This week, I’ve brought to you some of my peak hour traffic sightings, scheduled for you to enjoy while you’re sitting on the bus or train (hopefully not while you’re driving!) or settling in at work for the day. Now, it’s the end of the working week and I present you with two cars, both with animal monikers but otherwise markedly different.
Here is a Jaguar XK-E getting dwarfed by modern cars. While the roadster is achingly beautiful, I find the hardtop to be very angle-dependant. Your mileage may vary: I rather like the XJS while Jaguar purists cried foul at the XK-E’s bigger, bulkier replacement. Between the XK-E roadster and coupe, however, I would prefer the open-air experience. You already have to deal with the inherent compromises of owning an old British sports car, why not have the wind in your hair?
Maybe you want a classic that’s more practical and dependable, with room for the kids. Here is a Ford XC Fairmont wagon, the plushest of the Falcon wagons and sold from 1976-79. Standard engine in these was a 4.1 six, while you could opt for 4.9 or 5.8 V8s. The standard transmission fitted in XC Fairmont wagons was a floor-mounted three-speed automatic but a column-mounted three-speed auto was optional as was a floor-mounted four-speed. Also optional was a power tailgate window and a rear-facing third-row seat.
If you wanted a sporty wagon, you could opt for the GS rally pack – also available on sedans – which added dual hood scoops and styled steel road wheels. With the big 351 cubic-inch V8, Fairmonts received sports or heavy-duty suspension options, a limited slip differential and four-wheel power disc brakes. Total length of the XC wagons was 200 inches with a 116 inch wheelbase and total width of 74.8 inches. You poor souls in North America had the Torino/LTD II wagon instead, 4 inches wider and 11 inches longer but with flaccid handling and so-so packaging and fuel economy. Oh well.
For those Curbsiders who work the typical Monday to Friday work week, there’s just one commute left for the week. Keep your eyes peeled: who knows what you might see!
Related Reading:
I like them both but I’d be a lot less nervous about driving the Falcon through traffic. It would be interesting to know exactly how that wagon was outfitted as far as powertrain and options.
It looks like the Fairmont has a 4.1 badge behind the front wheel, and the automatic would be much more common in the top trim car.
I always thought that this era Falcon (and Valiant) would make great city cars because you have to dent a fair way in before hitting anything important! Mind you they would suck for parking, being the maximum size considered when specifying dimensions for parking spaces and aisle dimensions, you would be doing a lot of backing and filling.
As for the Jaguar, the summer sun is too harsh for a convertible for me. A family friend has restored a white series 1 coupe that is just beautiful, but there are plenty of colours that they look great in.
The base 3.3 tree shift had no engine call outs so its probably the 4.1 it has the GXL lights but no other Fairmont markings, personally having driven and owned lots of Falcons I’d take the Jag especially living where I do its real Jag country with a refurbishing factory only a couple of kms away and ample spare available, try getting replacement Falcon panels in NZ for something from the 70s they were quite the rustbucket in their day.
My wife’s car, when we married, was an XB, given to her by her parents who bought it new. It was actually amazingly easy to drive and, for some reason, park. No power steering, but then, in the day, very few cars had it. Six seats, great acceleration around town and, once again I don’t know why, good handling. On the highway though, where was the top gear? It always seemed that the 250 ci six and auto were stuck in second!
I’ve always loved wagons since they just scream “Road Trip!”, and the wagon definitely fits my current persona better: old school, practical, somewhat unusual. But I’ve always loved E Types too, and it is only 2 years till all 3 kids are away at college. At that point the road trip only involves Mrs. D and me….
WRT hardtop vs roadster… IMO the older coupes look as good as the roadster – it’s the 2+2s that are horribly awkward, with that extra foot or so of roof stuck in.
I like the wagon.
And why is it that there were so many high performance oriented cars in Australia? Styling was also a little more “out there” then here in North America. The Falcons in particular were most appealing too me. It boggles my mind you could option a station wagon down there with the same goodies from a sporty coupe.
I think American enthusiasts get “sucked in” by things involving the Australian auto market because it is almost like a looking glass version of the American Market. Some things look eerily familiar but still a little off. Combine that with the number of factory performance options for sedans and wagons…
The 351 of this time wouldn’t be considered a high performance car, because of the emissions regulations that came in at the same time as the XC model in 1976 it was rated at 217 hp net. Performance was definitely good, don’t get me wrong but it was no GT.
Also these wagons were often used for towing horse floats and such, where the torque of the 351 would have come in handy.The 351 cars also came with the big 9″ differential.
