I agree totally as to the ride. But the geometry of the Jag axle is awfull. The unsprung weight may be low, especially in relative terms when used in a heavy saloon, but the handling is a triumph of spring and damper settings over basic geometry. Also the subframe structure in which it is all housed is appallingly heavy and limits access to the wear components. Having assisted in rebushing an S Type and a V12 E Type I don't ever want to repeat the experience. Look at it another way, it's a heavier version of a late Spitfire rear end - and you surely wouldn't want to promote that as a paragon of how to do it! Wheel to road angles with the Jag system can be arranged to be OK at static ride height, but as soon as roll or bump compression set in things go sadly awry. The vast majority of owners would never be aware of this thanks to decent roll stiffness and very wide tyres, but used in extremis the Jag is inclined to bite. I'm afraid I'd summarise it as a superbly set up system disguising major flaws.
And before you think I'm partisan to the Rover De Dion, yes it achieves excellent wheel to road geometry. But at a cost in unsprung weight. Today it could be re-engineered in light alloy to be a far better system than Rover's version. I'm a fan of modern multi link systems, but they do have certain compromises, notably they assume that spring compression implies heavy cornering and therefore generate some positive camber to counter tyre roll. This makes them difficult to use on a softly sprung saloon without stiffening the suspension beyond what I would regard as acceptable levels. BMW is a prime example of this.
Chris
