Sometimes it’s good bust popular assumptions, like the one where all older cars saddled with primitive two and three-speed automatics were always and inherently slower to accelerate, had a lower top speed, and got worse fuel mileage than their manual transmission counterparts. In the process of looking up something, I stumbled into some recaps of the first two UK magazine tests of the new 1962 Mark X, which came only with the 3.8 L XK engine, the 265 hp triple carb version as used in the XK-E. One tested an automatic, the other a manual. The results are not what I or you would have likely expected.
Autocar magazine did not manage to get its hands on a MkX until November 1962 when they tested 8172 RW, an automatic. Top speed was 119.5mph, the 0-60mph time was 10.8 seconds and fuel consumption was 14.1mpg.
8172 RW had 13000 miles on the clock and Autocar paid it several compliments: ‘There was not a body creak or rattle… almost sports car stability through fast bends and over rough surfaces……..The aroma of good leather pervades the interior, and this with an abundance of timber veneer gives it almost the cosily affluent air of Edwardian library’.
A year passed before the rival Motor magazine tested a manual overdrive MkX, 1196KV. With 1196KV, the men from Motor attained a top speed of 120mph and a 0-60mph time of 10.8 seconds. Overall fuel economy was 13.6mpg.
Ok, one could argue that a certain degree of deviation was inherent in any two engines from the assembly line. But the fact that the automatic had exactly the same 0-60 time and top speed, and got slightly better mileage suggests that there just wasn’t any inherent difference between the two. I should point out that the 3.8 L Mk X did use the rather advanced BW DG automatic, which operated in direct mechanical drive in top gear, bypassing the torque converter. And as I’ve often pointed out, a three-speed torque-converter automatic has every bit as wide an effective gear ratio spread as a four speed manual. And the Moss manual in the Jaguar was not exactly the quickest-shifting unit in the world. Chrysler proved with its Torqueflite automatic that its cars could be as fast or faster than a four-speed on the drag strip, except in the hands of the very best shifters.
Motor goes on to say this about the Mark X:
‘If the car cost another £1000 (it then cost £2082), as it reasonably might, no doubt the sound damping and trim would be much better. Although generally quiet, the engine and gearbox can be clearly heard under heavy acceleration and the decorative woodwork has a skin deep quality, revealed by close inspection. Like the gracefully bulbous sides that make for thick doors rather than interior space, effect has been placed before function: some people like it, others do not. An absurd lack of lateral support mars the otherwise comfortable seats in which five people may stretch and relax, and there is vast luggage space in the boot. Heating and ventilation fall short of many cars costing a third as much. The excellence of the handling, brakes and steering all masked under certain conditions by various shortcomings, and the manual gearbox, although mastery of it can give great satisfaction, is elderly in design and, to most drivers, out of place in such plush surroundings. The automatic alternative is a more natural choice.’
This apparent critique of a Jaguar incurred the wrath of the Coventry concern and the editor of Motor ended up writing an apology to the company.
Ah yes, mustn’t criticize the cars of the home country too much now, eh?
13.6 miles per gallon???
11.3 in US gallons.
This is just before I started reading the auto mags at the library, though I think my grandmother gave me a Corgi toy version of this one.
FWIW, a feature in the Sarasota, FL paper (interesting reference to the automatic). I don’t know what else the $7442 would buy, but it’s about $62K today, so pretty exclusive territory:
The price is about $1,100 more (in 1962 dollars) than a base 1962 Cadillac Sixty Special. I like the typo in the article: “Type XX”. There was a Jaguar Type 20? News to me.
$7442 bought you a new Sedan deVille with about every option you could hang on the car at the time, along with about a years worth of premium gas @ 35 cents/gal. In that context, you’d really have to love the Jaguar to buy one.
I doubt there’d be much cross-shopping between those two…
Agreed. But keep in mind, in 1962 Cadillac claimed to be the Standard of the World, and meant it. It wouldn’t be for another decade before the Europeans caught up with… and eventually exceeded… Cadillac (along with the other two luxury brands).
In that context, you’d have to be a die hard enthusiast to shell out that kind of money for a car few would understand.
As William pointed out, folks buy what they want, not what makes the most sense. Having lived through the Mercedes Mania in So Cal in the 70s and early 80s, when folks were trading in Cadillacs and such for 240D with 65hp, I can assure you there was no rationality to it then either.
Keep in mind that the big Jaguars (Mk VII through Mk IX) were the 50s equivalent of an S Class, in terms of prestige, and were quite popular. Mercedes stole many of those Jag owners away in the 60s, but some were very loyal to the brand, and those were the (few) buyers for the Mk X. I can assure you that the odds of a Jaguar owner trading in their car for a Cadillac was very low. People generally don’t trade down prestige for practicality.
Keep in mind that the big Jaguars (Mk VII through Mk IX) were the 50s equivalent of an S Class, in terms of prestige, and were quite popular. Mercedes stole many of those Jag owners away in the 60s, but some were very loyal to the brand, and those were the (few) buyers for the Mk X.
