I’m going to be in the minority here I’m sure, but the E-type has positively awkward in proportions in this shot. And I don’t think the Ferrari is all that good looking to begin with. If the Jag was a droptop, however…
I agree Ferrari’s no longer do it for me, sure they are special cars but to me they just don’t do it. The Jaguar however, is beyond it’s time and will always stand the test of time (Always).
Keep in mind; this is a 2+2, with a longer wheelbase and a much taller greenhouse. I was shocked the first time I saw one; they ruined the original’s very fine proportions (below).
Fifty-five years ago, the Jag E-Type was the metallic equivalent of a feline. It was the sultriest, most sensual thing on four wheels. Ferraris of the time were not bad-looking, to be sure, but they merely were cars. One needs to think – or have been – in the time to appreciate what a bombshell that cat was on the automotive scene. It was an ergonomic disaster; one didn’t enter one, one shoehorned and contorted oneself into one. (I know, I owned one. The electrical gremlins drove me mad after 18 months.) Once inside, you weren’t IN it, so much as you were WEARING it. Everything fell conveniently within reach, which was fortunate as one hardly could move once inside. All was forgiven, though, once the engine fired up. The sound of that straight-six and 4spd on throttle was utterly intoxicating. Talk about a love/hate relationship…
It was ably matched, in its maiden year (1961) in the USA by the introduction of the new Lincoln Continental. It instantly rendered all Cadillacs and Imperials completely, hopelessly obsolete in its simplicity and elegance of design, and redefined what a high-class automobile should be – both here and in Europe. Just look at what American and European luxury-car competitors looked like, by 1864 or ’65. I’ve owned two 1965s, a sedan and a convertible, and the build quality equals anything made fifty years later. I’ve never driven another car quite like it. I would love to have another after all these years.
As for the Jag, the memories will do. I wouldn’t own another for all of the money in the world.
I guess it goes without saying, my commentary on the Lincoln above regarding its competition should read 1964-’65. (Wouldn’t it be interesting, though, to imagine an 1864 Imperial? Although an 1864 Lincoln would have been more appropriate for President Lincoln’s second inauguration in March of ’65.)
Disclaimer: In all fairness, the E-Type I owned was a 1962 model, and was one of many beaters I owned while in college (1973-77) during my salad days. The Lincolns, those I owned in the 1980s when I was making good money. The Lincolns at 15 years old or more still looked better than anything Detroit was putting out for “luxury cars.”
I ran across an E type at my local Home Depot (home improvement center) a couple of months ago. These cars are really very tiny, made even more obvious in a field of pick ups of course.
Why you would drive one of these to Home Depot certainly still escapes me but there it was.
Update,
Lowes not Home Depot..(same thing).
I found this car at the same Lowes on the same day.
The owner works there and this is a daily driver as I see it all the time.
A long time ago (about 40 years ago IIRC) I remembered watching a couple walking out of a hardware store toward their car with a large aluminum garbage can. Their car, it turned out, was an MGB. I hung around thinking this is going to be interesting to see how they were going to transport that garbage can in that tiny car.
After sizing up the situation for a few minutes, the man instructed the woman to sit in the passenger seat and he placed the can upside down over her head and upper torso and drove away. I wish I had one of those smartphones to capture the scene.
man that E type coupe is one hell of a good looking car. i’d have to say the coupe is nicer and more interesting in shape than the convertible. i find it funny how the 6 cyl cars have eclipsed the v12 ones in price these days.
And no class. Cars like that are bought to be seen in, conspicuously; they aren’t driven at 200mph on public roads (not for long, and not by anybody sane, anyway).
Mind you, both cars are different in concept; the Jaguar is a luxury touring coupe with performance aspirations, the Ferrari is a street legal racecar. The Jaguar with a contemporary Ferrari would have been in the same place. And both cars are about image, though through different means; one is insane performance, the other is performance and civility.
At the end I still don’t see the comparison. But taste is subjective, right? I still prefer flagship luxury sedans.
“Performance aspirations??” Please…Jaguar was the premier English racing marque in the 1950s and ’60s, closely trailed by Lotus and TVR. They virtually owned the prestigious 24 Hours of LeMans in the ’50s, year after year. The Germans, represented mostly by Mercedes-Benz, longed to break that stranglehold. The Italians and French were wannabes at the party. It wasn’t until the 1960s that Ferraris became serious race cars.
Besides, who could visualize John Steed and Emma Peel in a Ferrari? Really….
I have always thought that the XKE looked like a sleek racing car wearing a way too tall greenhouse, and that vertical windsheild looks like it belongs on a cab over truck. The sideways opening rear hatch isn’t very sporting either. It’s too much like a panel truck with only one door. I just never “got” these.
This one is a little misleading, in that one car is front engined and one is mid, which flips the proportions completely around. The larger wheels, tires and brakes are the most roided aspects, but it’s par for the course with supercars now a days.
