Older Jaguars--1946-1986

Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
edited April 2014 in Jaguar
This topic was started by the host to ask
questions and share information on all postwar
Jaguars from 1946-1986. This would include all the
XK and XJ6 and Mark series coupes, convertibles and
sedans.

For information on more modern Jaguars, please
review the topic lists in the > or
> message boards.

Questions, comments?
«1

Comments

  • I have heard that the 85/86 were the best of those years. What do you think. And is a good one in good shape a good buy now. And what are they worth????
  • rea98drea98d Posts: 982
    In 1982, Jaguar gained independence from British Leyland, and started cleaning house big time. As a result, starting in late 82, the quality of cars coming out of the factory began dramatically improving. The general consensus is that from about 84 to 87 were good cars (These are going to be the ones I look at when I get two nickels rubbed together). If you find a Jag in good shape, I think it will be a very good buy (provided they're not asking 15 grand for it. I read an ad for an 86 that said the owner had done 20 grand worth of work to the car and wasn't "looking to make much of a profit on this car" He didn't give the asking price, but I seriously doubt he would have taken less the about 15 grand, and nobody who knows anything about those cars would offer that much. For that kind of dough, you could probably manage a 93 or 94 VDP.) Seriously, a late SIII in good shape will probably fetch about 6 or 8 grand on a good day.
    If your seriously looking at one, I have one piece of advice. HIRE A JAG MECHANIC FAMILIAR WITH THE SIII JAGS CHECK THE CAT FROM STEM TO STERN BEFORE YOU BUY!!!
    Above all else, have fun and don't drive (too) fast ;-)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    Many people prefer the older body style, so that's why I cut it off at 1986. Also they are very affordable, in the $6K-8K range for nice cars. I'd certainly agree that the 1970s XJ6s are to be avoided if possible.
  • Just to correct something that I often see here - to the best of my knowledge there was never any ownership of Jaguar by British Leyland.

    Jaguar was owned by the UK government, as was BL - the 70s were a big time for nationalized industries in Britain - but there was never any connection. When the Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979 they set about privatising many nationalized institutions, with Jaguar being one of the first - though the government continued to pour money in for some time.

    This history goes a long way to explaining why cars of the 70s should be avoided, and certainly the further that you go into the 80s the better the cars tend to get - though there are exceptions. Personally I would take any Jaguar from about 48 through to early to mid 60s over any of them for looks, and any e-type, though with the exception of a couple of later e-types I haven't driven any.

    As for cutting it off at 86 shifty - you are probably right, but forgive me any personal transgressions if I go to 88 occasionally - after all I am biassed.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    Well, we're all friends here...I was only trying to separate the older and newer cars, because we were getting so many questions about 90s Jags in this Board.

    I like most of the older Jags although I do have a tough time warming up to the big fat Mark Vii, Viii, etc. But they do have a kind of charming lumpy Rolls Royce look. Not all that much fun to drive, and I must confess I lament Jaguar's turning away from sporting cars to their 1980s-90s land yacht days. Perhaps the new F-Type will help to change that, but even here this is a very expensive car for the very few.

    The whole soul of Jaguar, how they came to be successful, was providing affordable and high quality sporting machines for the middle class. I think this original vision has been lost, and I'd love to see it return.
  • people who have connections with Jaguar decision makers, and I keep hearing the figure of $45,000 for the F-Type. That suggests fairly high production numbers to benefit from economies of scale.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    That's still up-market but perhaps that's the best they can do under the circumstances. I was thinking around $30K-35 max would place it in the traditional jaguar market. The original Jaguar wasn't conceived as a car for the country club set, it was supposed to be for real driving enthusiasts. I'd like to see them regain that portion of the marketplace. There was a time when a Jaguar was a real bargain for the money.
  • I have a beautiful yellow '76 XJ6. She has original Lucas "Prince of Darkness" electrical and 39K original miles! Every thing works perfectly, with the exception of a sagging headliner that I replaced, she is the "reliable car" that I drive when my Volvo is broken.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    I think those low miles are working in your favor, and I bet you take really good care of it, too.
  • ndancendance Posts: 323
    but frightening under the hood. My dad had an XJ12L (long wheel base maybe?) from which I bring two memories. First, I seem to remember that it had a battery fan, I mean, a fan built into the battery box next to the windshield. Jeesh. Second, it looked like the engine compartment was a vessel into which they poured car hardware until it was full to the top, stomped on it, and poured in just a bit more. No wonder John's Cars does quite the business.

