RogerM

"Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote in message
news:48b497e5$0$94272$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> "RogerM" <rogerm@justrucks.com.au> wrote in message
> news0c47ae7$0$20303$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>
>> The Jag is certainly a very smart "looking" car...always has been. For
>> some reason, there is a minority in here who continue to bag them because
>> of their mechanical side. I was just talking to an owner on Tuesday and
>> he was telling me he has owned Jags for over 40 years and has never had a
>> "bad" one or even any problem at all.
>
> You get that.
>
> Most people who are passionate about a particular marque will tell you all
> kinds of great things about them while ignoring their foibles, even if
> they are many (and you can take my word for it that Jaguar has more than
> most). It's a "grandpa's axe" thing for most of them.
>
You know Nod, this will surprise you as I agree with you, your above par is
so bloody true. For whatever reason, most people tend to say that whatever
they own is the "duck's guts" forgetting whatever problems they have had as
being negligible. I stick up for Ford, yet when I consider when it comes
time to sell it, I'm usually insulted at the loss I make, yet I still
support Ford.

>> I know some are biased towards them just as there are those who are the
>> other way....like in here for example......but I would still own one
>> given the chance.......then again, I would just have to add it to my wish
>> list of other vehicles as well.
>
> There's some wierd and wonderful cars that I'd be happy to own if I had
> the room to store them, but then again there's a heap that I wouldn't as
> well. High on the list of things I'd *never* own would be Jaguar and
> anything Italian.
>
> Simply because they are very, very bad cars with not a lot going for them.

I tend to side with someone who knows first hand from working on them here
and has nothing to gain by giving an honest opinion. However, there is
something about Jag that still stirs me as I believe they are great looking
cars....or should I be saying "were". I just love the '39 SS 2.5.

Here is a site with some beautifully restored Jags on it.

http://www.themarriagecarriagecompany.co.uk/

Roger

>
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.
>

RogerM

"Ron" <dodo@hotmail> wrote in message
news:Xns9B076D20985C9GPS@64.209.0.92...
> "Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote in
> news:48b497e5$0$94272$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net:
>
>>
>> "RogerM" <rogerm@justrucks.com.au> wrote in message
>> news0c47ae7$0$20303$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>
>>> The Jag is certainly a very smart "looking" car...always has been.
>>> For some reason, there is a minority in here who continue to bag them
>>> because of their mechanical side. I was just talking to an owner on
>>> Tuesday and he was telling me he has owned Jags for over 40 years and
>>> has never had a "bad" one or even any problem at all.
>>
>> You get that.
>>
>> Most people who are passionate about a particular marque will tell you
>> all kinds of great things about them while ignoring their foibles,
>> even if they are many (and you can take my word for it that Jaguar has
>> more than most). It's a "grandpa's axe" thing for most of them.
>>
>>> I know some are biased towards them just as there are those who are
>>> the other way....like in here for example......but I would still own
>>> one given the chance.......then again, I would just have to add it to
>>> my wish list of other vehicles as well.
>>
>> There's some wierd and wonderful cars that I'd be happy to own if I
>> had the room to store them, but then again there's a heap that I
>> wouldn't as well. High on the list of things I'd *never* own would be
>> Jaguar and anything Italian.
>>
>> Simply because they are very, very bad cars with not a lot going for
>> them.
>
> More of both on the road than those horrid early, unrefined Foulcans.
>
> Lets have a look at 1961, I assume you were around then?
>
> Ford falcon, 5 and a qtr turns lock to lock steering, drum brakes all
> round, unrefined high revving engine and sloppy suspension unsuited to
> Australian roads. Ball joints were a problem.

I owned a '63 XL fitted with a super pursuit 200cuin motor out of an XP and
yes it was 5 turns lock to lock and it made the steering so bloody light, it
was a miracle I never crashed the bloody thing the way I used to have such a
heavy foot. The guy I sold it to didn't have it for a week before he wrote
it off from sliding on wet road and hitting a pole. Obviously wasn't used to
the 5 turn LTL steering on the **** of a thing.
>
> Holden EK, rough to ride in slow powerless grey motor, got crankshaft
> whip if over revved, drum brakes, terrible seats but able to survive
> Australian roads

Shocking car all right, all round.
>
> Chrysler Valiant, (The USA Plymouth Valiant), good looking car, nice
> ride, gutsy engine push button auto, odd manual gearstick, torsion bar
> front end, so, so brakes.

