No problem what so ever!

I just have to state this:

I love my 1989 XJ 40!

I reed this forum and every message is stating somekind of a problem. Thats why I wanted to say this. I love my XJ 40, its the best car I ever had, and thats NOT what I expected when I bought it 5 years ago. Its reliable, low on gas, awsome handlig, keeps the value, the trunk is huge without the spare (who needs that anyway) and the neighbors believe you are a millionare.

Keep this in mind when reeding about all the problems on this forum. This is the greatest car ever!

/Peter, SWEDEN

Reply to
Peter
Loading thread data ...

Peter is a very lucky man! (Did you make a pact with the dark side?)

Indeed, the powertrain is very rugged (with the exception of final drives if they were out of spec when new) and will run long distance miles. No, they are not reliable and a check of the warranty stats from that period reveals why Ford now owns Jaguar. Very pretty car, however, even with it's foibles.

Reply to
Gerald G. McGeorge

"Peter" wrote in news:TKVob.35943$ snipped-for-privacy@newsc.telia.net:

Peter,

Glad you like it and own it in Sweden. In Australia the XJ40 generally has the lowest resale value of all Jaguars, even though they are quite reliable and very economical. There is a big jump in value from XJ40 to X300. Peoples tastes I guess.

Ron

Reply to
Ron McGrice

"Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@enews1.newsguy.com:

Don't know about you neck of the world, but most of the XJ40's I've seen have all the bugs fixed and are spinning very high mileages on the motors!

400,000 with out a major overhaul is common :-)

The good thing about them, is id you own one and it dies, there are SO many in the wreckers a motor/gearbox can be had for $2500 AUD !!

Ron

Reply to
Ron McGrice

the lowest resale value of all Jaguars, even though they are quite reliable and very economical. There is a big jump in value from XJ40 to X300. Peoples tastes I guess. <

The X300 is a far better vehicle in every respect.

Reply to
Gerald G. McGeorge

have all the bugs fixed and are spinning very high mileages on the motors!

400,000 with out a major overhaul is common :-) The good thing about them, is id you own one and it dies, there are SO many in the wreckers a motor/gearbox can be had for $2500 AUD !! <

XJ40s in the States go very cheap. If they've had the usual round of fixes, and haven't rusted to the gunwales, they will run forever. The 3.6, combined with the ZF box were really stout. The electrics, the ride leveling system, well......we fixed the suspension by disabling the system and tossing the rear struts altogether, replacing them with standard shocks. "Leak R Us" was the watch word! Also, the original Chloride batteries, known in the States as the "Blue Brick" was a curse. In '90 it was replaced by another Chloride, the "White Knight" which was an improvement, but. Ford appointed a Chairman, Bill Hayden in '90. First act of his quality "Reign Of Terror" (LOL) was to verbally crucify the engineers who appointed Chloride, replacing them with Varta as the supplier....end of battery problems, only about 60 more problems to go on XJ40!

Reply to
Gerald G. McGeorge

I have never been let down by my XJ-40, never. I replaced the bearings in the differential because Jiffy Lube was too "Jiffy" (Oops! No lube!). At 100,000miles I Ground the valves, reset the valve clearances and cam timing. Oh, I replaced the exhaust heat shield and put in brake pads and rotors.

I had a Lincoln MKVII, and I poured cash into that FORD every week. It had an air spring suspension that always failed for one reason or another. It was usually a relay, a special one made out of Mars metal or something. They were like $200 each. I actually hated this car, a car I longed to own when they came out.

I have had many cars over the years, and my being a mechanic (At the time) gave me the opportunity to drive many marques. In pure honesty, my Jaguar has been the best car I have ever owned. It pays me back in reliability, style, speed and comfort. I am also satisfied when I work on this car and see the attention to detail, the design, and the construction of the body. Under the bonnet everything is orderly and well labeled. In fact the typical statement from someone who gazes into the engine bay is - "Beautiful".

