Jaguar E-Type vs XK120

I own a 1966 E-Type Coupe (FHC), so I'm going to be biased. Don't know why anyone would purchase a 2+2 over the FHC, other than inability to get in / out of the FHC.

The guy I purchased my car from had recently undergone knee surgery, so he couldn't get in / out of the car. He already owned 3 other E-Type 2+2s, so the car I purchased was disposable to him.

The person that worked on my E-Type knows Jaguars extremely well, and he was working on an XK at the time my car was in the shop. He told me the XK was a "truck" compared to the E-Type.

I can't imagine it's anywhere near as sophisticated as the E-Type, and it's way more expensive. I'd consider a S1 or S2 E-Type FHC...at the right price now.

 

I own a 63 series one fixed head coupe E type and have driven an XK120 coupe and I can tell you they are years apart . An E type set up properly is a joy and can be driven comfortably great distances . The XK is much more the antique and would be better suited for short drives . My seats are buckets and among the worst for comfort of all e types although real sexy to look at ! that said the XK seats are very upright bench type and the steering wheel is literally in you lap . suspension is not as advance and you really feel the bumps . The E types suspension is even with its original Boge shocks , is far more advanced and its shows.

Gary
Espada
8394
EtypeFHC
887465

 

etype, all the way.

 

XK120 held the speed record for production cars back in 1949 but by today's standards is a lumbering sled. The Etype is an order of magnitude better car with it's combination monocoque/space frame construction, 4-wheel disc brakes and independent suspension.

An interesting side note is that Ford, anxious to build something to compete with Jaguar, patterned the driving position of their new Thunderbird on the XK120. Both cars are hot to look at but handle like boats.

 

many etype turds out there. take your time. buy a concours champion that is several yrs old. dont restore one, dont buy driver quality.

 

A well sorted XK is a great car, and very few can match the visual impact of the 120 FHC. To me there is one huge drawback, and that is the driving position, with the end of the steering column sitting centimeters away from your chest.
A well set-up 120 is exciting to drive, and just about the only thing not to do with it is parking nose-up on a steep incline, as it has a slinger on the rear of the crank rather than a seal. I don't know exactly when in the production that was changed to a (somewhat) better arrangement with a rope-seal.
E-Types are great, the best looking series I is the most problematic mechanically (3.8 bucket-seat) but light modification to brakes and cooling sets them straight.
An E with suspension that is not 100% is as much a dog to drive as a 120 in that condition.
Right now I'd aim at a S2 E FHC, they are relatively cheap to buy, most problems sorted ex-factory. In the US you'd have the problem of twin ZS carbs though, instead of triple SU's.

Best,

Jack.

 

Yup, totally agree. Can easily upgrade to triple SUs - the S2 FHCs are a steal now.

 

series 1 only. btw, my first car was a series 2 roadster and i still have it.

 

Yeah, Series 1. I owned both a 1964 and 1966 roadster, or drop head. Nothing looks better. Just remember to keep the damper oil topped up in the carbs, check the fuel tank for contamination, and consider an AC or GM alternator in place of the Lucas one and you should be good to go. Oh yeah, keep a spare battery in the trunk just in case. Ask how I know.

 

A bit better comparison would be an XK140 vs the E-Type. Visually the 140 is almost identical to the 120, but drives a bit more "modern" with telescopic dampers instead of lever arms, a bit more power, and rack and pinion steering as opposed to recirc ball on the 120.

Still, the E-Type chassis is much more advanced in every way. Basically you need to decide if you want a REALLY vintage driving experience or a regular vintage driving experience.

http://www.jag-lovers.org/xk-lovers/library/120_140_differences.html



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

Having driven both cars (and owning an E-type OTS), I will say that the 120 is quite an amazing car considering it was designed in the mid to late 1940’s. The E-type has 10+ years of development on its side and it really shows in the handling and braking. But as stated for a 1940’s design the 120 is surprisingly modern. One of the primary differences is comfort and driving position. Neither car is a perfect fit for “big guys”, but the 120 can be especially challenging. You’re sitting with your legs nearly straight out, extending into a very cramped pedal area (the E-type isn’t much better when it comes to pedal access). The steering wheel of the 120 is right in your lap and very close to your chest. And that “sternum breaker” in the middle of the 120 steering wheel is a bit intimidating.

The 3.4L and 4.2L engines are very similar, the 4.2 is just a bored out version of the 3.4, the designs are very similar and both can be made to be very reliable.

 

What about an XK-150 FHC... not as good looking, but...

Actually, I guess that the fact that it's not as good looking is 'the' issue.



I've driven an XK-120 for a longer distance than was comfortable.

(Didn't the XK-120 do over 100 mph for 7 days and nights straight back in the day? Must have been difficult for the drivers.)