In reply to a message from PacNW sent Sat 21 Nov 2015:
I think the worst thing I ever tried to get into was a Lotus
Elise. Wide sills, low roof opening over the door. It was all
but impossible to enter and exit on the driver’s side.–
Mike Spoelker
Louisville,Kentucky, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
The 120 guys are happy to put up with the relative discomfort compared to
the 140 because of the superior looks. No clunky wrap-around bumpers or
heavy grille. Much more refined look.
John Brady
678462
Bedford, MA
I like “refined” - also elegant, and just the way Sir William intended -
especially with wing valencesOn 11/25/2015 8:32 AM, JBrady5282@aol.com wrote:
The 120 guys are happy to put up with the relative discomfort compared to
the 140 because of the superior looks. No clunky wrap-around bumpers or
heavy grille. Much more refined look.John Brady
678462
Bedford, MA
In reply to a message from PacNW sent Sat 21 Nov 2015:
I don’t have to worry because I am lucky to be 68 inches in
height and have no problems fitting into my XK120 FHC. But I
can say that the E-Type is even worse to get in and out of.
Some time ago, I was considering a purchase of an E-Type
coupe and urged my wife to try it out. Big mistake. She had
trouble traversing the wide sill and killed the deal!
I hear that the M-B 300 SL is even worse. So stop
complaining and enjoy your beautiful (and still affordable)
XK120s!–
CarlH
BEDFORD, MA, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
Without a doubt the 120 FHC is the purest lines. The prettiest. It was my first choice.
Since we drive our 150 over 3,000 miles per year with luggage, tools, floor jack, and spares it was not the car for me.
Ron
ron raderSent from my iPhone
On Nov 25, 2015, at 5:32 AM, JBrady5282@aol.com wrote:
The 120 guys are happy to put up with the relative discomfort compared to
the 140 because of the superior looks. No clunky wrap-around bumpers or
heavy grille. Much more refined look.John Brady
678462
Bedford, MA
In reply to a message from Bruce Cunningham sent Wed 25 Nov 2015:
built for speed not for comfort… The 140 was Lyons response to
the complaints of his US customers regarding the issues raised in
this thread. Give the customer what he wants… (balance of comment
deliberately deleted 
) Still as true today as 1952… must have
TWO heated cup holders… and an accessory one for warming baby
bottles to juuuuust the right temperature to keep Mommy happy in
the latest SUV. Bunch of molly coddled wussies whining about a bit
of comfort… Now back in my day…–
The original message included these comments:
The 120 guys are happy to put up with the relative discomfort compared to
the 140 because of the superior looks. No clunky wrap-around bumpers or
heavy grille. Much more refined look.
–
godfrey
pender island bc, Canada
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
When Ian Callum was presenting his new XK to Ford executives, one of
them asked him at the end of his presentation where the cup-holders
were. Ian was puzzled and was informed that every Ford product had to
have two cup-holders large enough to hold a “big gulp” and his car had
none at all. Ian responded with a question: What’s a “big gulp”? Ian
explained that cup-holders were not standard equipment in Jaguars and
having designed the interior with “space” in mind (space, grace, pace),
he would have to redesign the whole interior to accommodate such a
change. The exec responded with “OK” - clearly meaning “do it”. Ian
thought briefly and responded: “Over my dead body”, to which the exec
responded by suggesting (presumably facetiously) that that could be
arranged. Cup-holders were eventually added.
I learned from one of our British listers, Eric Capron, that one of the
reasons our '85 S3 XJ6 did not have any cup-holders was because it was
illegal to drink ANYTHING while driving. Those who have driven on roads
in the UK can understand why - narrow lanes, no shoulders, and often
vertical walls of vegetation at the edge of the pavement, making lots of
curves “blind”.On 11/25/2015 10:47 AM, godfrey wrote:
In reply to a message from Bruce Cunningham sent Wed 25 Nov 2015:
built for speed not for comfort… The 140 was Lyons response to
the complaints of his US customers regarding the issues raised in
this thread. Give the customer what he wants… (balance of comment
deliberately deleted
TWO heated cup holders… and an accessory one for warming baby
bottles to juuuuust the right temperature to keep Mommy happy in
the latest SUV. Bunch of molly coddled wussies whining about a bit
of comfort… Now back in my day…The original message included these comments:
The 120 guys are happy to put up with the relative discomfort compared to
the 140 because of the superior looks. No clunky wrap-around bumpers or
heavy grille. Much more refined look.
