WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF 1961, what better recommendation could a car be given? R&T was rather more PC in noting, “The car comes up to, and exceeds, all our great expectations.”
Here are tidbits gleaned from the magazine’s September 1961 road test, together with its May 1961 technical analysis.
Briefly. “The car itself was fully described in our May issue,” R&T wrote, “but briefly, it has a 96-in. wheelbase monocoque chassis, a 3.8-liter double-overhead-camshaft 6-cyl engine developing 265 bhp, and a curb weight of just over 2700 lb. Two body types are available, a coupe and a roadster—the latter being actually a true convertible, also available with a very neat removable hardtop.”
This and other images from R&T September 1961.
Coventry Design Goal. “When the XK-E was announced,” R&T recounted, “it was stated that the designer’s goal was to achieve family sedan-type comfort with sports car handling qualities…. In fact, the ride is so good we will say without equivocation that only one other sports car had a comparable ride, and it also has independent suspension on all four wheels.”
Hmm. Back in 1961, independent rear suspensions were not all that common.
Uncanny Adhesive Characteristics. R&T continues, “But what is even more remarkable is the car’s uncanny adhesive characteristics. A car of this power-to-weight ratio can be a real handful, even dangerous, if a heavy foot is used on the accelerator.”
“But, R&T wrote, “this car is very difficult to ‘break loose.’ Of course, in 1st gear, which is very low (or high, numerically), it is possible to spin the wheels on dry pavement, but even here the limited slip differential (standard equipment) makes all the difference—there is no tendency to go sideways at take-off unless the driver deliberately sets up wild wheelspin of type that gets nowhere.”
“If you get over-exuberant and the rear wheels break loose” (one gets the impression R&T tried this), “the control is excellent and you can hold a ‘tail-out’ attitude with very little practice.”
Basically Neutral-steering. “In this connection,” R&T report, “the steering also rates as very close to, if not actually, the best we have experienced. There is just the right amount of road feel, no kickback, moderate parking effort, and a ratio that is quick without being too sensitive or tricky at high speed.”
R&T noted that this and the Jag’s weight distribution (49/51 with driver and full tank) give “basically a neutral-steering car, in which only very slight compromises in suspension geometry are necessary to give moderate understeer and high speed stability. The net result has to be experienced to be believed.”
Four-wheel Disc Brakes. “As with the steering,” R&T recounts, “the disc brakes just can’t be criticized. It is virtually impossible to feel the booster come in, and the pedal pressure is moderate without being highly sensitive.”
A Less-than-perfect Cockpit. R&T admitted, “While there has been some criticism of the interior seating space, we liked the layout very much, particularly the way the steering wheel (which is adjustable over a range of 3 in. in and out) is placed forward. At the same time, the interior dimensions are not satisfactory for over six-footers, and the present brake and clutch pedal angles are a little awkward. We understand this is being changed and that the seats are to be redesigned so that they will move farther aft (present adjustment range is only 3 in.).
But Does It Outperform the ’Vette? “The answer,” R&T wrote, “is a qualified no. A showroom stock fuel-injection Corvette will just ‘nip’ the acceleration times of the Jaguar [6.6 versus 7.4 seconds to 60], but won’t go as fast at the top end.”
Conclusion. “As is well known,” R&T wrote, “the genuine top speed of a showroom-stock Jaguar XK-E is 150 mph.” Unless your crumpet is a statuesque 6-footer, I’d recommend the Jag. ds
© Dennis Simanaitis, SimanaitisSays.com, 2024