You learn something new every day. The only Jaguar I remember seeing growing up was one driven by our Pastor (wealthy family).
Paul, here in the UK back in the sixties, a large Jag would have been the cheap option. A Lincoln Continental or equivalent Cadillac would have cost getting on for Rolls-Royce money over here, in other words getting on for three times the price of the Jag. This would explain why seeing a large Yank Tank when I was in my early teens was a bit of a blue moon moment. Most MkX and 420G Jags have now rusted away simply because they were huge by our standards and few folk tempted by these oversize classics have a garage large enough to store the things so many lived outside, under a tarp if they were lucky.
As to the performance of Jaguar’s press cars, I wouldn’t have put it past the factory tweaking some of these, added to which any manufacturer back then could count on the fawning obsequiousness of the motoring press. The whole lot of them, makers and press alike, must have had a collective seizure when the Consumers Association magazine “Which?” started doing thorough long-term comparison tests using vehicles purchased anonymously through the dealer network.
The Krays had one or two of these large Jags, as did northern politician and fixer T. Dan Smith, not forgetting Angus Sibbet whose murder in his Jag MkX led to the making of “Get Carter” (the original one with Michael Caine, not the crap remake). Here’s Sibbet’s Jag alongside the alleged killer’s E Type! The E Type is still with us I am delighted to say. It shows up on the DVLA database as being currently taxed and MOT’d. Not so the MkX.
Strange as Cadillac was THE prestige vehicle to own in the US, yet you say that a Jag owner would “trade down” in opting to trade for a Cadillac? I would not trade Caddy for a Jag and quite frankly the Jag only looks prestigious from this side of the lake in europe………..it’s a common sight. not saying it’s not a nice car (when it runs)but in those days…………………i’d rather be seen in a Caddy!
This is why the late 1950s version of “The Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English” by Eric Partridge has “Jewish Mercedes” as slang for a Jaguar. car and 1980s synagogue parking lots bore this out.
I know of one upscale New Orleans family who loved their various Jaguars during the 1960’s and 1970’s and early 1980’s; but kept a reliable 1966 Cadillac DeVille, bought used, as their “back up car” for the all-too-frequent times when whatever Jag they adored was leaking fluids all over their carport as it was “waiting on parts” or just would not start.
They eventually switched over to the big Lexus and sold the Caddy.
Autocar tests of the Mk2 3.8 manual o/d in 1960 and auto in 1963 got 8.5 secs for 0-60, and 9.8 for the auto. They got 125mph and 120 mph respectively. That near 1.5 second difference in 0-60 and the outright speed difference of 5-10mph were pretty reliable gaps across many years of 3 speed automatics vs manuals, except, as noted, for massive-engined hotrods. Fuel consumption generally favoured the manual, and in small cars by a wide margin.
But just to confound me, Autocar got 15.7 mpg from the manual and 17.5 from the auto!
Worth noting that o/d cars got the lower 3.77 diff ratio, so 4th was only 20mph per thousand. The o/d quoted in 1960 was a whopping 26.4 mph per thousand, so it can be assumed it spent a fair bit of time roaring along in 4th. Also likely that a manual was driven with greater exuberance. Also must be said multiple carbs are notoriously hard to set up, and thus variable in results. And 1960’s production tolerances far more variable than now.
But all up, it’s fairly clear from looking into this that the old autos didn’t necessarily make a huge difference (apart from a lacking a capacity for a tall gear for cruising). The caveat, I suspect, is that the engine had to be a decently big and powerful. Anyone who’s driven a ’60’s 1.3 Ford Escort auto or been in a 2-speed 2.3 engined Falcon can testify that they lack life. And the old road tests bear out poor fuel use too.
If I’d had to wrestle with the 1930’s Moss box in this Mark X, I greatly doubt I’d catch the auto despite the missing seconds.
Agree, Justy Baum!
My Father’s “foreign car mechanic” (as they were called in the 1960’s) bought his wife an automatic transmission model of this article’s car.
He said that, with the addition of an adjustable vacuum modulator (from a Ford automatic, IIRC?) the Jag would hit the tach’s red line before it shifted out of first and then second gear.
I was too young to drive the car, but my Father commented that it was “quite peppy for a slushbox”. High praised indeed, coming from my “Old School” automatic transmission hating Dad!
I unfortunately don’t have any of these tests, but looking at more performance figures than just 0-60 would probably be revealing. The quarter mile figures in particular — comparing ETs for different powertrains will suggest the impact of gearing while comparing trap speeds gives a sense of power loss. With older automatics, some cars may have an edge for certain periods due to differences in gearing or the multiplicative effect of the torque converter, but lose out at higher speeds because the transmission is consuming more power.
One thing the actual tests might have revealed, which is important, is whether the 0-60 figure reflects manual or automatic shifting. With some automatics of that vintage, you lost quite a bit if you let the transmission shift for itself rather than overriding it.
Autocar testers would work out fuel consumption as an average over the test mileage, but acceleration figures would be the absolute best possible. If there was an advantage in manually shifting an auto then that’s how they would time the runs.
