Hello folks -
Hoping someone out there has some experience that can help with this question: Does the S-Type and or 420 (not 420g) have more driver legroom than the MKII?
I’ve always found the legroom in the MKII to be pretty tight, tight enough that if I planned to drive the car any real distance or with frequency, I’d want to move the seat mounts back a few inches. As I contemplate my next Jaguar adventure, I’m drawn to the S-type or 420, but would like to understand if one is a little more “taller guy” friendly than the MKII. I know that a smaller steering wheel helps, but I really prefer the stock wheel.
The ‘S’ shares the cabin architecture with the MK11 not sure about the 420 but I would think it’s the same as well.
There’s more legroom in the S Type and 420 due to thinner seat cushions and a higher roofline at the rear, bigger cutaways under the front seats , and no picnic trays, but I think the improvements are limited to rear seat room, not front. I’m 6’ tall and had plenty of room in my S Type.
Hmmm, Okidokie. I’m 6’1, and found my '62 MKII pretty tight. My '65 was better because that car had a smaller wheel and I installed XJ8 seats a few inches back - very comfortable. There’s not an S-Type out there that I can find right now, but there are a few 420 cars - all of which need some work, but I suppose that’s half the fun. I think, all things considered, I’d prefer the S-Type, but I’m not opposed to the 420 - and It looked bigger, so I imagined it might have more room up front - but sounds like that’s not the case.
No, the 420 is just an S Type with bigger engine and restyled front. AFIK, the only difference in the interior relates to the dashtop being padded rather than wood veneer. IIRC, the S Type seat may have been a bit flatter and wider than the Mk2 one, so there could be a fraction there.
have both mk2 and 420
Different steering wheels, but I don’t feel much difference between the two (and am 6’ 3")
mk2 more fun/exuberant to drive, less fun to be a passenger (so my wife tells me…)
420 a grand touring saloon, bigger boot, IRS does make a difference, but not a game changer IMHO
glad I have both!!
I’m 6"5 and I find the S Type head and leg room quite adequate although I have the reclining seat back one notch. Actually I find that the driving position and head room in my S is better and more confortable than my 1990 XJ6. Leg position on that car is somewhat awkward for long drives. Strange that Jaguar seems to have gone backwards over all these generations of cars.
Well, thats an important call out actually - the reclining seats. I have a set of MKII reclining seats ( at least they came in my '65 MKII, so perhaps they are S-Type - I know MKII reclining seats are rare) but I never used them. Having the recline would make a difference for sure - so perhaps that’s one certain advantage VS the MKII.
Here is a shot of the front seats, Reclining lever out view at lower back outboard near floor.
The spare seats I have do not have the center arm rest, so I guess they are MKII recliners after all.
I think Mk2 and S Type shared steering wheels, but there was a change circa 1965-66 where the centre boss changed on both, larger gold Jag growler instead of a small red one. As a matter of interest ( perhaps) the red wheel growler is the same as used in the S1 E Type motif bar, I believe.
I had a 340 (mk2) and now a 420 and feel the 420 has more leg room. I’m 6’1 and fit fine even on long drives.
If you decide you really want a 420. My car is rust free, good interior and mechanically good shape. I may want to sell it.
If you are thinking about selling, I am definitely interested.
Jagman66E, Might help to update your profile with your location to find potential buyers of your 420.
And sadly it is a manual - so, the search continues.
Thank you. I updated the location.