I think most grief in the XJ40 stemmed from the damned mineral oil self leveling suspension, and earlier hydro assist brake assembly. Lets not forget how the typical car owner (we are not typical here are we? ;-)) does not follow the service intervals as laid out in the manual and many problems develop later on that could have been avoided with earlier maint. Differential bearings go, but they are easy replaced and cheap.

It is of my firm belief that the simpler an automobile is, less problems will occour. With features like parking radar, radar that controls speed according to the distance of the car ahead of you, GPS, variable valve control, variable shock control, and what-next, you are simply multiplying your chances of having car woes. So if you buy a loaded geewizz bang, then be prepared to have more problems than a baseline unit would give.

DieInterim

"Pardon me, I must find an overhead floor buffer.."

Reply to
DieInterim

snipped-for-privacy@pobox.com (DieInterim) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:

Interesting story Blake, most bag Jaguars and praise Fords :-)

Ron

Reply to
Ron McGrice

I have to laugh when I read opinions like this!!

Having gone over my 1988 XJ40 when I bought it 3 years ago for bushings, bearings, brakes etc and having done a re-build on my 1967 420 this past summer,. let me make a few observations.

The rear suspension on the 420 is identical to the rear suspension on the XJ6 Series I, II, III, XKE and XJS. In 1988, in order to improve stability and ride, Jaguar widened the stance and moved the brakes to the wheels. The differentials remained basically the same, the 1/2 shafts and u-joints are virtually identical. The rubber pinion connector in 1990 and the switch from taper stub axle bearings to roller stub axle bearings in 1988 were probably not the smartest idea! They have become a source of irritation for most XJ40 owners.

Again, the front suspension of the 420 and the front suspension of the XJ40 have much of the engineering in common. As a matter of fact, I can take the Upper and lower ball joints from a 1994 XJ40 and they are the same as the ball joints on my 1967 420. The upper and lower wishbone configuration is almost identical. All of this was true through all the sedan models from

1967 to 1994 --- 27 years.

So if Jaguar changed the chassis components very little over 27 years, then the problem must be in the engines. Jaguar introduced the XK engine in 1948 with the XK120 and used it in nearly every model they manufactured (with some exceptions) up until 1987. Certainly one can't say that Jaguar made a mistake using this engine for 39 years. In 1987/88 they redesigned the XK engine and went to the 3.6 litre engine found in the XJ40. In 1990, they bored out the 3.6 to 4.0 to get a bit more horsepower. I don't know about your AJ6 engine, but the one in my '88 XJ40 is approaching 200,000 miles without any type of major engine work -- including the dreaded head gasket.

The ZF22 transmission is the same transmission as used in Jaguar, BMW, Volvo and other brands. Surely if the transmission is the problem then the same must be said for Volvo and BMW.

Therefore, if we narrow it down to the REAL problem with these cars -- it is the electrics. Of course most of the electrics I have found on my Jaguar have had the name BOSCH stamped on them-- so is BOSCH the problem?? I will readily admit that my ABB Bulb Failure Modules have given me fits, but once I re-soldered them, they have been working error free for 2 years. The SLS self adjusting rear shocks were an idea that didn't work any better for Rolls-Royce than for Jaguar and both makers abandoned the idea. The front A/C - heater configuration leaves much to be desired, but with a few Darlingtons and relays, the blower arrangement becomes totally reliable. So far ALL of the problems that were of questionable design and poorly built have been easily repaired or replaced. I am nothing more than a shade tree, backyard mechanic.

Finally, if we continue on the train of thought that Ford invested in Jaguar because of the lack of reliability that we MUST assume they same reasoning went into Ford's purchase of MAZDA? --- or VOLVO? or Land Rover? (who they bought from BMW by the way) or Aston Martin?? ALL of theses car manufacturers were not reliable or had warranty problems until FORD bought them??

Jaguar's lack of customer service for 2nd and 3rd owners of the vehicles, (unlike Mercedes) is what caused the reputation problems. You ask nearly any first owner of a Jag what they think and they will give you a positive. It is 2nd and 3rd owners who want the Jaguar status but can't afford the Jaguar prices and go to the local garage that the poor reputation has been made.

