In the early 80's I had a 1967 V8 250 in Old English White, what a beautiful car. It was a crowd puller everywhere I parked up. It came to a sticky end though when a lunatic jumped a red traffic light and wrote it off :/
A nice chap in London let me take his Old English White Daimler 250 V8 out for a spin once. We had been waiting for a stained glass class to start, which never happened. I remember how polite all the other traffic was, letting me out etc.
In the late '60s, I had a MK2 3.8. Really nice driving car. I raced it a bit at the drag strip and autocross events. Never beaten in class at the drags. Lots of fun. But at same time a very classy car.
I've only ever been in a MK2 Jaguar once. Someone gave me a lift in one in 1970, when I was a student. The feel of it at the time, was ..., not agricultural, but like something from another era. Which, really it was. Same road, a few weeks later, I received a lift in a Vauxhall Viscount ( 3 or 3.3 litres straight six, I think ). That was a brisk drive, first time I'd ever been in a car driven quickly. The feel of it was completely different to the Jaguar. It felt modern, and a kind of relentless big cruiser. The following year, I received a 50 mile lift on a fast , curvy A-road in an XJ6 4.2. A revelation compared to the other two. 8 years later I bought an Xj6, a well used 1970 model. Brilliant. Btw, not mentioned on this video, but I seem to recall something along the lines of..... that the Daimler 250 handled rather better than the Jaguar, due to the engine being considerably lighter ?
Great memories, thanks for recalling them. Yes the XJ was (at the time) the ultimate refinement. You may be right about the Daimler’s handling but it depends what kind of ride you wanted. The Daimler was a much softer ride compared to the Mk2.
Owned a v8 250 for a number of years in the early seventies , midnight blue , chrome wires , drove it across Europe to Amalfi in Italy , got mobbed their every where we went , was a great car
Both are beautiful examples of British classics. I love them both as much as each other, But I have always loved the mk 2. So I guess that just pips the Daimler !
My dad had a beautiful Mk II Jaguar (white, with red leather trim) when i was a kid in the 1970's. I used to sit in it when it was parked on the drive and just love the look and smell of it. A glorious motor car. Daimlers never came close for me!
This is great car, and it is the symbol of UK car manufacturing era of the old days, bearing the royal and elegant shape of the appearance, you are almost being with the noble style when you drive it on the road. Yeah, lovely, thank you of this video.
Ah, the nostalgia! My father had a Daimler 250 V8 auto in light metallic blue and it was a beautiful car to be in. My uncle also had one but my aunt made him sell it because she said she got carsick 'because it was so smooth' (!). Enjoyed the video but disappointed you didn't include footage of travelling in both cars to 'compare the journey'!
@@alankirkby465 I don't think so -- it was more likely to be 'opalescent silver blue'. I think it was a standard Jag colour because I seem to remember seeing a lot of them (Jags) around in that colour.
Interestingly, only Duncan noticed the glaring differences between this very much modified 3.8 against the standard model . I would also , for reference , have pointed out the age related changes made . The later cars had the slim fit bumpers, leather was an option and even the fog lights (which were pretty useless) became an option . My father had an early 3.4 manual o/d and was loaned a 250 auto when his went in for servicing . He was very impressed with the Daimler and said it handled better and was only slightly slower than his. I myself had a couple of 250's in later years and that 2.5 Hemi was a sweet engine . Not sure if the interior in that Daimler was original , that biscuit clashed with the carpets and Blue exterior . Thanks for sharing .
Thanks for the builds - I did only notice afterwards that the 3.8 had the extras. And yes they were at opposite ends of the model’s lifecycle. I hope to be able to go into more depth in future videos.
Around 1968 found a Daimler in anchorage alaska for $600 bucks. Didn't drive it but looked good. Being in the us army on limited income and being a complete oddball car at that time and place I had to pass on it. Still think about it though
A couple of comments. Firstly: The MKII was never equipped with a louvred bonnet from the factory, unless it was as a factory race car. Secondly: The 2.5 litre V8 was never in competition with the 3.8, because their performance figures were miles apart. The V8 was only ever competing with the 2.4 MKII. It is therefore not a fair comparison and much of the information is just plain wrong.
Yes, others have spotted that the Jaguar I had access to was far from standard - eg triple carbs - it wasn't supposed to be a straight comparison between two specific models but between the two almost identical looking types. Thanks for watching and commenting.