Having said that though the Ferrari looks like it’s made of polystyrene in comparison to the Jag.
Ah, the continuing saga of the evolving automotive greenhouse,
The current Ferrari has a reduced greenhouse and huge thickened rear haunch (B pillar/elevated rear fender line) giving the proportions of a sumo wrestler dressed as a ballerina.
The Jaguar is light, airy, with very feminine curves, grace with pace, a classic ballerina in proportions
While the beltline has most definitely elevated, there’s no getting around a huge thickened rear haunch when there’s an engine beneath. It’s really apples and oranges to compare the two, Proportionally Mid-engined Ferraris haven’t changed much from the 70s…
Mid engine designs have used the thickened B or C pillar/rear sail as a styling cliche’ since the 1960’s ( e.g. Mangusta, Bora,Merak, Miura, Boxer, Countach, etc) as a recurrent design theme that isn’t always necessary for hiding the rearward shift in proportions caused by mid engine placement. One of the very first significant modern mid engine design of 1963 predating the Ferrari Dino 206/Dino246 and the Miura was the ATS 2500 GT which made use of an engine cover and a glassy rear deck.
Looks like I’m in the minority, but I think the 2+2 E-Type is the third most beautiful car in the world – behind the convertible E and the regular E coupe of course… 😉
I’m going to be in the minority here I’m sure, but the E-type has positively awkward in proportions in this shot. And I don’t think the Ferrari is all that good looking to begin with. If the Jag was a droptop, however…
I’ll join you. Never have been a big fan of the E-type. It looks like a good car that melted.
cjiguy
I agree Ferrari’s no longer do it for me, sure they are special cars but to me they just don’t do it. The Jaguar however, is beyond it’s time and will always stand the test of time (Always).
The convertible always looked better to me too, the coupe looks like it ran into the back of a tractor trailer without a Mansfield bar.
Keep in mind; this is a 2+2, with a longer wheelbase and a much taller greenhouse. I was shocked the first time I saw one; they ruined the original’s very fine proportions (below).
+1!
+ another!
Fifty-five years ago, the Jag E-Type was the metallic equivalent of a feline. It was the sultriest, most sensual thing on four wheels. Ferraris of the time were not bad-looking, to be sure, but they merely were cars. One needs to think – or have been – in the time to appreciate what a bombshell that cat was on the automotive scene. It was an ergonomic disaster; one didn’t enter one, one shoehorned and contorted oneself into one. (I know, I owned one. The electrical gremlins drove me mad after 18 months.) Once inside, you weren’t IN it, so much as you were WEARING it. Everything fell conveniently within reach, which was fortunate as one hardly could move once inside. All was forgiven, though, once the engine fired up. The sound of that straight-six and 4spd on throttle was utterly intoxicating. Talk about a love/hate relationship…
It was ably matched, in its maiden year (1961) in the USA by the introduction of the new Lincoln Continental. It instantly rendered all Cadillacs and Imperials completely, hopelessly obsolete in its simplicity and elegance of design, and redefined what a high-class automobile should be – both here and in Europe. Just look at what American and European luxury-car competitors looked like, by 1864 or ’65. I’ve owned two 1965s, a sedan and a convertible, and the build quality equals anything made fifty years later. I’ve never driven another car quite like it. I would love to have another after all these years.
As for the Jag, the memories will do. I wouldn’t own another for all of the money in the world.
I guess it goes without saying, my commentary on the Lincoln above regarding its competition should read 1964-’65. (Wouldn’t it be interesting, though, to imagine an 1864 Imperial? Although an 1864 Lincoln would have been more appropriate for President Lincoln’s second inauguration in March of ’65.)
Disclaimer: In all fairness, the E-Type I owned was a 1962 model, and was one of many beaters I owned while in college (1973-77) during my salad days. The Lincolns, those I owned in the 1980s when I was making good money. The Lincolns at 15 years old or more still looked better than anything Detroit was putting out for “luxury cars.”
In the regular non alternate universe, It was possible for Lincoln be driven in an 1864 Studebaker! ?
I ran across an E type at my local Home Depot (home improvement center) a couple of months ago. These cars are really very tiny, made even more obvious in a field of pick ups of course.
Why you would drive one of these to Home Depot certainly still escapes me but there it was.
I did snap a couple of pictures for once.
The other way.
Why at Home Depot?
Update,
Lowes not Home Depot..(same thing).
I found this car at the same Lowes on the same day.
The owner works there and this is a daily driver as I see it all the time.
There it is.
“Why you would drive one of these to Home Depot certainly still escapes me but there it was.”
I’m pretty sure that hood can hold a 4×8 sheet of plywood.
🙂
Searching for Whitworth wrenches?
The Buick is way up in top left of the front view picture trying to photo bomb.
The question is why would you NOT drive the E type to Lowes? Getting lumber is all I can think of.