Finally, in terms of comparisons, I look at it this way. My '88 Jag is still going strong and I would confidently drive it from coast to coast and back again. My '89 Chrysler Voyager blew a head gasket and the mechanics are telling me it is not worth repairing because it has a "throw-away" (their phrase) Mitsubishi engine in it. My 1997 Dodge van blew an oil pump after 50,000 and it cost me $800 to replace because the engine had to be lifted out of the truck in order to get to it. The pump was only a $50 OEM part and is a common weakness of the 318CI engine. My Nissan 300ZX has a cloth/rubber timing belt that is recommended to be changed every 40,000. If you don't catch it in time, the pistons ride into the valves thus destroying the engine. A replacement engine is a $5,000 repair. A replacement timing belt is a $1,000 maintenance job. My Mercedes 190E blew an engine after

100,000 miles -- a fate COMMON to this model Mercedes. And since it was a company car we had ALL the maintenance done from the day it was new at Mercedes by Mercedes and whenever Mercedes recommended service.

Please don't get me wrong, Jags DO have their foibles -- but so does every car.

Webserve

Reply to
webserve

approaching 200,000 miles without any type of major engine work -- including the dreaded head gasket. <

Head gasket was the only weak point on these engines. One point to consider, Jaguar installed an end-of-build hot test process that was a marvel. Unfortunately, Deming principles of "build-it-right-first-time" hadn't been considered as being more cost effective. The failure rates on these engines right after build were at times as high as 40%, which meant costly re-work. While it ensured every engine that went in was up to snuff, Ford pointed to this as a major management screw-up and eventually the entire Radford plant went to the knackers.

Volvo and other brands. Surely if the transmission is the problem then the same must be said for Volvo and BMW. <

The ZF box was a major improvement and basically bullet-proof.. I was referring to the old BW box in the SIII.

is the electrics. <

Well, yes, but the electrics on 40 weren't really any worse than many other issues. We identified neary 60 unfixable faults on XJ40 within 60 days of it's launch in spring '87.

name BOSCH stamped on them-- so is BOSCH the problem?? I will readily admit that my ABB Bulb Failure Modules have given me fits

better for Rolls-Royce than for Jaguar and both makers abandoned the idea. Finally, if we continue on the train of thought that Ford invested in Jaguar because of the lack of reliability that we MUST assume they same reasoning went into Ford's purchase of MAZDA? --- or VOLVO? or Land Rover? (who

manufacturers were not reliable or had warranty problems until FORD bought them?? <

Oh, don't be ridiculous. Ford bought Jaguar for its brand name and because they didn't do their homework on the complete management mess just below the surface. This is a business school classic by now. John Grant, the Ford exec who championed the buy-out may have been a good politician, but he sucked at corporate investigation. As a result he got canned and Ford spent the better part of 5 years just getting the thing manageable.

The other brands you mention: Volvo was purchaed for it brand name, and the fact they were both profitable and self-sustaining, with a far better technological based reL FWD than Ford. 30+% of Mazda shares were purchased by Ford in the late '60's and it was the mid-70's before Ford took a lead role in that Company. Mazda provide Ford a real-world glimpse into Deming-based statistical process control manufactirung.

Land Rover was purchased for a relative song and is a good fit with Jaguar. FWIW, LR has all of the same management issues the old Jaguar organization had, lack of discipline, poor supplier managemnet, etc. LR is in process of being re-built from the ground up. (BMW made a minimal investment in LR and cut bait before it sunk them in a hole they couldn't escape.) Aston? Well, not sure why they bought it but at this stage Aston actually makes cars, and some pretty good one at that.

No, Ford's not the devil. The boogey-man was the UK motor industry's inability to face facts and deal with the obvious.

(unlike Mercedes) is what caused the reputation problems. You ask nearly any first owner of a Jag what they think and they will give you a positive. It is 2nd and 3rd owners who want the Jaguar status but can't afford the Jaguar prices and go to the local garage that the poor reputation has been made. <

Well, the surveys prove you wrong. The old Jags were simply not sustainable. We're all fans of the delightful, eccentric, loveable old cars, but the average, well heeled consumer had too many other good choices.

still going strong and I would confidently drive it from coast to coast and back again. My '89 Chrysler Voyager blew a head gasket and the mechanics....... <

Hardly a fair comparison, but again, the robustness of the XJ40 powertrain became veident in the early '90s. After all the travail & turmoil Jaguar is finally coming into its own, X & S-type notwithstanding. Left to their own management devices, the independednt Jaguar would just be a footnote had they not been purchased.

