50 Years Ago Today
Jaguar V12 wowed, but elsewhere the Germans were cleaning up
Honestly – it really is the V12’ stressed the headline on Mike Twite’s road test of the new Jaguar E-type Series 3 in
CAR’S April 1971 issue. Reading the lengthy preamble to the test you can see good reason for the apparent amazement. This engine had been intended as a powerplant for a racing car in a 5.0-litre category that had just been canned. A hugely hefty tax burden punished engines of more than 2.8 litres in many of Jaguar’s key European markets and its intended American market brought in stringent new air pollution standards just a year before production began. And yet, despite all these setbacks, this 5.3-litre hemi-headed whispering giant was ‘quieter, smoother, with more torque and power than any XK engine had ever produced.’
Twite loved the car, too. ‘To all intents and purposes the Series 3 is a new car,’ he remarked. ‘The handling has undoubtably improved over its predecessor because it can be tossed around remarkably quickly.’ Although the front cover called it ‘BLMC’S Middle Class Ferrari’, Twite wasn’t so gushing about its lack of theatrics, ‘There is a tinge of regret that the V12 is not a fire-breathing, bellowing monster that is going to sweep the Porsches and Ferraris off race tracks or blast down the autostrada of Italy, proudly elbowing the Lambos into the slow lane.’ The Porsche point lingered long into this particular copy of
CAR, the Jaguar-themed cover tempered by a ‘German Car Issue’ strapline. Ian Fraser’s test of two Jaguar nemeses, the Porsche 911E 2.2 and Mercedes-benz 280SE 3.5, revealed glowingly faultless – if expensive – machines. But it was the Giant Test of mass-produced middle-market saloons that would have given the new British Leyland Motor Corporation most cause for alarm.
Even with import taxes, BMW had cleverly managed to get its new 2002 to within just £7 of the £1867 Rover 2000TC and Triumph 2.5 PI. By contrast, CAR found the Rover ‘dated’ with a ‘harsh and rough’ engine, while the Triumph was deemed ‘unsophisticated almost to the point of vulgarity’. Despite being physically smaller and a two-door, the BMW boasted better use of its passenger and luggage space, was faster to 60mph, lighter and more economical than the Rover and Triumph. Only in the brake test did a British car beat the BMW, the Rover’s four discs superior to the other cars’ disc/drum combinations.
It was an embarrassing outcome for the BLMC pair and would perhaps have been excusable had the BMW been an all-new car entering an established market. But as CAR stated, ‘All three cars can trace their design history back a decade or so at the very least.’ What had Rover and Triumph been doing all those years beyond a couple of Car-confessedly cheap and easy facelifts? Perhaps it’s telling that Mini, the biggest-volume-production remnant of the former BLMC empire, is now Bmw-owned.