Thought I made that clear in the post. The bodies, doors and sheet metal were extremely solid by the standards of the day....some of the best I saw outside of the Mercedes G-Wagen. As for the quality of the engines some others have mentioned, I really can't say, although my next door neighbor has one with an SVT powerplant that is well over two decades old.

 

depreciated or not when bought, you still have a sizable 'investment' in cars. More power to you if you can do it and it's what you wanted!

Conversely, the money you spent on the depreciated ferraris in a couple of recent years in apple and microsoft stock would have allowed you to buy a new ferrari or two. that's been my approach and i buy (or this last time for the first time, lease) a new car. in the end, we can rationalize and justify whatever works for us.

 

The body of a Ford Contour was some of the best you saw outside of a Mercedes G Wagen? Come on! The Contour was okay, but nothing special in any way. The only thing that stood out about it was that it seemed very European and sturdy compared to Fords of the era, because it was a European Ford Mondeo. But it was nothing special compared with other European/Japanese cars of the era. What about an LS400? Contour was more solid than an LS400? Or a W124 S Class?!? Hardly.

And its time we stop equating the thinner steel used on new cars vs old cars as being cheap. In fact, thinner steel and different metals used that retain the same strength are MORE EXPENSIVE than thicker steel with the same load rating. Cars today are made to be lighter for many reasons, not because to makes them cheaper.

 

No "come on" about it. My opinion stands. I judged it by what I saw of the standards of the times. I do admit, however, that the LS400 was probably better in the drivetrain, electronics, interior, comfort, and several other areas, but that was not what I was referring to. I was refering to the bank-vault-like solidness of the door closings and sheet-metal, compared to the average car of the period. But, as you note, it was not more solid than some Mercedes products.....I mentioned the G-Wagen in particular, but it actually includes Mercedes in general back then. The doors on my neighbor's Contour SVT still open and shut with the same solid and vibration-free thud as I remember from these cars brand-new, and, although it has some paint-scratches, there isn't a dent on it, a testimony to the quality of the sheet metal. Compare that to what today's vehicles often look like after even one moderate hailstorm LOL.

 

I could not disagree more. The Ford Contour was not more "bank vault solid" than many, many, many cars of the era. You can just list dozens of super solid high quality cars from that era. SL Mercedes? S Class, E Class, Lexus LS, BMW 7, 5, 3 all were super solid, Volkswagens, Volvos...it goes on and on. All of those cars are just as solid today as they were then.

You didnt say "compared to the average car of the era" you said "some of the best outside of the Mercedes G Wagen" which is an incredible statement.

 

Fine. We'll leave it at that.

 

Call me weird, but I absolutely adore the S-Type's design, especially in its final years. Never agreed with the "retro" designation. The banana-like swooping body was ahead of its time, like a predecessor to the CLS. The 4.2 AJ-V8 was one of the smoothest V8s ever made. Shame about the rust issues that eat away inside the door sills and underbody.

 

Agreed it was a beautiful car...one of the best-looking sedans I've seen.

The Lincoln LS was also available on the same platform (although it had a markedly different body and interior), and even offered a 5-speed manual with the V6.

 

I aways thought the S Type was a sharp car. I even thought the interior was cool and different

 

Much prefer the facelifted interior, even if it was a miniaturized XJ's:



IIRC the Mustang was supposed to be on the same platform too, but it was too expensive, and so Ford chopped it up to give us the fixed rear-axle version. Funny how the revived 'Stang and Challenger both have European roots in their underbodies.

 

^^^^ Yep......THAT was when Jaguar actually did Jaguar interiors. With the exception of the recently-discontinued XJ sedan, today's Jag interiors essentially look like everybody else's.

 

Agreed. No personality. It feels like Jaguar is facing the same dilemma as modern Cadillac where it doesn't really know its target audience and is attempting to be more Germanic at the expense of losing its soul.

 

When the S-Type debuted in 2000, my wife informed me that she wanted that car. And you know what they say if you want to have a happy life!

I was a little concerned because I joined a Jaguar forum and people were having problems with the inaugural 2000 models, however most of the problems were with the V8 and we got the V6. Overall it was a pretty reliable car.

If you recall in their advertising they played a Shirley Bassey song called History Repeating. Here are pics of her car last fall, shortly before we sold it. If it hadn't rusted so badly we'd still have it.

 

ok let's not have this continue to be off topic as a retro '90s car love fest.

 

Agreed, but some people are still actually driving cars from the 90s....when Toyota and Honda, IMO, were at their best. The thread title itself only suggests that the average age of today's cars is 12 years....with many vehicles, of course being older.