I had the '65 model AP5 with the push button auto on the dash just after I
got married and it wasn't too bad a car. They did in those days have a
tendency to "fall apart" in an accident though.
>
> Ford Zephyr, reasonable motor, horrid 3 speed manual but good auto.
> Very smooth to ride in until you hit ruts in the road or crassed a
> railway line at an angle, then the front end would "flap". Brakes fair,
> steering good. Door closing was an art.

Are you talking MK3 or Mk 2. My mate had the 4 cyl equivalent with the
Consul and it was a very odd handling car, and gutless as all shit to say
the least.
>
> Jaguar MKII, powerful motor good gearbox, steered well, four wheel disc
> brakes, handled so well they were "raced", lovely to sit and ride in.
>
> Fiat 1500, Gutsy sporty car that was great to drive, Twin Cam OHV motor
> that made the Holden one look like a lawn mower, although it had drum
> brakes it was a good ride and also "raced".

When you put it in the right perspective Ron, you make for a very good case
against Noddy's claims and I have to also agree with you as they were ahead
of their time, much like British Leyland with the P76.
>
Your conception of what is good and what is bad, Noddy, is all over the
> shop!

This will make for an interesting response.

Roger

RogerM

"Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote in message
news:48b3cce3$0$94255$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> "Ron" <dodo@hotmail> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B06BDDA53B2BGPS@64.209.0.91...
>
>> No contest
>> This is it.
>> Compare it to other vehicles made from 1949-53
>> http://memweb.newsguy.com/~mcgrice/jaguar.jpg
>
> Yeah, it looks 20 years older than all of them
>
> This, on the other hand, has got class written all over it
>
> http://www.solsticeforum.com/forum/a...3-corvette.jpg
>
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.

You have to be joking ...right?? The ****ing windscreen looks like it was
stolen out of a speedboat of the era.

Roger

Atheist Chaplain

"RogerM" <rogerm@justrucks.com.au> wrote in message
news0c4c217$0$20304$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>
> "Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote in message
> news:48b3cce3$0$94255$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>>
>> "Ron" <dodo@hotmail> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9B06BDDA53B2BGPS@64.209.0.91...
>>
>>> No contest
>>> This is it.
>>> Compare it to other vehicles made from 1949-53
>>> http://memweb.newsguy.com/~mcgrice/jaguar.jpg
>>
>> Yeah, it looks 20 years older than all of them
>>
>> This, on the other hand, has got class written all over it
>>
>> http://www.solsticeforum.com/forum/a...3-corvette.jpg
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Noddy.
>
> You have to be joking ...right?? The ****ing windscreen looks like it was
> stolen out of a speedboat of the era.
>
> Roger

your right Roger, how dare they make a car with a windscreen that almost
perfectly matches the curves and contours of the rest of the car!!
should be like one of them ancient Jags and make the windscreen glass stick
up out of the bonnet line like some flat class plank ;-)

--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg

Noddy

"Ron" <dodo@hotmail> wrote in message
news:Xns9B076D20985C9GPS@64.209.0.92...

> More of both on the road than those horrid early, unrefined Foulcans.

That may be so Ron, but then again popularity is no measure of *quality*.
There's a shitload more Falcons and Commodores around on our roads today
than there are M3 BMW's.......

> Lets have a look at 1961, I assume you were around then?

