improved (top), original (bottom)
Wednesday’s CC on the Jaguar Mark X sparked a lively debate as to its looks, which have been polarizing from the day it first appeared in 1961. I suggested that the biggest problem was that its green house was to low and not long enough at the front. The windshield is set too far back in relation to the now exaggeratedly-long hood, and the height of the roof and windows are just too low, with an overall height of 54″. It looks like the greenhouse of a much smaller car set on the body of a much larger car. The two main masses are out of proportion to each other. There’s still the issue of its bulging sides, but let’s leave Madam X with ample hips. But her head needs a bigger wig.
I asked if someone might take my suggestions and Photoshop a better Mk X. CC reader Bernard Taylor came to the rescue. And when I look at the original now, it looks almost absurdly out of proportion. We have a much better Mark X now, almost 70 years later.
improved Mk X
Here’s what Bernard came up with: a decidedly better proportioned car, yet still a very sleek one fully in the Jaguar vein. The increased height makes it roughly 58″ tall, the same height as its smaller stablemates, the Mk 2, S Type and 420 (not 420G). The windshield has been moved forward and the roof raised. I find this very much improved.
Mk IX and original Mk X
The Mk X was a commercial failure largely because it flopped in the very important US market. It was a direct replacement for the Mk IX (top), the last of a series of big Marks that had been very successful in the US. It’s important to remember that in the 1950s, Jaguar was the dominant luxury-sporty import in the US, and the big Marks were the equivalent of what the Mercedes S Class would come to be.
The transition to the Mk X was way too drastic, given the Mk IX’s stately 63″ height and the resulting imposing looks. US luxury car buyers, typically older, wanted a roomy sedan, with easy ingress/egress, as well as the prestige a properly proportioned sedan conveyed. The Mk X was way too low, ingress/egress was terrible, and interior space was unnecessarily cramped for a car with a 120″ wheelbase.
Mk IX and improved Mk X
The improved Mk X would have been a much easier transition to a totally new big Jag for US buyers,, with more visual presence and improved interior room and access.
It’s important to note that the demographics of US and European big Jag buyers were rather different: in Europe they were more likely to be younger and from old money, who could indulge themselves in a very sleek and sporty big sedan. They were much more likely to care about its actual performance and other dynamic qualities. I make the assumption that William Lyons had them in mind when designing the Mk X.
In the US Jaguar buyers were much more likely to be older, having more typically made their financial success themselves, and wanting a prestigious foreign car to show it. Its performance needed to only be commensurate to US conditions, and comfort features like air conditioning (which was a serious weak point in the Mk X) were more important. The Mk X was instantly a flop, and undoubtedly many of the former Jaguar buyers went straight to the Mercedes dealer where a taller and more comfortable and more prestigious looking sedan in various levels of price and performance awaited them. Mercedes quickly left Jaguar in the dust in the US in the 60s.
I’ve also assembled these images (from the top) of the actual Mk X, the improved version, the XJ 6 swb, XJ6/12 lwb, and the Series III XJ 6. My point is to show that the improved Mk X is also a much more natural transition to its successor, the XJ6 (red). But the XJ6 had a similar shortcoming in the US market: it was also too cramped inside and the roof was too low. It was a smaller car, and like the Mk X, essentially a four door sports car, and only 52.75″ tall. The rear seat was barely usable by two adults if moderate to tall adults were in the front seats.
The solution was to extend the wheelbase (black car). But that made it look unbalanced, as the front window now looked too small and the rear one too long. Inharmonious.
The Series III XJ restyle by Pininfarina resolved these issues very effectively. The roof was raised some 1.5″, and the windshield was made flatter, which allowed the A pillar to move forward some, which along with eliminating the front vent window, the front side window shape now looks better. And the increased height of the rear window helps its issues. Ideally, the B Pillar would have been moved back a few inches, but that would have been exorbitantly expensive. PF’s subtle but clever changes eliminated the issues that the lwb version had very effectively.
