PDA

View Full Version : Another minor gripe...albeit minor



Matt B
11-22-2001, 07:54 PM
Granted, this is a little old, and a pretty petty issue, but it sure had me fired up a few years back when the XK8 first came out....

What the **** is up with calling it an XK anything? The whole idea behind any "XK" named car (XK120, 140, 150, E, SS, C and D at the chassis numbers) is that they had the wonderful, legendary DOHC straight 6 XK engine. Even the V-12 E types were never referred to as "XKE"s....

Now all the "XK"s have stinking V-8s in 'em. Not that they are bad cars...no no no. I wouldn't mind havin' one myself....but I just don't think they should have had XK anywhere in the name.

Sort of like re-assigning a well deserved retired number if you ask me....and the blame goes to ford in my eyes. And it burns my buscuits.

-Matt
53 XK 120 fhc
and a bunch of other stuff

Jagdreamer
11-22-2001, 09:27 PM
I agree...the XK is (or should be) a designation indicating the wonderful XK series of cars. If I'm not mistaken, even the "XKE" was never really officially referred to as such, but rather the "E-Type" (although it at least had the XK engine). I think the XKE name was just something that us yanks started calling it. I've never seen any officialy literature that refers to it as "XKE".

JD images/icons/tongue.gif

Matt B
11-23-2001, 01:17 AM
Indeed...I don't think "XKE" was officially used by Jaguar, but I do have a late 60s magazine ad that referes to just that...XKE. And that is for series two cars. But it may well have just been Jaguar Cars North America that figured it should use the slangish name due to it familiarity at the time. I've seen other advertisements and literature as well.... But like you said...not necessarily "official".

Sort of like the mid-late 50s MK1...which never existed as such. Proper designation would simply have been 2.4 or 3.4 saloon. MK1 just sounded good after the MK2 came along...

Official names for these things has seemed to be a bit of a shady issue for some time...

-Matt

Jagdreamer
11-23-2001, 06:29 PM
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Matt B:
&lt;cut&gt;...
Sort of like the mid-late 50s MK1...which never existed as such. Proper designation would simply have been 2.4 or 3.4 saloon. MK1 just sounded good after the MK2 came along...

&lt;cut&gt;...
-Matt<hr></blockquote>

That's one I did not know. I always thought either 2.4/3.4 Saloon or MKI were both official. You learn something every day images/icons/wink.gif

JD

dptom
11-23-2001, 06:39 PM
So be the fact I'm an XJR owner.... Does this mean I own and R-Type or an XJ. Frankly, I've never understood the naming think with Jaguar. We have the S-Type and the X-Type, then the XK in all of it's varied forms including the XKR, -8 and SilverStone R. Hmmmm...

Then there's the aftermarket... What about the XKA from Arden? Does this qualify as a Jag at all?

I'm so confused.... images/icons/confused.gif

Charles #677556
01-01-2002, 02:48 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Matt B:

What the **** is up with calling it an XK anything? The whole idea behind any "XK" named car (XK120, 140, 150, E, SS, C and D at the chassis numbers) is that they had the wonderful, legendary DOHC straight 6 XK engine. Even the V-12 E types were never referred to as "XKE"s....
&lt;Snipped&gt;
Sort of like re-assigning a well deserved retired number if you ask me....and the blame goes to ford in my eyes. And it burns my buscuits.
**************************************************

Matt B;
Basically you answered your own question/gripe.. in a single word: "Ford"..
When Sir Lyons came up with the post-war Jaguars he was like any other business man, he wanted to make money.. The introduction of the "XK" series engine was revolutionary to say the least, the fact that it was placed into a 120 body made it an instant classic.. hence the demand for sales.
Ford, and other major Detroit Iron builders, are hungry for sales.. there has been nothing introduced in the automotive market that "grabbed" people since the introduction of the '65 Mustang... now Detroit is trying to "recapture" (steal) some of the classic car market by cobbling up POS's with some piece on the car that "looks" like a piece off the original classic, in the case of the XK-8, the grille is suppose to look like the 120's.. it doesn't to me.. Is "Retro-styling" is suppose to "grab" the buyers?? Even if I had the money, I wouldn't buy an XK-8, a PT-Cruiser, Mustang or the new Thunderbird because of the "retro" look.. in my opinion, it shows a total lack of design imagination and creativity.. In short, why would I want to pay $50,000 to buy a car that pretends to look like a classic?? I'd rather take the same money and buy the real thing.. Ranks right up there with VW and Pinto powered "Kit cars"..
Charles #677556

[ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: Charles #677556 ]</p>

Hal Kritzman
01-04-2002, 02:48 AM
First let me say that I have owned "classic" Jaguars for 25 years including XK's, XJ's and E-types. I currently own a 1967 E-type OTS and a 1974 V12 E-type OTS and consider myself a dedicated Jaguar enthusiast. Personally, I think the best thing that has happened to Jaguar since 1974 has been its acquisition and association with Ford!
Jaguar would not have made it through the 90's and exist today if it were not for Ford's money, marketing and design capabilty. Just look at the
XK180 show car and the soon to be available F-type to know what off-spring the Jaguar-Ford marriage can and will produce.
As for the so-called retro cars, I own a 2002
Ford Thunderbird as well! In fact it was one of the first delivered to customers in early August.
Nothing I have ever owned, including my concours champion Jaguars has ever caused as much positive approval from both other auto enthusiasts and
general puplic as my new T-Bird. The car draws a crowd every where I go. I would probably like to own a '56 or '57 T-bird one day as well, but they were not ever the incredible head-turner that the new T-Bird has become. If you get a chance to drive one, you will know why it is not a replicar T-Bird but a new car that gives visual clues to the past without embracing it. That's to Ford's credit. Have you seen the new Jaguar S-type "R" introduced at the L.A. Auto Show? It has a new 390-hp, 4.2-liter super-charged V8 under the cat's bonnet and a 6-speed auto!! Thank you Jaguar and thank you Ford!

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Hal Kritzman ]</p>

Basil
01-04-2002, 03:04 AM
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Hal Kritzman:
&lt;snip&gt; Just look at the
XK180 show car and the soon to be available F-type to know what off-spring the Jaguar-Ford marriage can and will produce.
As for the so-called retro cars, I own a 2002
Ford Thunderbird as well! &lt;snip&gt;<hr></blockquote>

First, welcome to my humble forum, Hal! graemlins/savewave.gif Great to see a familier ...er, name. Oh yes, the FType!

https://www.britishcarforum.com/pictures/FTYPE2.jpg

Also, go check out the "Other Cars" forum and look for the link about the New TBird. I had seen one before they were even available for sale. It was in my parkinglot at work. They were on some cross-country promo tour! The thing was beautiful and had Michigan Manufacturer plates on it. Find that thread in the Other CArs forum and I have links to lots of pictures!

(For the record, I have mixed feelings about them naming the XK8, and "XK" I agree with your assessment of the marrage of Jag and Ford, but also understand the sentiment that XK should be, well, an XK. But I wouldn't kick one out of my garage for dripping oil.

Basil

JIM
01-04-2002, 05:27 PM
Basil:
Great picture of the F-Type. Do you have any more?
I would like to see other views of this baby!
BTW- How do me post a graphic in our messages? Sometimes a picture might be helpful in explaining a point during a technical discussion. I see the Image UBB code. Does this require the graphic to be on a web site? Can I attach a graphic that I have on my computer to a message?
graemlins/crazyeyes.gif

Jagdreamer
01-04-2002, 06:58 PM
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JIM:
Basil:
Great picture of the F-Type. Do you have any more?
I would like to see other views of this baby!
BTW- How do me post a graphic in our messages? Sometimes a picture might be helpful in explaining a point during a technical discussion. I see the Image UBB code. Does this require the graphic to be on a web site? Can I attach a graphic that I have on my computer to a message?
graemlins/crazyeyes.gif <hr></blockquote>

Jim, I don't think Basil will mind if I chime in here. This forum uses UBB (Universal Bulletin Board) as many other forums I've been on. As such, it uses what is called "UBBCodes" to post images, hyperlinks, quotes, etc.