Do you think there would be a difference in testing procedures that might shed some light on the tests that Paul quoted? The driving style/environment has a pretty significant influence on fuel economy. Was one magazine consistently faster or slower than the other? That was usually the case between the magazines here in Australia, eg Wheels vs Car Aust.
There’s that, and there’s also the question of which set of testers got the car first.
With a lot of magazine road tests, the manufacturers had one or two test cars that everyone would thrash. Since magazine testers are not gentle on the iron, the test car would often be in rather sad shape by the end, which could have an effect on recorded performance.
With automatic cars — which still were not at all the norm in this period in the U.K. — Motor, at any rate, would at least sometimes give acceleration times both with automatic shifting and “through the gears.” (I’ve seen this in tests for, for example, the Rover 3½-Litre.) Even if it wasn’t in the spec table, testers for magazines of this period would often mention the difference in the text, even if the spec table showed only the fastest times.
The older Borg-Warner derived automatics often required some careful manual selection to get decent performance out of them. (With mid-50s Fordomatics, you’d want to start in Low to get a first-gear start, then shift to Drive to get second, and then back to Low to hold second for as long as possible, which is not exactly normal behavior for the average driver!)
The automatic Mk X could have been a success in the US if it’d be built with the Daimler Hemi V8 Jaguar then had available. Even the 4.5 litre V8 prototypes Jaguar built would have been competitive and Daimler engineers confirmed there were no difficulties in enlarging the capacity beyond five litres. The 4.5 V8 transformed the 3.8 XK Mk X, a 5.0 would have been even better. Even with the 4.2 XK, the Mk X and 420G couldn’t emulate the experience a bigger GM, Chrysler or Ford offered.
American buyers enjoyed 4 and 6 cylinder sports cars but the 3.8 Mk X lacked appeal for the target demographic. By the late 1950s, Detroit was building the finest engine-transmission combinations in the world; even now it’s difficult to explain to those who haven’t driven the (pre-emission control) 5 to 7 litre US cars of the 1960s (LTDs et al, not the muscle cars) just how refined, quiet and effortless they were… in US conditions.
Had Jaguar devoted a fraction of the resources they spent developing the V12 to the Daimler V8 and things that mattered to buyers, like air-conditioning and electric windows, the Mk X could have succeeded in the US, though it may not greatly have helped in the home market. Most of the rest was good, the brakes and suspension were first rate and the interior, among the most atmospheric of the era.
Quite true. A 4.5 L Daimler V8 MkX mule could easily run all day at 130 mph, and the proposed 5 L version would only have upped that. It would have been a much more appropriate engine for the US, which preferred larger, more relaxed V8s. And the same applies to the rest of your comment.
Jaguar really blew it with the X, although its blobby (in many eyes) styling did it no favors either. Jaguars always had a lithe, muscular look, even the big Marks of the 50s, but the X looked like it had gone to fat.
The front and back of the Mk X had the lithe and muscular look – it was just the bit in between that was the problem. It looked worse in the metal than it did in photos.
Electric windows were optional; the buttons were between the seats with a nice burr-walnut surround. A/C was available too, a boot-mounted system. Although not publicised until the 4.2 Mk X, it was also available for the 3.8. Whether or not they had A/C fitted though, the HVAC set-up was certainly a major weak point.
I am really developing a minor crush on the Jag Mk X. That it carries a Studebaker automatic transmission just seals the deal.
BTW, I think you meant DG automatic. A “GD” automatic only refers to the ones in cars parked at the transmission shop. 🙂
JP: I have always lusted after a Mark X; even more than the XJ series. IIFC the Mk X was roomier inside than the XJ sedan?
I can see certain styling traits on the Mk X that were used on the last generation Lincoln Town Car.
A “GD” automatic is yours when your car won’t move. 🙂
GD it!! 🙂
Exactly!
The BW DG automatic trans has a few features nobody remembers in normal mode it starts off in second gear hence the D1 and D2 markings on the shift quadrant, when fitted to large Austins and Wolseleys the upshift points are adjustable via a pullout handle under the dash 80mph indicated being attainable in second, the cars can also be push started once 25mph is reached, parts were unobtainium when the DG in my Austin Westminster broke reverse so perhaps driving them hard and towing reduces lifespan.
My 420G was a 4sp w/o. I loved rowing through those gears. My Jag guy used to call the automatic ‘agricultural’ compared with the manual.
I’ve driven more than a few Jaguars of this time period. I would term the ancient, balky, slow shifting Moss 4 speed manual gearbox more “agricultural” than the automatic transmission.
“To Each Their Own”
I only the drove the auto when looking for mine. To be fair, my Jag guy did say there was little between the two on such a big car. Mine was fun to drive, but I’d get an auto in a heartbeat.
Mmmm, my dream-Jag since early-1980s boyhood, I just love the styling! To me, the size and style better suit an auto. But it strikes me that rowing through the gears, as Don put it, would be perversely amusing on such a bloated beast! Wheels said the Mk X/420G was surprisingly fun to hustle around, and I guess the later manual trans would add an extra level of unexpected interest!