The main difference was under the bonnet as the Jag had a 3.8 liter straight six while the Daimler had a V8 However the power of the Jag could be improved if it was converted from 2 to 3 carburetors.
The question was asked, so I answered it! That was the whole point of the video. I feel well qualified to bust the myth that the Daimler was the quicker car, (against the 2.4 Jaguar) and went into some detail to justify my opinion. Sixty years on it may be less relevant, but it has become such received "wisdom", that I am fed up with hearing it.
@@SportsandGT he'd stop at a traffic light next to a young lady in her car and offer to swap for awhile. I can't tell you how many ladies he picked up that way.... bastard!!!
What I neglected to mention was that the two cars were from opposite ends of the model development timeline and the Mk2's bumpers also got slimmer in '67.
I'd actually prefer the daimler, especially if it's fettled a bit with a manual conversion. This simply because the daimler has a better weight distribution, is lighter and less nose heavy. trust me, I'd love the Mk II, but the daimler has just more appeal to me xD
No, I totally understand, it is a very sweet car that could have been massively improved with more development but was all but ignored on that front by the Jaguar management.
Far from a fair comparison. The Mk2 2.8 litre would have lost out to the Daimler. The 3:8 litre car there is clearly modified and the bonnet is trying to give it the Coombs look, certainly not standard on any mk2. If Lyons had let them fit the bigger V8 from the Daimler Majestic the 3.8 would not keep up.
maybe you should call it a split bench seat in the Daimler as the vision clearly shows one side being in front of the other, which is impossible with a bench seat.
I more-or-less learned to drive in my parents' 1966 3.4 Mk 2 Jaguar. Manual with overdrive. They also had a 1961 2.4 Mk 2 manual with overdrive. The 3.8 was a much more sporty car - triple SU carbs instead of twin, limited slip diff, etc. It would be much fairer to compare the Daimler 250 to a 2.4 or 3.4 Mk 2. My choice would be for whichever car had the manual box.
Thanks for the video. Both lovely cars but if I had the choice I'd absolutely go for the Daimler 250. My brother briefly owned a baby Daimler which he bought as a somewhat neglected wedding car. Sold to someone with more time to look after it. We both agreed it was a lovely car that rode, handled, and went far better than a car of that age had any right to. I maintain the 250 V8 is the sweetest running V8 ever made and it's a tragedy it wasn't used in more cars. PS My brother's car was in Old English White and had a manual box - I don't remember it being anything other than 'quick' when you needed it to be so I wonder if the manuals had the Jag box in them and were set up more for acceleration than the autos?
Both fantastic cars! I'd go with the Mk2 - my father had one that I fondly remember restoring (well, him restoring while I sat inside pretending to drive!). Looking forward to more videos - the warehouse looks stacked with interesting subjects !
Would love to have seen a roadtest of these two cars - you could easily stretch this out to 20 or 30 minutes for me! The Jag is the car though - those spinners, the manual box, the leaping cat. It just has a bit more character and I love it.
Thank you. My comparison was a bit unfair, it was the bigger of the Mk2s and had also been tuned. If you’d rather waft and cruise than roar and thrash, go for the Daimler.
Had a 1963 Daimler in the late 60s lovely car. Though as stated more a gentleman's car ruled me out. Auto but unlike the auto Jag no intermediate speed hold in kick down. A little disconcerting when overtaking ... power steering would have been much better if you are looking...13 mpg if you give it stick..Avon Turbospeed tyres were superb. Always found each drive an occasion hard to convey. Informative video cheers.
The MK 2 is a bucket list car for me, but I'd have to resto-mod it. Change the rear spats, put as much modern tech as I could whilst hiding it all behind the 60s class.
when I was young it would have been the 3.8 Jag but now that I am getting a bit long in the tooth give me the Daimler with that sweet little 250 V8 any day.
I bought an immaculate Jaguar 3.8 Mk2 for £300 in 1971. It was a really fast car and didn't handle too bad on the bends for it's size. I don't think the Daimler 2.5 saloon was much of a desirable car at that time although the Daimler Dart, or SP250 sports car, which used the same engine was. I loved my Jag but it developed a bad oil leak, so I got rid of it and bought a Mk 2 Healey 3000, also for £300. It makes me sick when I see what these cars fetch now. If only I knew then what I know now lol
My dad was a car- aholic he had a jaguar then a daimler and I remember the wood panelled cabinets behind the front seats . then came a scimitar then the alfa Romeo sprint ....... I love cars too . must be genetic .
