And at the time it was announced I was shocked, thinking it a bloated travesty of the classic XK120. Road & Track magazine, the automotive bible of my youth, road tested the 150 Roadster in its September 1958 issue. Its only comment regarding styling was: "Externally the 150 is still unmistakably an XK, but the general lines and appearance have been softened and refined. More importantly perhaps, the seating position has been tremendously improved, the cockpit is roomier, controls are easier to operate and visibility is better." I wonder if the fact that Jaguar had been placing ads on the back covers of R&T had anything to do with this mild reaction.
The November 1957 R&T (also with a Jaguar ad on the back cover) had a road test of a XK150 coupe, having this to say regarding styling: "Although observations on a test car's looks sometimes do not sit well with readers, here goes: The front end, a close examination of which discloses that every component has changed, retains its classic beauty. The 'cab' has an appearance of lightness, correctly symbolizing the improved vision through the wider windshield and rear window. Its 4-inch gain at shoulder height is too evident, reminding one more of a mature mother cat than a lithe young huntress. The rear, heaven help us, needs customizing! Its collection of chrome clutters the excellent basic shape. (Letters will be answered as time permits.)" Slightly more critical, but "nuanced" as political thinkers are wont to say these days. The parenthetical "letters" comment suggests that R&T readers were letting the editors know that the 150s styling was controversial.
The August 1957 issue (Jaguar ad on the back cover) had a story announcing the XK150 coupe. Its treatment was clinical, no judgment being placed on the styling.
The XK150 was essentially a new body on a slightly modified XK120/140 base. Wheelbase and width were the same as the 120s dimensions or nearly so, the 150 being 4 inches (20 cm) longer, largely due to heftier bumpers.
The initial example of the XK sports car line. A classic design. I even approve of the spatted rear wheel openings.
XK140s got heavier bumpers and more chromed trim. The spats disappeared for good, and the coupe's top was bulkier. Altogether a slight, yet tolerable, degradation.
Fatter hood and curved windshield make the central body ponderous. The raised fender line is more in line with mid-1950s styling fashions. But note the awkward curve of the front fender -- a lift over the wheel opening that reverses slightly to become a straighter path to the rear fender up-kick.
Even though the there is plenty of glass, the overall shape of the top seems a bit too heavy-looking.
R&T was right regarding the rear-end ornamentation. For example, the tail light assemblies could have been trimmed to align with the profile of the trunk and the vertical chromed strip should have been eliminated. I think the rear window should have been a little less wide; the top's appearance would have been improved without significant degrading of outward visibility.
From the perspective of nearly 60 after its announcement, the XK150 doesn't irk me as much as it did when new. Much of that has to do with the fact that the 120 has also receded from view (they're seldom seen on streets and roads these days) dulling my sense of comparison. That said, the 150 is not a good design. Bulky, with awkward detailing. William Lyons surely abandoned his good taste with this one.
"William Lyons surely abandoned his good taste with this one."
ReplyDeleteNot as much as GM did with any '58 Buick or Olds. They looked like monsters from the deep lagoon, grossly offensive to my 11 year-old eye. And that feeling did not dissipate with time.
On top of that was the '58 Lincoln, a cross-eyed gargantuan lump of iron that exuded no grace whatsoever. And with scallops behind the front and to a lesser extent rear wheels that typified late '50s Detroit iron -- tacked-on geegaws and gingerbread. The fits and finishes were dreadful as well. No precision-crafted performance there, just pure junk. '57 through '59 Chrysler products dissolved in three years in our climate in Eastern Canada, as a further example of "what in hell were they thinking?"
In fact, I don't think they were. Thinking, that is. If one goes to:
http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Oral_histories.htm
There one finds some actual oral interview histories online of many US designers, conducted in the 1980s. Most are about Ford. And that outfit was about as badly organized as can possibly be imagined, ego-trip city. For decades.
I began to read the transcripts at first to get some insight into things like compound curvature, surface development, shutlines and so on to get some insight into, you know, actual design. But what did I discover? That it was all by guess and by golly from beginning to end. Infighting, egos, just general BS and arbitrariness.
I was fortunate to go and study for my masters mechanical engineering in London, England. That was in 1969. The Jaguar XJ6 had just been released, and frankly made any Detroit car look like the crap it was. The XK120, the E-Type and the XJ6 were the Lyons masterpieces. Obviously British component manufacture engineering was pretty lousy, but the English Fords had doors, hoods and trunk lids that actually fitted together, not the thrown-together rubbish we were fed in North America, added to blowsy wasteful design.
The most out-of-its-place car I ever saw in my entire life, occurred in 1970 in London. I was strolling with a Canadian friend not far from Hyde Park Corner, when a 1970 Camaro drew up alongside us, and the American driver and his wife were lost and needed directions. Of course, they would pick two foreigners to ask! That Camaro exhibited wasteful design to its core. Wide but no room inside, and looked like a whale, as big as the Jaguar but with minimal space for two, replete wuth GM plastic beige interior. Quite disconcerting in fact to stare into this thing as we bent down to chat with the driver. He was so panicked by the traffic, close-quarter driving and steering wheel on the wrong side, he kept us chatting for several minutes when he discovered we were actually North Americans. Now, back in Canada, the Camaro looked great in context, an actual cohesive design, although the door fit was never much better than amateur hour and the glass therein rattled like a cheap K-Mart liquor cabinet. In London, the Camaro merely looked ridiculous.
So, after reading a few of your entries, I realize that the commentary and depth isn't what I'm personally looking for, either. But I'm sure it's satisfying for you, and that's just fine. Carry on!
Bruce Armstrong
As the proud owner of a Jaguar XK150, you may be wondering what the designers were thinking when they created this vehicle. While it's a beautiful car, it's also one of the most difficult to keep on the road. Jaguar XK150s are notorious for their electrical and mechanical problems, which can often be costly because are jaguars expensive to repair. If you're considering buying an XK150, or if you already own one, here are a few things to keep in mind when it comes to its upkeep.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, Jaguar XK150s require regular maintenance and repairs. Even if you only drive your car occasionally, it's important to take it in for service at least once a year. The sooner you catch any potential problems, the easier (and less expensive) they will be to fix.
Second, be prepared to pay for parts and labor.