A long time ago (about 40 years ago IIRC) I remembered watching a couple walking out of a hardware store toward their car with a large aluminum garbage can. Their car, it turned out, was an MGB. I hung around thinking this is going to be interesting to see how they were going to transport that garbage can in that tiny car.
After sizing up the situation for a few minutes, the man instructed the woman to sit in the passenger seat and he placed the can upside down over her head and upper torso and drove away. I wish I had one of those smartphones to capture the scene.
Well, at least we know where the drug kingpins shop.
😉
man that E type coupe is one hell of a good looking car. i’d have to say the coupe is nicer and more interesting in shape than the convertible. i find it funny how the 6 cyl cars have eclipsed the v12 ones in price these days.
I don’t see it. They look similar in length, and the Ferrari is designed for maximum aerodynamics; it has function true bloatmobiles do not.
And no class. Cars like that are bought to be seen in, conspicuously; they aren’t driven at 200mph on public roads (not for long, and not by anybody sane, anyway).
Mind you, both cars are different in concept; the Jaguar is a luxury touring coupe with performance aspirations, the Ferrari is a street legal racecar. The Jaguar with a contemporary Ferrari would have been in the same place. And both cars are about image, though through different means; one is insane performance, the other is performance and civility.
At the end I still don’t see the comparison. But taste is subjective, right? I still prefer flagship luxury sedans.
“Performance aspirations??” Please…Jaguar was the premier English racing marque in the 1950s and ’60s, closely trailed by Lotus and TVR. They virtually owned the prestigious 24 Hours of LeMans in the ’50s, year after year. The Germans, represented mostly by Mercedes-Benz, longed to break that stranglehold. The Italians and French were wannabes at the party. It wasn’t until the 1960s that Ferraris became serious race cars.
Besides, who could visualize John Steed and Emma Peel in a Ferrari? Really….
I have always thought that the XKE looked like a sleek racing car wearing a way too tall greenhouse, and that vertical windsheild looks like it belongs on a cab over truck. The sideways opening rear hatch isn’t very sporting either. It’s too much like a panel truck with only one door. I just never “got” these.
This is a 2+2, not the original coupe, which had a smaller and lower greenhouse. The 2+2 has been panned since the day it arrived.
I always wondered why some of them look good while others just didn’t. Thanks.
I remember the first time I got a good look at an XKE coupe, I was shocked at how small they are. They really do look bigger in photos.
The big difference in size between the two cars is the wheels.
That Jag looks like the ungainly 2 + 2 to me, not the regular E-type coupe that is so much better proportioned.
It is interesting how the Jag pushes all of the visual weight to the rear while the Ferrari does the opposite.
Yes, it’s a 2+2…. never cared for them. Late Series 1 is my first choice.
This one is a little misleading, in that one car is front engined and one is mid, which flips the proportions completely around. The larger wheels, tires and brakes are the most roided aspects, but it’s par for the course with supercars now a days.
Having said that though the Ferrari looks like it’s made of polystyrene in comparison to the Jag.
Hot tamales!! They are eye candy and together it boarders on overload.
Am I the only one digging on the details of the late Art Deco/Early Moderne building behind the Jag?…..Probably …
The owners are probably celebrating the fact that Dow jons has passed 20k points
In Australia? Not likely. Anyway, it’s under 20k again.
Ah, the continuing saga of the evolving automotive greenhouse,
The current Ferrari has a reduced greenhouse and huge thickened rear haunch (B pillar/elevated rear fender line) giving the proportions of a sumo wrestler dressed as a ballerina.
The Jaguar is light, airy, with very feminine curves, grace with pace, a classic ballerina in proportions
While the beltline has most definitely elevated, there’s no getting around a huge thickened rear haunch when there’s an engine beneath. It’s really apples and oranges to compare the two, Proportionally Mid-engined Ferraris haven’t changed much from the 70s…
Mid engine designs have used the thickened B or C pillar/rear sail as a styling cliche’ since the 1960’s ( e.g. Mangusta, Bora,Merak, Miura, Boxer, Countach, etc) as a recurrent design theme that isn’t always necessary for hiding the rearward shift in proportions caused by mid engine placement. One of the very first significant modern mid engine design of 1963 predating the Ferrari Dino 206/Dino246 and the Miura was the ATS 2500 GT which made use of an engine cover and a glassy rear deck.
In comparison to the Ferrari, the Jaguar has the sensual proportions of a classical ballerina.
Love both, but ultimately am just sad that I could never hope to afford the neighborhood…
Looks like I’m in the minority, but I think the 2+2 E-Type is the third most beautiful car in the world – behind the convertible E and the regular E coupe of course… 😉
Don, your photo has given me many laughs comparing the blocky look of the Ferrari with the sensual, ballerina-like Jag. LOL.
Here is another similar comparison. Hope it gives all CC’ers some smiles.
???