When in Provence last August, I did not find a Jaguar Mark 2 (though it will have its day on CC, promised!). Instead, I happened upon something even better: the Daimler version. Although deference and respect are due to the venerable and race-proven XK straight-6, the Daimler V8 was probably a superior motor. Which might be why it was killed off rather quickly.
We’ve gone into the long, sordid death spiral of BSA-Daimler in some detail a while back. The only thing that was really salvageable from that disaster was arguably a state-of-the-art V8 engine the marque created and put in production in the spring of 1959, just about a year before Jaguar “rescued” Daimler.
It was actually a pair of hemi-headed V8s, one small (2.5 litres, 140hp) and one relatively large (4.5 litres, 220hp), both devised by BSA’s Edward Turner and his deputy Jack Wickes. The big engine was obviously a natural fit for Daimler’s ever-present limos; the small V8 was slated to be put in a GRP-bodied roadster set to conquer the US market. Said roadster, the SP-250, was a great machine thanks to its engine, but it also was one of the ugliest British cars of the postwar era. Which is saying something. Certainly, Jaguar CEO and head stylist Sir William Lyons thought it was unworthy. And he was the boss now.
The solution was to bring together Daimler’s brawn and Jaguar’s grace to form the ideal deluxe sports saloon. XK engine production was maxed out in any case, so the small Daimler V8 would have to be around for some time and earn its keep. The decision to press ahead with the V8-powered Mark 2 was taken in February 1962; the launch of the new small Daimler took place later that year at the London Motor Show, but production and sales really only started in early 1963.
So how was the Daimler different from its Jaguar cousin? On the surface, both cars looked very similar. The fluted grille and boot trim were the easiest tell-tales, aside from badges and the lack of leaper at the front. Daimlers got full leather upholstery and chrome wheel trim as a default, whereas Jaguars had those at extra cost.
The major difference was the engine, of course. The Daimler V8 was quite a bit lighter than the smallest (2.4 litre) Jaguar straight-6 while bringing an extra 20hp to the table. Initially, the Daimler was only available with the Borg-Warner 35 transmission, so the extra power was somewhat sapped by the torque converter, but period tests all claimed that the Daimler was able to out-handle the Jaguar due to its lighter nose and better acceleration. Not to mention the V8 was a lot quieter, to boot.
The small Daimler sold well. Definitely much better than the 4.5 litre Majestic Major, which was 100% Daimler – styling included. Just over 2000 of the big V8 cars were made (saloon and LWB limousine) by the time production stopped in early 1968. Jaguar did try putting the 4.5 in a Mark X Jag, just out of curiosity. It made the bulging four-door run faster than the standard E-Type! Orders were nevertheless given to abandon any further work on the V8 and focus on getting the Jaguar V12 to the finishing line instead. The Daimler V8, brilliant though it was, was a cuckoo in Jaguar’s nest.
The small Daimler’s price gradually crept up as the decade went on, so that it became the most expensive of the Mark 2s – a market position that made some sense, were it not for the fact that the Jaguars could be had with much larger (3.4 and 3.8 litre) engines. In late 1967, the range was given a thorough shakeup and facelift: the 3.8 litre and the Mark 2 name were dropped, leaving the Jaguars to be represented by the 240 and 340. The Daimler 2.5 litre became the V8-250.
The facelift consisted mainly in much thinner bumpers, which looked a lot more refined than the chunky ones that were there before. The Jaguars also lost their in-board fog lamps in the event, but the Daimler did not. Mechanically, the cars did not evolve, save for the Daimler being now available with a 4-speed manual (with overdrive) transmission. Most Daimler clients still preferred the Borg-Warner 3-speed, as our feature car also shows.
Inside, the main difference with older models was the appearance of padding on the dash and the door caps. This was all wood veneer previously – a trade-off for the nicer bumpers, perhaps?
Some have criticised the Mark 2 cabin as being excessively cramped. Having had seat time both up front and in the rear, I can attest that these are perfectly fine cars to spend a long time in, comfort-wise. Admittedly, were I a foot taller, things might be different and I’m sure a Marx X has lots more elbow room. But this is a great place to be in, especially given that the design dates back to the mid-‘50s. Let’s have a look at what else could be bought at the time, though.
As we can see, the Daimler (and Jaguar) were not the only ‘50s cars still available a decade on. I tried finding prices that include automatic transmission, given that the Dailmer had it sort of by default. This adds about £100-150 to the price in most cases, but some cars like the Zodiac or the Princess also had it as standard. All in all, the Daimler was still damn good value for money, even as it entered turned the last corner of its production run.
