Hi all,

I'm new to the forum as well as to the idea of Jag ownership. As a result I'm doing lots of reading up in order to try and get a handle on the different features of various models and so on.

I'm looking in the direction of the XJ6/XJ8 models in the X300/X308 range.

With regard to the X300 XJ6 cars, what are your opinions with regard to the 3.2/4.0 AJ16 power plants? Are they streets apart as far as performance and driving experience is concerned?

The reason I ask is that if you were looking at two XJ6 cars for sale and in similar condition, is the 3.2/4.0 litre engine option a deal breaker either way?

Cheers,

Russ

 

I love my 4.0 it's deceptively fast and as reliable as the day I bought it. Always go for the bigger engine...always seems to be less problematic. At least in my case with other cars

 

All AJ16 engines are equally reliable. I would argue that there is really a 3rd 6 cylinder engine derivative, as the 4.0L litre engine is available in naturally and supercharged form. They each offer a different fuel economy / performance trade-off. In the case of the naturally aspirated versions, you will notice the difference in torque (which is in proportion to the capacity), more that the difference in power. The supercharged 4.0l engine offer performance in excess of the 6.0L V12, but with better fuel economy.

 

The USA guys never got the 3.2, so their hands on will be zero.

I have a '96 X300 3.2, and coming from a V12, things just did not have that edge at first. We have now done 60000kms in just over 3 years, and it is quite quick, super quiet, 9.8L/100km economy on interstate runs (of which there are many), and I see NO reason to consider teh 4ltr.

Add to that the 3.2 has a mechanical kickdown (cable) transmission 4HP22, as versus the 4ltr that has an electronic version 4HP24. Both are super strong transmissions, but electronics can leave you stranded, whilst the old style simply keep on keeping on.

The 4ltr gets traction control, the 3.2 no got. Again, less to go wrong in MY opinion.

OK, the 4ltr would have the edge in hilly suburbs, and straight out "get to speed first", but a 3.2 that is "on song" would NOT be far behind.

I dont consider the choice as a deal breaker either way.

 

Thanks very much for your replies gents - you input is much appreciated.

As you're no doubt aware Grant there seems to be quite a few 3.2 XJ6's on the market in Australia and some of them appear to be very nice low-mileage cars and priced reasonably. It's good to know that I can add them into the mix of 'possibles' to consider.

When I first started to experience the 'Jag itch', the initial consideration was for an earlier (70's to 80's) XJ6/XJ40, however a bit of local market research soon revealed that the later model (X300-308) cars were pretty solid value.

I personally think that they represent a hell of a lot of car for the money and the styling certainly appeals. I'm enjoying the research!

Cheers,

Russ

 

I completely agree. I also have a 3.2 and with 215 bhp it's plenty quick enough. It has a shorter stroke than the 4.0 and so I think it revs higher too.

 

I drive the 3.2 and think it's fast enough. Lot's of torque and I love the way it revs up, plenty of power when you need it. On the other hand, a 4.0 has slightly better fuel economy on highway cruising.

When considering comparable cars I think maintenance and full service history are way more important.