    Not to beat on furrin' cars anymore today, but the Jag V12 strikes me as a perfect example of the triumph of marketing over reality. I bet that that OHC wonder is heavier, less reliable, and makes significantly less power than an engine of similar displacement and vintage, the 327 Chevy.
  • The 5.3L V12 produced 299hp and 330lb/ft or torque. US specs reduced those numbers to 262 / 292(I think). But US specs did run on regular pump gas - at least when new.

    Don't know about a battery fan, my battery is in the trunk!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    Most V12s are not built for power, but for smoothness and refinement. Your sturdy 327 engine would be very ugly in a Jaguar sedan...too rough and too noisy for that type of car unless you really did a magnificent engineering job of isolating and muffling that engine. But for all their refinement and prestige, V12s are complex and expensive to manufacture, so we are seeing most high dollar foreign luxury cars going to OHC or DOHC V8s.
  • When I purchased my new 1975 XJ6, It had a B-L badge or decal in several spots on the car. The owners manual and ad literature also had B-L's logo on all of the pieces. Am I hearing correctly that B-L never had an interest in Jaguar? If memory serves me correctly, BMC (British Motor Corp and Leyland Motors) merged prior to nationlization. After B-L was formed, it bought Triumph and Rover as well. In fact Jaguars engineers specifically designed the XJ cars to NOT accept the Rover V8 that Leyland wanted to put in Jaguars. Having been through the Jaguar plant in Coventry and spoken with members of the staff, about the B-L years,your statements about
    B-L are IMHO questionable.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    Jaguar was associated with British Leyland from 1968-1974.
  • My '75 XJ6L also had that feature. There was a small fan mounted outside the battery box with two leads to the wiring harness. My mechanic told me that it was to disperse any battery fumes that might accumulate under the hood. The only problem was that only a Lucas battery would fit properly. However we did come up with an Interstate that would fit by greasing the battery and then slipping the battery box down over the battery.
  • Although my 75XJ6L was a '75 model, it was built in Jan of '75 and since the bodies came from Castle Bromwich plant, the body may well have been a late '74. It did have all the B-L markings in various spots. In '89 when I visited the Jaguar assembly plant in Coventry, they were still trucking the bodies from Castle Bromwich (near Birmingham) to Brown's Lane on Leyland canvas covered trucks (4 at at time)they were stored in several outbuildings and assembled already painted and with the doors on. Amazing to watch them build them. They were building 50 per day at that time.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    :Yes, it's possible that a 1975 had BL markings, since the' 75 bodies probably were actually built in' 74, and perhaps the car finally assembled later....I'm not sure of the exact dissolution date, perhaps the corporate structure carried over into 1975...but the books do indicate 1974 it seems, from what I'm reading in various sources.


    Mr. Shiftright
    Host

  • During my visit in '89, I also got to see the building where the E-Type was assembled. The Daimler Limousines are also built there and finished entirely by hand. The have the Jaguar engine and transmissions. The factory is very old and so small, in fact the the assembly lines are serpentined rather than straight. The workers take a great deal of pride in what they build. The guide on the tour was asked why they used Lucas electricals, his reply was "Because they're British.
  • I have loved jaguars for years and have the opportunity to do something about it. I have found a 1986 Sovereign at a used car place ( they don't do luxury vehicles). They want 2800 for it and it looks clean in and out they think it need rear brake work. Is this a good year and car. I have heard mixed stories about reliability etc. I have found a good Jag mech.who is going to look at it for me but I wanted some other input before making the leap. wanting to avoid a money pit but capture some of the Jag excitement!!
  • rea98drea98d Posts: 982
    1986 was one of the better years, but you've raised one red flag already "rear brake work" XJ6's have the rear brakes mounted right beside the rear diff, inbord of the suspension, to improve handling. Which means the entire rear axel has to be dropped to do *anything* to the brakes, and this will run you much more than the 2800 you pay for the car. If you want a Jag great, but don't buy the first one you see. Take your time, have the car checked out, and buy as close to a perfect car as you can find. Yes, you will pay much more than 2800 (which is less than what a *good* 86 would probably be going for), but it will be money well spent. To buy the first cheap jag you see is, as the old saying goes "Penny Wise and Pound Foolish."
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    I agree with rea98d...you've picked a decent year (mid 80s fuel injected 6 cylinder car) but you picked one hell of an expensive repair bill, with those inboard brakes and god knows what else when you start unbolting the back half of the car. I'd run like hell from this one. The best price would be FREE, and even then you only have a $3,000-5,000 car if you fix it up perfectly!