The last Daimler V8-250s were sold by the summer of 1969, as the Mark 2 body shell was finally put to rest. Nothing really replaced the Mark 2 in either the Jaguar or the Daimler range, except if the 2.8 litre XJ6 / Sovereign can be considered as a successor (which it isn’t, by most people). The V8 engine was quietly taken out and shot, officially by order of BL boss Donald Stokes and for cost-saving reasons. At the same time, the first units of the infamous Triumph V8 were being assembled. “Cost-saving” indeed.
With 13,000 first series cars (1962-67) and just under 5000 of the 1967-69 V8-250s, this was the most successful Daimler model ever made. The smoothness and (compared to the XK) reliability of the V8 made this a very enticing proposition to many, especially when combined with the Mark 2’s excellent styling. This probably makes it the best Daimler and, arguably, the best Mark 2. Best of both kinds.
And it’s the perfect vehicle for a spot of long-range motoring on the Continent, too.
When is a Jaguar not a Jaguar? When it’s got an engine at least 15 years newer in design and an engine block more like 25 years younger.
I know the XK motor is much ballyhooed, and in super-tuned, blueprint-build and modified form, the lovely thing could win Le Mans. But on the street (whence it usually left a good trace of its fluids), long-stroke, and mass-made, it was inordinately heavy by the ’60’s, and perhaps not nearly as reliable as price and general status might’ve suggested. Hardly a dog of an engine, it also wasn’t as up-to-date as the twin-cam spec suggested.
The Turner V8, on the other hand, was. All alloy, hemi-headed, able to do nearly 7K revs if you must, it was simply a better mousetrap as a consumer product than the understandably-vaunted Jag engine. It is plain silly that it didn’t become the new Jaguar engine once Jag had bought BSA.
Anyway, all that speculative nonsense aside, you have caught the Mk2 fish I require most, Prof T. Colour, 240-ness (those bumpers), the lot, excepting my final request of the 4-speed o/d (of which I think about 3-400 only were ever sold). Great catch.
Btw, the door-top lack of woodies was part of the 240/340 (no 380) de-contenting. The poor old Jag versions had vinyl seats as standard!
Minor detail: the block was cast iron.
Among other factors, production facilities were a key factor: Jaguar’s extensive engine facilities were of course set up for the six, and Daimler’s engine building facilities were quite limited. There was no way to build the V8 in large quantities and the investment to do so would have been vast and made Jag’s six cylinder facilities obsolete.
Such is the painful reality of car manufacturing.
Yes, the sunk cost aspects and relative production capacities only occurred to me after posting: they’re pretty obvious really. I think I just have a bias towards the V8. There was one locally, with a very enthusiastic owner, and it was just such a beautiful-sounding (and terrific-looking) engine.
I did not realize until you pointed it out that the V8 was iron-blocked.
In the chart a Jaguar was more powerful and cheaper, during the golden age of the marque. Not a good thing for Daimler.
Sure, that’s why I made sure to include it in the chart: Jaguars were incredible value for money. That was the secret of their success. But the 340 was a lot to handle compared to the Daimler, so it would be ahead in a straight line, but not necessarily on a twisty road.
My neighbour is British. He has a nice medium blue one in his garage. I always thought, it was just a kind of “better” Jaguar. Now I know, it is something rather different.
Learnig every day – thanks to CC.
It all depends on perception. Certainly, British buyers later demonstrated a profound willingness to pay more for a stripped, less-powerful prestige saloon than a high-end car from a more quotidian brand (especially one that was neither British or German), which eventually killed E-segment cars like the Ford Scorpio and eventually also the D-segment.
Styling makes the controversial ’96 Taurus design, appear relatively conventional.
Undoubtedly the Turner 2.5 V8 was a sweet motor, and the V8 250 was certainly a better Jaguar 240, but this was really only applicable to the UK and Europe. I don’t have the stats at hand, but Jaguar was of course heavily dependent on the US market, and was the biggest selling premium/luxury import brand in the US until Mercedes snatched that away.
In the US, the Jaguar 3.4 engine was the smallest one on offer, and later ones even had the 3.8. Americans favored torque, and the long stroke Jag six churned out lots of that, unlike the 2.5 V8, whose only weakness was a lack of torque due to so many cylinders from such a small displacement. That’s precisely why no one else built a V8 that small; for any given displacement, an engine with fewer cylinders generally will generate more torque lower down the rpm band.
I suppose one could argue that Mercedes did just fine in the US with its small sixes, but the Jaguar mystique was already built upon the foundation of larger sixes with a heft torque band. This critical large export market alone sealed the 2.5 V8’s fate.
The 4.5 had plenty of torque, though. I don’t have them to hand, but I remember noticing that the performance figures for those taxi-like DS (?) limos, though bluff-fronted and weighing more than a mountain, were amazing, as in 60 in 9 secs and 125 mph top-end.
