Daytona vs E Type Vs 67 Corvette

Daytona...no comparison.

Its just a monster..

 

Any would be great, early E jag, Daytona, Big block 67 vett, Big block 68.

 

Is this a trick question...?

Go wash your keyboard out with soap.

Daytona

 

E type for sure and then the vette. The daytona is a Datsun

 

i have driven the vette and the jag....... hmmmm need a drive in a daytona to see !!!! i vote daytona anyway.

 

Once again, theres no way you can compare a DAMN Chevy to something as beautiful as a Daytona.

No opinion, just fact!

 

Shelby Mustang or Cobra!!...no Ferrari, but theyre still F-cars...

 

Not a fair question, really, for me it depends on what type of Jag XK E-type were speaking of here

If it were the later, US spec, open headlight V12 models, the Daytona would kick the Jags ass. However, an early XK in mint condition and racing history (really, more "Winning" history) would be worth a lot more today. Having said that, I could sell the Jaguar and buy a nice Daytona, a basic sedan for the daily commute (Audi RS8 SWB anyone?) and have $ left over for whatever Im in the mood for at the time. A 206 GT would be very nice

 

Hmmm, interesting problem.

Daytona - To me one of the ultimate Ferrari road cars. I have never driven one but expect it to be awesome. The car would have to be a bloody good drive to live up to my expectations ... but most that have driven them appreciate them. Apparently quite reliable too, and strong.

E-Type - While I have not driven an E-Type, I have driven XJ6s and Mk2 Jags quite a bit and they do drive well. The over-riding problem for me is that the British built them and thus you end up with silly problems and weird engineering ... Other than Lucas electrics I think a Jaguar is probably one of the better engineered cars that the British built. The thing I don't like about the E-Type is that I think it sacrifised a lot of important things to acheive that shape, ie. the front and rear (especially the rear) track is rediculously narrow, early E-Types are a brake failure waiting to happen with the inboard rear disc brakes and only a single circuit. The rears boil and you have no pedal ... seen this happen and luckily it was a race track on a airport run way. That E-type went for miles before he was able to turn it around.

67 Corvette - I'm not up on my Corvettes but I assume you are talking the split rear windscreen model, which is drop dead gorgeous. Never have driven one but I can imagine a nicely sorted one would be an okay drive, a bit crude but none-the-less a nice revving small block would be a happy little car. I have been taken for a drive in a lot more modern Corvette and was under-impressed, clunks and rattles and no go ...

In the end I think the Daytona would deliver the best as it has the best chance of living up to 'my' imagination, that is not because it is a Ferrari simply because of what I have read about driving them ... and surely there would be a lot more nice Daytonas out there than nice E-types and 67' Corvettes.

Pete

 

I have experience hands on with all of these.

I have driven several late 1960s Corvettes including a '67 convertible with a 427 and 4 speed. I got several drives in that car totally a couple of hundred miles. It was riding on stock wheels and relatively narrow redline tires. Power induced wheelspin was a possibility when shifting into 3d gear but this was mostly due to the bias ply narrow tires (owner did not want to run non-original wider radials.... bad choice IMHO). The car was fast, the brakes were poor, the steering felt isolated from the road and gave poor feedback, the gearbox was notchy and felt like a truck, the engine had MASSIVE torque and power and made great noises from the side pipes and the body was gorgeous to look at. Overall fit and finish were, well, Chevy. The scuttle shook like crazy and the body gaps were something of a joke. The interior was cheap plastic crap. IT was fun though and I do love that body shape, I like the coupes even better.

I have owned 20+ E-Types. I restored from the ground up and drove daily an updated '63 roadster as my every day car for about a year. I owned a nice driver '67 roadster less than a year ago. I love E-Types! They are among the very best looking cars ever built, just drop dead gorgeous. I really cant think of any other mass produced car that is even in that league asthetically. I mean really... if the E-Type had been built in very limited numbers (say 150 or less) instead of mass produced, it would be a $500K car. The '65 to '67 4.2 series I cars are the ones to have. They keep the early glass covered headlights and trim bumbers but gained a full syncro gearbox, better seats and decent brakes.

The E-type is a good car to drive. IMHO its better than the Vette. Its not as powerful, does not have the raw grunt, but has much better steering, shifting and brakes. The E-type however really is not a fast car. Even the really good 4.2s, while having enough grunt to be fun, are not truely fast if compared to the Vette and Daytona. Also all those old jokes about JAg electrics are true. They also overheat if the sun shines on them while sitting still for more than 5 minutes. Oh.... and dont forget RUST. The E-Type is built from box sections and they rust from the inside out. By the time that little bubble appears in the paintwork.... its usually major damage deep inside. Build quality is mediocre. Panel fit is a real *****, and the bonnets are frequently not fitting well. The engines are reliable and great to look at but dont make any particularly memorable sounds.

With the top up on an E-type roadster, getting in and out requires you to be a contorsionist. Inside if you have long legs you will be a bit cramped. IF your over 5'11" your eyes will be a level with the top of the windscreen but if you remove the silly sunvisors this really isnt a problem. E-types are fun to drive, they get lots of attention and you will always find yourself looking back at it after parking. They really are rolling artwork!