Loading my nappy, but yeah

> Ford falcon, 5 and a qtr turns lock to lock steering, drum brakes all
> round, unrefined high revving engine and sloppy suspension unsuited to
> Australian roads. Ball joints were a problem.
>
> Holden EK, rough to ride in slow powerless grey motor, got crankshaft
> whip if over revved, drum brakes, terrible seats but able to survive
> Australian roads
>
> Chrysler Valiant, (The USA Plymouth Valiant), good looking car, nice
> ride, gutsy engine push button auto, odd manual gearstick, torsion bar
> front end, so, so brakes.
>
> Ford Zephyr, reasonable motor, horrid 3 speed manual but good auto.
> Very smooth to ride in until you hit ruts in the road or crassed a
> railway line at an angle, then the front end would "flap". Brakes fair,
> steering good. Door closing was an art.

All pretty piss poor cars by today's standard, but then they offered a fair
bit for the money considering the alternatives.

> Jaguar MKII, powerful motor good gearbox, steered well, four wheel disc
> brakes, handled so well they were "raced", lovely to sit and ride in.

Especially in the driveway when they wouldn't start.

> Fiat 1500, Gutsy sporty car that was great to drive, Twin Cam OHV motor
> that made the Holden one look like a lawn mower, although it had drum
> brakes it was a good ride and also "raced".

And probably one of the most unreliable cars known to man (apart from a Jag
of course).

> Your conception of what is good and what is bad, Noddy, is all over the
> shop!

And your concept of context is non existant Ronald.

You're comparing a tempermental "sports" car and an overly fat "luxury" car
to common mainstrean poverty pack family sedans. You don't think that's just
a *tad* unrealistic? No? Take a look at the prices of those cars in their
day Ron. As it happens, I have a September 1963 copy of Wheels magazine
sitting here on my desk. Not "1961", but close enough for this example.

On page 56, under the heading of "New car prices", it quotes the following:

(Prices in pounds)

Ford Falcon - 1070
Holden Special - 1111
Valiant - 1220

At the other end of the scale, we have:

Jaguar Mk. 10 auto - 3890
Jag 2.4 Mk. II - 2498
Jag 3.4 Mk. II - 2834
Jag 3.8 Mk. II - 2995
Jag E type - 3213

Fiat 1500 - 1239

Looking at those prices it's clear that the *cheapest* Jaguar was a whisker
over *double* the price of the basic Valiant, while the Mk.10 auto was
almost 4 times the price of a basic Falcon. Even the little Fiat 1500 was
more expensive than a Valiant (which was the most expensive of the "big
three" in those days). Now, you might say "oooh, Noddy, you're a naughty boy
comparing cars based on price as it isn't really valid", but given the fact
that you're comparing cars that have little in common other than the fact
that they have 4 wheels and an engine what else is there?

Essentially what you're doing is akin to suggesting that the current 5
series BMW is a much better car than the current Ford Falcon, while ignoring
the fact that the BMW is so much more expensive it's not funny.

Still, you think Jags were so much better a car than Falcons or Holdens of
the day, so perhaps that might be worth investigating. Jags did have *some*
things going for them. The leather interiors were always great, the real
wood trim looked good and the Smiths gauges had character. The front ends
were okay (some people think they're something special but I can't see why)
while the rears had certain characteristics that were perculiar. The brakes
were shithouse (particularly the rears) and there is *nothing* worse than
inboard brakes on shafts with crap universals

The engines were amazing. No matter how you tried to stop them leaking oil
from every possible orrifice you could never do it. The Alloy components
corroded faster than anything else (with the possible exception of stuff
made by mercedes Benz), they snapped head studs like nobody's business,
camshaft sprocket nuts fell off with alarming regularity (usually with
disasterous resutls when they did) and, oh, lets not forget those totally
****ing fantasic electrical systems that Jaguar are world famous for

You mentioned that they were such a great handling car that people raced
them. Well bugger me, people raced EH Holdens in their day as well and they
handled like your average Friday night tram. In fact, *every* race run
annually at Bathurst between 1962 and 1985 has been won by either a Holden
or a Ford except for 1966 (where it was won by a Mini Cooper S) and that is
despite there being *plenty* of big cats in just about every field.

Of course, then there's the reliability factor and how well they survived
over the years. None of the Holdens, Falcons or Valiants were particularly
brilliant at standing the test of time, but they were all reliable and would
go for *years* with basic rudimentory maintenance. Your average Jag would be
on it's second restoration during the life of your average Holden, and you
can bet both your balls that the Holden would owe it's owner a shitload less
motza.

