Talk:Jaguar E-Type

	This article is related to the Museum of Modern Art.Museum of Modern ArtWikipedia:GLAM/Museum of Modern ArtTemplate:WikiProject Museum of Modern ArtMuseum of Modern Art-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Sports Car Racing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports Car Racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sports Car Racing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sports Car RacingWikipedia:WikiProject Sports Car RacingTemplate:WikiProject Sports Car RacingSports Car Racing articles

Automobiles High‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move[edit]

Jaguar E-type → Jaguar E-Type — This article seems to violate car naming convention and I believe it should be moved. "Type" is a proper noun as part of the model name, and should be capitalized. — Chaparral2J (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

The Low Drag coupe described in the article is, I suspect, the E2A concept. The actual Low Drag coupe was an evolution of the lightweight and produced (I think) in 1964. Under the sub heading 'Lightweight' the article mentions that at least 1 was fitted with fuel injection. In actual fact, all 12 'true lightweights' were fitted with Lucas mechanical fuel injection. Lee Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.178.194 (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by this brochure, it was originally the Jaguar "E" Type (sic). E-Type seems more correct. Alternatively you could move it to Jaguar XKE, which is how 90% of Wikipedia editors know the car, and have done with it. I suspect you'd have people arguing whether it should be XKE or XK-E. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.jag-lovers.org/brochures/section_e-type.html Jaguar used XKE, XK-E, E-Type, & "E" Type. Polls by most Jaguar Forums support E-Type as the prefered car name as it was known in the UK and as it shares its monocoque design with the D Type . XKE was only really used in the US market as a carry over from the XK120 XK140 and XK150 road cars. 203.19.158.31 (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All E-Types (Including American models) carry the badge "E Type" on their rear hatch. The term XKE never appear on a badge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.7.9 (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Enzo Ferrari statement"[edit]

Beside the alleged report of Sean Curtis on Classic Car Review 1964 (btw, there is no link in the footnote, so no evidence of what he actually wrote), there are no other statements, writings, interviews where Ferrari is affirming anything like that. It is highly improbable it ever happened, due to the ego of the Commendatore. This statement should be removed or moved to the "trivia" section.

"Graham"?[edit]

From the citation this looks like his first name. I'd have thought an encyclopedia should use surnames... unless it's customary to refer to "Graham's Guide" or something, in which case this should be explained. Otherwise, being on first-name terms is for enthusiast communities, not encyclopedias. 86.143.52.18 (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Changed. 86.181.118.82 (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Jaguar E-type restored[edit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-13300357

The video talks about lots of stuff that seems important but isn't mentioned here at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.87.179 (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sound here, but I assume that's the car which was involved in Peter Linder's fatal crash at Montlhéry (which also killed Abarth driver Carlo Abate and at least one marshal)? Mr Larrington (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This car was one of the lightweights which had been modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.1.136 (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Series 1: Error found[edit]

With respect to your article on the Jaguar XKE please be advised in the following respect: regarding the series 1 you claim that “the first 300 cars built had flat floors and external hood (bonnet) latches”. I had the good fortune of owning a very early Jaguar which did not have the external hood latches but did have a flat floor. Therefore, it can be safely said that the flat floor outlasted the hood latches. Please correct your article or contact me for additional information.

75.149.81.61 (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)Robert Parrillo raven@pwolaw.com[reply]

Changed until someone can provide a reference for number of cars built with these early features. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.1.136 (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information added by IP address[edit]

Incorrect information regarding Series numbers and irrelevant information regarding Lynx continues to be added to this article by someone using multiple IP addresses. That person needs to discuss on this talk page the reason they believe this information should be added. 72Dino (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been gutted[edit]

It seems like this article has been gutted since the last time I was here, and recent editing and comments on the talk page indicate editing based on other than verifiable sources.

For instance - removal of the defining characteristic of the first 300 cars based on someone's personal anecdote?

Sbs9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gibberish in Series 1 section[edit]

Headings of

Autocar:...

Summary: ...

Motor:...

Summary: ...

and their associated text are hardly encyclopedic. Without exploring the history of all the edits, I can't tell what they are all about. Perhaps someone with some notion of the intent could restore it or clean it up. 99.245.230.104 (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned it up a bit. Stepho talk 10:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WTF is this?[edit]

Only read the introduction so far, and not really impressed. This doesn't sound like "encyclopedic tone" to me at all, among other things. First, why are we comparing the E-Type to "most cars", when it should be compared to sports cars. Next, "unrivaled styling" is obviously an opinion. If you insist on using that exact phrase, it should be couched as "what some considered unrivaled styling". Wikipedia doesn't judge things like that. Personally, I think the E-Type is good looking, but that's it. Certainly not the most beautiful car in the world. But I also wouldn't write that as fact, because it's an opinion. Next, and in the same line, who says the race it won is "the worlds most prestigious sports car race"? Another opinion. And what race? At least you could say what you are talking about, so the reader can judge for themselves. In any case, the tone is way too enthusiastic..."the E-Type was the BEST car EVAR!!!!". Not encyclopedic tone at all. You'd swear the person who wrote it is either a blatant "fanboy", or trying to sell an E-Type. Half of this language could have been taken right out of a sales brochure. And this is just the introduction. I almost dread to read the rest..45Colt 08:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, last I'm saying for now...why is the first section titled "Overview", and then given entirely over to a detailed description of every single variant ever made, what the difference is between a "1 Series" and a "1.5 Series", their respective values, and every configuration ever made. How about an OVERVIEW instead, like, maybe, a general description about the design of the car, why it was made, what size engine it had, how it was different from other cars. Then LATER, if someone actually cares enough about it to read that far, THEN you can get as geeky as you like. Most people will just come here because they want general information about the car. They shouldn't have to wade through all this dense minutia to find the basic information..45Colt 08:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a handy illustration of one of the major problems with collaborative content generation. It's also a good example of the sunk cost fallacy. The only way to knock it into reasonable shape would be to erase it and start from scratch. The existing work is no good, the time spent on it is lost, and I'm not wasting my time unpicking it. The problem is that this policy can only be implemented if the existing editors are jettisoned, and without a mechanism to do that it's not going to improve any time soon. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like a Commercial Fanboy Gibberish[edit]

Maybe the article can be improved to encyclopedic standards when the owner retires.217.248.5.111 (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought.[edit]

This car has a very interesting chassis but it is sort of buried in Series 1, which is huge. Should it be a separate section? Sammy D III (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]