Can we please stop hotlinking pics?

iadr wrote: We'll have to agree to disagree, then. Baroque, corpulent, matronly are perhaps the nicest things I can say about that one you quoted. The front bumper is a design mistake.I think it's just the photo you chose, but the greenhouse looks bloated? On the one I liked- I can pick faults- the vents on the rear quarters should be simplified or eliminated. The front ones are a bit trendy, and undoubtedly too high on the fender. The greenhouse could be filled out, squared off just a tinest bit, and look better IMO. The designs that made it to production are only one of many designs the Jaguar design office came up with. I'd like to see a MK X given the same treatment by Callum. I've always thought there was potential there, in that desisgn. Anyway... reminds me of the story quoted in one of the UK glossies. In the 70's the story teller's neighbor had bought a kit consisting of a few sizes&types of brush, and black paint. He proceeded to update his Capri I with black out trim, and when completed, offered the remainder of the kit to his neighbour- the writer's father- to use on their car- a Mark II. The father was quoted as "politely demuring" the offer. Jaguar sedans of the era make terrific race cars. Be back in a sec with examples.

Maybe not the best pic, I don't believe he touched the greenhouse, just the lower portions.

If you don't like the bumpers, for the last two years of production the 3.8L model was dropped and the MkII was replaced by the 240 and 340 models (indicating 2.4L and 3.4L respectivly) with grills ILO of the front fog lights and thinner bumpers. Growing up we had a midnight blue 2.4L MkII and a red 240. Yes, even by the standards of the day the 2.4L was seriously underpowered in a car of that size.

iadr wrote: Oddly I notice all these have kept that horrendous bumper.

Most of the cars you posted are what were retroactivly known as Mk I's after the Mk II came out. At the time they were called the 'Jaguar 2.4 Liter' and 'Jaguar 3.4 liter'. There are many significant differences. Note the far thicker 'A', 'B' and 'C' pillars on the older cars. Also look at the indicators being virtical ovals rather than the lower set circular units with small side repeaters on the top of the wings on the Mk II. Also the MkI's had full wheel spats covering the total rear wheel rather than the cut out ones which only coverd the tires on the Mk II and 240/340. Track was narrower etc etc

See below. 'MkI' then MkII

forgot a very important one

One of these just landed at the grass strip across the road from my neighborhood.

100 Internets if you know how it relates to the GRM 911:

It has a PFM 3200 motor. Basically a Porsche aircraft flat 6.

Flight Service wrote:

Dr. Jumba Jookiba should be in the bottom right hand corner

This thread is far too quiet. Step it up guys

The_Jed wrote:

tell me more

Unrelated, listening to smart time

OK, I don't like the doctor either.

The_Jed wrote:

That is shockingly good looking. Maybe flares from an SN95 Mustang? I hope the underpinnings have been updated as well.

Hotlink from googling "shockingly good looking pictures".

Streetwiseguy wrote:

The_Jed wrote:

That is shockingly good looking. Maybe flares from an SN95 Mustang? I hope the underpinnings have been updated as well. Hotlink from googling "shockingly good looking pictures".

I thought it was dropped on an s197 so I reverse googled the image. Its on a custom tube chassis with the running gear and trans from a late model Z06 mated to a Triton V10. Dayum.

Sorry, no link from phone.

I've been wanting to put my aquarium back up for a while, seeing pictures like this isn't helping.

VS

Flight Service wrote:

Dr Evil is on the wrong side, and Ziodburg and DrPepper need to swap positions.

So close Joan, and yet so far: