 3 just ate all the pies, hence they had to fit wider tyres for the expanding waistline

Edited to add: Though I must admit that an S3 OTS WITHOUT the flared wheel arches and with a 4.2 engine would be a nice combination. Didn't CMC modify an S1 or 2 OTS to have the longer wheel base, then also add a tow hitch and the back end of another OTS as a trailer? Not sure about the trailer bit, but the main car sounds a nice way to go.

Geoff

[mark10337]

Yes, nothing wrong with your memory. It was the Kaizen eType S1 OTS. Series 3 legroom with Series 1 looks.

http://www.classic-motor-cars.co.uk/the ... oration_11