Well, I'm not Jewish, so I guess that makes me a Gentile buyer...

I think you mean Bahnstormer, as in Autobahnstormer, don't you? A barnstormer is someone who tours the country either giving theatrical performances, or conducting a political campaign, or giving flying displays.

You make an interesting assertion that the XK was designed around the supercharged engine. Can you cite your source for that, or is it like the 'Marylin Monroe' quote?

The XK convertible certainly isn't much of a Grand Tourer, unless you travel alone, and where's the fun in that? The coupe may be better, but even as an XKR the ragtop has grace and pace, but it lacks space.

Fuel consumption is academic for me. An E55 AMG did 50-70 in 2.1 seconds fourteen years ago. I know; I've had two of them. The performance of the n/a XK is distinctly pedestrian by comparison, but my point is that I didn't buy it for its performance, nor do I regard it as a problem. If I wanted a faster XK, I'd have bought an XKR.

Your move...

TN

 

A barn stormer, as in a horse that bolts the barn, no not a lonely Welsh farmer.

Fuel consumption affects a grand touring abilities. Something that gives 12mpg and has 15 gallon tank, requires a fill-up stop every hour or so.

If you bought something for looks, while discarding other parameters, you have made my point and underscored it. "We would never admit in a month of Sundays that our attraction to something manmade is actually based on the fantasy we have in our minds and not reality nor utility."

But you have taken it further and made my subsequent point that we merely use metrics to justify the fantasy we have in our head. Clearly you did not buy the Merc for its breadbox looks. Attached visual aid below. And you did not buy the Jag for performance- even when you had the chance. It is a controversial thought and I expect some apprehension. You shifted your criteria based on what you owned. We all do it.

Of course the XKR was the car diluted down to an XK rather than the inverse- by your own admission, the XK 4.2 n/a was underpowered as opposed to the ample power XKR released at the same time. It really doesnt even require much thought on that one.

Space as implied by Lyons was not the abundance of it- he never made cargo vans, nor was the 140, etype, spacious, the space inside was a great place to be. Good for long trips.

 

Try a picture of the estate. Definitely not a breadbox.

I have never said the n/a was underpowered. I suspected you had no evidence to back up your assertion; it was, then, simply a fabrication, as was your 'Marylin Monroe quote'. As for "requiring much thought", I suggest that you have put a good deal of thought into this, but in view of your conclusions, you could have better occupied your time.

You persist in purporting to believe that my purchase of an XK was "actually based on the fantasy.....and not reality nor utility." Another fabrication supported by no evidence whatsoever, I'm afraid. I bought it because its looks appealed to me.

The car was a whim purchase, as was the SL it replaced. If I had wanted an XKR, I would have one now. I bought an XK rather than an XKR because I was not fussed which I bought; it was the looks that sold it to me.

The n/a has ample power for its purpose, and if one is so minded, there is in any event more skill required to make rapid progress in a lower-powered car than one in which high speed requires only more throttle. (If the car had been an XKR, I'd still have bought it, though, but I don't actually need a road rocket; been there, done that).

The criteria drove the purchase, rather than the other way around, whatever you profess to believe.

In the absence of a wallbash icon,

TN

 

What is your logic telling you; Jaguar made 2 cars, one was slightly less hp than the current Camry and the other, the XKR, firmly in sports-car territory with 420hp. Is your belief that the actual sports car was an afterthought. That they in fact penned a car that did 0-60 in 6secs as the successor to the record holding xk150?

Appeal is fantasy in the mind of the beholder.

 

Jaguar sales ytd 2017 are up 83%; thank you F-Pace and EX!!

As far as touring with an XK/XKR my better half and I have made several 8- 10 day trips in each of our XK/XKRs over the years. Even been on the road with the top down and two carry on sized bags in the back seat with suit/dress bags in the boot. These cars are terrific GTs.

 

I'm not sure what you think you mean to say with your last sentence. I think that when you behold my posts, your mind is full of appeal! Do read them again, more carefully, and stop reading into them what is not there.

 

If you have a wife who doesn't do 'travelling light', the ragtop is a non-starter as a GT, believe me...

 

It is tight in the convert . We manage to get a 5 day trip with not to many problems. I put 2 sets of golf clubs in the boot and 2 roller bags in the rear seat. I also can still put the top down.

 

Its like a good duffle bag.
One has to appreciate all the freedom it affords and how it forces one to reconsider one's own lifestyle as opposed to its capacity.

For the rest of the world there are those large suitcases with wheels that weigh more empty than a full duffle bag and must be lugged around even when there is nothing to carry.

 

I think the XK originated with Ford wanting to find less expensive production methods of aluminum cars. Jaguar was chosen as the brand to experiment with.

Ford initially did the DB9, then combed over what was learned to put the XK in production at nearly half the cost of the Aston Martin.

I would not disagree though, that your 5.0L XKR engine perhaps was really intended to be a flagship in the XJR line, with the XJ350 intended for a longer line of production than the XKR.

Still, I think the X150 came about from Ford wanting more experience with manufacturing cars out aluminum. Admittedly, I do not know how the IP transfers were arranged between the companies; but I do not think the advent of aluminum in the Ford line up occurring after the DB9/XK to be coincidence.

 

Some of those suit cases are actually likely at a similar weight to the duffel bag. Although the price will be substantially different between the two.

One key to traveling light, is careful choice of fabric and cut. I can wash a merino wool shirt in a sink, hang it up overnight, and wear it again in the morning. A trip of 14 days, three shirts...etc.

In ladies fashion, there are also options to both look good, and travel light. If its never considered, its never done.

