quote - the modern S-type will never be a classic

[dieselnutjob]

Anyone seen this months Practical Classics and John Simister's article on the Jaguar S type?  entitled "Why the modern S-Type will never be a classic".

 

Suddenly I'm interested.

 

If it's not a classic (and never will be) then it's an underdog.  In fact it's shite.

 

If other people don't like it then I like it more.

 

I have always quite liked the look of the XJD V6 diesel, the early ones from about a decade a go.  They only thing that puts me off really is the shear size of them.  The 607 can be a a bit big in London traffic and fills an entire London parking bay.  If someone else has nicked even 2" of the bay then it won't go in.  The XJD is a fair bit longer.

 

An S type automatic diesel appears to be a good bit more useful, if not as good looking.

 

Are they any good?

[brickwall]

I'll have one at some point. Prolly accident damaged and prolly a smoker

[rml2345]

Having not read the article (yet) I shouldn't really comment but if the XJ40 can become a classic then why can't the S-type? It'll go through that period that all old Jags do when the values are on the floor and 2/3rds or more are scrapped, crashed or broken leaving a third which will burst through the other side into bona-fide "Jaguar Club" classicdom and/or expensive restorations. 

[Justin Case]

It has always been the way. No doubt when the E-Type first came out Jaguar enthusiasts were splurting their real ale all over their copies of Motor Sport and saying 'this will never be a classic like the XK 120'

[mercrocker]

I have not read (nor will I) the article referred to but maybe the "new" S Type has too much non-Jag DNA in it?   Also, whereas the XJ40/x300 have a perceivable "evolutionary" appearance the S Type has been saddled  with the retro-car tag by trying too hard to emulate what was an extremely capable and popular car.   To me its no better than the Fat 500 or the NINI although it  may well have some redeeming features in its own right.   Alfisti is quite right in his quote above but look at TR7 values compared to TR6 backwards and somewhere along the line the chain does get broken....

[Cavcraft]

I had a 3 litre and it was a really nice car. I do keep hearing shit things about the X Type diesels, though, mostly about utterly abysmal economy.

[mercrocker]

Now thats where it really went wrong for me.....FWD?  Diesel?  Estate?  Jag?   Like ice cream and cabbage!

[dollywobbler]

My neighbour considered a diesel S-Type, but decided the petrols were so much cheaper and less complex that he went for a 3.0 V6 instead. He loves it. True shite motoring as water leaks into the boot apparently.

[RoadworkUK]

S-Type Am Nice.

 

Took a 2.7 D in as P/X once and was convinced I'd hate it for all its pretend Jaguarosity but it just kept on doing silly little things that I liked. For example, the lights-on reminder sounds like "For Your Eyes Only".

 

I'm not alone, I asked around and every single person who drove it liked it but didn't know why.

 

Maybe it was just a pleasant break from Mercz.

[Wilko220]

I've never driven one, but I always thought it looked like a poor man's Rover 75...

[Lord Sterling]

I've never driven one, but I really do like them. In a strange way, they remind me of the early Mk2 800 with the faded wood on the dash and flat-faced leather seats.

 

I used to admire the Black S-Type Sport I used to see on the way to college back in day. I will have one one day.

 

I reckon they will be classic, sadly some cars have to push harder than others to 'win' that status.

[saucedoctor]

I had 2 S types, a 2.5 and a 3.0, both SE Autos. Fine cars. Drove a diesel one a couple of times. Jolly good, but runs out of puff too easy (it is a diesel after all). Despite the hype, they don't all shit their gearboxes (think OMG all Rovers get HGF). My 2 were very well behaved, much better than my last 2 Mercs which were almost new and eye-wateringly expensive. (W221 LWBs)

 

I have an X Type 2.5 AWD now. Couple of minor hiccups, but she's all good where it matters. X Type diesels go wrong. A LOT. Tubos and DMFs especially, also DPF issues and OMNOMNOM injectors. A bit unrefined, on reflection. 2.2D goes well though, I had a Sovereign estate with that engine and a baderbox, my ex, Colleen, had a 2.2D Spurt with a 6 speed manual. Quite quick, but really fucking noisy when cold.

[cort16]

I really fancied that 2.5 Manual one on the go in Edinburgh a few months ago but didn't have the cash.

I'd have a 3 litre AWD x-type if one came up just for the EML bingo. I couldn't bring myself to have a diesel one.

[Spiny Norman]

Typical Craptical Plassics twaddle. I long ago gave up believing anything I read in that comic after being told about rear engined Renault 12s, front wheel drive Ford Mustangs and 6.6 litre Mk2 Escorts....

