The XJ-S was something of a shock for those Jaguar fans expecting a more direct successor to the legendary XK-E. Instead, the XJ-S was a plush coupe built of the XJ sedan’s platform, and emphasized comfort and luxury. Well, it was the Great Brougham Era, and the only thing missing were opera windows. And this Jag certainly wasn’t the doing of Sir William Lyons.
That’s a bit harsh, but the styling of the XJ-S was polarizing (at best), and a colossal let-down for the rest. Fussy, inconsistent, and lacking an organic theme. Uninspired is another way to put it. But it had its fans, and it has its charms.
In terms of its drive train, rarely has a brilliant V12 engine ever been so hamstrung by a clumsy automatic. The British-built BW Model 12 had no part-throttle kick-down, which is almost unthinkable from a modern perspective. And it upshifted well below the V12’s 6500 rpm redline. With manual shifting, one could glean the benefits of the V12’s 244 horses, but what’s the point of an automatic if it has to be shifted? R&T rightfully wonders how much more pleasant a modern Detroit automatic would be in its place.
R&T rightfully points out that this was the first new Jaguar designed and built after the retirement of Sir William Lyons. Jaguar was now in the ownership of BL, as well as the government. And if ever a car reflected committee-think, the XJ-S certainly did. The review ends with the plaintive “Sir William, where are you when we need a replacement for the E-Type?”
I considered this car a huge disappointment….then and today.
The car this one replaced was sex-on-wheels.
The new car reminded me a Las Vegas lounge singer gone to seed.
P. S. Yet another well written and thoroughly researched article by Paul Niedermeyer.
I’ve always found the Jaguar automatic transmissions of this car’s time period (and before) to be clumsy and inept. “Hand shifting” became a habit whenever I drove a Jaguar.
I still love the XJS. Long hood, long doors, and tunneled backlight make this a lot more “Charger” than “XKE.” The British are sometimes prone to accidentally build an American car, and I often like it when they do. Rover SD1 is another example.
I never thought of it that way, but by golly, you are correct. As an accidental American car, it really explains a lot. Overpowered, but with a flaw that makes the power unusable for most purposes (US cars had handling issues, this one had shifting issues, but the end result was the same). A choice of sport or luxury, but not both, as fit and finish often are lacking in American cars, and this British version lacked the expected handling of a sports car like the E-Type. It was probably more brougham than any American car of the day, really.
+1. This car was misunderstood when new. I didn’t understand it. When E-type production wound down we naturally expected a replacement, carrying on that strong sporting/racing tradition from XK days. We expected knockout styling, as that pretty much defined what Jaguar was in the public eye.
Jaguar management of the time did not seem to realize this is what the public (even non-car folk) were looking for, and instead they gave us this. It appeared to be another Leyland mistake, and the E-type went unreplaced.
If it had been an addition to the range, instead of appearing as an E-type replacement, I wonder if it would have fared better? Or was its release simply a public relations disaster that might have been handled better? To me at the time it looked like Jaguar had sold out, and I lost interest in them for decades.
The car was a long time in development and was designed specifically to meet US crash regulations, actual and expected – so what happened? Well it produced a very US style car. The detailing is a bit crass – prototypes had more delicate detailing – including chrome bumpers and grille. But – if you buy one they are still fun and do still go quickly. Inside they are of their era but the seats and detailing are quite special. The car was a GT in the true sense of being a grand tourer. Oh and the E-type wasn’t really selling at the end as the market changed to closed cars.
The handling is good – certainly well above average. The only downsides are reliability ( but hey no worse than a Ferrari) and fuel consumption.
The XJS was misunderstood by the press and the public. It was never meant as a successor of the E-type, which was a sexy car (as series 1) but, how Mark pointed out, a no seller at the end. And the for Jaguar important US market was changing to more luxurious than sporty cars. But I´m not sure if William Lyons really wasn´t involved in the developement of the XJS. He retired in 1972, but the developement of the XJS began in 1968.