I think I have an aversion to packing heavy, as my parents had a tendency to take seemingly everything. A lot of packing light, is finding the right articles that wear well & re-use easy.

Of course, washing as opposed to just taking something new out of a suit case takes time. It can be a trade off of what you want to do with your time travelling.

 

You must forget Ford and aluminum- thats not the common denominator. This very factory (Castle Bromwich) has been making riveted monocoque (the claim to fame of our chassis) since the time it was making Spitfires for the war, in the exact same manner, and yes out of aluminum. Who knows if Ford has ever used riveted monocoque for their construction principle. I am sure you are aware of all the benefits of this method of construction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bromwich_Assembly

Bear in mind Britain has a tremendous Formula1 pedigree. In Fact, Lotus revolutionized the game by inventing the riveted monocoque chassis and McLaren took it a step further with carbonfiber. All that to say dont assume that little ole Jaguar was incapable of engineering unknown to the big boys.

Similarly, little ole Range Rover gave the world the category of luxury suv, long before the bigger players thought of getting in on the action.

My point about the engine was that it was light years ahead- while the rest of the car was unchanged- indicating it was being designed for things yet to come. We now know that thing to be the F-type and Range Rover sport.

https://www.classicdriver.com/en/art...ing-repertoire

 

On the other hand, it seemed strange to release the X150 with the same engine as the XK8. I think the delay of the 5.0L engine release was twofold:

Jaguar needing to release new things in stages in order to have "something new".

Jaguar not being large enough to split focus, instead developing a new chassis using the 4.2 engine, then a new engine for the future that went into that new chassis.



As for "Having done it xxx years ago", there is a difference between methods of single batch production, and large production runs. The XK also uses aluminum extrusions instead of what the Lotus 49B used, bent sheet aluminum.

The XK used new ways of aluminum production and assembly that *had not* been in use on a production Jaguar car before.

Consider that the direct injection and timing system of the 5.0L Jaguar engine, and some Ford engines are shared; and it would appear Ford was directing Jaguar in ways to develop new methods in an environment where Ford would find it impractical to put into production within their own production line up.

In the case of Jaguar, it can bear a higher cost should the means of production not meet target, in the case of Ford, they cannot do such a thing.

Aston was used to test concepts without extreme budget concerns; Jaguar was then used to put the same concept into effect but with a focus on limiting the cost of production & increased robotics for larger scale methods.

Aluminum bodied four doors from Jaguar likely served the same purpose.

 

[QUOTE=Queen and Country;1409829]Much has been said about a Jaguar buyer being the pipe and slippers sort. Perhaps, however the real difference between the kind that buys a BMW vs one who buys a sporty Jaguar is, one has just escaped poverty and the other is firmly in grasp of their future.

That's why a typical BMW owner could not bear further expenses, such as owning another car as a daily driver, or having it garaged. Most that I see buying a M4 drive it daily through miserable conditions even when they have salt on the road. It is their mule that has to do everything and it dare not require $200 oil changes. And that's why the M6 and other BMW 'supercars' are ubiquitous at 'we will finance anyone' car lots. (its priceless these days to have a car, like any romance, that never ends up washed out)

I dont believe that a Jaguar buyer is one who is trying to buy a car that stands out from the average sedan. He is buying a toy, a mistress, because he has finally arrived at a station where he doesnt need a car to stand apart, he has that car because he stands apart. Unfortunately this rarely happens under the age of 45.

Coco Chanel said it best: Luxury is not the privilege of those who have just escaped adolescence, rather those firmly in grasp of their

 

That's not exactly what Coco Chanel said. Its "Elegance is not the prerogative of those who have just escaped adolescence, but of those who have already taken possession of their future!"
https://www.thoughtco.com/coco-chanel-quotes-p2-3525384

"The best things in life are free. The second best are very expensive". She must have been thinking about a new Rolls Royce, because Jaguars weren't made until decades later in the late 1930's.

There are lots of great, original words of wisdom in that link, particularly when you realize they were spoken by a woman in 1915!

 

She misspoke. Even the adolescent and poor can be elegant. Many are.
Luxury is not the prerogative of those who have just escaped adolescence or poverty.

She said as much when she further said "luxury must be comfortable or its not luxury"

 

You quoted her partially and I think you missed her point. The full quote: "Elegance is not the prerogative of those who have just escaped adolescence, but of those who have already taken possession of their future!" Her point is that elegance has nothing to do with age (you added poverty, and I agree); it has everything to do with maturity and following the path that you have set for your goals in life. Rich playboys who drift aimlessly around heading nowhere will never be elegant. Poor people following their dreams are indeed elegant. Elegance has nothing to do with age, possessions, or wealth; it's about one's character and what they are doing with their life.

My apologies.

 

Its a beautiful interpretation but its a stretch in the wrong direction.
She specialized in just one thing, luxury and defined it. What she means is that a Rolls Royce, or a Chanel Bag is not for someone that has barely escaped the insecurities of youth rather the privilege of those firmly secure. As such a Chanel bag is inelegant on someone who may not have a secure future.
English was not her first language I suspect something got lost in translation.

You are redefining the meaning of the word elegant. Can a child not be elegant?

 

The last sentence of my Post #197 began with: "Elegance has nothing to do with age...".

 

This is a great nourishing discussion.

If you are right that elegance is unrelated to age, (i agree) it would make Coco wrong in saying elegance if not for those who have just escaped adolescence. You are both right if we assume in her day elegance meant luxury.
Yes she was incredible, Churchill was a frequent guest at her place, and a disciple.