    What you want is a car that someone has spent $15,000 on, and buy it from him for $5,000.
  • Thanks for the feedback rea98d and Mr_shiftright. I went to have a look and it was not in the shape the sales guy said it was. fenders rusting through, back window out, quarter panel loose. This one is a money pit. It broke my heart to see one in such an awful state of neglect.
    I will continue my search.
    Thanks
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    Junk, a car like that is junk and ready to scrap. Sounds like a parts car at best. You'll find many XJ6s neglected, because they are so cheap to buy and the buyers can't afford the upkeep. It's the kind of car you have to buy in the right shape at the right price or you'll never come out on it.
  • I am contemplating buying a one-owner 1986 V12 - owner was former Jag mechanic-always garaged, etc.
    57K, $10 grand, very clean. Car has Euro gray market engine (no poll. controls)and fuel injection-- welcome anyone's comments on performance-maintenance-things to worry about, etc. I plan to drive it frequently but not everyday. Appreciate any comments. A. Ay cock, Atlanta.
  • rea98drea98d Posts: 982
    It would have to be a grey market car, because Jag never sold a Series III V-12 in the United States. I'd make sure that the car was already properly titled in Georgia, so that you didn't have to fool with the government and all their red tape regarding registering foreign market cars. Also, be sure you find a Jag Mechanic (other than the one selling it, make sure he has no interest in the car), and have it checked out stem to stern. Any mechanic familiar with a V-12 XJS (which was sold in this country), should have no trouble servicing an XJ12. (or inspecting one)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    Thank you rea...this is a duplicate post that saaycock made, so I also answered him. I wasn't all that encouraging because of the V-12...I didn't even get into the gray market issue, and here too we could have troubles, as the car may not be spec'd out the same as a US market V-12. Also, the conversion work to make it conform to US standards could have been badly done, as it often was in the 1980s.

    Last of all, it is very overpriced, especially for a gray market car. Gee, he could buy a lovely and newer XJ6 for less than that and not have the stigma of gray market to deal with. This would be a tough car to unload.

    I'd say offer $6K and ask for a 6 month warranty or forget it.
  • Our local Cadillac dealer just took in a '96 XJ12L VandenPlas with 59K on the clock. They allowed $11K on trade for a new Cadillac. Since the dealer is a friend, I drove the car and it appeared to have had excellent care. Mr Shiftright is correct on the brakes. On my '75XJ6 a complete brake job (new tubing etc) was over $1,000. Also, if my info is correct, do NOT use any other brake fluid than Castrol in earlier cars as it will eat out every seal in the brake system. Can you comment, Mr Shiftright?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    I do remember older British cars being quite sensitive to certain brake fluids, but I just don't know about a 1975 model. I always use what the manufacturer suggests...I rarely try to outguess factory engineers unless what they designed was an obvious failure. But if it's just eccentric, I try to follow their advice.

    Except in a Ferrari, a V12 makes no sense to me personally. Modern V8s can do the same job better and with far less fuel and complexity. As for the older cars, the Jaguar 6 cylinder engine is a great motor...look at how long it lived in production! Longer than the Chevy Stove Bolt 6!