In the UK, the fastest cars on the road in the 70’s and 80s were the XJ12 and XJS, and by quite a margin, I remember driving at 95mph and an XSJ simply shot by like I was standing still
Was not so fond of the XJS look back then but think they have aged well and are sought after now,
A work colleague recently sold his tuned 6 litre V12 TWR XJS, my god that was probably the fastest car I have ridden in, but the spoilers were a bit much for my taste
I would consider one of the later face lifted 4 litre 6 cylinder models, plenty of performance , a bullet proof engine and reasonable fuel consumption
I totally loved this car when it was introduced. It seemed very modern to me at the time, right in line with the new Concorde. But I suppose that tunneled backlight really brought back fond memories of a friend’s new 66 Pontiac Lemans coupe. As a 60’s Thunderbird fan, I was more into luxury than sport so the XJ-S, along with the XJ sedan, were my dream cars in the 70s, especially because American cars were getting too big. I well remember loving the example Jane Fonda and George Segal drove in the first Fun with Dick and Jane movie.
That was a great film!
Jane: “Interesting that the only two jobs you think I am qualified for are a secretary and a prostitute.”
Dick: “You’re not qualified to be a secretary!”
Interesting comments on the B-W automatic, a customer at a garage I worked at in the ’80s had one of these and it had a GM Turbo 400. A quick Google shows that after ’77 they made the change. Maybe someone in the UK read the article?
The car wasn’t a real maintenance pig but it sure was a regular sight at the pump island.
The guy said it wasn’t really all that fast either.
So, Jaguar’s Mustang II except that it lasted almost as long as the MII and Foxbody put together?
The XJS was essentially a land based executive jet. In the 1979 running of the Cannonball Baker, Sea to Shining Sea event, a totally stock 1979 XJS driven by Dave Heinz and Dale Yarborough set the lowest time ever, of 32 hours, 51 minutes. This was driving over public roads from the Red Ball garage in Manhattan NYC to the Portofino Inn in Los Angeles. The XJS was capable of cruising at 130 mph. and they averaged 91.5 mph. over the distance.
This was the kind of driving that the XJS was designed for. It was very fast and comfortable over long distances. The cars were later updated to the HE (high efficiency) motor with 11:1 compression which raised the horse power and fuel mileage. These cars also had the GM Turbo 400 transmission fitted. The exact same tranny used in the Corvette, Cadillac, and every large motor equipped GM muscle car.
It is true that Jaguar found themselves with a two hundred car surplus that they stored at a local airstrip near the factory. The E Type had been around since 1961, and was now seen as old hat. The Jensen Interceptor had been introduced at the end of the 1960’s and it marked the new direction that high performance luxury GT cars were headed. I’m sure that it stole a ton of sales from the Jaguar.
My own XJS has been treated to a new tranny and some other repairs are needed before it will be back in full service. Things are moving along as time and funds allow. It’s now at the point that I can drive it to work every couple of weeks. It’s a pretty amazing car and it gets a lot of interest. It really doesn’t look like anything else on the road. The XJS was styled in-house, and you can see that there is an Italian GT car influence in the styling, which it shares with the Jensen, which was designed by Touring. It seems that the XJS is finally receiving the appreciation that it deserves.
Yeah, I remember being shocked and awed and not in a good way when these came out.
Its successor XK8 sort of picked up a bit of XKE style. I think the XK8 is probably similar deep down and also heavy with not much room inside compared to the size of the car. But I always thought they were pretty nice. Added anglophile bonus: the shape of the dashboard was inspired by the Spitfire wing shape.
XJ8 Spitfire wing dashboard:
I’ve always found the XJS to be my favorite Jaguar. For the longest time, it was the only one I liked. Now, I still like it, and I guess, I would like to drive a V12 model someday.
For the longest time this car lived in the shadow of the E-Type because it wasn’t deemed a proper successor, now though, after 22 years since it was discontinued, people have started to appreciate it on its own merits. If anything, I think this car was more in line with Jaguar’s image at the time, and that the whole “sporty” image cultivated by the E-Type was more a flash in the pan. Jaguar’s image has been a blend of comfort and performance, until the F-Type, they never made a true sports car for a long time. Sure there’s been stuff like the R series cars and the XJ220, but the image of luxury is what Jaguar has always been associated with. In that respect, I would argue the XJS is more fitting for the company than the E-Type.