This last composite shot shows the improved Mk X along with the Series III XJ. In my opinion, this is how both should have looked to start with. William Lyons’ obsession with ultra-low roofs turned out to be a huge mistake, and one could say a Deadly Sin, as Jaguar never really recovered properly its former position in the US market, the one that was essential to Jaguar’s financial health.
Update: Jaguar merged with BMC to create BMH in 1965, which corresponds to the failure of its top end sedan, the Mk X, on the market, especially the US market which was vital to Jaguar. It signaled the end of Jaguar’s independence and the beginning of the end of the William Lyons era at the firm.
This is like one of those “spot-the-6-differences” pic. I had to look veeeery closely to spot the slightly raised roof.
I concur. Perhaps it would benefit us if there’s another one with lines to show us the difference between the unimproved and improved versions…
Never mind…it’s not for you then. 🙂
For some of us, like me, this change jumps out at me. It’s the kind of thing stylists wrangle over for months or weeks.
And it’s not just the roof being raised. The windshield has been moved forward too, to balance out the massing of the green house as well as other reasons.
I for one definitely see the difference, in the Mark X, it basically comes off looking like a larger scale 420. I quite like the 420, but I can’t say it’s better proportioned than the Mark X(420G).
The XJs are way more subtle to me, somehow I never noticed the variations until it was pointed out, the wheelbase jumps out at me the most oddly, but for the longest time I just assumed any difference in roofline was just dependent on viewing angle.
Egg shaped is how I’d describe it too, I think the shape flows perfect as is, the debate in space utilization is another matter entirely, but on an aesthetic level I don’t see the raised and reproportioned roof an improvement, it’s too much like the S-type and 420 with the same style drooping trunk. Unlike those however feel like the X would look really awkward from certain angles since there’s so much girth in the body sides compared to the smaller more slab sided S/420.
…
Haha! And even here, Herge(?) has improved reality by putting the bigger front wheels further outboard, reducing the sill height a bit, shortening the gap from front door to front wheel and making the face narrower and less flat than it is. Interestingly, the roof height’s round about correct, yet the whole is better with the other changes he’s made.
Bah, the only criticism I can muster for the unaltered Mark X is the rocker sills are too high. I’ve never had the privilege of getting into one unfortunately, but I feel my 5’8” frame would find the ingress/egress from the high sills more inconvenient than roof height. To my eyes the taller roof makes it look fat.
I never knew the Mark III roof was tweaked by Pininfarina until the other day, now I know why I find them so boring to look at 🙂
+1 mkIII
Yet for others – including this other – the Series 3 is the most successful update of a car in history, as it took a beautiful car and made it better.
Hey, I’m quite comfortable with the fact that my tastes don’t often align with the masses. I even like the XJS more than the E- type!
I don’t dislike the III, but it has more of a generic euro sport sedan vibe to it than its I&II predecessors, think BMW, Alfa, Fiat, Audi, etc. and I never could quite narrow down what it was until this roofline change was pointed out, that’s it. It’s an attractive roofline, I have my opinions on Pininfarina, but it’s never been that they design unattractive things, but is the roof Jaguar or Pininfarina? Pininfarina doesn’t trump Jaguar, they’re like interior designer who insists on decorating your Victorian house with modern art and furnishings. They made it work as a good designer does, but it’s lacking the full charm that attracted it me to it in the first place
And of course it sold better, boxy airy greenhouse and more black plastic in place of chrome made it more like the modern German cars yuppies devoured during the 80s, previous Jaguars strictly died in the wool British aesthetics were about as passé as American aesthetics.
Hey Matt, I’m a bit of a contrarian too when it comes to some Jaguar designs. I genuinely love the XJ-S, which many seem to dislike. And I love the XJ40-series XJs. Yes, rectangular headlights and all.
Even when a Jaguar doesn’t fall onto the “most beautiful/iconic Jaguars ever” list, I still tend to be a fan. I guess their design language just speaks to me.
A deadly sin, but for the fact that Jaguar didn’t actually die. I also think the fact that Mercedes became much more expensive than Jaguar increased Mercedes’ perceived value/snob appeal. This ultimately led to Mercedes’ success.