    I just can't imagine having to say, do a rear brake job and fix two bent cylinder heads from overheating on a Jag V12...these are common enough problems and what a repair bill! And for what, really---the 6 cylinder car does the job as well or better.
  • rea98drea98d Posts: 982
    You miss out on the joy of going up to the parts counter and seeing the man's face when you tell him you need 12 plugs & 12 plug wires! Or the thrill of looking down your nose at all of us wiht "only" 8 pistons beneath the hood. Or the sheer excitement of shouting "I have a V-12!" when everyone is bragging about their hopped up Honda VTech engines.
  • Do these still overheat-know it was a problem with 70's-thought it was corrected. What is the cylinder problem mentioned above?
    Thanks!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    There are correctable cooling problems with the V12s...the Jag clubs know how to fix 'em, and by now, I would think most of the older V12 had either had the fixes done or melted down by now.
    There was also some fire hazards, but I can't recall the years and models that one had to watch for...I think that was the product of deteriorating fuel lines...again, probably all corrected by now.

    What I was driving at was not to bad mouth the V12 but to point out that maintenance and repair efforts are considerable because of those extra 6 cylinders, and you really don't get anything for all that trouble...if it were twice as fast or as thrilling as a Ferrari, well, okay, but really the V12 is a sedate, gas-hungry and rather gutless engine...smooth, however, which is really it's outstanding attribute.

    This type of design is quite traditional...very few V12s other than Italian designs have ever delivered startling performance. American V12s were also very sedate and not high on HP. The new German V12s are pretty powerful, but again, gas-hungry and an absurdly extravagant option for what you get....an extra $30,000 to make an SL600 nose-heavy?

    I'd certainly think twice about how much V12 status is worth in an $8,000 used Jaguar. I don't think 99% of the world would notice if you had the 6-cylinder car instead.
  • tdugovictdugovic Posts: 34
    Let me start by asking for forgiveness from the purists who will not like my car or cars like it.

    I purchased a 1976 XJ12L in Los Angeles 3 years ago. IT has a chevy 350 and turbo 350 transmission.

    There are several companies which offer conversion kits and do conversions. ONe in Texas, one in Carson, Cal. and I am sure there are more.

    If you like the older styling of the Jag. (which I prefer over the newer ones) then this is a viable alternative.

    To keep one running would cost a small fortune. But with the Chevy conversion, repairs are simple and inexpensive.

    I have to dissagree with you Mr. Shiftright. the chevy engine is smooth and quiet. But If I wanted it to be loud and obnoxious, that would be an easy thing to do.

    I also have a good friend who just completely restored a 1976 XJ6. It is a beautiful car. But it will be a show car only.

    A good friend of mine who is in his 60s and spent a lifetime working on european cars in Los Angeles said the Jaguar is one of the most difficult to maintain and one of the most expensive. FWIW.

    Tim
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    Thanks for the good feedback.

    I still maintain that the Jaguar engine (the 6) is the best part of the car. Throwing it away to solve electrical or overheating problems makes little sense to me, and Chevy engine or no, you still have all the other troublesome Jaguar parts that work the rest of the car. However, with a Jaguar 12 cylinder, perhaps this type of conversion makes more sense---especially if you realize that the car has less value with a Chevy engine in it but you don't care about that. Good for you on that count anyway!
  • tdugovictdugovic Posts: 34
    They would have less value to some. But to someone who is a diehard GM guy like I am find it to be MORE valuable.

    YOu see, it is a simple conclusion that when one piston for a Jag cost over $100 and a whole set for a chev 350 cost the same, logic says the chevy cost less to rebuild and maintain.

    Overheating is not a problem. Power is not a problem. Brakes can be done without having to remove the rotors it simimetalic pads are used and you don't run them down to nothing.

    The only grimlin left is the horrible electrical system these cars have.

    A painless wiring harness can cure that little problem.

    I wouldn't touch an old Jag with the original drivetrain with a ten foot pole.