The basic fact of the mattter is that you think Jags are good cars and
that's fine Ron. I don't, and think they're one of the shittiest cars ever
made, but that's *my* opinion. You want to pour your time into them then
knock yourself out, but you couldn't give me one for free.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

Ron

"Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote in
news:48b4d1de$0$94271$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net:

>
> "Ron" <dodo@hotmail> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B076D20985C9GPS@64.209.0.92...
>
>> More of both on the road than those horrid early, unrefined Foulcans.
>
> That may be so Ron, but then again popularity is no measure of
> *quality*. There's a shitload more Falcons and Commodores around on
> our roads today than there are M3 BMW's.......
>
>> Lets have a look at 1961, I assume you were around then?
>
> Loading my nappy, but yeah
>
>> Ford falcon, 5 and a qtr turns lock to lock steering, drum brakes all
>> round, unrefined high revving engine and sloppy suspension unsuited
>> to Australian roads. Ball joints were a problem.
>>
>> Holden EK, rough to ride in slow powerless grey motor, got crankshaft
>> whip if over revved, drum brakes, terrible seats but able to survive
>> Australian roads
>>
>> Chrysler Valiant, (The USA Plymouth Valiant), good looking car, nice
>> ride, gutsy engine push button auto, odd manual gearstick, torsion
>> bar front end, so, so brakes.
>>
>> Ford Zephyr, reasonable motor, horrid 3 speed manual but good auto.
>> Very smooth to ride in until you hit ruts in the road or crassed a
>> railway line at an angle, then the front end would "flap". Brakes
>> fair, steering good. Door closing was an art.
>
> All pretty piss poor cars by today's standard, but then they offered a
> fair bit for the money considering the alternatives.
>
>> Jaguar MKII, powerful motor good gearbox, steered well, four wheel
>> disc brakes, handled so well they were "raced", lovely to sit and
>> ride in.
>
> Especially in the driveway when they wouldn't start.
>
>> Fiat 1500, Gutsy sporty car that was great to drive, Twin Cam OHV
>> motor that made the Holden one look like a lawn mower, although it
>> had drum brakes it was a good ride and also "raced".
>
> And probably one of the most unreliable cars known to man (apart from
> a Jag of course).
>
>> Your conception of what is good and what is bad, Noddy, is all over
>> the shop!
>
> And your concept of context is non existant Ronald.
>
> You're comparing a tempermental "sports" car and an overly fat
> "luxury" car to common mainstrean poverty pack family sedans. You
> don't think that's just a *tad* unrealistic? No? Take a look at the
> prices of those cars in their day Ron. As it happens, I have a
> September 1963 copy of Wheels magazine sitting here on my desk. Not
> "1961", but close enough for this example.
>
> On page 56, under the heading of "New car prices", it quotes the
> following:
>
> (Prices in pounds)
>
> Ford Falcon - 1070
> Holden Special - 1111
> Valiant - 1220
>
> At the other end of the scale, we have:
>
> Jaguar Mk. 10 auto - 3890
> Jag 2.4 Mk. II - 2498
> Jag 3.4 Mk. II - 2834
> Jag 3.8 Mk. II - 2995
> Jag E type - 3213
>
> Fiat 1500 - 1239
>
> Looking at those prices it's clear that the *cheapest* Jaguar was a
> whisker over *double* the price of the basic Valiant, while the Mk.10
> auto was almost 4 times the price of a basic Falcon. Even the little
> Fiat 1500 was more expensive than a Valiant (which was the most
> expensive of the "big three" in those days). Now, you might say "oooh,
> Noddy, you're a naughty boy comparing cars based on price as it isn't
> really valid", but given the fact that you're comparing cars that have
> little in common other than the fact that they have 4 wheels and an
> engine what else is there?
>
> Essentially what you're doing is akin to suggesting that the current 5
> series BMW is a much better car than the current Ford Falcon, while
> ignoring the fact that the BMW is so much more expensive it's not
> funny.
>
> Still, you think Jags were so much better a car than Falcons or
> Holdens of the day, so perhaps that might be worth investigating. Jags
> did have *some* things going for them. The leather interiors were
> always great, the real wood trim looked good and the Smiths gauges had
> character. The front ends were okay (some people think they're
> something special but I can't see why) while the rears had certain
> characteristics that were perculiar. The brakes were shithouse
> (particularly the rears) and there is *nothing* worse than inboard
> brakes on shafts with crap universals
>
> The engines were amazing. No matter how you tried to stop them leaking
> oil from every possible orrifice you could never do it. The Alloy
> components corroded faster than anything else (with the possible
> exception of stuff made by mercedes Benz), they snapped head studs
> like nobody's business, camshaft sprocket nuts fell off with alarming
> regularity (usually with disasterous resutls when they did) and, oh,
> lets not forget those totally ****ing fantasic electrical systems that
> Jaguar are world famous for
>
> You mentioned that they were such a great handling car that people
> raced them. Well bugger me, people raced EH Holdens in their day as
> well and they handled like your average Friday night tram. In fact,
> *every* race run annually at Bathurst between 1962 and 1985 has been
> won by either a Holden or a Ford except for 1966 (where it was won by
> a Mini Cooper S) and that is despite there being *plenty* of big cats
> in just about every field.
>
> Of course, then there's the reliability factor and how well they
> survived over the years. None of the Holdens, Falcons or Valiants were
> particularly brilliant at standing the test of time, but they were all
> reliable and would go for *years* with basic rudimentory maintenance.
> Your average Jag would be on it's second restoration during the life
> of your average Holden, and you can bet both your balls that the
> Holden would owe it's owner a shitload less motza.
>
> The basic fact of the mattter is that you think Jags are good cars and
> that's fine Ron. I don't, and think they're one of the shittiest cars
> ever made, but that's *my* opinion. You want to pour your time into
> them then knock yourself out, but you couldn't give me one for free.