 

Don't Jags always go through a shite phase where no-one wants them? I can remember just after I passed my test seeing a really ropey E type for about £300 and my Dad had to put his foot down.
They're a bit odd looking I feel, but what few survive the "I want a Jag for a grand" type of owner will eventually be as 'classic' as any of the other ones I reckon.

[Dead_E23]

I looked at one at a dealer but found it an awkward thing to get in and out of.  It almost felt like the drivers seat was too far from the door aperture.

 

Wasn't keen on the electric handbrake either - gut feeling was that it would be trouble.  (Ironically, I went on to buy a Volvo V70 which has to be left in gear whenever I park it because the handbrake is of such a shit design that it only works at MOT time).

[warren t claim]

Anglo American with a Welsh engine. If Tom Jones was a car...

[oman5]

They probably will become classic when the kids of today grow up and remember them from childhood. like us lot with Cortinas, 80s jap tin and so on.

They do nothing for me I'm afraid. they look like any other car and the grille looks hideous. now the newer XF is much more like a jag should be. looks stunning and I'd love one.

[garethj]

They make sense as a cheap car, I'm not sure anything makes sense as a classic.

 

Ours has been excellent family transport for a couple of years now, it's a 3 litre with 6 speed auto.  The diesels are apparently less reliable, or more expensive to fix when they go wrong but by this stage of a car's life you're always gambling.

 

I quite like the outside shape, but the inside is the best bit.  It feels as much a Jaguar as my XJ-S did, with the small exception that everything works.  It's also very nice to drive, those are the key Jaguar attributes I think.

[NorfolkNWeigh]

I think I've still got an S Type parked in a mates yard,he might have got rid of it,I hope not I wanted to keep the plate. Anyway 3.0 manual ,went like a bastard and did 30 odd mpg most of the time, it was my missus' everyday wheels for 4 years and about 120,000 miles ( in addition to the 100k it already had) . I never serviced it ,only changed the pads once and I blew a hose under the water pump racing a Focus ST one night. Eventually the drivers window packed up at the same time it developed a misfire and the clutch went,wasn't worth spending money on so parked it up-2 years ago.

 

Don't think I'd touch a diesel but R's are down to a couple of grand and that's a cheap 400bhp laugh.

Any jag that survives long enough will be a classic, but by the time they're worth saving it'll only be facelift V8's and R's that will still be around,maybe I should store my 3.0 manual (with cloth FTW) somewhere safe.

[Des]

Just wondering what authority some distraction from an impending bout of dental work magazine has to tell anyone what a classic is.

The only vehicle worthy of that title is the MGB.

[Cavcraft]

The whole 'will it be a classic' question is one of the most annoying ones ever. No matter what car it's about.

[NorfolkNWeigh]

When I think 'Classic car' I only think of stuff that has always been a classic car , well, since I was a kid anyway.

Morris 1000 Traveller, MG B( they were still making them FFS) 1600e, Stag and Mk2 Jag. That's about it ,always seems to have been clubs for these and the same features and articles are regurgitated every 5 years or so , just the values change,although not always up. In fact if adjusted for inflation they've probably all stayed pretty constant.

What really makes me laugh is when the magazines advise what to buy as classics of the future, RS500's,Integrales and Continental R's seem to be the latest tips-- No Shit,Sherlock!

What we need is Autoshites tips for future Tagora level shite, my suggestion is the 'new' Saab 9-5, unwanted from birth,prosaic underpinnings,hopelessly over ambitious pricing and a company that curled up and died before the launch party was over.

[Sigmund Fraud]

I'm confident that in the mid-1970s, when Mk.IIs were frag feed, some wise* motoring journalist must have claimed they would never be classics...

 

Was it Neils Bohr who said that predictions are very difficult, especially regarding the future ?

[simmo]

Classic has become such a vague term and now seems to mean old, rare or desirable so in that respect they will become classics by achieving at least one of the three.

[Junkman]

The mere term 'classic' is total horseshit, because it can't be defined. A definitionless expression is redundant, because it doesn't convey any useable information.

The term that should be used is 'collectible car', because it can be clearly defined. It's any car that strode the bottom of the depreciation valley and is starting to appreciate.

The S-Type will not be the sole exception, but it sure will be a long time before it starts to happen.

[RichardMoss]

I have a 2001 S-type L.  Whilst it is a decent enough car it is fragile, expensive to maintain and does not inspire any great affection towards it.  In my book this means that it is neither Autoshite (due to parts costs) or true classic (lack of love towards it).  It's not half the car that an XJ4 is.

 

I probably won't be keeping it much longer.