Jaguar merged with BMH (British Motor Holdings) in 1965, thus losing its independence. That was hardly a sign of its financial strength at the time. And it directly corresponds to the time when the Mk X failed on the market. Given the strong dollar ta the time, US sales were critical to the British manufacturers, especially the expensive ones like Jaguar. I would say that having to merge out of necessity is a death of sorts.
Mercedes offered a full range of cars in the US, starting with the 200/220/240 Diesel, which were well below a Jaguar. In fact, in about 1980, the XJ6 was priced almost the same as the S Class Mercedes (300S).
There were those in BMH/BLMC who would say Jaguar still had too much independence after the merger; certainly the XJ effectively ended the big Rover replacement (P8) programme and Lyons would fight his corner very strongly. There was a brief interregnum (1984-90) under Sir Peter Egan when Jaguar was taken out of BL and floated on the London Stock Exchange, which was successful enough to get Ford to buy them out a few years later.
Incidentally, as well as Daimler in 1960, Jaguar also bought out Guy Motors in 1961. Guy had a deadly sin all its own, the Wulfranian bus.
If you actually spent a day with a 1971 Jaguar Saloon versus a 1971 Mercedes 280SE you would find Jaguars fit and finish woefully inferior in most every respect. Ask someone who owned both. Mercedes costs become high because of the Mark was strong against the dollar through the 1970s and even so the quality of the Mercedes brand was gaining worldwide attention resulting in Mercedes’ becoming the taxi cab of choice throughout Africa and India and Europe. Did you ever see a Jaguar Taxi?
“It’s important to remember that in the 1950s, Jaguar was the dominant luxury-sporty import in the US, and the big Marks were the equivalent of what the Mercedes S Class would come to be.”
A fine example is this Jaguar Mk VIII in Hitchcock’s Vertigo (1958), driven by the Kim Novak character Madeleine, wife of a wealthy San Francisco shipbuilder. (Photo from IMCDB.)
Heh, I thought “that’s not a very convincing photoshop” then I realized I was looking at the real one 😛
Much improved with the raised roof, but it’s starting to look a bit egg shaped with that drooping trunk.
Yes, the XJ sorted the rear end by adopting something of the E Type/XKE haunches and cutting the bootline vertcially, but that was a late ’60s thing and it took them quite some time to get to that solution.
Regarding height, it was a time of ‘longer, lower, wider’, so perhaps Sir William thought he was giving Americans just what they wanted.
My thoughts exactly. The very low Corvair was a relative failure, the taller Falcon a spectacular success. Amongst the many other factors in that mix, I’d bet there were plenty of showroom attendees who decided they weren’t going to able to live with such a low car. In the luxury segment, even the lower and wider vogue never put the rich into MKX lowness (or even that perceived/actual wideness), so Sir William misjudged the tastes of a foreign country by giving an excess of what he thought they wanted.
And as has been pointed out here before, it turns out there plenty of Americans in all segments who were never too thrilled with the impracticalities of each year’s increasing wideness and decreasing height.
The Mark X should have also received a V8 whether the unbuilt 280-290+ hp 5-litre Daimler V8 (along with possibly the 220 hp 4.5-litre version that in reality put out around 260 hp) or an earlier Jaguar developed V8 preceding the V12-derived 60-degree V8.
Can we put in the Daimler 4.5 hemi V8 so it has the go required for its intended market?
I agree that the Mark X was just too big a jump from the traditional styling of the Mark IX. There wasn’t anything that retained heritage from the previous model. The X was of unibody construction that allowed it to be much lower than the body on frame IX. The IX had been in production for nine model years, since 1951, and was due for a change. I guess that Lyons felt that a drastic and complete redo of the style was essential for continued success in the American market. Remember how the 1958 GM models became lower, rounded, and more bloated looking than the slimmer 1955 cars. Just compare the ’55 Chevy against the ’58. These models also lost any styling continuity with previous versions. Remember how Lincoln went to those bizarre, angular, slanted headlamp monstrosities at this exact same time. Perfect or not, I’d say the Jag was better than those. This shows how the manufacturers thought the market was going. Longer, lower, and wider, indeed.