Well,

It looks like I have some very expensive vehicles in my shed.

Actually, it is a good thing that you like crap like old Fords, it leaves
the better cars for us :-)

BTW, the 420G does not leak oil. It did, from the power steering box, but
that has stopped. I bit of rubbish from the rebuild must have got in the
seal. The motor is oil damp, but not dripping. It is no worse than the
AUIII Ford, neither is the Discovery V8.

Jaguar motors are rebuilt these days with after market gaskets, and that
helps a lot. There are better coolants for alloys now, seeing that most
engines these days have alloy! Camshaft sprockets falling off? Never
heard of it. To do that two pieces of tie wire would have to break and
then four bolts on either side come undone.

Talking out of your hat, as usual..

jonz

RogerM wrote:
>
> "Ron" <dodo@hotmail> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B076D20985C9GPS@64.209.0.92...
>> "Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote in
>> news:48b497e5$0$94272$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "RogerM" <rogerm@justrucks.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news0c47ae7$0$20303$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>>
>>>> The Jag is certainly a very smart "looking" car...always has been.
>>>> For some reason, there is a minority in here who continue to bag them
>>>> because of their mechanical side. I was just talking to an owner on
>>>> Tuesday and he was telling me he has owned Jags for over 40 years and
>>>> has never had a "bad" one or even any problem at all.
>>>
>>> You get that.
>>>
>>> Most people who are passionate about a particular marque will tell you
>>> all kinds of great things about them while ignoring their foibles,
>>> even if they are many (and you can take my word for it that Jaguar has
>>> more than most). It's a "grandpa's axe" thing for most of them.
>>>
>>>> I know some are biased towards them just as there are those who are
>>>> the other way....like in here for example......but I would still own
>>>> one given the chance.......then again, I would just have to add it to
>>>> my wish list of other vehicles as well.
>>>
>>> There's some wierd and wonderful cars that I'd be happy to own if I
>>> had the room to store them, but then again there's a heap that I
>>> wouldn't as well. High on the list of things I'd *never* own would be
>>> Jaguar and anything Italian.
>>>
>>> Simply because they are very, very bad cars with not a lot going for
>>> them.
>>
>> More of both on the road than those horrid early, unrefined Foulcans.
>>
>> Lets have a look at 1961, I assume you were around then?
>>
>> Ford falcon, 5 and a qtr turns lock to lock steering, drum brakes all
>> round, unrefined high revving engine and sloppy suspension unsuited to
>> Australian roads. Ball joints were a problem.
>
> I owned a '63 XL fitted with a super pursuit 200cuin motor out of an XP
> and yes it was 5 turns lock to lock and it made the steering so bloody
> light, it was a miracle I never crashed the bloody thing the way I used
> to have such a heavy foot. The guy I sold it to didn't have it for a
> week before he wrote it off from sliding on wet road and hitting a pole.
> Obviously wasn't used to the 5 turn LTL steering on the **** of a thing.
>>
>> Holden EK, rough to ride in slow powerless grey motor, got crankshaft
>> whip if over revved, drum brakes, terrible seats but able to survive
>> Australian roads
>
> Shocking car all right, all round.
>>
>> Chrysler Valiant, (The USA Plymouth Valiant), good looking car, nice
>> ride, gutsy engine push button auto, odd manual gearstick, torsion bar
>> front end, so, so brakes.
>
> I had the '65 model AP5 with the push button auto on the dash just after
> I got married and it wasn't too bad a car. They did in those days have a
> tendency to "fall apart" in an accident though.