The louvred hood or bonnet were not standard on the jaguar except for the SS and E type and not on Daimler, why do restorers always replace the steering wheel for non standard bit of tat same with chrome wheels. Nice cars the jag's needed tuning it sounded a little off, tappets maybe, they may take up when it warms up. True colour Sherwood green BRG was used on the 2.4 & 3.4 (Mk 1). Nice Vid.
At last a comparison between the Mark 2 Jaguar andthe Damiler V8 two totally different cars or though the look extremely similar but you can't beat the look of that XK engine one of the prettiest engines ever made looks and is powerful and so purpersful
@@SportsandGT On Google there is a list of the top ten engines if all time and the Jaguar XJ is on the list and also the Toyota 22R /RE also makes the list because of its reliability and actually l have a 1997 Toyota Hilux with the 22R engine and it is reliable
The louvres on the Jaguar bonnet are not standard. The car has been worked on and has the triple carbs off an E Type or Mk 10; this usually means that the battery will have been moved to the boot. I do feel that you ought to mention such matters in your dialogue.
Yes others have pointed this out - it was a tuned up Mk2. It was one of my first videos and I wasn’t aware of the non-standard features. Sorry, I was working with what I had available. Thanks for watching and commenting. 👍🏼
It would have been nice to have some comparative engine specs. I’ve seen Turner’s little V8 idling with bonnet up, and it was as smooth as the mechanism of a Swiss watch. But what power did it make? Oh, and Daimler has a waterfall grill, not “furrowed.”
Thanks for commenting John. This was one of my first videos and I have (hopefully) improved since in terms of specifics. The Mk2 featured actually had an uprated engine with the triple SU setup so it was a rather unfair comparison. I’ve not heard waterfall used for the Daimler grille, although it’s a beautiful expression. Fluted is the most common description but there are also many references to a “furrowed brow”.
The commentator doesn’t mention the fact that the Jaguar has what appears to be an E type engine , what with the ‘gold ‘ head and 3 carburettors and all. That must be quite something with 265 b.h.p on tap ....
I like the curved wheel covers you sometimes get on the rear wheels and how you get a different badge on the grille for the jaguar depending on the litre of the engine. I would like one but most of them are manual and I can't drive a manual. How much worse is the 3.4 compared to the 3.8? And also are there more automatic 3.4s or 3.8s? And third question does the 3.4s engine sound as good as that?
Those curved wheel covers - spats - aren’t to everyone’s taste so some people take them off. As for the engine noise, this one had extra carbs and was tuned up. The 3.8 is similar to the one first put into E-types but only has 10hp more than the 3.4, unless it has 3 carbs like this one! Certainly more of all the Mk2s were manual but there are autos out there. Alternatively, look for a Daimler - more sedate than sporty but has a sweet V8 and most were autos.
@@SportsandGT Ah thank you I hadn't thought about tuning and I also thought the ones with spats had different wheel arches to accommodate them so it's nice to know that if I found one that doesn't have them I can just put some on
Thanks for commenting Paul. I don’t think I said the louvres were standard but I take your point. The bumpers were different due to the different eras of production. If I had had free choice in terms of cars to work with - and with hindsight - I could have made a better comparison of similar age, unmodified cars.
They put that 3.8 motor in the e type. My Dads uncle had one in 1961. Dad had a hotted up mk1 3.4 and wanted a 3.8 with wire wheels. They would cruise in silence at 100mph....even on the b roads of 50 years ago. Quiet Sunday drive? All my sister and I saw was a blur and the throaty roar from the exhaust.
In the original Autocar review of the Daimler they also make comparisons with the Jag 3.8. Would seem fairer to compare with the 3.4 as they are closer matched, especially in the rarer manual guise.
@@SportsandGT would pick the Daimler. That V8 is a jewel of an engine. The 3.8 is too much of a bruiser with nose heavy handling... but the sporting heritage of the Jag 3.8 and higher BHP will always command a higher price, even though the Daimler was the higher priced variant when new.
Could not agree more . My dad had the Daimler which I did have the opportunity to drive on longer runs and which enabled the reasonable performance to show . Didn’t like the auto box .
