For some reason my attachments overlay my script.
What I wrote was 'They are still out there, rusting away; this was onboard a couple of months ago.'

 

Even some E Types don't reach E Hype prices. Take a late V12 2+2 and you can buy into the E hype for a rather modest figure.

The XJ-S is a brilliant car - as said by all XJ-S owners - but it isn't taht, what people associate with a Jaguar from the day. It is a bland piece of metal. I love the blandness (people say bland, I think it is gorgeous) but it will never be an E Type. But personally it shouldn't ever either. The Es are getting too valuable to drive and stand in museums. The XJ-S is a good car to drive and keeping them low in price means they are driven. And that is what the XJ-S experience is all about.

 

Here's in a test of the early car value theory. We can see with this example Jaguar was trying to go in a different direction. The most notable design features are the aircraft style gauges, lack of chrome bumpers and the car is completely devoid of wood. This example has a wood steering wheel which is not correct for 1976

https://www.ebay.com/itm/303029633525


I love 1st year cars as they are the best representation of the designers intent.

 

Wait, the XJS is bland? That's something I don't think I've ever heard said about it, even by those who hate the design.

 

ics; no car ever arrived on the showroom floor as a representation of the designers intent (apart from one).
Every car that arrives in the show room ready to buy, has been *******ised by all sorts of levels of interference, from the bean counters to the marketing people; every layer of involvement has put their own particular stamp on it.
And, of course, those responsible for making sure that it doesn't actually kill anybody in the process.
Just in case there are any young people reading this; a camel is a horse designed by a committee.
There is pretty much only one car, in my mind (yeah, ok, lets not go there, and I'm pretty sure that something else will appear here quite swiftly) and that is the first McLaren F1 (that's the road car, not the racing things).
Designed by Gordon Murray as a drawing board to road project, there is a purity of design through to completion that is quite remarkable I think.
The XJ220 (my favourite car in the entire universe) was so close but they screwed it up by not putting the V12 in it, as originally designed.
Committees, bless 'em.

 

Yes! By MODERN standards, it is a bland and bloated design. For us fans, it is gorgeous. But for those used to overdrawn, overdesigned cars, the XJ-S is a bland as white bread. The only 'highlight' people will mention refers to the flying buttresses.

I have been told that the XJ-S is a nice car, if only the design wasn't so 'boring' and that came from a Mercedes driver in a W124... So...

 

Long hood.

Interesting tail lights.

low, wide body.

The car stands out from others of the year, or many others. For that reason alone, you can't use the word bland. You can call it ugly. The Pontiac Aztek, while hideous, is not bland. The 2000 Toyota Camry is bland. It looks like every other car out there.

 

On the subject of production numbers versus classic prices, in the UK prices for run of the mill mark one ford escorts and mark one two and three ford capris are going completely
nuts and for the "specials" even more bonkers. These cars were produced by the bucket load, you could throw a tennis ball from your driveway and guarantee to hit about five of them

 

You either didn't read and or understand my text...

 

i have been told my XJS is awestare,(i didnt spell correct,sorry)!

 

Well, I understood it, and I agree with Vee. The car is not bland in any sense whatsoever. Anyone who thinks it is, does not seem to comprehend "bland" in the accepted English language sense of the word.

 

Bland = another word for boring.

If I wear the pretty pink glasses which show how awesome my favorite car is (which will remain the XJ-S before someone claims I don't like them) then of course, it is not bland. BUT compare ot to a MODERN again a MODERN car. A MODERN OVERDESIGNED car. Wirh the exciting creases, zags, tornado lines, single frame grills, oversized kidneys, curves, points, and what not. The XJ-S is compared to a MODERN DESIGN bland.

Back in the 70ies and 80ies it was far from bland. Even in the 90ies. Bit I'm not comparing ot to same age cars. Modern = TODAY. Not yesterday. Not yerterday's yesterday and nor yesterday's last week... Today. The problem is, that overstyled designs age badly. A bland (I'll call it bland) styling doesn't age. Look at the XJ (X300 and X308 and X350). See a Saab 900 I. See Volvos of the 80ies. The design ages well. And that only works with bland designs.