I’ll bet that many Mark VII thru Mark IX drivers impressed their friends by driving a car that looked like a Rolls Royce but cost much less. It may have looked old fashioned, but it looked classy! What did the Mark X resemble? A ten year old Mercury or Hudson. No wonder that they were so unpopular!
During this time the XK 120 thru XK 150 had a very potent performance image, Jaguar having won at Le Mans so many times during the 1950s. The XK engine had a lot of appeal as it was viewed as a sports car engine. The Marks were the luxury cars powered by a Le Mans winning motor. Even if it couldn’t deliver the actual performance it promised, it sure looked great when you opened the hood.
There’s a modern parallel to this. After 2003 Jaguar went to all aluminium construction of their XJ series cars. The bodies became deeper, the belt line higher, and the rear decks shorter and deeper. Many said the cars had become fatter. These transitioned to the even more boxy 2013 models. However they gained more interior and luggage space and lost the more traditional styling cues dating back to the 1960s. Jaguars now resemble their modern competition. Some see this as a loss and not a gain.
hrmph. If I wanted to wear a hat while driving, I’d lower the seat.
With a quick flick of your finger on the electric seat height adjuster. 🙂
hehehe. TBH Paul, I don’t disagree with your appraisal. From an objective perspective, the MkX was a misstep – whereas in the past Lyons had excelled in making the traditional look rakish, here he was attempting the unibody look and it was a relative failure. Where others were moving towards the strictly horizontal, he was still trying to make the curvature thing work and as a result of no separate fenders ended up with a bulbous solution.
The E-type was released the same year, and pointed to the future. That language had been on the cards since the D-type, and it was a lot of trial and error before he was able to translate its low slung hips into an attractive 4-door saloon.
The MkX design was not adequate for market and the greenhouse suggestion you make might have gone some way to alleviating that. But not all the way. It was just out of step where his previous creations had been of their time, albeit nicer-looking than the competition.
Nevertheless, it is an historical anomaly that has ended up being the most supremely handsome Jaguar ever. All I think is missing is a narrow modesty panel underneath the front bumper.
Agree with you 100%, Don.
Not a fan of the XJ6 mkiii either for similar reasons.
Also, Jaguar saloons being described as “cramped” leaves me scratching my head a bit. I have no first-hand experience with the Mk X, but I do have some with the Mk2/420, which are smaller (though admittedly higher roofed) than the Mk X. I thought the cabin quite spacious, but then I’m not very tall. And I’m more used to tiny modern hatchbacks, unlike the typical Jaguar client in 1968.
I realise looks can be deceiving, but from the outside, the Mk X’s interior dimensions seemed ample. They’re pretty close to the 61 Lincoln Continental’s. Are those cramped?
If you were wearing a hat while driving, I’d lower my expectations.
Wow. If I hadn’t read the article I would have assumed the photoshopped “tall” Jag was the real one. After seeing it, the actual article looks quite ill-proportioned.
Stepped away, now looking again and the change is more obvious, and a definite improvement. But to me the bigger problem with these has always been the combination of the bulbous bodysides, the appearance of which is exaggerated by the flat, nearly vertical side glass. If the glass was curved, and the sills just a wee bit further outboard, I bet it would look sooo much better, much like the 61-63 Continentals looked so much less blocky than the 64-65s.
I think this solves half the problem, but the other flaw in the MkX design was the small wheels (14”, could have stayed 15” with the available tires of the time) and low wheelarches relative to the hood and trunk levels. This exacerbates the pudgy appearance. The wheelarch design, of course, was brilliantly solved on the XJ6, particularly in front. Really, the fix for the MkX was the XJ6, only it came 6 years too late.
Ah! Madame X sobers up a little, and raises her slump to more of the posture she once knew from finishing school. It helps a good deal, and the modded Tatra87 side shot has another trick, which is to obscure in shadow another considerable problem area – the gaping rectangular front wheelarch and her invisible little front footsies tucked way, way under her gloomy underbits. (I mean, a rectangle, on a curvy lady. Really!) Now all that is needed is to lipo her hips a bit, tuck her enormous sills under a lot, and remove a neat Issigonis inch or so from down her middle (which would also eliminate the bad case of Camargue Face) and THEN there’d be Dottore A’s supreme Jag. Or maybe most of an XJ6, really.
