[rescue] What a load of...

Sheldon T. Hall shel at artell.net
Fri Sep 28 11:51:44 CDT 2007

Quoth the Sandwich Maker ...
> they didn't make many of those fastbacks, just enough to legalize them
> as a 'production' car for nascar.

They made a goodly number, but not too may of them had 427s.  Even the
390-powered ones were OK, though.  

> curious there's no song about them.
> the beach boys immortalized both the chevy 409 and the superstock
> dodge...

Doubly funny when you reember that the 409 was a Chevy _truck_ engine.

> those big motors had -torque-, and even the bonnie probably weighed
> only about 4000 lbs empty.

Yeah, it was pretty fast for a grocery-getter.
> $6500 was more than 'a little more' back then...  i don't know about
> cost of living numbers but taking the dow as a meterstick it's
> something over $90k in today's dollars.  the jag was also nicknamed
> 'the world's fastest lorry' back then, due i think to the big, heavy
> xk engine which iirc was a prewar design.

Yeah, an E-Type was about twice what a nice American car cost.  I suppose
you could have spent $6,500 on some ultra-luxo-barge Caddillac, but it would
have been hard to do.

The XK engine made its debut in 1948, I think, so it probably was a mostly
prewar design.  Still, by English standards, it was big, powerful, and
tough.  Except for the wet-deck design and the tendency of the bucket tappet
guides to come loose if it was overheated, it's a dam' good engine. 

Given the price of the current Jaguar crumpet-catcher, I'd say your $90K is
a reasonable guess.  Still, lots of folks bought E-types back then.  I saw a
pre-'68 one drive by, here in rural France, last week.

For real Sixties Jaguar style, though, a nicely hopped-up 3.8 Mark II is
hard to beat.  I'd rather have one than an E-Type.


More information about the rescue mailing list