Oooh, RX8s are getting cheaper.

Indeed, I've no problem with that. Most installations in the BL and early BAe days were designed to cook the battery, both for the XJS and XJ12. Then they decided to 'fix' the problem by putting the battery in the boot and making the battery far too small. That brought problems of its own.

None of these problems related to the reliability of the V12 engine itself, which Fraser described as unreliable.

The final V12 models with the V12 in the X300 body shell were stunning cars and extremely reliable despite having more electronic gubbins than any previous Jag.

Nice strawman. I said the car was an unreliable piece of shit. Not the engine. In mine I had no real engine problems. I did blow a transmission and numerous electrical/fuelling faults.

Fraser

Yeah dinosaur is the word I was trying to think of when I wrote my essay back there! They are laughably low-tech but I think there's something charming about how basic Aussie cars are.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Can't see myself ever buying one.

Fraser

750hp out of a 5.3 litre engine. Wow. The japs are getting 1000+ out of 3 litre engines. And there is plenty of 1000+hp 350 chevs. Colour me unimpressed. Diesels are winning at Le Mans now. Maybe I should buy a diesel.

Fraser

Bullshit the discussion was entirely about engines, and you responded:

"I've owned a Jag V12 and a 13B rotary and they were both a bit poo. The Jag was unreliable and heavy and the rotary was thirsty and had bugger all torque. Either would be easily beaten in power/fuel consumption by a small block chev or a jap turbo four/six."

Thanks for the confession that you were talking crap.

7.4 engine.

Not out of N/A engines they aren't. And if they are blown a 3.0 is the equivalent of an N/A of about twice the cubic capacity.

Oh and of course the V12 was producing that output in 1990.

Colour you clueless.

Nah, you wouldn't be able to cope with the speed. Stick to rice bowls.