OT Any one know anything about Jaguars?

Good cars, I have heard that the electrics are traditionally finicky however.

nate

Tom Covington just outside Richmond, VA has a few Jags in his stable... Jeff

Very expensive to maintain.

Do yourself a BIG favor, Mike, run away from that thing a fast as you can! Take it from someome who worked on a bunch of those things over the years; they are nothing but junk and trouble rolled together with a dose of sky high parts prices and nonexistent quality control. Problem areas? TOO MANY TO LIST HERE! Made the "ten worst" a few years ago... If you do some research you will see quite an aftermarket that specializes in Chevy engine conversions although most owners who did that have given up on the rest of the car by now and you can buy them cheeep. My buddy's crush yard gets them in all the time, dragged from backyards and impound lots...none have any body damage...doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why they are there. Studebaker George

George may seem excitable, but it's my understanding from a Jag mechanic living near Wichita that the XJ's were not among Britains "best efforts". I am also aware that the "belly button" alternative is often applied to these unfortunate cars.

That period was, if I recall correctly, when the worst quality cars were produced by Jaguar during the ownership of British Leyland. Engine trouble at least in one case I saw in a car mag was due to the presence of foundry sand remaining in the castings when the engine was assembled.

The morale at Jaguar was also quite poor as BL had removed the Jaguar sign replacing it with Large Car Assembly Plant Number One.

Avantilover

1975-81 was probably the darkest day of management vs. labor in the BL plants in England. Naturally it showed up in the build quality, but if it has lasted this long, all the bugs may have been worked out of it, and quite possibly be one of the few "good" ones that came out of Brown's Lane that year. They did get a bit more reliable and build quality got better as the years went when Jaguar Cars got privatized, but the electronics ended up more complicated than before. So its "six of one; half a dozen of the other" with an early XJS vs. a later one. Personally, its my least favorite Jaguar as it was a corporate "committe-think" styling effort, and lacked the elegance of those styled by William Lyons.

Craig.

"Excitable", eh? LOL! Casting Sand? Yeah, that casting sand found it's way into EVERYTHING on those cars...electrics, steering racks, AC systems, and even such goofy little things like hood latches. I don't remember how many I have seen with holes cut in the inner fenders so you could open the hood...er.."bonnet". Fuel systems that were a joke and dangerous. Rubber that the Brits stubbornly clung to making out of all natural stuff...even ball joint boots and rack bushings...and of course it would just plain dissolve... I could go on and on about those junkers. One more thing that we can hang on Jaguars of that period; they gave us (yes, they were the first) those godawful one piece headliners that fall to shit after several years. Everyone followed them on that and it took YEARS to get them right (or at least sort of). And taking the engine/gearbox out of one is a royal pain. Did I mention rear brakes? Inboard discs that require dropping the whole rear cage to change pads? These cars were right up there with the old Audi 100's, Vegas, Porsche 924-28 series (sorry Nate but true!) and Yugos. Studebaker George

Not really, because of their fairly large production and popularity I would call them rather average as far as sports cars go as far as maintenance cost. You want expensive, try a DB4SS or DB4GT. You want more expensive yet, try a BMW 507 or any Maserati....

-- wf.

Alex Magdaleno wrote:

Oops, wrong car, I was thinking of the XKE's, sorry, dunno anything about the XJ6

-- wf.

randee wrote:

Jaguars always have a near-perfect balance of ride and handling......you can really enjoy the ride all the way to the poorhouse.....assuming, that is, if you can get them to run.

Besides the bad chrome, heaters that make more noise than heat, and B-W trannys in the older ones,they have one other trait in common with Studes: stand back when you see the first rust bubble: the whole thing is about to implode before your eyes - except there isn't a frame to hold the bits and bondo together.

The XJ6C comes in second of all the cars I would like to be able to walk into my garage and gaze at. (R-type Contenintal is #1.) Notice the phrasing of that remark. I've no interest in the V12. Also available as Daimlers in the rest of the world, these were know as Jag Sovergens in the US. Eight total came without fabric top. These, as well at the cloth covered ones, have a solid roof underneath - not loaded with bondo.

On my first visit (1976) to "The Jag." I saw a beat-up one come around the corner. When I asked about the condition of the car, I was told, "That's the prototype. The insurace people won't let us sell it, but it runs. We use it for running after the odds bits & pieces or a packet of fags."

How'd you like to see the prototype Stydebaker Speedstar used that way?

The dash installer had to do two cars an hour. He'd start at ten minutes before the hour and be done with the two about ten after.

Later, my MP was Geoffrey Robinson, the man who made Jag what it was in the 1970s. POS. He showed it in his actions in Government, too. (My own opinion.)

I still want that car in my garage!

Karl

I would really, really like to (esp. a DB-anything) but I can't even afford a Jag right now :)

nate

randee wrote:

Thanks guys. Enough negatives to make me take a pass on the car. MikeW

worked in a Jaq dealers workshop, there was a saying ,if you buy a Jaq ,buy two, one to drive while the other is getting fixed. Roger.