Hi lovely video, however and I hope more knowledgeable viewers than me can correct the following: the Warner Borges automatic gearbox being a torque convertor was physically bigger in comparison to the manual box and necessitated the engine being pushed further into the engine bay, the automatic box being desirable for the US market. In the MGB a straight 4 versus MBC being a straight six with the same auto gear box handling was upset on corners because the centre of balance was further forward. despite better straight-line performance. Also at the time back then an auto lost power to the final drive compared to a manual as well as MPG. A V8 being a shorter block in the Daimler solved the balance issue but the 2.5 with the auto was underpowered against the manual Jag. If the bigger Turner V8 as is the Majestic was used that would have been different? Thanks Peter.
Thanks Peter. I don’t know that the Daimler was underpowered just under geared. It could have been addressed, and was to an extent with the limited run of manuals late in production, but the Daimler brand wasn’t really about speed and power it was for ride refinement and luxury which it already had. Balance is key though, you’re right. It will be an eternal “what if they had...” source of debate.
The Daimler V8 (like the old Toyota limo V8) is like a mini version of a Chrysler Hemi. Came in 2.5L & also a 4.5L version which is based on a bigger block, same design just scaled up. Jag experimented by putting the 4.5L Daimler V8 engine in a Mk2 but it was too fast. Lyons, Jag’s owner, definitely didn’t want the fastest model Jag to be the one with the non Jag engine, so Jag only sold ones with the 2.5L V8.
I'd like to have heard an exhaust sound comparison since you had both cars running, preferably outside the warehouse to avoid the echoes. The noise the cars make would be a factor in which one I'd go for. =)
I have a rare June 67 manual. The Ted Turner engine sounds absolutely glorious when used across the range. You’re right at 2.55. The auto box tricks you into thinking that it’s sedate. Properly push it into lockdown. and you’d hear it. With the manual you just want to hear it go from a burble to a sonorous howl, like a Spitfire or Lancaster!
@@SportsandGT cheers. NZ$4k from Australia. I'd imagine NZ$15-20K from UK. Sigh...UK has got more choice in EVERYTHING compared to little old shakey isles...
Oh dear..I shouldn’t watch anything with Jag Mk2 content, I had a 3.4 auto and then a 3.8 manual which I truly adored!! Petrol rationing came in around mid 70’s or somewhen..and I sold the two in near mint condition for about £200 !, what would they be worth now? Still I went back on a motorbike for a while then.....onto a Hillman Imp! Oh what joy the contrast was! As for the Daimler, it was not very desirable then..but now..what’s not to like? Same for this video, nice contrast choice idea, cheers..
Turner had designed M/C engines for Triumph and had help from Jack Wickes and Dr J Tait designing the V8s for BSA before Jaguar came along. The V8 2.5 was lighter and better than the straight six 2.4. The 4.5 V8 was a match for the 3.8 but wasn't much better than Jag's 4.2 . The Daimler is better finished and much rarer.
Having owned and run every variant of the Jaguar/Daimler Mk2 over the last forty years (except a manual Daimler V8), I can honestly describe the Daimler 2.5V8/V8 250 as a un-paralleled combination of flaccid performance and excessive fuel consumption. Whoever stated that it was faster than the 2.4 litre Mk2 clearly had no clue what they were talking about. I ran both the early and late versions of the Daimler every day in the 1980s. They were both so slow, it was embarrassing. I had the engine of one of them rebuilt by a well-known marque expert, thinking this would make a difference, but no. I replaced this car with a 1963 Jaguar 2.4 Mk2 (the one with the Solex carbs and only 120hp). It was much faster, and drank far less fuel. Later, I bought a 240, which was quicker still, then a 3.4, and finally 3.8, Jaguar. In all I ran seven Jaguar Mk2 variants in addition to the two Daimler versions from 1980 to today. Every Jaguar, irrespective of engine capacity, was quicker, and a better driving experience than the Daimlers, which are fine cars for a slow countryside bimble, taking in the V8 burble, which is very pleasant, but little else. How they managed to produce a car which was both under-geared AND so slow is a mystery to me. I am sure that with a manual gearbox and overdrive, it would be a much better car, but in automatic guise it is a real slug, and prices reflect this. A standard Jaguar Mk2 (no triple 2 inch carbs or louvred bonnet etc) might have made a better comparison as opposed to that "Coombes" attempt.
@@SportsandGT Yes, it is true that you can only use the cars made available to you, so that was an unfair criticism. At least the Daimler looked fairly stock, steering wheel aside!