First, to post an image, you must have the image you wish to post already residing on a server somewhere (like your own homwpage, or some service that allows you to store your pictures). In otherwords, you can't just upload an image to the British Car Forum server. So, lets say you have a pcture of your car (or any picture) located at:

htttp://www.myserver.com/images/mycar.jpg

(you can learn the URL of a picture on a web site by right clicking your mouse over the picture at looking at "properties")

To add a the graphic above within your message, just encase the URL of the graphic image (it must be the IMAGE's URL, i.e, must end with ".jpg" or ".gif" not a web page that contains the image) as shown in the following example.

[ IMG ]https://www.myserver.com/images/mycar.jpg[ /IMG ] (Except no spaces on the UBB img codes)

In the example above, the UBBCode™ automatically makes the graphic visible in your message once you submit your post. Note: the "https://" part of the URL is REQUIRED for the [img] code.

(Note, I copied the above from Basil's "faq" page). Also, next time you post (or reply to) a message, look to the left of the text box where you type in your message, and you will see a link titled "UBB Code is enabled" Click on that link and it will explain all of the UBB codes and what they do.

I hope this helps. try it, its easy.

JD

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Jagdreamer ]</p>

Basil
01-04-2002, 11:23 PM
No JD, I don't mind at all. You explianed it as good, if not better, than I could have. Thanks.

Basil images/icons/tongue.gif

Charles #677556
01-21-2002, 01:41 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hal Kritzman:
[QB]First let me say that I have owned "classic" Jaguars for 25 years...
&lt;Snipped&gt;
....Personally, I think the best thing that has happened to Jaguar since 1974 has been its acquisition and association with Ford!
Jaguar would not have made it through the 90's and exist today if it were not for Ford's money, marketing and design capabilty.... &lt;Snipped&gt;

Hal;
Not wanting to "start a fight", I'll agree that Jaguar could not have survived without Ford's Money and Marketing.. as far as their "Design Capability" goes... well that's an opinion I don't share..
Ford has turned Jaguars into "Upscale Taruses" and other "Jellybean" look-a-likes..
Jaguar WAS Grace, Space and Pace.. The first two are gone.
And, personally, the "Tri-Five" T-Birds WERE "head-turners" at the time, and still are!! They WERE the answer and competition to GM's "American Sports Car".. but both companies turned them into "Family Cars" then "Luxury Cars"...
If you like the "modern" cars, great, I don't.. they all look alike to me.. the "unisex" version of cars is, in my opinion, what today's production car is all about.. including the "F" and "X" "other" Jaguars..
There will never be designs like the XK's, E-Types, early T-Birds & Mustangs, etc. again.. so why make "retro cars" with "hints" of them if Detroit wasn't trying to fill the "design void" that exists in the automobile market today??

Basil
01-21-2002, 02:32 PM
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Charles #677556:
&lt;snip&gt;
Hal;
Not wanting to "start a fight", I'll agree that Jaguar could not have survived without Ford's Money and Marketing.. as far as their "Design Capability" goes... well that's an opinion I don't share..
Ford has turned Jaguars into "Upscale Taruses" and other "Jellybean" look-a-likes..
Jaguar WAS Grace, Space and Pace.. The first two are gone.
&lt;snip&gt;<hr></blockquote>

(When Quoting, start your post AFTER the {/QUOTE} code to bold the quoted text. Now then, Chareles I tend to agree with you with respect to most of the new Jags, but disagree with respect to the XK8. Wow what a super car (and super expensive in my book). But I have to agree if you ignore the oval grill, the S-Type looks remarably like a Contour. Now Im not saying these are not still great cars relative to what they are competing with, but the classic Jag styling is not as evident in my opinion.

Basil