Also, I would be remiss in saying that despite the controversial looks, I prefer the XJS on an aesthetic level to the E-Type. Honestly, I just think the XJS looks like a much more appealing car than the E-Type, which has always looked incredibly awkward to me. (I will admit, I find the Convertible version of the E-Type to look more complete, because of the added length to the back, but even then I still don’t find myself fawning over it as other people.)
I always liked it – especially the shape of the rear window.
Those who hail the E-Type seem to have forgotten to which extent this sleek, raw 60s icon had been “broughamized” in its final years in order to meet the 70s style demands and tastes of the US buyers…including A/C, power windows, automatic tranny and only god knows what other creature comforts.
In that regard the XJS was in fact the logical successor.
A friend and I were leaving a restaurant the other day and across the street was a bright red E-Type. It absolutely captivated my friend, who has no interest in cars. And that’s the thing: the E-Type is almost a universal object of lust. The XJS, in comparison, is an acquired taste.
And yet, while I appreciate the E-Type and understand why people love it so, I have just never lusted after it. An XJ-S, in comparison, has this allure. Perhaps it’s the whole misunderstood underdog thing that tends to draw me to cars.
I will say though, while I used to prefer the post-facelift models (smoked taillights are always a winner for me), I think I now prefer the pre-facelift models.
However, the following two generations of XK are beautiful to me.
I’m going to be the odd one out. I never really liked the XJS styling. Too many of the details (like the side window trim, massive black bumpers, and taillights) looked like something off a test mule. The 1991 facelift was a major improvement. There were many who hoped that this admittedly fat-hipped Pininfarina XJ concept from 1978 would reach production. It was not to be.
I have a very fond spot for these – maybe because I never considered them an XKE replacement. I saw them as a big European GT cruiser (though they didn’t have much interior room, they were much larger and more comfortable than the E-Type).
The styling always worked for me, though I thought the coupe much prettier than the drop top.
The later models with the AJ6 engine is fairly reliable for a Jaguar. Jim.
I always liked the XJS, from the first time I saw it in the “Return of the Saint” TV show when I was eight years old. Interesting the article says the bonnet was too low to accommodate the six-cylinder engine, so was the AJ6 engine it eventually carried from 1984 onward as an option lower than the original XK motor? I got to ride in one as a passenger in 1991 and felt a bit claustrophobic, but I still love its looks, especially in convertible form.
The bonnet on the AJ engined versions was reshaped, the centre panel raised slightly.
Original bonnet: http://www.arden.de/uploads/tx_imagecarousel/Slieder_xjs_roadster_02.jpg
AJ bonnet: https://www.autowereld.nl/I179367042/1280×0/jaguar-xjs-5-3-v12-coupe-5-3-v12-coupe.jpg
I can’t believe it – I have not been to this site for months and when I do there it is, my least favourite car of all times! Long-term readers may recall my earlier tales of woe about a brand new XJS V12 I had back in the 1980’s. Suffice it to say it had no good qualities whatsoever. Styling is a subjective topic but certain aspects of the XJS shape made it horrible for anyone over 6′. Cramped cabin and blind spots all-round. Cheap materials and completely horrible, fragile switchgear from lower range Leyland cars. Zero reliability. I was never confident about reaching any destination – every trip was a lottery. Add to this a dealer network and parent company that could not give a toss about the welfare of their customers and you have the makings of the most dreadful car ownership nightmare imaginable. Horrible by every measure and I very much doubt they will have improved with age!
I’m another who was disappointed by the XJ-S’ styling. I understand that it was based on the XJ-6 and XJ12 sedan chassis. The similar XJ12 C and XJ-6 C were better looking, and I’m surprised they didn’t sell better, although they were only available with ugly Brougham vinyl roofs.
We have a 1987 XJ-SC V12, with a GM (Cadillac) 3 speed gearbox. It shifts nicely, and sounds like an old Caddy.