Reply to
Gerald G. McGeorge

Well done Webserve!

I concur with you.

Blake

Reply to
DieInterim

Ron, I was raised on Fords, and believe me, there are many a model I would love to own. My Favorite being a 66 LINCOLN Continental convertable. It had a 462ci engine that you could not hear or feel at idle. When you mashed down the throttle you were gone, this despite the hulk/bulk of weight (They bolted cast iron weights on the back to achieve that "Perfect Ride".).

But how can someone stomach all of the recall's FORD has? A few years ago Ford had more recalls than G.M. and Chrysler combined. I really like the Focus, and the Crown Vic's, but the Taurus offends me. You see the Taurus rides nice, has good power and ok looks, but its the fact that the transmissions are still bad, bad from the first model to the latest one. Tranny builders know this and there are aftermarket upgrade kits available that make a real tranny out of them, but has FORD done this? No. You still get something marginal. Oh and lets not get started on computer failures.

Sorry Ron, I have been holding this back for too long and, well there you were.

I think i'll go catch some air in my Scout. ;-)

Blake

Reply to
DieInterim

snipped-for-privacy@pobox.com (DieInterim) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:

Blake,

Thats a shame, we don't have that amount of trouble with the AU built ones. Although ours are entirely different to the US. I've owned AU Fords for many years. Currently have a 12 month old one, straight six, 4sp auto, rear wheel drive (All of our big ones are) plus all the usual electric goodies. Have a look at

formatting link
's the wifes car, I have the Jags :-) )

Reply to
Ron McGrice

Actually, I don't think we are all that far off in our opinions!!

I think you are a bit bitter having put 15 years of your life into the Jaguar endeavor, but I have no facts to base such an opinion nor any reasons to think why you might be!! I on the other hand am simply an enamored consumer who is willing to overlook many of the pitfalls of the marquee that you see as failures of the company for I do all my own mechanical work at very low cost in time or money. Has this jaded both our views ---- probably!!

I have always been of the opinion that Jaguar was never able to discover it's true place in the world market. I know that in 1967, Jaguar had 12 different models to choose from plus variations on the same car like the rag-top vs hard top XKE. They had the Mark II 3.4, the Mark II 3.8, the 240, the 340, the 420, the S-Type 3.4, the S-Type 3.8, all the variations of the E-Type, the Daimler

250 V-8, the Daimler Sovereign, The Daimler Limo, the end of the Mark X run, the start of the 420G run and all of the model variations within these main models. While many of these cars looked similar as in the case of the Mark series of body styles, they were all marketed differently with different price points and different clientele that they focused upon.

While 1968 was a demarcation line of sorts with the introduction of the XJ6, it was not until the XJ40 with the major design change and engineering changes that Jaguar made a major shift. I remember when Jag introduced the '88 to the US market. Their reputation had become so bad that they offered the first 100,000 mile warranty on their cars. This was unheard of at the time, although it is now a common warranty.

Essentially, the '88/'89 XJ40 has a superior drive train with the exception of the silly ball bearing stub axle bearings. I can't for the life of me figure out why they went to those over the tapered bearings in the XJ6 series. It couldn't be strength -- they only last 40-50,000 miles and it certainly isn't cost as they were twice as expensive as all four of the Timken tapers for my 420.

The engine is a workhorse with very little cause for concern.

The suspension is first class and actually, is copied by other manufacturers, for my 1997 Dodge van has a nearly identical front suspension as my '88 XJ40.

The electronics leave a bit to be desired, but chances are if you carry a spare CPS (Crank Position Sensor) in the trunk and a 5mm allen wrench, you won't often get stranded in the middle of nowhere by this car.

