Hi guys and guyesses,
I'm not a flower picker and I don't embroider my own shirts, although I have nothing against blokes who drive the other bus. But that doesn't stop me from using the word, "Pretty" when describing a car.
However, I just can't bring myself to do it when looking at the front end of a car like this ....



Especially when there are cars around with a front end like this ....



I mean to say, the cars themselves, having different engines and trim levels can have their corner fought as the better car by the top barristers in the land but surely nobody would argue that the front end of the second car is much "Prettier"
To me, and I'm sorry for banging on about it, the top one looks like a front end designed by a committee governed by an accountant and made for the top men in big companies or who worked out of Whitehall, whereas the bottom one looks like it was designed by a guy who wanted to put some fun back into car design.
Just my opinion, obviously, but am I right or do you disagree? About the prettiness, I mean. Not the designer stuff.
Cheers,
Steve

 

The softer, more rounded lines of the X300 are prettier, yes.

However, the XJ40 has the squared, more chisled styling which might be called handsome. Or might not :-). XJ40 styling has always been troublesome.

A *quad-headlamp* XJ40 with decent wheels is very good looking, IMHO.


Cheers
DD

 

I like the Xj40, but I wouldn't call it "pretty". Another word because I did have one, and I liked the looks of it.

 

I like XJ40 styling better than all the Jags ever made but X300 bumpers better looking and think all about chrome about these bumpers rather than body color painted .

 

Is this any better?

 

I do prefer square headlamps but I know some XJ40 owners changed their headlamps to circular ones

 

Yes :-).

Great color, too!


Cheers
DD

 

I would have x300 \330 every time over the XJ40

Im just not a fan, but if we liked the same thing, the world would
be a boring place.....

As for round headlamps on a xj40 ... oh dear!!

What a mess... Its a car trying to be something its not.

If doing an upgrade like that it needs to blend in nicely in my eyes that doesnt.

I dont mean to offend anyone who's done it, just my 2c

 

The twin headlight conversion on the XJ40 is halfway there.
All it needs now is an expert panelbeater to pound and tease the front edge of the bonnet into a rippled shape to match the top edge of the headlights.

 

Too true.

Plus, tastes change. There was a time where I'd spit on an XJ40. Now I like them....if outfitted correctly.

I can remember when I thought the XJS was the most peculiar, oddball car I had ever seen. One day my opinion changed, and suddenly. I ended up owning one for several years.

The X300 was a winner right from the first, though.

Cheers
DD

 

The softer more rounded and sexy curves of the X300 for me every time......just something about it!

 

I know the changes came on x308 -but thats another story

But why put oblong indicatores on a car that is rounded at the front.

Now i think a bumper upgrade would look nice on an X300

Pics anyone ?

 

Well if they had made room for a quad 7 inch headlamp setup, that would have been a truly great night prowler.

 

My Gramps had a xj40 (Burgundy w/ wire wheels), It was very "pretty" but the what gets me about the x300 shape and curves... especially the hood!

 

I've owned both an X300 and an XJ40 (round headlights) at the same time. Both blue. (I wanted to be able to say I had a nice pair of Tatas sitting in the driveway.) I still have the X300.

To me, the X300 is far prettier. The XJ40 had nice lines, but I didn't think of it as "pretty".

But, whichever your choice, either is vastly better than the "potatoes with wheels" most of the carmakers are producing today.

 

I think that's something that we can all agree on. :-)

Cheers
DD

 

I think the X300 is a much better looking car. It keeps the basic XJ profile but the softer styling vs the hard-edged styling works better. A couple of design upgrades like changing from mineral oil to ATF in the steering rack as well as redesigning the AC system really improved the cars functionally.

Mike

 

I prefer the X300's.

I just bought a 97 Vanden Plas (Titanium on oatmeal / mink); love the lines. The squared off headlamps of the earlier ones, in my mind, change the character of the car into something more generic looking.

 

I prefer the X300 body too, but the 40 is still a great looking car and I'd choose it over 99% of the hulking monstrosities they're flopping out these days (yes, that includes the new 'XJ').

Also, the XJ40 is a little less photogenic than the X300, but if you see one in the flesh they're oozing class.

EDIT: Haha, yes 'potato on wheels' sums it up. With modern cars it's either that or a chronic case of nose down, **** up wedge syndrome. Sporty my foot. The x300/xj40 look plenty sleek with their low, road parallel lines, but part of me misses the proud look of the MkII/S/420 era Jags, with the visual weight thrust foward and high.

 

The x300's fluted hood its what sells me on them. The only thing I like about the XJ40 is that the tables in the VDP version had a chrome cup holder fitted in them. Having just cleaned coffee out of the oatmeal carpet of my rear passenger side, I'd like to have those in my x300

However, if we're looking exclusively at looks then the x300 wins.