>>
>> Ford Zephyr, reasonable motor, horrid 3 speed manual but good auto.
>> Very smooth to ride in until you hit ruts in the road or crassed a
>> railway line at an angle, then the front end would "flap". Brakes fair,
>> steering good. Door closing was an art.
>
> Are you talking MK3 or Mk 2. My mate had the 4 cyl equivalent with the
> Consul and it was a very odd handling car, and gutless as all shit to
> say the least.

not to forget the mk1 and mk4, and yes, the consul was a slug, tho
the mk1 was a bit better due to a smaller, lighter body....the mk11
zephyr could be made to go a bit, with a rebore, bedford pistons, and
extractor.....
>>
>> Jaguar MKII, powerful motor good gearbox, steered well, four wheel disc
>> brakes, handled so well they were "raced", lovely to sit and ride in.
>>
>> Fiat 1500, Gutsy sporty car that was great to drive, Twin Cam OHV motor
>> that made the Holden one look like a lawn mower, although it had drum
>> brakes it was a good ride and also "raced".
>
> When you put it in the right perspective Ron, you make for a very good
> case against Noddy's claims and I have to also agree with you as they
> were ahead of their time, much like British Leyland with the P76.
>>
> Your conception of what is good and what is bad, Noddy, is all over the
>> shop!
>
> This will make for an interesting response.
>
> Roger

RogerM

"RogerM" <rogerm@justrucks.com.au> wrote in message
news0c4bedf$0$20302$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>
> "Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote in message
> news:48b497e5$0$94272$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>>
>> "RogerM" <rogerm@justrucks.com.au> wrote in message
>> news0c47ae7$0$20303$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>
>>> The Jag is certainly a very smart "looking" car...always has been. For
>>> some reason, there is a minority in here who continue to bag them
>>> because of their mechanical side. I was just talking to an owner on
>>> Tuesday and he was telling me he has owned Jags for over 40 years and
>>> has never had a "bad" one or even any problem at all.
>>
>> You get that.
>>
>> Most people who are passionate about a particular marque will tell you
>> all kinds of great things about them while ignoring their foibles, even
>> if they are many (and you can take my word for it that Jaguar has more
>> than most). It's a "grandpa's axe" thing for most of them.
>>
> You know Nod, this will surprise you as I agree with you, your above par
> is so bloody true. For whatever reason, most people tend to say that
> whatever they own is the "duck's guts" forgetting whatever problems they
> have had as being negligible. I stick up for Ford, yet when I consider
> when it comes time to sell it, I'm usually insulted at the loss I make,
> yet I still support Ford.
>
>>> I know some are biased towards them just as there are those who are the
>>> other way....like in here for example......but I would still own one
>>> given the chance.......then again, I would just have to add it to my
>>> wish list of other vehicles as well.
>>
>> There's some wierd and wonderful cars that I'd be happy to own if I had
>> the room to store them, but then again there's a heap that I wouldn't as
>> well. High on the list of things I'd *never* own would be Jaguar and
>> anything Italian.
>>
>> Simply because they are very, very bad cars with not a lot going for
>> them.
>
> I tend to side with someone who knows first hand from working on them here
> and has nothing to gain by giving an honest opinion. However, there is
> something about Jag that still stirs me as I believe they are great
> looking cars....or should I be saying "were". I just love the '39 SS 2.5.
>
> Here is a site with some beautifully restored Jags on it.
>
> http://www.themarriagecarriagecompany.co.uk/
>
> Roger

