Bruno Ferlito found and posted this Jaguar E-Type at the Cohort, and his only comment was “Sooo beautiful”. True that. I’m not going to add any more words either; we do have a CC on a Series II here. Curiously enough, there’s no proper CC on the Series I E-Type, a regrettable omission. Roger Carr?
The XKE is such an elegant combination of form and function that it is on display at the Museum Of Modern Art in New York City.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xh3u8j
I know I’m the only person on the planet who feels this way but I’ve always found the E-Type ugly. There are so many things about it that I dislike I honestly find it difficult to believe that anyone could find it anything but.
It is both stunningly attractive and astonishingly awkward at the same time, a bulbous, wide-eyed, under-tired, and under-bited flying work of art.
To say it’s phallic in both shape and appeal is an accurate cliche.
The tire diameter is too big (also true of the pagoda SL). Width is typical for the Sixties. The tacked-on turn and brake lights have always bothered me.
Not necessarily ugly but I do find it vastly overrated. I respect it for being a breakthrough design for its time but “the most beautiful car ever made ever”? Eh. I find the convertible version pretty attractive but the coupes are ungainly, people say it’s the 2+2 that are the awkward ones but they look about the same as the regular coupes to me.
»raises hand« Me three. I don’t find the E-type appealing at all. But I realise my tastes are unconventional, and I accept that others lurve numerous cars I find ugly or boring or otherwise unlikable.
@Anthony P, are you familiar with Eagle in the U.K.? Google the Eagle Speedster, Aero Coupe, and Lightweight models. They’ve done an extraordinarily fine job of re-engineering the mechanicals and re-interpreting the original styling, making the car much more attractive, at least to my eyes. Check it out and see if you don’t agree.
I had seen these (and forgotten them) and you are right, they do seem to correct most of the awkwardness I see in the E-Type.
I like the shooting brake hearse version in Harold and Maude. Too bad it got driven off a cliff.
Was, is, and always will be a timelessly beautiful design.
Excellent example, nice condition but not too nice.
I’m always surprised at how small they are in person.
Kudos to the owner for driving it.
Is it true the engine was a long stroke ? What was their thinking behind that ?
UK had a tax scheme based on the bore of the engine. Carmakers therefore used a small bore and long stroke to get the displacement required.
Try and find another car that will go from 800 rpm to redline in 4th gear absolutely smoothly.
It is considered by professionals to be one of the best engines ever put in a car.
Being designed when it was the windshield rake is awkwardly vertical but at least on the S-I version otherwise there’s hardly a line out of place, functionally designed directly from the C/D Type earlier race cars and rare XK-SS street version, and universally acclaimed as one of the most beautiful cars of all time. Had a low mile ’69 S-2 fhc W-Type in Wedgwood blue 30 years ago, and wish I still had it.
So beautiful that an E-Type is on display in New York City’s Museum of Modern Art.
The Series II lost the head lamp covers and gained larger tail lamps and front indicators, but still had the light weight bumpers. The Series III were much different with the larger front grille with the infamous rubber blocks on the bumper. And the V12. I think that it is beautiful and iconic, perhaps not the most beautiful ever, but very nicely done. Other iconic designs to my eye are the early 911s, ’66-’70 Mustang fastbacks, and the first Mako Shark inspired Corvettes. Everyone has their favorites.
Stunning! It’s fast just sitting there.
I remember seeing one for the first time in the mid 60s and, apropos of its ‘phallic nature’, when I saw it head on I was surprised it was legal. 🙂
It’s an amazing object, with the reservation that its track seemed narrow for the width of the car. Car and Driver were very positive in their 1961 review, although they noted its strong ‘appetite for lubricant’ (a quart of oil every 112 miles during their test).
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15112090/1961-jaguar-e-type-road-test-review/
SEX
IMO, one of the most beautiful cars ever designed.
The etype is one of the two most universally recognized manufactured shapes, the other being the coke bottle.
If you find the etype unattractive you need some art lessons
I suspect the iPhone has those two outnumbered, combined. At least for people born after 1990, which is more than half the world.
Now THAT’S the very definition of what a Jaguar is to me! Simply stunning!
Beautiful cars! They are small on the outside, but absolutely tiny inside, especially the early flat floor models – suitable for Norman Dewis, but how “Lofty” England ever drove one is beyond me! I’m not a big guy, but could barely fit in my 3.8 coupe (#603) or a friend’s very early (#327) roadster. On later cars the footwells were modified to partially alleviate the problem, but accommodation was still much smaller than a C2 Corvette. The only car with less room for occupants that I have experienced is the XJ 220, so maybe it is a Jaguar thing.
Still, one can forgive this when one sees a racing E-Type in action – just sublime looking and sounding! Look at some videos of them racing at the Goodwood Revival and you will lust after one….
I hope it’s not an urban legend, but this is what Enzo Ferrari called the most beautiful car ever. Who am I to disagree. But is that white dashboard correct?
What Enzo said was that was beautiful and it’s only flaw was it lacked a Ferrari emblem. He was referring to the series 1.
As an eight year old, I thought these were stunning. And the overall form is great, and is certainly distinctive in an appealing way, compared to more modern cars. But … over the years, the awkward details and some of the proportions just jump out in a bad way, and I can’t unsee them. I’ll take a contemporary DB4 or DB5, or quite a few 1960’s Farina/Bertone/Zagato creations over the E Type any day. And while it’s iconic, and certainly is worthy of being in an art museum, that in no way means it’s beautiful. You know what they say about beauty and the beholder.
sex . . on . . wheels
The Series II E Type is a very beautiful car that is often attacked by Series I supremacists. Personally I prefer the Series I covered headlamps, but the uncovered, extruded Series II units–imposed by government and NOT Jaguar’s fault–still look nice…especially if you upgrade the headlamps to iconic Lucas PL 700 tri-bars!
Series I supremacists also make a big deal about Series I toggle switches being so much nicer than the Series II’s government-imposed rocker switches. I have a minor preference for the toggle switches, on a one-on-one basis, but note that the Series I supremacists never mention that the Series I only has SIX toggles, as opposed to the Series II’s TEN rocker switches. On balance, I find that the TEN rocker switches as a whole, are cooler than the SIX toggles of the earlier cars. Series I supremacists also never mention that in the centre dash of the Series II you have FIVE gauges, as opposed to the Series I’s four.
Finally, Series I supremacists often attack the supposedly “ugly” tail lamps below the wrap-around bumper of the Series II. They don’t know that Sir William Lyons never liked the Series I tail lights, the split bumper, and the indented licence plate spot of the Series I. Designer Malcolm Sayer had at the last minute, without consulting anyone, introduced these three characteristics to the E Type’s rear design, afraid that he migh stand accused of having copied the 1954 Alfa Romeo Disco Volante roadster’s look. When Sir William praised the new E Type’s design but expressed some concerns about the three details mentioned, Sawyer told him that they would be addressed “as soon as the car’s styling is updated”. He added nothing could be done to change things at that stage in 1960, as the body moulds were already being fabricated. Lyons had said he had expected to see a wrap-around rear bumper, “per the XK SS”, and that he wasn’t crazy about the indentation between the split bumpers for the licence plate. He also, in 1960, told Sayer that he “hated” those Rolls-Royce/Bentley tail lamps placed horizontally. In 1966-67, when the Series II revisions were being worked on, Sawyer got Sir William to sketch what he envisioned for the tail lamps. What we now know as the Series II tail lamps are what Sir William sketched. Personally I agree with what the late Princess Grace of Monaco said about them, that they gave the Series II E Type “…a sleeker and more finished look in the back.” On balance I love the Series II as much as the Series I.