I've seen that the comparison of the C2 corvette and the E type Jag with the 3.8 was pretty much a tie. The Corvette was faster in the straight and the Jag was faster in the curves. The Corvette had Ball-Race steering whereas the Jag had Rack and Pinion which gives more road feel.
You make fun of the inboard rotors, but that is where they should be to reduce unsprung weight. Speaking of brakes, the C2 Corvette didn't get disk brakes until 1965.
Look, the C2 was evolutionary for the Corvette. It did introduce performance with independent suspension and even the Ball-Race steering was a step up from the previous generation. When I said the Jag would beat the Corvette of the same year, I'm talking up until about 1965 and then Jaguar lost it's way and the Germans started taking over in the twisty curvy part of the road. The funny part is that it wasn't the Corvette that BMW chose to copy and save the company, it was the Corvair ... with an independent rear suspension as it should have been.
The C2 was a mid 50s design. By 64, much of the car had been upgraded and the engines were producing over 300 HP even without fuel injection. Saving unsprung weight in the back of the Jag is less important, the Jag was designed as a race car and had a differntial module in the back that bolted to the monocoque. As I remember, its 6 bolts, some wires and unhook the axles and drop the unit out. It was very popular among hot rod builders as you could bolt it to the bottom of tub.
The Germans in the 60's weren't building high horsepower cars. The 911, 914, BMW was just really getting started. Even then there were taxes to be considered.
At tracks like Daytona and Sebring the Jags couldn't beat the Corvettes. Even tight tracks like Watkins Glen the Corvettes were faster. I'm not even sure if Corvettes ran against Jags in SCCA production classes. The vettes might have been "B" class and the Jags C or D.
In Europe they called the Jag the "dachshund" because it was so long and narrow. I worked for a European company and the owners brother drove for Ferrari. I pulled up to the office in my 64 XKE and he told me the dachshund story. I was quite insulted but it was true.
IIRC the Jag was rated at 260 HP but they were hard to keep in tune, especially the carbs. The big motor pulled but it was a straight 6 and by 64 an old design. mid year Corvettes had the same virtues and vices current models have. Very fast, easy to drive up to 6/10ths. After that you need to be good to get the most out of the car without hurting yourself. My last Corvette had the LS 3 and put out 436 HP. It was a beast at 3250 lbs.
Anyway, despite what the magazines might say, my Genesis has very good acceleration and fair low end torque. Above 3500 rpm the exhaust note changes and it scoots real well. The suspension very well damped, much better than a big Lexus and actually, it feels very close to a big Mercedes, CLS or S550.
Now you can say it isn't a performance car but I think enough attention has been paid to the engine, transmission, tires, suspension, steering and brakes to let you hustle this car around pretty well. Yeah, you can drive it like a Lexus 460 and never push it, but what fun is that?
I'm starting to get the feeling that the vast majority of Genesis buyers on this forum are luxury car buyers and not interested in the performance envelop. That's fine but the car has some nice performance features.