For the record, I actually fancy the MkX, but it’s always bugged me for its flaws.
It’s dead right that first XJ Jags were too damn low and roomless. I never quite realised how much higher the Series 3 Pininfarina jobbie was. And without all the window fussiness of the original, it’s small wonder it looks the best, nor a wonder that, because it could fit actual people, it sold.
Now, here’s one for the ages. I’ve got some issues with Mr E Type. Apart from the somedays-annoying tram-track wheel placement (again too far under in S1 form) there’s another thing in common with the MkX. His head is the right size, but the windscreen on that is too far back too. Just sayin’…
The Kustom car culture’s influence on Jaguar is an interesting one, there are a lot of kustom car details on the the Mark X, S type, E type and of course the XJ. The resemblance to a 49 Mercury is perhaps not accidental. The XJ takes those styling cues to another level, from exhaust pipes exiting through the rear lower body panel, to the front hinged bonnet with frenched headlight treatment. That chopped roof on the first two series, and the wheel arch flares, all from the kustom cars coming out of Californian garages in the 50’s and 60’s.
I had been perfectly satisfied with the original but see that these improvements could have helped the car. But the real X is like a 59 Cadillac in that it is what it is and folks either like it or they don’t. The car definitely makes a statement.
The Mark X full rounded sides and broad rocker panels reminded me of the Step-Down Hudsons. There is a dose of ‘bathtub’ ’48-’50 Packard and ’49-’51 Nash Airflyte corpulent bulbous figure there as well.
Great suggestion Bernard, I’ll take mine with a Daimler V-8. About that Majestic Major, I figure they needed to build an “upright” car at least for the Royals. But, oh, that backside! Either the junior or senior series 24 Packard tail lights or something similar would look great along with a sharper and larger radius crease along the outer trunk edges. In my opinion, they could have had two good sellers at much less development cost.
In the previous column it was mentioned that the Daimler DS420 Limousine shared the Mark X/420 G’s chassis and engine. I’ve always thought that a shorter wheelbase sedan version of the DS420 would have been a great replacement for the 420 G, while the XJ-6 would have been left to cover the mid-sized market and would have competed with cars like the Mercedes W114 and the BMW E3.
Hmm, a shortened DS420, not a bad idea, and probably more a true Mk.IX replacement in terms of accomodation.
A rough and ready draft drawing. To save costs the front of the Daimler DS420 is used, including the lower half of the front doors. I was considering retaining the full 63.75″ height, but it just didn’t look right. As a new roof would be required anyway and the chrome window frames are not integral to the door I reduced the turret height slightly to 60.5″ (still 6″ more than the Mk.X) and put more rake on the front screen. Wheelbase is back to the standard 120″, width is as the DS420, 77.5″ and overall length is 205″. XJ type haunches are added, giving plenty of boot height and significantly differentiating it from the traditional bustleback of the Daimler.
Thanks for giving us an idea of what a DS420-based big cat might look like.
I’ve always heard that the XJ-6 was originally intended to be replacement for the smaller Mark II, Mark II S-Type and 420 models. I think that something like this was what was intended as replacement for the 420 G, but that they ran out of money.
Interesting concept Bernard! I suppose there would be a market for something that strayed from the usual sedan format of the day – and this definitely does! It still makes a big jump from the MkIX that was 196.5″ long, 73″ wide; I think the width would be a problem in terms of losing sales, the MkX at 76″ was bad enough.
The changes to the MkX in the post do help, but I think there is still far to much curvature in profile (similar to the last M-B CLA). The curves go beyond voluptuous, more like an allergic reaction.
The interiors of the Mark X continued the Jaguar tradition of burl cabinetry everywhere, no safety anything, no ergonomics, and a steering wheel like 1939. Awesome.