It's a pity so many have me blacklisted here. In the end they are the losers
by missing out on informative discussions, especially the site above with
those beautifully restored Jags.

Roger

Ron

jonz <fj40@diesel.com> wrote in news:48b4dd19@dnews.tpgi.com.au:

>
>
> RogerM wrote:
>>
>> "Ron" <dodo@hotmail> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9B076D20985C9GPS@64.209.0.92...
>>> "Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote in
>>> news:48b497e5$0$94272$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "RogerM" <rogerm@justrucks.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news0c47ae7$0$20303$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>>>
>>>>> The Jag is certainly a very smart "looking" car...always has been.
>>>>> For some reason, there is a minority in here who continue to bag
>>>>> them because of their mechanical side. I was just talking to an
>>>>> owner on Tuesday and he was telling me he has owned Jags for over
>>>>> 40 years and has never had a "bad" one or even any problem at all.
>>>>
>>>> You get that.
>>>>
>>>> Most people who are passionate about a particular marque will tell
>>>> you all kinds of great things about them while ignoring their
>>>> foibles, even if they are many (and you can take my word for it
>>>> that Jaguar has more than most). It's a "grandpa's axe" thing for
>>>> most of them.
>>>>
>>>>> I know some are biased towards them just as there are those who
>>>>> are the other way....like in here for example......but I would
>>>>> still own one given the chance.......then again, I would just have
>>>>> to add it to my wish list of other vehicles as well.
>>>>
>>>> There's some wierd and wonderful cars that I'd be happy to own if I
>>>> had the room to store them, but then again there's a heap that I
>>>> wouldn't as well. High on the list of things I'd *never* own would
>>>> be Jaguar and anything Italian.
>>>>
>>>> Simply because they are very, very bad cars with not a lot going
>>>> for them.
>>>
>>> More of both on the road than those horrid early, unrefined
>>> Foulcans.
>>>
>>> Lets have a look at 1961, I assume you were around then?
>>>
>>> Ford falcon, 5 and a qtr turns lock to lock steering, drum brakes
>>> all round, unrefined high revving engine and sloppy suspension
>>> unsuited to Australian roads. Ball joints were a problem.
>>
>> I owned a '63 XL fitted with a super pursuit 200cuin motor out of an
>> XP and yes it was 5 turns lock to lock and it made the steering so
>> bloody light, it was a miracle I never crashed the bloody thing the
>> way I used to have such a heavy foot. The guy I sold it to didn't
>> have it for a week before he wrote it off from sliding on wet road
>> and hitting a pole. Obviously wasn't used to the 5 turn LTL steering
>> on the **** of a thing.
>>>
>>> Holden EK, rough to ride in slow powerless grey motor, got
>>> crankshaft whip if over revved, drum brakes, terrible seats but able
>>> to survive Australian roads
>>
>> Shocking car all right, all round.
>>>
>>> Chrysler Valiant, (The USA Plymouth Valiant), good looking car, nice
>>> ride, gutsy engine push button auto, odd manual gearstick, torsion
>>> bar front end, so, so brakes.
>>
>> I had the '65 model AP5 with the push button auto on the dash just
>> after I got married and it wasn't too bad a car. They did in those
>> days have a tendency to "fall apart" in an accident though.
>>>
>>> Ford Zephyr, reasonable motor, horrid 3 speed manual but good auto.
>>> Very smooth to ride in until you hit ruts in the road or crassed a
>>> railway line at an angle, then the front end would "flap". Brakes
>>> fair, steering good. Door closing was an art.
>>
>> Are you talking MK3 or Mk 2. My mate had the 4 cyl equivalent with
>> the Consul and it was a very odd handling car, and gutless as all
>> shit to say the least.
>
> not to forget the mk1 and mk4, and yes, the consul was a slug,
> tho
> the mk1 was a bit better due to a smaller, lighter body....the mk11
> zephyr could be made to go a bit, with a rebore, bedford pistons, and
> extractor.....
>>>
>>> Jaguar MKII, powerful motor good gearbox, steered well, four wheel
>>> disc brakes, handled so well they were "raced", lovely to sit and
>>> ride in.
>>>
>>> Fiat 1500, Gutsy sporty car that was great to drive, Twin Cam OHV
>>> motor that made the Holden one look like a lawn mower, although it
>>> had drum brakes it was a good ride and also "raced".
>>
>> When you put it in the right perspective Ron, you make for a very
>> good case against Noddy's claims and I have to also agree with you as
>> they were ahead of their time, much like British Leyland with the
>> P76.
>>>
>> Your conception of what is good and what is bad, Noddy, is all over
>> the
>>> shop!
>>
>> This will make for an interesting response.
>>
>> Roger