Not sure I agree with that. The Daimler is considerably quicker than the 2.4, a whole 4 seconds faster 0-60 with 110mph top speed. The 2.4 wouldn't even touch 100mph. Perhaps the 2.4 gave the illusion of speed with its manual box and noisier straight six? It maybe apocryphal but its said the Daimler was given the auto box and diff ratio it had to slow it down and not show up the 3.4. And considering the 3.4 was only 1.5 secs (0-60mph) quicker than the Daimler (which had 70bhp less than the Jag) I can believe it. Jaguar wanted the Daimler to sit in between the 2.4 and the 3.4. It did but it was much nearer to the 3.4 than 2.4. It's just a shame Jaguar didn't make more of it but like someone else said in the comments they didn't want the newly acquired company showing up the parent brand. Would love to see a manual Daimler go up against a 3.4 Video. Haven't see one yet.
@@SportsandGT yes, a rare beast. I think by that point the XJ had already started production and the MK2'S days were numbered. I believe a manual conversion is possible but at some expense. A tremec T5 or Toyota box can be used which makes the most of the engine.
@@SportsandGT I was in my early teens so they were very much special to me. My Uncle had a 3.8 (my Dad´s was a 3.4) and the Daimler was obviously very different from the Jags. I remember much later a friend of mine had a 3.8 and I was quite disappointed in the steering and the gear change when I could drive one for the first time. Funny thing was my dad worked for BMW at the time and we obviously also had a BMW 1800 for quite some time. The mk I and mk II was special to some people within BMW since the Jags were sometime seen as partially based on the 332. A car a lot of people within BMW thought should have been developed further instead of the 501 (the latter a car my Father had much earlier in the 50´s)!
So precious Unique , a 2.5 Litres V8, just like the Brand Daimler ! Jaguar looks so sweet and mean. Prefer that Jag mid console, and the Car exhaust sounds Crazy...and modified.. And the Daimler looks so distinguished,. Shame we could get a real sound engine taste ! A total of 17,620 2.5 V8 & V8-250 saloon cars were build, what happened to all these engines I wonder.
Not really a comparison, should be a between the Daimler 250V8 and the Jaguar 340. The earlier Mk2 3.8 is a totally different beast. The Jaguar Mk2 340 was better than the earlier 3.4’s, it had the revised cylinder heads from the E type as did the 240. For refinement the Daimler 250 was a nicer engine, but for appeal the Jaguar 340 & 240 is the true Mk2, where as the Daimler is identified with gentlemen who smoked a pipe. Both very nice cars. Me I’d go for a late Jaguar 240, the early Mk2 2.4’s weren’t good cars.
The gear shifter in the Mk2 Jag did Not look right, looked to modern, the 3.8 is the 'Gold Top' higher compression triple SU's better power, standard was blue top twin SU's
@@SportsandGT Do not know why the hell anyone would bother putting a late model gearbox in UNLESS the original was totally stuffed, the 'gold top, & triple SUs was a factory modification.
@@barryphillips7327 just found the auction write up - it seems it was an auto when it first left Coventry carsonline.bonhams.com/en/listings/jaguar/mk2-38-manual-od/d108b2f3-b5dd-446c-8c9e-d7becef2eb71
@@SportsandGT I know about this as I put a 3.8 Mk10 with triple HD 8’s with starting carb not an easy fit with some modification needed. My louvres came out of a 69 coupe bonnet that had been destroyed. Still very nice cars and thanks for the response.
would have been better to have compared the mk2 6 cylinder 2.4 to the mk2 Daimler V8 2.5. somewhere you should have also explained that the Daimler engine was in fact 4 Triumph Bonneville engines.
Yes, I realised that it was an unfair comparison but I can only work with what I have access to. I thought I’d said the V8 was derived from a v-twin but I didn’t realise it was the Bonneville engine.
Mk2s had twin SUs, not triple. The E type had three but even the Cooms only had two. Oh, by the way, Imagine putting 'L' plates on a 3.4 and learning to drive, I did.
Had a Daimler and had plans on chopping the top but unfortunately it was not to be. If you have ever seen a chopped and channeled 53 Merc hot rod you would get the idea.
Yeah, I get the idea. I’ve seen a “fuorilegge” (outlaw) Lancia Aurelia up close and it was beautifully done. The rakish shape of the mk2/250 would lend itself to a low sleek look.