The Daytona. Well..... I sold my last E-type to buy my Daytona. True I am a bit biased..... but neither the Vette nor the E-type can hold a candle to this car! The Daytona is a hand crafted artistic masterpiece that is both sexy and brutal at the same time. Build quality on the Daytona is far better than either of the others. Its a much more "solid" car. It blows the E-type away when it comes to power, and while it probably wouldnt out accelerate the Vette 0-60 it would 0-100 and over the flying mile it would leave the Vette for dead. The Vette would run out of steam by 150mph and probably scare you to death doing that, Road & Track drove the Daytona 173mph+ with one hand on the wheel.

I find just about everything about the Daytona to be better than the others. I wont say the Daytona looks better than an E-type though. It looks better than an E-type coupe, but those E-type roadsters are just stunning, as good to me as the Daytona. But the V12 noise, the shifting through the gate, the fantastic seats, the mousehair dash, pleated headliner, plexiglass nose..... the whole package just cant be beat! The Daytona is far easier to live with as well. Less maintenance and tons better ergonomics. The Jag is a constant work in progress with something always needing to be fiddled with. My Daytona really has been very reliable.

Oh, one more thing. Comparing the Daytona to one of the early lightweight racing E-types really isnt a good comparison at all. Jaguar only built 12 lightweight alloy bodied E-types. They sell for 7 figures today. A better comparison would be to one of the 15 factory built Daytona racers which also bring 7 figures. Also.... the Daytona had the better racing pedigree. Daytonas were very successful in endurance racing even finishing 2nd overall at Daytona as late as 1979! The Daytona did extremely well in class at Lemans in '71 - '74. The lightweight E-types on the other hand never did better than 4th at Lemans and overall had a pretty poor time of it. Not that they were bad cars at all.... just bad timing. They came out at the same time and raced directly against the Ferrari 250GTO which was simply a FAR better car. Now in modern vintage racing.... the tables are turned and the E-types are the car to beat!

Anyhow, your mileage may vary!



Terry

 

Great post Terry. It is postings like this that keep me coming back to F-Chat.

I know that you and I have had this conversation before, but I'll still bouncing around in the GTC v Daytona thing. I drove a GTC again over the weekend, and maybe I'll have time tomorrow to post my thoughts. So I'll not hijack William's thread. But I'd love to hear your's (and others) thoughts on the subject when I post.

Thx, Dale

 

Er, I think you meant:

I like the fact that the E descended straight from the mighty D Type.

Peter

 

Had a Daytona................PURE CLASS..........the sound is awesome!!!!!!!!

Had a 67' Vette convertible..........nice car............too common!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I have a very special E. It's a '66 4.2 series 1, restored to the highest level possible. It is quite the most beautiful car I have ever owned. The restoration has taken care of many of the "issues" present in 40 year old British cars and the car runs flawlessly. It has won several awards at State and National competitions and It still takes my breath away every time I open the garage car and look at it.
There's nothing more to say.

 

Along with the 308 I use one of my 66 convert's alot during the summer. I try keep the car very orginal (including the narrow redlines). It's a cool ride but it takes a lot out of you to drive. When I drive it it's usually 100-150 miles at a time and even that kind of distance is pushing it. I've taken the 66 down to the Brian Redman weekend at Elkhart and that was over 6 hours in the car and I felt like I had been run over a few times after I got there. The ride is rough, brakes are ok, steering takes a lot of effort and isn't very precise.
I've also got a 69 convert and the difference in comfort and ride between those two cars are vasty different. The 68 on vettes handle much better than the previous cars. Everything is much tighter, you feel like you are more connected to the road, the seats (at least to me) are a lot more comfrotable.
The mid sixties cars are cool rides. They are simple to work on, fun to drive, easy to get parts for. That being said they still take a lot to drive from the steering to the shifting to the stiff clutch... They are still fun and I wouldn't trade mine for anything. And even though I don't have any first hand experience with the other two choices I'd have to say that they would be by far more refined cars that a mid 60's vette. It's (vette) are basic load, rough american classics... the others are european thoughbreds. I guess it depends on which option you are looking for.

 

63 was the only year for the split window on the Corvette and there was no big block available in 63 only a 327. With the 67 Vette definately look for the big block 427 with aluminum heads. All that being said I would definately vote for the Daytona, but then again this is a Ferrari board.

 

A '67 Corvette is a nice ride. Some issues to consider:
a) The mid years, '63-'67, are not the most comfortable riding car. especially when set-up with the HD suspension. You will feel every bump in the road.
b) Handling is not that spectacular. Put heavy HP in a car with skinny tires that's 35+ years old, and the fun starts. Big difference beween the midyears & the '68 & up.
c) Numbers matching is a big deal in the Corvette world.
d)Expect to pay serious $'s for a big block '67 with matching numbers.
e)Ready parts availability and very large reproduction parts availability. I think you can just about build a Vette from bottom up with all new parts.
f)Can get it serviced about anywhere, and not get raped on parts & labor cost.
g)No issues with major services to contend with.
h)Stress cracks-if you are going to drive the car, sooner or later you will end up with stress cracks, no matter how perfect it is today.
i)If you are into exclusivity, Vettes, even the old ones, are pretty common.

I've owned a number, and they are fun cars. But, they are what they are. Huge difference between a big block '67 and a Daytona.