I should have mentioned that, my cousin used to own a Falcon wagon like this just for that purpose. That included towing a two-horse float up a steep gravel road to their house, I remember a story about one day when it was either a bit wet or very dry and the car lost traction going up the hill and she had to quickly steer the float into the bank before it rolled all the way back town the hill. No harm done to the horses luckily.
I agree. Had a friend’s 351 xd (z whatever) Fairlane. Not fast off the mark, but what a surreal drive, so effortless. Even the 220 hp was probably a bit optimistic by the 1980s with the very strict way of rating hp.
It really starts with this generation too, especially with Fords and Mopars. Until 1970 or so Falcons and Valiants were just that, maybe with a few divergent styling tweaks accumulating towards the end of a design cycle, but the 1971 VH Valiant and 1972 XA Falcon grew to something like US mid-size internal dimensions without the ’71 Satellite/Coronet and ’72 Torino (and GM Colonnades’) near-full-size exterior bloat caused by over-applying the long hood/short deck look.
The wagon points to how big the Falcon stretched over it’s very long but soon over life. There was an article a little bit ago showing how a current Chevy (Holden) Cruze was right on top of the size of a late 60s Holden. If the Falcon had been allowed to shrink as well as stretch over time, it today may be a Focus size vehicle that is still sellable in numbers.
The XKE looks strangely proportioned in the first photo, like the cabin is too far forward or the front end is too short, it must be the camera angle. Either way, XJ-S > XKE coupe.
Crazy perspective with the Falcon wagon’s dimensions – a current Dodge Challenger ponycar has the same 116″ wheelbase with a mere 2″ difference in overall length!
Everyone drives a 2 seat, dark green, series 2 coupe in my perfect universe.
What a sausage fest!
The series II 2+2 Jaguar coupes have a higher roofline, more upright windshield, and longer wheel base. The series III coupes and convertibles were all built on the extended platform. While they are still desirable the original models lines are much prettier. Still, I wish I had one. I salute the owner’s courage in mixing it up with modern traffic. That would be more stress than I would desire.
I’d so love to have a Falcon wagon like that one!
116″ seems a rather long wheelbase given the overall size of the car. Not a bad thing though–it’s a good-looking machine! The styling says “FORD” very loudly but it somehow turned out a lot more attractive than what we were getting in the home market at the time.
If you mean overall length, Australian cars have avoided long overhangs. The comparable sedan had a 111″ wheelbase, the wagon made use of the upmarket Fairlane (205″ long) wheelbase for more loadspace, note the long dogleg panel behind the rear doors. With this model there was an even longer LTD on a 121″ wheelbase and 211″ overall.
Before SUVs took over, it was quite common in rural areas to expect a car to be able to go off-road to some degree. The old Holdens were great for this. I’ve known drivers turn off the bitumen to go across a rough paddock without slowing down.
Up until the late sixties, Australian cars often had a higher ground clearance as well as short overhangs so you didn’t get hung up on creek crossings, steep culverts or the like. You might not drive your car like this, but some folk would, and it was comforting to know your car had been designed with the strength for this in mind.
IIRC the first Oz Falcon wagon had a shorter rear overhang than the US version for this reason.
Here’s a shot of an Aussie ’62 wagon to show the difference.
Also meant fewer wagon-specific parts than the US wagons, probably important given Aussie volumes.
Reverse in angle parking against foot high or taller curbs in Rural NSW kept overhangs short to avoid damage.
These came with optional country packs which raised the ride height for ground clearance. My neighbour ,when I was a child, had an XB wagon that he would take anywhere a light four wheel drive. Think of them as a 1970s soft roarer.
The top photo in my avatar is my ute at Lake Eyre so I have seen a few rough roads!
My uncle used to take their XF wagon camping into the bush with friends who had a Nissan Patrol; they didn’t extend the Patrol but the XF went everywhere with the Patrol. The wagon’s normal life was on crushed rock or dirt roads, back then (25 years ago) it was 70 mph on roads with 2″ crushed rock aggregate.
Speaking of two apex predators, the July 1967 issue of Car & Driver featured on the cover a Mercury Cougar and a Jaguar. https://www.amazon.com/1967-July-DRIVER-Magazine-Features/dp/B007MRSBIM?ie=UTF8&ref_=asap_bc
The wagon is an early car (76-78) – the giveaway is the silver rims under the correct hub caps. Lucky to have survived the scrap purges of a decade ago – when it was worth virtually nothing. Obviously a long term owner, venetians and appearing rust deficient (in QLD!). Reliable engines – but rubbish on power – the 200 (3.3) did indeed have its own badge – but you’d never see one on a Fairmont – couldn’t keep up with its shadow.
Also the early cars have the F-O-R-D badging on the leading edge of the bonnet (hood), instead of the blue oval Ford badge in the middle of the grille that came with the update.