As you note above, just not economic to scale up the V8 for US-levels of sales across the Jag range. Plus a smidge of NIH, I’m sure.
“Plus a smidge of NIH” – indeed. The sensible thing to do would have been to use the Mk X’ architecture to make a replacement for the Majestic Major until the V12 was ready but the big block Daimler was an embarrassment to the XK – in reality a prewar design which ought to have been pensioned off by the early 60s. My understanding, based on talking to people who owned Majestic Majors in the UK as well as some mag articles, is that the BBD had much more than the advertised 220 hp, 250-260 was closer to the truth – and this was at an early development stage. To me it looks like an easy 300 hp engine with a bit of work and 450 in racing trim. It is, after all, a hemi. Shame.
From what I’ve read, while the 4.5 powered prototype Jag X had a higher top speed, the 4.2 X accelerated quicker, at least up to typical driving speeds.
Don’t get me wrong; these V8s are lovely motors. But I also have a thing for big sixes.
In the 70s and early ’80s, auto, motor und sport had a real soft spot for the XJ6, precisely because of its big six with gobs of low end torque, which was such a contrast to the little German sixes and V8s.
This article has been up long enough to not have overlooked this comparatively small V-8’s successes in drag racing, by now:
[video]https://youtu.be/QM7pPgo-HjI[/video] [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf3vyAuFpQg[/video]
Frazer-Nash BMW 2002? I feel I’m missing the joke here.
I would love to see a comparison of the 4.5 liter Daimler V-8 and the later Mercedes 4.5 V-8 by someone with access to both. Not very likely, alas! It always seemed to me that the Daimler 4.5 would have been popular in the USA, in the right car (which the Majestic Major was not.)
I know, the Frazer-Nash thing is hilarious, isn’t it? But true. That’s how these were still marketed and badged in the UK at the time.
Amazing! Even the badges, holy cow!
Prof. Tatra, I love these features where you research the market positioning of the car you’re talking about. But some of those prices seem insane! Not faulting your research, but those period anomalies you turned up.
Whoever would have bought a 3 litre Zodiac Executive at £160 more than a Jaguar 340? No contest! Or a Vauxhall Viscount for £180 more than a Wolseley? Or for that matter, an Austin 3 litre when the olde-style Wolseley was almost £400 cheaper? Seems like BL were either selling their prestige cars too cheaply, or the others were charging up to what they thought the market could stand.
And yes, I too had to smile at Frazer-Nash BMW. When did BMW stand on its own two feet in Britain without the oh-so-British wartime-era camouflage?
Final thought – imagine if, instead of closing down Daimler V8 production in favour of the Stag V8, they’d put the Daimler V8 in the Stag – and hey, why not in the Triumph sedans too? So much good stuff in the parts bins that they never put together…
FWIW (obviously not very much) the Wolseley was a genuine antique by 1968. I’m surprised they could even sell any at that price. Suddenly its 1958!
Yes. Apparently 1968 was its last year. Maybe that’s why it was so cheap, management forgot it was still in production and hadn’t revised the price since ’58? It should have been replaced a good five years earlier, but hey, that was BMC. Either obsolete yestertech or full Issigonis futurism. While Ford basked in the middle ground, raking in the profits.
Not sure the Mk IV Zodiac yielded that much in terms of profit, as Ford sold fewer than 50,000 between 1967 and 1972 – Executives included (one should add about 100k of the 4-powered Zephyr to that, to be fair). The IRS was especially criticised for having been rather underdeveloped by Dagenham, and the looks of the car were a bit polarizing.
The Austin 3 Litre is a well-known turkey, of course. BMC cocked it up when they should have done a Farina saloon for the 70s, with a sporty 4cyl and a new 6cyl, in base Morris trim and in fancy-shmancy VdP guise, blah blah… Instead, they made a horrid RWD giant saloon out of a FWD bodyshell with the least appealing marque and a tired engine, when they could have used the Daimler V8 (for instance)… BMC/BL, what a waste.
Well, if FoE was making money on the four-cylinder Zephyr, they probably didn’t have to make too much extra on the six-cylinder Zodiac for that to be counted among the gravy, particularly since the Essex engine family was used in a variety of models in four- and six-cylinder forms (in addition to however many Dagenham sold to kit car builders or small manufacturers like Reliant).
I assume the rationale of the 3 Litre, if one may dignify the turkey with that much stuffing, was to help pay off the cost of updating the ancient C-series six in the (vain) hope) of bringing its weight down to a more manageable level. That in turn was probably driven by the desire to avoid completely scrapping or retooling the line on which the C-series engine was built, although it was a Pyrrhic effort at best.
