Jaguar S-Type 3.0

Why oh why Have jaguar named this not-oustanding example of a posh Rover 75 an "S-type"? It's just wrong. Jaguar made the original S type back in the 60s, and the "new S type" is nothing by comparision. It's a bit like the "new" Beatle, or the mini, it looks vaguely like the original (although I don't know why Jaguar called this one the S-type as firstly, it looks more like a Mark II, and secondly, the Mark II was certainly more popular being better proportioned with a shorter boot), but actually doesn't give you the raw, retro feel of the originals. I wish car manufacturers would stop doing this. Nothing beats a good example of the original S-type.

They may be a good 35 years old now, but back then the engines were build to last (350,000 miles so they say). S types were used in the 60s as police cars, by no means are they sluggish, as you'd expect from an "old" car, wouldn't you? If you ever get the courage to step into one of these beasts you'll also realise that the drive isn't that bad either. The suspension is good, and it feels tight all round.

Also, back then there were no silly electronic gizmos to go wrong. Cars were built to take you from a to b, in comfort. That's all you really need. Yes, the car will take simply ages to warm up in the mornings, and the windscreen is only about 8 inches tall, but it's worth it. If there's no air conditioning, central locking or radio, so what? It means there's less to go wrong, as modern cars have a penchant for doing.

Why oh why do people want these new "retro" cars? New cars depreciate in value, old cars only get more valuable. If you've got the original, you can show it off, get looks wherever you go, and have a general warm proud feeling inside that you are keeping a piece of history and travelling in ultimate style.

Think about it.