S3 on the rise?

[AussieEtype]

People have mentioned issues with the V12 and that is was rushed and not planned correctly.

As the owner of a V12 for 34 years I am not sure what these issues are - for sure i know of some side issues like the Opus etc but not with the engine itself. Even with these side issues I have not had any major issues and my engine remains standard even in the hot Aussie summers.

Some have mentioned the S1 styling is superior but beauty is in the eye of the beholder and maybe they let some obvious styling gaffs slide. To me the the proportions of the S1 body with respect to the track is all wrong and the body too wide and doesnt set well on its suspension.

The S3 is much better proportioned but is maybe a bit too long - a series 3 on a wheelbase midway between a s1 and a s3 would be ideal.

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I often think what were Jag thinking when my neighbours S1 drives past and I look at it from behind - not a good look.

Garry

[jivili]

Mentioned this thread to a friend yesterday and he commented that it reminded him of a similar conversation regarding the Supermarine Spitfire
The early Merlin engined Spitfire is for many the iconic design whereas the later griffon engined plane is whole different beast. The point he made to me was that however 'beautiful' the original design was it had to change to keep up with developments made by others and problems encountered with the original design.
I suppose that the truth is that the e type was no different in this respect.
I just feel lucky to own an Etype as I can't see that a Spitfire will ever be in my budget

[andrewh]

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I often think what were Jag thinking when my neighbours S1 drives past and I look at it from behind - not a good look.

Garry[/quote]

Err, are you looking at the same cars as me? Hard to fault a series one from any angle

[cactusman]

As Andrew says beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We all love our E types be they s1,2 or 3. Given the low annual mileage most of us do the fuel cost differences are pretty insignificant. Hard to see how one could fault the rear of a series 1 though...perfect to me although I remember reading somewhere that Sir William was not sold on the prominent exhausts!

[PeterCrespin]

There was a very good article in the latest JDC magazine written by John Watkinson. It was titled 'The Engine that Killed Jaguar' and makes a very convincing case...." The big engine is ideal for lazy long range driving, but there is nowhere for luggage."

Who is John Watkinson and what are his credentials? I found his quote wholly UNconvincing. All E-types are capable of going further in a day than their drivers. The V12 E OTS is a superb tourer with plenty of luggage room compared to any six cylinder version. My wife and I did a multi-country tour and although I bought a boot rack I never needed it. What sort of luggage type and quantity did Watkinson need that couldn't fit in the big cabin locker or above it or in the boot? It's not Ranger Rover but gimme a break!

The 2+2 is the same as any six cylinder 2+2 and likewise has plenty of room unless you have multiple huge hard cases.

The V12 as Christopher says was a saloon engine debuted in the sports model like every engine Jag designed: XK, V12, AJ6, AJ V8 and still recently the 500 hp version. Just two weekends ago at a local event I heard the typical comment over here about the engine in a S1 car "That's the V12." It's the engine most people over here remember. It was in production from 71 to 96. Some diversion!

Everest's not for everyone though. Plenty are happy pottering around the foothills of E-type powerplants...

[iani]

Who is John Watkinson and what are his credentials?

"John Watkinson is a Chartered Engineer who has written on a wide range of subjects including helicopters, HDTV and automotive electrics.

He owns a standard 1979 Jaguar XJ-S V12 and a much-modified 1984 XJ-S straight six."

Found on JEC website, JW is certainly an interesting speaker, he presents at JEC workshops etc.

[Heuer]

For those who have not read the article you can find it here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8496016/v12.pdf JW is invariably controversial in his views, but entertaining nevertheless. He is also a highly regarded engineer and Jaguar devotee.

[AussieEtype]

Err, are you looking at the same cars as me? Hard to fault a series one from any angle

Any one can pick a pic to make anything look good - the car looks good with wider wheels and tyres but with standard equipment the track is just too narrow and looks weird.

But if you like it - thats great :D

Garry

[PeterCrespin]

"John Watkinson is a Chartered Engineer who has written on a wide range of subjects including helicopters, HDTV and automotive electrics.
Found on JEC website, JW is certainly an interesting speaker, he presents at JEC workshops etc.

He looks every inch the iconoclast - deliberately I'm sure. I bet he's provocative and entertaining. Reminds me of Royce Creasey if anyone remembers him?

Taking everything in context I liked the article. It was meant to provoke and entertain, based on a mixture of fact/comment/opinion. It does the job.

Pete

[malcolm]

An ignorant question from me regarding the pros and cons of a Series 3 - does it have the same size fuel tank as the S2 4.2? Thing is, I wouldn't be put off by the fuel costs of a series 3 V12, but if the tank is the same, the range must be restricted quite a bit. On my recent Pyrenees back-roads trip, that may have been an issue from time to time

[Lambo911]

81 litres compared to 67 on the earlier cars

[Simon P]

Why is your fuel consumption so much higher? Because of all the extra weight of fuel I carry. Why do you carry all that extra fuel? Because my fuel consumption is so much higher.....