150,000 isn’t that many when you consider that it was basically an all-new design with practically no carry over from the previous big Fords. Sounded great on paper: compact V engines, all independent suspension, all-round disc brakes but somehow much less than the sum of its parts. Luckily they were coining it with their Transit vans, Anglias, Escorts, Cortinas and Capris.
I was certainly aware of this model, but I did not realize that the engine was such a good modern design. Over the years I have seen several of the SP250s, and they are weird but wonderful. My wife grew up north of Montreal and her high school math teacher, who lived near them, drove one. She is not a car person, but she remembers it.
I do love the Daimler grille.
Were the electrics from Lucas?
Though I like the Daimler – gimme the Rover, please !
“Plus a smidge of NIH” pretty much sums up most of the engineering, manufacturing and marketing decisions made by British Leyland. It’s what happens when a commercial vehicle manufacturer -Leyland buys failing small car manufacturers -Standard Triumph and Rover and then puts the management and engineers from those failing companies in charge of another failing but much larger car manufacturer -BMH.
It’s nit picking, but not all of the 12 selected cars would have been on sale at the same time, the Austin 3 litre was famously not made for a year after it’s introduction (why they bothered at all is a mystery, and Issigonis can’t be blamed for it). It was supposed to replace the Wolseley and Vanden Plas -aka Harrimans folly.
I doubt anybody bought the Fiat (in the UK anyway) Ford or Vauxhall, but the top brass at Ford and GM had to drive something. Maybe fleet managers got a free Zodiac with every 50 Cortinas.
Some people did like cars like the Wolseley. It was called class snobbery then, status conscious now that all our wealthy drive the German big three or Range Rovers.
The Jaguar Mk2 and it’s lookalikes were gangsters cars and not quite respectable. As well as having been made for long enough for everyone to know how rust prone and expensive to maintain they were. Those bargain prices were due to cheap components.
A friend of my dad’s didn’t know what to buy to replace his Farina Wolseley, the new breed of executive cars were all too small. I think a lot of people bought Volvo instead.
You raise some interesting points Hummel.
Not Invented Here – for sure! What a curse that attitude is. Down here in Australia our shoestring operation was continually coming up with good ideas that BMC/BL management put the kibosh on. They grudgingly agreed that our “impossible!” 1622cc enlargement of the B-series was A Good Thing (and used it), allowed us our 2433cc B-series six – but never used it themselves, even though the MGB for one was crying out for it. We weren’t allowed to widen the small Farina shell to make it competitive, and the Tasman/Kimberley update for the 1800/2200 cars was not picked up. To name a few.
From outside the UK it can be hard (for me, anyway) to understand the degree to which that class snobbery was permeating British society; notably the degree to which management was ‘upper class’ and how that influenced their business decisions. It seems the more successful British companies (Ford) didn’t subscribe to this, or is that my convict ancestry speaking?
And the Volvo would be an excellent fit to replace the big Wolseley.
“And the Volvo would be an excellent fit to replace the big Wolseley.”
It seems the Wolseley inspired Wilsgaard’s Volvo 164 front end.
Upps, I meant the VandenPlas. Please, excuse me (blush) !
Midsommar you are so right.
I think you deserve some sort of prize for being able to tell the BMC Farinas apart.
Interesting points Peter.
It must have been so frustrating to work for, or be a customer of, a subsidiary of an English company based outside England. I can’t remember when the attitude changed from ‘We know best’ to worshipping at the alter of German engineering, but there are still a lot of ‘Little Englanders’ here unfortunately.
I think the Silver Streak 6 cylinder B engine wasn’t used mainly because of NIH. Some vested interests were determined to make the Morris C series 6 work, even though it was always overweight.
With the Tasman/Kimberley I think they had given up on the ADO17 by the 70s and went for a complete reskin.
There was a big difference between what the British and Australian car buyer wanted in the 60s, Chrysler found this out the hard way when they tried to sell the Australian Valiant in Britain.
With regard to class and labour relations, the management of the car companies were actually aspiring to the title and the big country house they weren’t from that background.
And unfortunately Fords management weren’t any better. There is a feature film ‘Made in Dagenham’ (2010) about it.
Interesting engines. Hemispherical 2 valve aluminum head. OHV, 70 degree included valve angle. One rocker shaft for intake and another for exhaust. Chain driven camshaft. Cast iron block. Both the 2.5 liter and the 4.5 liter had the same bore centers. Weight of the 2.5 was 419 lbs, and the 4.5 was 498 lbs. Unknown if the engines were equipped similarly when weighed. 2.5 liter bore was 76mm x 70mm stroke. 4.5 liter bore was 95.25mm, stroke was 80mm. Both had cruciform crankshafts.
It seems to me that an OHV V6 for the 2.5 liter would have been more successful. Too early in V6 development?