XJS - the saga continues

It's the car to have.

Yes, it shpoudl at that age be the straight six AJ16 engine. Which is a real gem of an engine. Rock solid and good for 300K+.

It should ideally also have the Jaguar (Alpine) sound system, cruise control, and a 6CD changer. Check for all of those.

No, it's just that the V12 is massively detuned. It's capable of about

600bhp, but Jaguar shipped it producing about half that.

You won't, the six cylinder engine is well worth it.

Yes, they're shit. Get a report on condition from the Jaguar Enthusiast's club.

They are (a) expensive and (b) they know f*ck all about Jags.

Ok, so not getting much (any) positive feedback over the V12 variety. Is the

4.0 any better? I'm assuming it's a straight six. Just found this on Autotrader:

1993 Jaguar XJS 4.0 Auto, 1993, K reg. facelift model, met blue, climate, e/seats, e/w, a/bag, 98,000 miles,

2 owners from new, fJsh. £3,450.

No word on bodywork but seems a decent price for a car with full Jag service history. May give a call as it's not far away from me.

Especially interested in the difference in power between the 4.0 and the V12? Given that people have described the V12 as "not that fast", does that mean the 4.0 is positively slow?

Can't help but think I'd always have a nagging wish that I'd gone for the V12. Anyone got any opinions on the AA vehicle checks, they seem very expensive (£200 for a big engine, and won't do a compression test).

Cheers guys, Dan

I've got a late '91 XJ40 (probably similar level of weight/performance to an XJS) Auto with a 4.0 litre lump in it.. it's supposed to do 7.8 0-60 and has probably managed that (sports mode on the gearbox can help), but they are such smooth and quite cars that you don't feel like you are accelerating that quickly (my Rover 600Ti feels much faster, although theortically it's not that much faster).. also the auto box (I've never driven one before getting this car) seems to require milking in the right way to get full acceleration out of it.

Economy-wise, I get a consistent 21mpg out of it, which is mixture of town & dual carriageway (did reset the trip computer on a longer dual carriageway trek once and at ~70mph is was managing nearly 30mpg) and moderately enthusiastic driving (for some reason you don't feel like driving like a nutcase in a Jag, cos you're too busy luxuriating in what could otherwise be your favourite armchair on wheels ;)

Bigus

It was massively modified during design to reduce the power output, including changing to single OHC from DOHC. You make it sound like it was a mere restriction of some sort.

Why did they do this lunacy?

In news: snipped-for-privacy@uni-berlin.de, Dan405 decided to enlighten our sheltered souls with a rant as follows

because the original V12 engine was a quad cam jobbie, which happened to be very wide indeed. Too wide to fit under the bonnet of most of the things they were going to fit it to. The XJ13 was killed off around the same time, so the DOHC engine wasn't needed, a SOHC one was cheaper to build, easier to work on, and would actually fit into the e-type.

I believe the quad cam V12 powered Mk10 Jag they used for testing was a bit hairy to say the least...

No doubt Dave P will correct me on most of this.

Very few makers introduce a new engine range that is *vastly* more powerful than the outgoing one. Cost would also be an issue, given that at the time Jags were very competitively priced - at the bottom end of the luxury market. Wouldn't have mattered so much for Rolls, etc.

Not my intention.

But you can always pay Lynx to get it back to 600bhp.

Still are.

Not quite in the same way as they were when the V12 was in the design stage.

The E Type when introduced was stunning value for money, as was the XJ6. Now they're merely competitive.

Hmmm, I disagree, profoundly. YOu can get cars with better performance (you always could) you can get cars that offer more luxury (just, and you always could) and you get cars that handle better (and again you always could). But you can get very little that offers the blend of features and nothing cheaper. The XJR offers a very fast car, with very good accomocation and a fit and finish that puts Mercs and BMWs to shame for a price that the competion charges for a rather dull motor.

You went ahead then :D

yeah :) risky in the wallet dept but so far not too bad.. paid £1100 for a

170k miler J-Reg.. dark red, cream interior.. had it serviced, front discs badly needed replacing and someone had fitted the air intake hose improperly causing it to stall every so often. Runs beautifully now, but have a feeling one of the front shocks may need replacing, which I'm given to understand is not cheap.

Bigus

Lovely car to drive or be a passenger in. Quiet enough for me to fall asleep in one doing an indicated 140 (on a private road of course). I wasn't driving at the time either.