[christopher storey]

Well, I've now read the article, and , frankly, I thought it was the typical rubbish of a man operating with 20/20 hindsight , picking random facts (not all of them correct , such as the suggestion that when the V12 concept was first considered BMW were producing the modern line of straight six engines, and the suugestion that the bendix EFI patent dated back to the 1950s - it was in fact 1961, and the work was abandoned by Bendix about the same time as the grant of the patent ! ) without ever considering the whole picture. For example, he seems to think that valve size( which largely influences top end power ) is the be-all and end-all of head design, completely ignoring the fact that for a touring engine mid-range torque is of great importance and is governed by port size and resultant gas speed. He also seems obsessed with all alloy engines, apparently unaware ( despite the fact that he has one ) of the fact that the V12 is an alloy engine itself. If only Jaguar had used Watkinson instead of Hassan and Baily - who if the article is to be believed must have known nothing about engine or for that matter car design - all, apparently, would have been well . Perhaps we could learn how many automotive patents Watkinson has to his name ?

PS The style of writing , together with the studied dishevelment , puts one in mind of LJK Setright. If only Watkinson had the same erudition

[andrewh]

I fully agree. It is clear to me that the V12 engine was designed for a specific job, and as such it had to fit into the space available within the XJ saloons. How would the XJ 12 look with a massive power bulge to accommodate inboard carburation . The Jaguar V12 is recognised the world over as one of the greats.

[D COUPE]

The Jaguar V12 is recognised the world over as one of the greats.


And that is the appeal to me....I don't give a diddly squat what I get MPG wise. The fact you have a V12 and it is in such a beautiful shaped car is all
I require to smile when I am sat behind the wheel.

[chrisfell]

Reminds me of Royce Creasey if anyone remembers him?
Pete

Feet forward, Quasar Man. He was as mad as a hatter. He was also an advocate of 'defensive riding' - a sort of IAM/RoSPA with attitude. Still lives in Bristol AFAIA.

[Durango2k]

...how many "smiles to the gallon" does it give, thats the point.

Carsten

[chrisfell]

PS The style of writing , together with the studied dishevelment , puts one in mind of LJK Setright. If only Watkinson had the same erudition

Not sure I'd agree with the dishevelment regarding LJK Setright. My recollection of him was of outlandish but always natty suitings and accessories - even when astride a Laverda Jota at speed on a motorway.

Erudition was his strong suit. Once challenged by his copy editor for mixing scholarly latin and greek phrases in english prose intended for a daily newspaper, he lodged his next copy entirely in latin, waiting a day before supplying a translation.

[PeterCrespin]

Feet forward, Quasar Man. He was as mad as a hatter. He was also an advocate of 'defensive riding' - a sort of IAM/RoSPA with attitude. Still lives in Bristol AFAIA.

Part of the reason he came to mind was his tendency like Watkinson sometimes to denigrate what was, to improve the case for what could be (or should be?) according to his view. So telescopic forks were ruled out as an engineering monstrosity in favour leading link or hub-centre steering/wishbone designs.

Yes, they separate suspension loads from steering loads and have lots of technical advantages, but they had major compromises of their own which he was blind to. Fast forward thirty years, and even though Yamaha and BMW amongst others gave the ideas a good try, they remain(ed) a niche product orthodox setup still reigns supreme on and off road and track.

His safety crusades were likewise overly critical of the status quo, in so far as his ideas would have drastically curtailed the hobby he claimed to support.

Always a good read though and a refreshing change from PR-speak. He and I contributed to the Tim Holmes and Rebekka Smith 'start up' British Bike Mechanics. Sadly, after 4-5 years, erudition lost out to tits 'n bums and profanity as used copiously in Bike and Superbike et al.

[JaggyWag]

Some interesting points of view here...here's mine

I worked on and have driven all forms of the E-Type in completing an apprenticeship at a Jaguar dealer in the 1970's. I own a V12 2+2 because at the time they were new cars, when I was a much younger man, the new car seemed so much better to drive that the Series 1 or 2. Forty years later, I still think that, but appreciate that they are all beautiful cars in their own right.

When it comes to looks, the wider track and wheels of the Series 3 help manage the proportions of the 2+2 body, itself so often the subject of unkind comments. Just look at a Series 1 2+2 alongside and you will see my point. Lots of Series 1 owners have added larger/wider wheels and I don't blame them, just be careful with this as there can be handling compromises if this is not done well.

There is simply no such thing as a bad E-Type. In my case I don't want a show pony, as I drive mine up to 3000 miles per annum. A Series 3, particularly a 2+2, can still be acquired at a 'reasonable' price, pop in a Re-opus unit for ignition reliability and off you go - properly maintained the V12 is a glorious thing quite capable of stellar miles. No need to mess with the wheels/tyres/brakes as these were all improvements on the earlier cars. On the downside they were built in the BL era - I eventually became a warranty manager at the dealership and I was a busy chap! Factory visits were quite an eye-opener...'how many people work here?'....'about half of them, lad!'

As for fuel economy, who cares? We can insure these cars for under £200 per annum and they have free road tax. Comparing that with taxing and insuring a modern XKR for equivalent use and you have your fuel costs covered!

Enjoy your E-Type whichever one it is.

Peter