I agree with you that this car was a bit "buggy" when it first appeared, but what new model isn't?

I guess my point is this: I am the second owner of my '88 XJ40. I bought it with 156,000 miles on it. I went through the entire car replacing bearings and bushings, brakes, accumulator and a few other items. My concern was more the fact that I had no idea of the previous repair record of the car. I now have a car with no SLS and no dash warnings (I tracked all the bulb warnings and corrected them). It gets 27 miles per gallon highway and 20 miles per gallon city according to both the computer and the manual calculations.

The car looks great outside (except for a small dent in the front fender I accidentally put in it) and even better on the inside. Every morning when my wife goes out the driveway to work (I don't get to drive the car much) I have a good feeling --- for the motorcar is FAR better constructed than most of the garbage on the road today.

Yes, this car has it's share of foibles. No, it is not perfect. But anyone who was associated with the development of this car should be proud of what was produced, for after all, when you come down to it, this car is now 16 years old and going strong as a daily driver. That alone puts it head and shoulders above most of the other cars it's age!!

Just my humble opinion.

Webserve

good,

sustainable.

Reply to
webserve

Ron, Took a look at your website. Your pictures of your abode look eerily similar to my own including the 3 Jags in the carport/garage. Even more eerie is the red 420G which looks nearly identical to how my red 420 looked until I did a re-build and painted it dark blue this summer. I even have had the thought that my 420 may have passed through Australia/NZ at one point in time on it's way to the US since it is RHD and has Remington tyres on it that were made in NZ. I haven't been able to trace the lineage past the first owner in Cornwall, England --- yet. But then again, I haven't been able to trace all of MY Australian lineage either. They both remain works in progress!! *S* Webserve

Reply to
webserve

"webserve" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@r02.usenetserver.com:

Amazing!

It shows you have good taste :-)

Cheers,

Ron

Reply to
Ron McGrice

Ron,

Not a bad car according to the numbers; rear drive, in-line 6......

Makes one wonder *why* those are not shipped here. Must be too good!

Blake

Reply to
DieInterim

Gerald

My interest in Jaguar is my XJ-S 3.6, manufactured in 1989. Do you have much 'inside' knowledge of that model please? Also, to clarify, did you work at the Jaguar production plant in the UK or at a service dealership somehere else?

Regards George

Reply to
George Bray

much 'inside' knowledge of that model please? Also, to clarify, did you work at the Jaguar production plant in the UK or at a service dealership somehere else?>

I worked for Jaguar Cars, the manufacturer, in the States.

JCI imported a very, very small number of 3.6 XJ-S in 1985 & 1986 for a market test. Naturally, the main point of interest here is the 3.6 AJ6 engine, as it was fully two years before the engine was released en masse via the XJ40.

Based upon a rather negative reception for the car by Company and independent personnel, a decision was made not to sell the 3.6 XJ-S in the States. Eventually the test cars were sold to the employees and some vendors. These in turn got into the hands of the general public a few years later. As I recall it was quite imbalanced in terms of braking & steering feel, particularly when paired with a manual trans, which most of them were. The 93 & later 6 cyl XJS's were far better vehicles.

Reply to
Gerald G. McGeorge

Your view is interesting and at variance with my UK experience when I had several test drives in 1991 to choose between a V12 and 3.6 XJ-S. Both models were roughly the same purchase price at two years old. I took at least three test drives in different examples of each model, and preferred the 'feel' of the 3.6. All six examples I tried were automatics. When fuel and likely maintenance cost came into the equation, it was a non-contest, and I bought the 3.6, even though I agree it is not the 'real thing'. It's all subjective, of course. I still prefer my 3.6 over the facelift 4.0 for at least two reasons: (a) the body style and (b) the fact that my 3.6 does not have a high cost catalytic converter.

My greatest headache with the XJ-S 3.6 has been the Delanair MkIII air conditioning system, which simply does not get cold enough. I'm about to retrofit to R134a and hope the move will improve matters. Do you have any experience or views on Jaguar air conditioning please? I understand the Delanair MkIII system was fitted to saloons too.

Regards George

Reply to
George Bray

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.