Well, Noddy said he was "in his nappies" in 1961.

That means by the time he got to drive them, they were OLD.
Old cars back then were not as reliable at a similar "Age", as they are
in todays market. Different build quality, different materials.

In 1961, I was driving cars and a few years later, after got my license.

I went for a drive in a family friends brand new MK1 Jaguar, it was chalk
and cheese compared to the old man's FJ .
That car made me want to buy a Jaguar, as soon as I could, and I
eventually did, as a young man. A MK1

When they were brand new, they were nothing like Noddy says!
Maybe 8 to 10 years later with a lot of miles up.

Noddy's stories are interesting reading, but based on old cars, not new
ones.

Noddy

"RogerM" <rogerm@justrucks.com.au> wrote in message
news0c4bedf$0$20302$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

> You know Nod, this will surprise you as I agree with you, your above par
> is so bloody true. For whatever reason, most people tend to say that
> whatever they own is the "duck's guts" forgetting whatever problems they
> have had as being negligible. I stick up for Ford, yet when I consider
> when it comes time to sell it, I'm usually insulted at the loss I make,
> yet I still support Ford.

I can't tell you the number of cars I've owned in my life, but it'd be well
over a hundred by now. Most of them have probably been Fords, although I've
had Holdens, Chryslers, at least one from each of the Japanese manufacturers
(and a number from a few), a couple of Volkswagens, and **** knows whatever
else. I like *some* Fords, just like I like *some* Holdens, *some* Honda's
and *some BMW's. I don't have a favourite marque and and am not on the
public relations payroll of any manufacturer. Consiquently I have no
problems in bagging them when I feel it necessary.

Brand loyalty for car manufacturers is a concept I've never understood, and
never will.

> I tend to side with someone who knows first hand from working on them here
> and has nothing to gain by giving an honest opinion. However, there is
> something about Jag that still stirs me as I believe they are great
> looking cars....or should I be saying "were". I just love the '39 SS 2.5.

There's some *really* nice looking Jags out there and I like the look of
most of them. To be completely honest I've never seen a Jag I haven't liked
to look at (apart from the E type which I've always found to be particularly
ugly), but they're just *****s* of cars.

I liken the things to a hooker from the bad side of town: Great tits, a
mouth that could suck a tennis ball through 30 feet of garden hose and an
arse that will make your cock so hard that you won't have enough skin left
to blink your eyes, but you *know* as soon as you touch it you'll pay for
the rest of your life so you just close your eyes and walk away

--
Regards,
Noddy.