(EXPANDED FROM 11/5/2021)
The Jaguar Mark X may have a commanding presence, but it also looks like the lovechild of a Hudson step-down and the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile. Intriguing but somehow . . . not right.
Oh, the irony that Jaguar unveiled the Mark X in 1961 — the same year as the XK-E (Wikipedia, 2021a, 2021b). But whereas Jaguar’s new sports car was exceptionally svelte, the British automaker’s luxury sedan was big, fat and ill-proportioned. How could such different cars come from the same designers?
Jaguar pushes the retro look too far
If you squint you can see the beginnings of the legendary XJ in the Mark X’s styling. Unfortunately, the dominant impression is of an animal balloon that was inflated too much.
Part of the problem was that Jaguar stylists were too attached to the design peculiarities of the 1950s. Contrary to early-60s trends, the Mark X had a high beltline with a rounded cowl and deck. In addition, the fenders received a pontoon shape that would have been considered audacious even in the early-50s.
What exacerbated the Mark X’s bloated look was that Jaguar management apparently insisted on mimicking the dimensions of standard-sized American cars of the early-50s. This was a much bigger beast than the XJ.
Mark X was the spiritual heir to the Hudson step-down
The Jaguar was strikingly similar in size to the 1948-54 Hudson step-down. The Mark X had almost the same wheelbase, length and width as a 1954 Wasp, which was the entry-level big Hudson.
The most visible difference between the Jaguar and the Hudson was that the Mark X was almost six inches lower. Indeed, its 54.5-inch height was on the short side for four-door sedans of the early-1960s. For example, the Jaguar was almost three inches lower than a 1961 Mercedes-Benz 300SE and almost as low as a Lincoln Continental, which was a forerunner of today’s coupe sedans (go here for further discussion).
Also like the Hudson, the Jaguar had a unitized body that was heavy for its class. Jaguar attempted to compensate for the heft with a straight six that had roughly the same displacement as an entry-level Wasp (231 cubic inches) but was souped up even more than the Hornet’s famed Twin H-Power engines.
Just as Hudson had placed an emphasis on advanced engineering, so too did Jaguar. The Mark X showcased impressive features such as fully-independent front and rear suspension and disc brakes on all four wheels. I could see Hudson going in this direction if it had managed stay alive and independent into the 1960s.
The Mark X’s styling had neo-classical elements such as a radiator grille, but its relatively low greenhouse, wide stance and aggressive profile could be seen as a more modern interpretation of the Hudson step-downs.
The main difference between the Mark X and the step-downs was that the Jaguar was priced considerably higher. Whereas Hudson straddled the low-to-middle reaches of the premium-priced class, the 1962 Mark X listed for almost $7,400, a good $800 more than Cadillac’s exclusive Eldorado Biarritz convertible.
If you ignore the price differential, the Jaguar and Hudson were similar enough in their sporty personas and advanced features that the Mark X arguably came the closest of any early-60s car to being the spiritual heir to the step-downs.
So yes, the Mark X could plausibly have been related to the Hudson. But there was another quality about the car that suggested different set of genes.
Enter, the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile . . .
As big-boned as the Hudson was, it lacked the almost hotdog-like roundedness of the Jaguar. Such lines could only come from one place: The Oscar Mayer Wienermobile.
Of course, rather than pointing upwards, the Mark X’s body dresses the other way. Nevertheless, you can almost smell the hotdog cooking. And as an added touch, the side character line evokes a streak of mustard.
No British snootiness here! Jaguar was clearly trying to cater to plebeian American tastes.
Also see ‘1961-68 Jaguar XK-E has never been topped in two ways’
Alas, us Americans didn’t bite. Tatra87 (2019) has already done an excellent job of analyzing the Mark X’s multiple weaknesses so I won’t belabor them. Suffice it to say, Jaguar failed to do well in the luxury sedan market until it unveiled the XJ in late-1968 (Wikipedia, 2021c).
Undoubtedly, the biggest reason why the XJ was more successful than the Mark X was its much better styling. However, it was also sized and priced a notch lower.
Jaguar should have steered clear of that hotdog
Paul Niedermeyer (2019a) once asked readers to photoshop the Mark X in order to fix its odd proportions. Bernard Taylor answered the call by increasing the height of the Mark X’s greenhouse (Niedermeyer, 2019b). That helped, but as an experiment let’s mess with the rest of the car instead.
The most obvious place to start would be to lower the beltline, flatten the cowl/deck and liposuction those fender shoulders. While we’re at it, how about toning down the mustard streak, enlarging the rear-wheel cutouts and giving the front end a more modern bumper placement?
We could stop there, but the car still looks too big. So let’s cut the length roughly seven inches, the wheelbase six inches and the width three inches. That would place our fake Mark X about halfway between the size of a real one and the XJ.
I grant you that the fake Mark X does not possess the real version’s uniquely aggressive stance for such a large luxury sedan. However, our fake has a more modern and clean look that could have aged better. In addition, the smaller size should also have more easily navigated European cities and improved the car’s power-to-weight ratio.
Shorn of its excesses, one can more clearly see how key elements of the Mark X’s design language set the stage for the XJ. The main difference is the rear-quarter treatment. Whereas the Mark X still trafficked in the teardrop look, the XJ adopted the XK-E’s coke-bottle upkick at the C-pillar.
