The above article betrays the writer's youth and inexperience, other than commenting on cars far removed from their original intent, element, times. The most devoted owner would hardly use quality and Muira in the same sentence, the Jaguar E-Type not of the quality of the preceding XKs, even Sir William Lyons, while still on Coventry's board, admitting, "We could never get our XK quality up to Porches levels," and Stirling Moss, long before knighted, suggesting "the E-Type is the dumb blonde of sports cars."
Anyone stuffing air conditioning in a sports or serious high-speed grand touring car counters the machine's purpose. Roll the windows down partially, or drive minimally attired. What part of "weight is the enemy" don't such folk grasp?
As for the idea all of the mere 18 Rolls-Royce Phantom IVs built better served by a lurching HydraMatic, it would seem Mr. Gillogly unfamiliar with smooth clutch and gearbox, silkier than the preceding in knowing hands. No mention that these F-head 346-ci (same displacement as 1937-48 Cadillac L-head V-8) the only straight eight powered R-R ever produced, the engine othewise used in airport tugs, Dennis fire trucks, military vehicles.
Perhaps young Brandan should experience a well fettled 1930s Packard or Pierce-Arrow 384-ci inline eight, the latter with hydraulic valve lifters, or a 1940-50 Packard nine-mained 356-ci with manual and overdrive.
Context comes in handy. Either have a vintage and/or performance car on its original terms, or stick with less interactive modern fare. Do not sully the former with attributes-- if that's what they are beyond laziness -- of the latter.
Finally, and again: Might we have articles about just cars, regardless of price du jour or decade, without endless money, money, money talk, as tho' hanging the latest price imbues understanding of a complex piece of machinery?