70ies wedges look like the 70ies. An Allegro or Princess looked outdated in the 80ies. An 80ies Sierra looked outdated in the 90ies. A 90ies Vectra looked outdated in the 2000s. These cars were all overstyled and too busy in their design. Making them only fit a certain time period. A certain era. Their era. The Citroen DS is a simple futuristic design. Clean sides. No creases. Just flat panels with some curves. And then compare a same aged say Cadillac Eldorado with it... Which one looks older? Which one has a timeless design? Which one looks as if it could be sold today with some modern engine under the bonnet? The more blander Citroen. The flamboyant Cadillac is stuck in the 50ies.

 

Okay, I see where you're going, Daim. I agree with your basic principle as outlined in your latest post, but I still think "bland" is not the right word. Unless you call the Parthenon "bland" or "boring." A better word is "timeless", though I think the XJS is fairly of its time in terms of style (it has aged well, however, at least in its basic proportions). And with its very distinctive features, it's not exactly lacking in design elements. I suspect you'd call the 911 "bland" for the same reasons, even though the 911 is one of the most distinctive car designs ever. "Bland" to most of us means "dull" or "uninteresting" with a good heaping of "ugly" on the side, and timeless design is none of those things.

I think I've found the problem, however. Most of us think of bland as "tasteless, flavourless, insipid, mild, savourless, unflavoured, weak, thin, watery, watered-down, spiceless, unappetizing" or "uninteresting, unexciting, limp, middle-of-the-road" whereas you mean "mild, soft, calm, balmy, soothing, benign". Right?

However, your basic point as expanded in your last post, that modern cars tend to be all exciting swoops and chunks and grilles, is true enough: I've often thought this is a disguise for lack of any actual GOOD design sense. A good car design (in my view) starts from the car's function. With the XJS, there are essentially no superfluous elements. (When I was younger, I was tempted to buy a Mitsubishi GTO (3000GT in the US), the first model. One reason I decided against it, however, was learning that those side strakes were utterly fake. Instead I got an MR2, with side strakes that actually functioned.)

 

0ne of these cars are BLAND , but both are Red!

 

HEY for those interested in race cars, Le Mans types!
Daytona 24 Rolex race is on at 1;00/2;00 ET,, NBCSN , NBCsports network.
ron

 

 

I have enjoyed reading this discussion on the XJS. When I set out to get a special car one of the cars that I considered was the Mercedes SL class. It offered a lot of the things that I was looking for in a special car but I could not get past the " bland " styling aspect of the car. It is one of the cars that was so iconic when I was a young kid in the 70's and was known to be built like a tank. But except for the SL models of the 50's and 60's the later SL's design wise just have not aged well to me.

I often have compared a 1995 SL to my 1995 XJS and again just find the SL to be uninspiring ascetically. I am not saying this to offend any one who likes the SL as they have many positive attributes but that is one car that design wise just makes me think of bland.

The XJS even as a GT car has a very unique style and presence about it. One of the main things I like about my 1995 XJS is that you have a car that is really very refined mechanically but at the same time still looks very classic because it is still very much the same design as the original 1975 XJS. Compare the 1995 Mercedes SL to a 1975 SL and the '95 SL looks nothing like a '75 SL as they are two completely different cars..

 

In terms of aesthetics I had a love-hate relationship with my XJS. The tail lights just seemed too weird.

But you can't see the tail lights when you're behind the wheel, and driving an XJS is wayyyyy more satisfying than just looking at one

Cheers
DD

 

Doug you got that right , yesterday went to local car show ,been months back, lot of guys just ooggling my XJS roadster ,and talking trash , then they see sticker V12 Power!!

and some times i forget (imagine that), how nice a driving car it is , and so commanding of the road around it!

cars/ trucks all move over and let me pass , and just a waving and smiling!!

the Ghost of SIR WILLIAMS LYONS lives on and his power still shows! Thanks.
ron