Also see ‘Mercedes-Benz W123: Back when form really did follow function’
The only sad thing about our fake Mark X is that it no longer looks like the offspring of a Hudson step-down and the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile. Imagine depriving the world of such a spectacle.
On a more serious note, if Hudson had survived as a standalone automaker into the early-60s, an advanced design vaguely like the Jaguar X could have resulted. This hints at how a drastic drop in the number of U.S. automakers in the 1950s would reduce consumers’ diversity of choices. As we discuss here, more independents might have survived longer if anti-trust laws were better enforced.
NOTES:
This article was originally posted Nov. 5, 2021 and updated on Sept. 15, 2023. Product specifications and sales figures were from the Automobile Catalog (2021), Flammang (1992) and Gunnell (2002; 2007).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Automobile Catalog; 2021. “Search Automobile Catalog.” Accessed Nov. 4.
- Flammang, James M.; 1992. Standard Catalog of Imported Cars: 1946-1990. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- ——; 2007. Standard Catalog of Jaguar, 1946-2005. KP Books, Iola, WI.
- Niedermeyer, Paul; 2019a. Commentator in “Curbside Classic: 1965 Jaguar Mk X – Paying Respect To Madame X.” Curbside Classic. Posted 8:20 p.m., May 15.
- ——; 2019b. “What If? CC Designs a Better Jaguar Mark X.” Curbside Classic. Posted May 17.
- Tatra87; 2019. “Curbside Classic: 1965 Jaguar Mk X – Paying Respect To Madame X.” Curbside Classic. Posted May 15.
- Wikipedia; 2021a. “Jaguar Mark X.” Page last edited July 1.
- ——; 2021b. “Jaguar E-Type.” Page last edited Oct. 24.
- ——; 2021c. “Jaguar XJ.” Page last edited Oct. 24.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- jag-lovers.org/brochures: Mark X (1961, 1963); XJ (1971)
- storm.oldcarmanualproject.com (Free Car Brochures): Jaguar Mark X ( 1961)
PHOTOGRAPHY:
- Milwaukee Art Museum Brooks Stevens Collection: Oscar Mayer Company archive
Oscar Meyer Wienermobile?, Man that’s harsh! Don’t forget that Jag was building the smaller S type during this period, which was well received as am intermediate sized sports sedan. They also had the larger 420 G series. Bringing in a new flagship to replace the aging “Roll Royce style” Mark VII through IX, was a gamble. Jaguar built the old Mark for ten years and it was old fashioned looking from the beginning.( I happen to have a ’51 Mark VII so I may be prejudiced!) Jag took a gamble on where American design was going, they knew that they weren’t going to be able to retool and bring out new models every couple of years like the Americans. I suppose they thought that the Mark X would be distinct enough from the smaller sedans, would somewhat correspond with contemporary American designs, and would be a suitable flagship. At least they didn’t tack fins on it! Fortunately for everything they got wrong; the styling,they got everything right; the mechanicals. Of course the XJ6 got everything right but the quality! Oh the woes of the Jaguar marque!
Jose, it sounds like you’ve had some cool cars over the years. And I do get the appeal of postwar Jaguars. I compared the Mark X with the Hudson step-down partly to suggest that we lost quite a bit of design diversity in the US when most of the independents fell by the wayside in the mid-50s.
I grant you that I was partly being funny when evoking the Wienermobile, but I’ve also never been able to warm to the Mark X’s extravagant pontoon look. That said, Jaguar does deserve credit for not tacking on tail fins.
Having driven old Jaguar four-door sedans from the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s, Jaguar sedans were a delight to this unsophisticated Hoosier. I had a friend on the board of directors of WFYI-TV / FM, Indianapolis, who restored old Jag sedans and drove a Mark X and a 420G. These cars were not styled for your average American driver. Sir William Lyon could have styled the Mark X and 420G with the Daimler SP250 “fish mouth”! These cars were styled to compete with the Rover (2000 and 3500) sedans which were much more size efficient. Many buyers of the Jaguars and Daimler Vandan Plas sedans were members of the British peerage, so as they passed each other on the British roads, they would stop and exchange Grey Poupon to put on their Oscar Meyer wieners !
Speaking of the Jaguar MKI and II, there was a film footage of a Jaguar MKI where it go down the cliff in various British series who was produced by ITC studios like The Baron, The Saint, The Champions, Department S, Randall & Hopkirk, The Adventurer. A Renault 4CV was also used for a similar stunt in the same tv series as well as The Persuaders and that white Jaguar footage was also re-used for a skit of Saturday Night Live known as Toonces the driving cat.
http://www.randallandhopkirk.culttv.uk/features_white_jag.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08-faOc-vEE
There was once a joke when we see a bad guy or a innocent victim going in a white Jaguar, you know how this’ll turn.
It looks like some ‘artistic license’ was taken with those Jaguar Mk.X renderings, but hey, I like them!
There is a strong contingent that praise the Mark 10 as the best Jag ever, while I’m not sure about that I do have a 66 Mark 10 4.2 and a 2014 XF 3.0. The XF is faster and has some really great features. I drive the Mark 10 every chance I get. It’s a great car . You spent a lot of time critiquing the outside but you should drive one . It’s really a great ride.