I bet he won't do that again...

I always fancied a Jag when they used to look like flying saucers. But now they are made by a company that has production controls they look so ordinary I don't want one.

The FFScorpio was earlier than that as well though, wasn't it???

Rear suspension is *very* similar, which in Steve H's book means it's identical, allegedly :-p

I didn't know that, tis a nice lump though.

I've driven plenty of Scorpios, and I like them, a lot!

1994. They were very heavily revised in November 1997 for the 1998 model year, and then disconinued after six months. My gf has one of these, and trust me - parts are a bloody nightmare.

Very similar/identical to what - the Mk 2 Granada? Mk 2 Granadas have a live axle! It's very similar to the Sierra, yes. But so are many cars with a diff carrier and rear trailing arm suspension.

Very nice. Smooth, for a four cylinder.

Then you'll know what I mean - different spring rates, slightly wider track, wider tyres - voila! Jaguar S-type!

Richard

And not much better looking than said scorpio...

So, he's selling a very broken, cloth seated base spec manual front drive diesel Jaguar in need of a shell and maybe a loom and some other stuff like a dash and lots of glass, and some doors?

Right spec for a mondeo, wrong spec for a Jaguar - needs V6/Leather/AWD/Auto to live up to the marque.

Tim S Kemp ( snipped-for-privacy@timkemp.karoo.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Yup.

Of course, there's a much easier way to get it back on the road.

Do I hear bells?

->

->Really? I thought the Jaguar badges at the back, the fact the advert is for

->a Jaguar X type, the RAC website returns the fact the vehicle make is a

->Jaguar, and the DVLA tax enquiry site also agrees that it is indeed, a

->Jaguar.

It takes a lot more then a few badges to make a Jaguar, something you and marketing department at Ford have failed to understand.

->Just as well you're here to know better and put us straight.

Read the rest of the thread have you ?

Interesting.. I've not heard that. . The 1998 facelift was almost entirely cosmetic, and the rest of the car was mechanically identical to the 1995MY model. There are some differences in damping rates and spring stiffnesses, but the rest is the same. Certainly neither of them share any components with DEW98.

The production Scorpio wasn't a DEW98 testbed. However, some Scorpios were taken by Ford/Jaguar engineers and hacked about to create mules for DEW98. None of these made it into Joe Public's hands. A common misconception is that the S-Type used the platform of the Lincoln because Jaguar had it foisted on them. The reality is that while they share a platform, DEW98 was an entirely new ground-up joint design by both Ford and Jaguar, and shares nothing with the earlier Scorpio platform.

According to Ford's documentation here, the 2.3 was designed for both FWD and RWD configuations, and it was stipulated at the design stage that the engine should be compatible with DEW98. This condition was made on the assumption that the never-released next-gen Scorpio would use DEW98.

Agreed. Even though I have documents on another screen in front of me that prove that nothing from DE-1 made it into DEW98, it doesn't make it any less competent. I had great fun a couple of years ago with a 24v version in the dead of night along the Cat and Fiddle. It's a shame that most people couldn't see past the badge and the ugly face...

To be fair though, they really were exceptionally ugly...

I think the rear end of the Scorpio was actually quite decent looking. And people slag off the front end, but the headlight design is very similar to most modern Mercs.

I don't think it's a component issue, more a design philosophy issue. I've been told the lower arms on the suspension are different (possibly additional locating hardware), various electronic components. Maybe the stories come from the DEW98 mules; perhaps there were supposed to be improvements made on the '98 as a result of things discovered on DEW98.

I'd need to look underneath an S-type, I guess ;)

Richard

Some dowelling in each of the roof pillars and a bit of plastic padding, it'll be good as new. ;o)

Well.... yea....

Except the modern MB isn't exceptionally ugly, unlike the Scorpio. And IMO the rear end of the Scorpio was dreadful too...

cheers, clive

I think the XJ was originally based on the S type, at least for the engine.

NeedforSwede2 ( snipped-for-privacy@bouncing-czechs.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

The current XJ is a ground-up design. It's certainly not based on the S- type/LS/DEW98-or-whatever platform.

Hell, it ain't even made out of the same metal.

The engines are shared, though, yes. But the XK uses the same v8, the X- type uses the same v6, the 407 uses the same TDV6...

Nor the Mk IV Zephyr etc before it. Last live axle big Ford was the Mk III

>

it needed to be a v6 with 4wd to use as a donor as a diesel (and the small one at that) he's probbaly going to get f*ck all for it

How about a chop top Jag project?

Fraser