    But that is just me. :)
  • rea98drea98d Posts: 982
    I really don't mind the Chevy engine under the hood, but I also like the Jag XK engine these things came with. It's a gorgeous car (no other car can, in my opinion, come close in style.), and it's got a suspesion setup that's bordering on overkill for what the car was intended for (Inboard disk brakes? Does that little unsprung weigh really matter on a highway cruiser?) These cars are still considered state of the art today, with DOHC aluminum engines, fuel injection, IRS, unibody construction...the lsit goes on. And when you consider the engine was designed during WWII by Jag engineers on the roof of the factory looking for Nazi bombers, the suspension and unibody construction goes back to the 1960's, and the EFI came in during the 70's. Lincoln Town Car? Had an Iron pushrod block until the 90's, and is still body-on frame/live axel rear suspension. Of course, it also costs half what a Jaguar does, so I guess you get what you pay for. The SIII is a great starting point to build a serious performing car, and wether the motivation comes from the XK engine, the 350, or a hamster running in a wheel, really doesn't matter to me. I just want the performance to be there. When I get out of college and start looking for a good Jag to start toying with, I'd find the best XK engined model I could, and enjoy the heck out of it. But if the engine started needing a valve job, rebuild, or whatever, I wouldn't bother. I'd drop in the 350 and sell the XK to someone who could rebuild it and wanted to keep their car original. Of course, you can't help but admire an engine from WWII that's still considered state of the art 50-60 years later.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    Well, it's also an aethestic thing, and a historical thing. A Chevy 350 is an unattractive and pedestrian lump of iron and a rough piece of work ...it really doesn't fit the calibre of the rest of the car. On the other hand, it being a sedan and not a sports car, I really don't care so much about that--pragmatism can rule in that case, and really, one land yacht's engine is probably as good as another. However, a Chevy V8 in a Jag 140/150/XKE should be considered a crime in most states, I'd hope.
  • tdugovictdugovic Posts: 34
    Shiftright
    Quote
    "A Chevy 350 is an unattractive and pedestrian lump of iron and a rough piece of work "

    LOL . . . I guess it doesn't look complicated, sophisticated or refined enough so as to catch even an admiring glance from you??
    Hahahahahahaha!!!

    Have any grey pupon??

    You talk like "chevy 350" are dirty words.

    Well, I think you are talking about one of the most successful engines EVER made on this planet.

    When you open the hood on my car, a purist jag enthusiast will cringe.

    But anyone who understands the problems involved with the jag engines and is performance minded will see the practicality of the Chevy 350.

    There are also many guys in Los Angeles that have even put 454s in their jags.

    350 in an XK??

    I agree . . . not the place for it.

    A 70s-80s xj6 or xj12? NO problem. It is the smart thing to do.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    No, I never said a Chevy 350 was a bad engine, but only that it was industrial looking and out of place in that particular context....don't wear a tux to the beach, you know? :)

    Where did you get the idea that the Jaguar 6 is a troublesome engine? It's been around about as long as a Chevy V8.

    The reason people have trouble with Jaguar engines is the monkeys they take them to to get fixed. Meat-fisted guys who don't know an ohc from a blender. The Jag 6 is/was an outstanding engine, and every bit as good as anything Chevrolet ever made IMO.

    Just because it doesn't have tons of low end grunt and isn't made in America doesn't mean it isn't good.

    Now if you want to talk about British electrics, well, you got me there....I surrender!
  • rea98drea98d Posts: 982
    There's an idea I never thought of ;-) *evil Tim Allen grunt*
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    Truth be known, I don't like the XJ all that much, so you can do whatever you want to one! They aren't going to be classics, so maybe they can share the not-so-bad fate of other hot rods that were once ordinary cars and are now special to someone....think of all the blobey American sedans from the 30s 40s and 50s that made pretty neat customs. I would never condone messing with an XK coupe or roadster, however.
  • rea98drea98d Posts: 982
    What's wrong with the XJ? That's one of my favorite Jags! IMO, much better than the older Mark and S-Type sedans. (The old S, not the new one.)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    Oh,yeah, compared to the old big Marks, the XJ is more bearable, but it's still a rather large and ponderous sedan. Jaguar's whole tradition and history was affordable sports cars. I was personally very sorry to see them go into the Land Yacht business and abandon their sporting heritage.

    Jaguars were never about snobbery and rich people and all that pretentious glop...it was about people who really loved to drive and drive hard. Jaguar was about Lemans, about a great value for the dollar. To me, an XJ is just a Buick with really nice seats. They could have been Porsche, but decided (perhaps, to be fair, for survival) to be Lexus. Ah, well, at least they are still a company, I should be grateful for that at least.

