Calling a technical foul on you, and a "picky-picky" one it is, too :P ---there is no such car as a Mark IV, because when they made this car they had no idea there would be a Mark V. It should be called a "1948 Jaguar 3.5 liter Drop Head Coupe".
Another one of those misnomers that annoys me is the "1964 & 1/2 Mustang", another no-such-animal.
Ford is strange, though. I was in a dealer when I bought my '91 Escort GT and they had a marketing package that they called a "91 & 1/2". But that appeared only in the marketing materials.
It was basically a unique color paint, with rims painted partially to match. Officially it was still a 91.
Any how, the people that say 64.5 probably are refering to some obscure marketing materials Ford probably had back then.
Nah, I think Mustang aficiandos just "made it up". Ford never titled or built a 64.5 model. What it does is identify early Mustangs with certain unique features, like a 260 V-8 and a generator.
I am not challenging your accuracy about the name of the 1948 Jag beasty, but I have a picky-picky with your logic in saying "there is no such car as a Mark IV, because when they made this car they had no idea there would be a Mark V". They didn't have to know there would be a Mark V. They just had to know that there was a Mark III and this one was an update of it. That would be enough reason to call it a Mark IV. Jaguar actually did that, didn't they? I think that the big tank that they turned out in the '60s was called a Mark X; at least that's the only way I ever heard it referred to.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
wasn't the 'Stang somewhat unique (for the time) in that it came out early in the year, as opposed to the normal MY change in the fall? Common today, but not then, right?
And, since there were some significant changes, it made sense to distinquish the different types of '65s, even if they technically were all the same MY.
VW is the worst offender. They introduced a totally redesigned Jetta, but kept the same MY, even though it came out in the next CY. Made no sense to me.
Sorry for the confusion....no, there was no Mark III, and Jaguar never made a Mark IV as a consequence....so literally that's right there is no such car as a Mark IV, but people and books have gotten into the habit of calling it that.
Prewar cars were generally identified by their liter capacity and/or the "SS" nameplate, which of course was dropped for obvious reasons.
MUSTANG 64.5 -- I think the point is that the factory never made a 64.5 Mustang, no matter what the public wants to call it. All Mustangs are 1965 on up. There is no titled Mustang with 64.5 on it.
In fact, one should never refer to any car in a series as a Mark I if other Marks followed it, unless of course the factory named it such from the get-go. Few did that--I'm trying to think of one that did
I got the Mk.IV designator from an ad in HMN. Actually now that you mention it I really don't understand those designators as applied to Jaguar sedans.
The so-called Mk.IV is a 1948 car but the Mk.I was introduced in 1955 :confuse:. By the time that was updated to a Mk.II (ca.'59 IIRC) the Big sedans were up to Mk. VII :sick:
Perhaps there's a different base between the big ones and the smaller sport sedans.
The Mustang came out in April of '64, I think... But, of course, they were all '65 Mustangs...
What I can't figure out? The guys that say they have a '64.5? Where do they decide the cutoff date? Is it any Mustang made before January, '65? Or is it any Mustang built before the normal new '65 introductions in September, '64?
Or...is there something different in the first batch... that wasn't offered later in the '65 model year?
I think the biggest difference is the engine. They went from the 260 to the 289 V8. Someone also mentined moving from a generator to an altenator, and I'm sure there were some other tweaks.
I'll go with Skoda Octavia as well, they're nearly impossible to tell from Passats at that angle. Oddly SEAT doesn't seem to offer a version of the Passat but they have one of most other VWS.
Why they called the second car in the series a Mark V instead of a Mark II....well, you got me! Perhaps you are right, they had plans for the name MK II ??? Dunno....
I believe the Brookwood was the equivalent to the 150 or Biscayne. The Parkwood was the equivalent to the 210 or Bel Air. The Nomad was the Impala equivalent. I recall for 1956, the low-end wagon was the Handyman and the high-end nine-passenger wagon was the Beauville. I think the 210 version was the Townsman. Not sure about that '57 pictured above.
Comments
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Or, since the head designer of Alfa went to SEAT a few years ago, some sort of SEAT?
The 2+2 was pretty rare for the Z, I think I only saw 1-2 of them, ever.
-juice
Another one of those misnomers that annoys me is the "1964 & 1/2 Mustang", another no-such-animal.
It was basically a unique color paint, with rims painted partially to match. Officially it was still a 91.
Any how, the people that say 64.5 probably are refering to some obscure marketing materials Ford probably had back then.
-juice
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
And, since there were some significant changes, it made sense to distinquish the different types of '65s, even if they technically were all the same MY.
VW is the worst offender. They introduced a totally redesigned Jetta, but kept the same MY, even though it came out in the next CY. Made no sense to me.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Prewar cars were generally identified by their liter capacity and/or the "SS" nameplate, which of course was dropped for obvious reasons.
MUSTANG 64.5 -- I think the point is that the factory never made a 64.5 Mustang, no matter what the public wants to call it. All Mustangs are 1965 on up. There is no titled Mustang with 64.5 on it.
In fact, one should never refer to any car in a series as a Mark I if other Marks followed it, unless of course the factory named it such from the get-go. Few did that--I'm trying to think of one that did
The so-called Mk.IV is a 1948 car but the Mk.I was introduced in 1955 :confuse:. By the time that was updated to a Mk.II (ca.'59 IIRC) the Big sedans were up to Mk. VII :sick:
Perhaps there's a different base between the big ones and the smaller sport sedans.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
What I can't figure out? The guys that say they have a '64.5? Where do they decide the cutoff date? Is it any Mustang made before January, '65? Or is it any Mustang built before the normal new '65 introductions in September, '64?
Or...is there something different in the first batch... that wasn't offered later in the '65 model year?
Inquiring minds want to know!!
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
-Brian
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I see a CR-V in the background, do I get bonus points? :P
-juice
Skoda Octavia? Is that the name?
-juice
one of most other VWS.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Doh!
BTW, it's Superb, not SuperB
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Which is it?
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Jack
Jack
'67 Plymouth Belvidere.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Your VW Transporter Van (#4211) must be the latest iteration of the Eurovan/Transporter/Microbus. I've lost track of what they call 'em now. :confuse:
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Very classy ride IMO.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
That Buick looks as big as about 4 of my Miatas, same color even.
-juice
Aussies liked sunvisors through the late 60s and even later
Nomad example:
Who can identify the car next to the Nomad? I'm not sure but it sure looks familiar.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
GIVE UP?
Hint: it is a 9 passenger wagon, rather rare, but it had a name other than the 210 designation, which it is.
So it's a 210, but also a "___________"
Beauville?
Townsman?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,