Hi there,

This summer I will be buying a Jaguar S-type R, however I am unsure which year would be best. I hear that 2005-2007 has the most recent parts (updated engine, transmission, and new body) however that also causes issues on sourcing parts if something breaks.

The 2003 is older, easier to source parts but harder to find non-modded and interior was lower quality from the facelift version.

This will be a project car so I will be tinkering on it myself. I owned a 2000 Jaguar s-type V8 a few years ago which is why I'm looking for a Type R now.

Thanks!

 

I think your 05 to 07 is going to have more choices...as with any vehicle, maintenance is a premium....with records preferably...i have an 06 str and the previous owner had a very complete stack of records and the car reflected it...i absolutely love my car...good luck in your search

 

this is kind of a loaded question . and is going to be opinionated as requested .
for me - on looks alone the 02.5 to 04.5 STR is the best looking s-type.
and also has the brembo brakes.
i prefer the wood interior over the later non wood options .
though i also prefer the later speedo cluster with the chrome rings and duel message center over the bland 03 cluster .
the electronics (mainly the PCM) is a major upgrade after 05.

by the way done properly mods are a plus + not a concern .
some times (most of the time) a mod is better than a replacement stock part .

 

I agree that specific mods can be useful, however what I was seeing was large subs in the trunk, non jag wheels etc which is definitely a no go from me.

I thought the 2005my and up also had Brembo brakes?

I love the personal opinions, as they bring out variables that I might not have considered.

Thanks for all your information!

 

They took the Brembos off around then. Unless you're going to the track it really doesn't matter.

 

'04 and '05 were the fastest years (i.e., 0-60). Bought my wife a clean '05 in white 2 years ago, and she never oodles over later model cars. Zero maintenance except for replacing ball joints at 90K miles - for taking too many corners *at speed*. She also has a Porsche Cayenne Turbo which is extremely fast, but the surprising, head-snapping quickness of the Jag's supercharger - is always a gleeful thrill.

 

Sorry for my ignorance, but did something change in the 2006-2007 models to reduce the 0-60?

 

Yes, if you check out any of the Zero to 60 websites, you'll notice a dip in the 0-60 speeds for those later models. There may have been an ownership change (?)...Ford was originally responsible for the aluminum body change, as well as better engineering in the motor (quicker and more reliable). But later Jaguar was purchased by an Indian company...but not certain about the time-frame.

 

i cant see how , with the same curb weight , and the same engine /drive train .
jaguar claim 5.3 sec for all versions . with or with out vvt
so does motor trend , and top speed magazine .

 

From '04, ('05 in USA), the bonnet was aluminium. The later versions are supposed to be slightly quicker as Jaguar changed to a 6% pulley as standard & removed the front foglights to increase airflow, also fitting an extra oil cooler. To combat emissions, VVT was fitted to the later ones. In the real world, there's not much in it between unmodified cars of any year. Any car you buy will be over 10 years old, so condition backed by a meticulous service record will be the one(s) to go for. Mine is a late '02 but I've serviced it well & it's still running great (touch wood).

​​​​​​​Edited to say: Datsports is correct. The problem with the 0-60 on these cars (if a tenth here or there is important) is traction. The TC is not too sophisticated & only slightly better on the later ones, but you'd hardly notice.

 

i don't think this is correct . my info says 2.9'' upper pulley across the 4.2 range .
the only boost increase i'm aware of, was when jag went from the 4.0 to 4.2 . this was done with the lower pulley .
please prove me wrong .

 

Yeah, they went to 6% pulley later on, think it was '06 maybe late '05 in the UK. Let me try & dig out the source for the info.

Edit: I'd forgotten that i found out what I was originally told was wrong. It was the SV8 (XF s/c 4.2) that came with the uprated pulley. Phew.

 

So later models have some aluminum in them, no Brembo brakes, update pcm and TC, more SC coolers (did it overheat before?) and engine was updated to vvt. Was there any issues with the vvt in the newer engine?

Also the newer models still have the issue with the coolant hose under the SC correct?

Thanks for all this great information guys!

 

correct / bolted to not structural , correct and TC upgrade was a side affect of the new pcm's capabilities , correct ,
, two small side mounted instead of one long central . it was to relieve air flow to the center mounted cooler row .
yes but note both versions of intercoolers suffered high iat2 temps due to InterCooler coolant temps if driven that way . not the engine coolant . but truthfully BOTH versions are prone to heat , its inherent of the eaton m112 superchargers efficiency or lack of

the vvt seems fine but of little advantage due to it being more optimised for emissions not performance .
not exactly common to fail but they can and have . have a search .
yes that dreaded pipe is on all 4.2V8 SC and i believe the NA also .

 

This is an easy one - as with any automobile, buy the absolute newest one you can afford - they just keep getting better.

 

In my opinion I have the best model year version of the STR for use in the UK anyway.
It has all the later body panels and covers without the rust traps so it is less prone to rotten cills, the problems with the front wiring loom is all sorted, the sharp gear change problem was also sorted from new. (The aluminium hood makes no diferance at all!!)
It has the Benbro brakes that look better than the later type, even if the later type are supposed to work better. The change was on N52408 the 06 MY.
In the uk it is still in the lower road tax band for cars registered before 23 March 2006.
The VVT system on the later cars only lowers the emissions, it makes no difference to the performance or the fuel economy.
As it happens I also prefer the cleaner lines of the 05MY(4.75) onwards update including the Vulcan wheels over the pre 05MY cars with the Zeus wheels. But that is all down to taste.

My opinion is to look for a low mileage 05 (4.75) model year car but before the 06 model year change at N52408 regestered before 23rd March 2006 if it is for UK use, with as many of the options factory fitted as you can find.
The exact year and date in this bracket is not important but the millage is very important!

The problem is there were not that many built so you may end up looking for some time, it took me about 4 months to find the car I wanted back in 2015.

Mellow

 

Hi
There are really no better versions as long as you find a good one with good service history
as for rust, is the same on both and to be honnest later ones seem to be worst, where sills completely rot away, but sometimes in higher mileage cars
later cars also seem to suffer with vvt pully problems as there reliant on oil
personally I prefer the shape of pre 2005 cars
but post 2005 cars are easier to remap than earlier cars
I looked for completely standard with low miles and service history, my STR had 30k on it and drive like new, uses no oil, no rust and never had any issues in the 4 years I've owned it, but gets well looked after
if its had tuning parts, then they have generally been driven harder, so would expect more wear, but ok if well looked after
first place they rust is, the inside of front and rear doors, on the vertical seams, where the sealer is, you get what look like spiders under the paint around the sealer, very common
also uprated pulleys dont work very well unless you uprate the intercooler water pump, to like a mercedes type, to keep the coolers cool, otherwise intake temp rise very quick and you lose power.
cheers
joe