    But as one who owned an XK140 and an XKE, looking at an XJ6 makes me want to weep.
  • rea98drea98d Posts: 982
    My 1978 Grand Marquis is large and ponderous. An XJ6?
    Ah well, I guess it's all in what you're comparing it to. I guess comparing an E-Type (XKE, whatever the right name is!), to an XJ6 is quite different than comparing a Grand Marquis to one. Upside anything I've driven, the XJ is a definate sports sedan. Oh for the luxury to be able to call it large and ponderous!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    Nah...it's a luxury sedan...it corners well enough for its size, I won't dispute that, and certainly better than most American sedans, but "sport" is not a word that comes to mind by any stretch of MY concept of the word. To give you an idea, my friend's XJ6 is longer than, and weighs more than, my Mercedes 300 diesel sedan....not exactly sport sedan size!

    The newer Jag sedans are tighter, lighter and faster, so maybe one of those would squeek by as a "sport sedan". Dunno...I certainly didn't think the S qualified (the one with the V-6 engine)...it was pretty wheezy at highway speeds....nice comfort, though, and a pretty car.
  • impeimpe Posts: 33
    The discussions on the 6 vs the V-12 are interesting. I have a 71 E-Type Coupe with the 4.2 liter 6, and (knock on wood), it appears to be bullet proof with 32K miles. During the last British Car Meet at Chateau Elan, (just north of Atlanta), the guy next to me had a 1972 E-Type with the V-12. After looking at that engine, I am so glad that I have the 6.

    I would like to hear from other E-Type owners regarding problems that they have had with their cars. Does anyone out there know of a forum such as this?

    I will eventually need brakes, shocks, etc and it would be helpful to hear from people who have experience with replacement/repair on their E-Types. I know that joining a Jaguar club might help with info sharing, but I live in the North Georgia mountains away from almost everything.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    I don't know as we get enough E-Type owners at Town Hall to start a coffee/beer support group for these cars, but you could try two things. One, open a strictly XKE topic in this board, and also a similar one at the Sportscar Board (you can jump there through the little window at the top left of this page!).

    Host
  • A friend of mine has a gold 1984 Vanden Plas sitting in his garage that he has owned for a long time, but drives infrequently. He just put new brakes, tires, and fixed some minor problems - and has offered to sell it to me for $1,500. It's in reasonable condition 'visually' both inside and out - but I don't know the general thoughts on older Jags and was wondering if anyone can give me some input as to whether this is a waste of money or not. I read about the $100-200 expected monthly maintanence and can handle that - but what are my other concerns? Oh, the car has 118,000 miles on it. Any advice is appreciated.

    Note: My current car is a 1980 Fiat 132 - so I appreciate old cars.
  • rea98drea98d Posts: 982
    I know just what you're looking for. jag-lovers.org has model specefic e-mail lists, and one covers the E-type. That site, edmunds, and tccoa.com are where I spend 90% of my internet surfing time. (I know, I know, I have no life. Bouncing around from one car site to another...)

    On an unrelated not, can anyone tell me why an African (I think) flag is beside my name?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    Hi rea,

    Thanks for the link. As for flags, you can change that by going to your profile and typing in your real address. Have you moved to another country without realizing it?

    1984 Jaguar---well, there is an old saying about old Jaguars: "The least expensive Jaguar you can buy is the best one you can find"

    It's hard to say if this car is worth the trouble or is a money-pit. Most older Jaguars are money pits, either all at once or gradually, so the idea is to control the bleeding from the very start by picking the best car and the best models. Series III cars with fuel-injection are a good start, but I myself would shy away from any XJ that already has a list of things needing correction. Also you have to keep in mind that these cars have a low resale value and so you wouldn't want to put lots of cash into a car that you infer is not cosmetically all that great. If you're going to stuff $5,000 into it, you might as well buy a nice one right off for that price.

    I suppose the best thing you could do is take it in to a reputable service center and have them go through the whole car; also, one trick I use before buying a car is to take it out, alone, and give it a good hard run for an hour. If it doesn't stagger and die after running up and down hills, it might be okay, or at least good enough to take to a shop for a thorough checkover.

    Some weaknesses include rust, rear brakes (expensive to replace), leaking power steering units, electrical glitches, overheating, and water leaks.

    The price seems fair enough, but remember You Are Not Objective....you are in love, and you need a second opinion.
This discussion has been closed.