–
godfrey
pender island bc, Canada
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
John B;
Let us also ask the question of “Why” folks bought their first (or only)
120 to begin with…
There is no doubt at to the beauty of the 120’s lines, at my first sight
of an XK120, I bought it!! I might have taken a full minute to make the
decision to purchase ;-}… Tho I “needed” a vehicle (being a full-time
college student AND working sixty hours per week), the $300 price tag,
even in 1967, was an attractive as well as an “acceptable expense”.
As many of you well know, my 120 DHC was my year-round daily
driver (averaging 15,000+ miles per year!! with numerous 300+ mile runs
at a 100MPH average!) until mid 1975, when the “forty-year restoration”
began…
It would be interesting to learn of others’ reasons for their first XK120
purchase…
Charles #677556.----- Original Message -----
From: JBrady5282@aol.com
To: xk@jag-lovers.org
Cc: chansonjag@aol.com; bfeng7@yahoo.com; tbrady312@aol.com;
etype38@comcast.net; tursch66@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 7:32 AM
Subject: [xk] XK120 tall driver tips
The 120 guys are happy to put up with the relative discomfort compared to
the 140 because of the superior looks. No clunky wrap-around bumpers or
heavy grille. Much more refined look.John Brady
678462
Bedford, MA
Godfrey;
If one wanted comfort in 1951-1953 and could afford the price
of a Jag XK120, the Cadillac Fleetwood Sixty Special was the car
to buy… Even the “plain” Sixty-Two Series (two door convert)
offered “wind in your hair” while STILL offering the comfort of a
Cadillac!
Point being, I doubt buyers of a new XK120 complained about
the comfort, in as much as the subsequent (used car) owners did!
Charles #677556.
built for speed not for comfort…
Still as true today as 1952… must have
TWO heated cup holders… and an accessory one for warming baby
bottles to juuuuust the right temperature to keep Mommy happy in
the latest SUV. Bunch of molly coddled wussies whining about a bit
of comfort…
Now back in my day…----- Original Message -----
From: “godfrey”
–
godfrey
With respect to tips to make 120s and XKEs an easier fit for tall folk…
One last tip that I don’t believe was mentioned, and, at 6’4" and size 14 feet, I have used all the others except for the smaller steering wheel.
Replace the horsehair in the driver’s side seat pad with compressional foam that squishes almost to nothing, yet, when not used, gives the seat pad the proper appearance. This has the effect of lowering one’s body around 3-4 inches, and now, instead of looking over the windshield, I am looking through it! Perhaps I have a longer torso, but with my XK120 coupe, (now gone) and my still remaining two x120s and 67 XKE roadster since new, no issues with the fit…just tight…:}.
Ím 6ft 2” and have all 3 XKs. Just want to add my trick: on restored cars with new seats, I ondo the staples holding the leather cover at the back. I then tear out about 1/3 of the quite hard seat foam. This gets my ass further down so that I can look through the wind screen rather than get the upper frame in my eye sight. It also gets my thighs out of the way a bit.
There’s an old adage that Lyons designed these so his big Scots bankers couldn’t drive them. Motolita will make a nice four spoke wheel in 16 or 15 inches, but it increases the turning effort. I bought the 140 instead which has a lot more leg room. Vancouver.
Of no use to you but maybe to others. I am 6’4" and have plenty of room in my standard 140 fixed head
On my RHD 120 OTS I find I prefer the steering wheel pulled as close to me as it will go. When getting in, I slide my left knee under the wheel just before flopping into the seat, then pull my right leg in with the help of both hands to get my foot past the door aperture. Seems to work OK for me.
Bassetts no long has the trick peddles, inquiry late 2019.
I’m going to install a wedge in the firewall to allow the brake and clutch to start and end about 2" further away. Not sure if I’ll fettle the accelerator yet.
That is a great idea ,
