2.8 Series 1
#1
11-03-2017, 01:11 PM
2.8 Series 1
Hi all,
1st post on this forum, quick bit of advise please.
I've been hankering after a classic Jag for awhile and I'm quite interested in a 2.8 Series 1. Given it's nearly 50 years old, I wouldn't be planing on pushing the performance too hard, I have other cars for this! So with this in mind, is the 2.8 a valid choice or should I hold out for a 4.2 or even V12?
I'm guessing a 140bhp 2.8 on an auto box is not quick, which I can live with, but I wouldn't want her being a complete slug. I have one in mind, but before I travel to see her, I thought I'd ask the question
Many thanks, Russ
1st post on this forum, quick bit of advise please.
I've been hankering after a classic Jag for awhile and I'm quite interested in a 2.8 Series 1. Given it's nearly 50 years old, I wouldn't be planing on pushing the performance too hard, I have other cars for this! So with this in mind, is the 2.8 a valid choice or should I hold out for a 4.2 or even V12?
I'm guessing a 140bhp 2.8 on an auto box is not quick, which I can live with, but I wouldn't want her being a complete slug. I have one in mind, but before I travel to see her, I thought I'd ask the question
Many thanks, Russ
#2
11-03-2017, 03:49 PM
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pacific Northwest USA
Posts: 24,735
Received 10,741 Likes
on
7,097 Posts
Depends what you're accustomed to, Russ.
Nowadays even an ordinary plain-vanilla Honda or Toyota family sedan will outrun some of the 'performance' cars of not-that-many years ago.
To put some sort of numbers out there I think the 0-60 times for those old 2.8 cars was something like 13-14 seconds....so for most people it would be an absolute slug. A person accustomed to driving a 60s vintage VW Beetle might think it was a rocket ship, though !
Cheers
DD
Nowadays even an ordinary plain-vanilla Honda or Toyota family sedan will outrun some of the 'performance' cars of not-that-many years ago.
To put some sort of numbers out there I think the 0-60 times for those old 2.8 cars was something like 13-14 seconds....so for most people it would be an absolute slug. A person accustomed to driving a 60s vintage VW Beetle might think it was a rocket ship, though !
Cheers
DD
#3
11-04-2017, 07:27 AM
#4
11-04-2017, 07:42 AM
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Delaneys Creek,Qld. Australia
Posts: 28,379
Received 6,317 Likes
on
4,367 Posts
Hi Russ, never driven a 2.8. But the 4.2 is great to drive, mine does everything I ask of it or expect from it. But that has come from loving any inline 6, had V8's and fast fours but they are not my thing. Series 1 is the best looking XJ6 IMHO.
When time permits please post an intro in the new member area for a warm welcome.
https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/n...-intro-must-5/
When time permits please post an intro in the new member area for a warm welcome.
https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/n...-intro-must-5/
Last edited by o1xjr; 11-04-2017 at 07:44 AM.
The following users liked this post:
Russ68 (11-06-2017)
#5
11-06-2017, 07:26 AM
Hey Clarke,
I have some experience of the 4.2, owning a 1974, series 2 back in the 90's. She wasn't in the best condition, but I recall the ride and performance were outstanding, despite using an eye watering amount of fuel if driven enthusiastically! I used to keep a couple of gallons in one tank just as a 'get me home' precaution, as she'd run the other tank down with shocking speed if given 1/2 a chance!
Which is why I was thinking a 2.8 might be an acceptable choice for a classic. My S-Type Sport on the manual box, and my modified MGF would be preferred choices for fast driving. And the classic, whether she ends up being a series 1 XJ6 or 60's S-Type perhaps, could be reserved for a more civilised 'wafting around' type driving. Rarely threatening the redline or the abundance of speed cameras that seem to have proliferated here in the UK
Looks like you've got a beauty there with Fireball! The one I had in mind was a 2.8 in the same colour, with Kent alloys and a red / burgundy leather interior. A handsome beast if not quite original, and from the pictures, showing a bit of rust beneath the respray. I'd have her in a heartbeat, but adding another car to the 'fleet' is really not practical at the moment. Soon though I hope!
All the best, Russ
I have some experience of the 4.2, owning a 1974, series 2 back in the 90's. She wasn't in the best condition, but I recall the ride and performance were outstanding, despite using an eye watering amount of fuel if driven enthusiastically! I used to keep a couple of gallons in one tank just as a 'get me home' precaution, as she'd run the other tank down with shocking speed if given 1/2 a chance!
Which is why I was thinking a 2.8 might be an acceptable choice for a classic. My S-Type Sport on the manual box, and my modified MGF would be preferred choices for fast driving. And the classic, whether she ends up being a series 1 XJ6 or 60's S-Type perhaps, could be reserved for a more civilised 'wafting around' type driving. Rarely threatening the redline or the abundance of speed cameras that seem to have proliferated here in the UK
Looks like you've got a beauty there with Fireball! The one I had in mind was a 2.8 in the same colour, with Kent alloys and a red / burgundy leather interior. A handsome beast if not quite original, and from the pictures, showing a bit of rust beneath the respray. I'd have her in a heartbeat, but adding another car to the 'fleet' is really not practical at the moment. Soon though I hope!
All the best, Russ
#6
11-06-2017, 05:01 PM
Veteran Member
The 2.8 XJ saloons didn't last all that long on sale, because Jaguar couldn't sort out the problem of them holing pistons. Of course in those days we were all running around on leaded petrol so it may be different now.
The problem was never found in development testing, apparently because cars that were thrashed hard at high speeds were OK, it was the "town-tootlers" that suffered. And we all know that test engineers do not do a lot of low-speed tootling ! The cause was thought to be a build-up of deposits that caused detonation when the owner's car was finally given a bit of a gallop.
It is all documented in Paul Skilleters book on the Jaguar saloons.
The problem was never found in development testing, apparently because cars that were thrashed hard at high speeds were OK, it was the "town-tootlers" that suffered. And we all know that test engineers do not do a lot of low-speed tootling ! The cause was thought to be a build-up of deposits that caused detonation when the owner's car was finally given a bit of a gallop.
It is all documented in Paul Skilleters book on the Jaguar saloons.
#7
11-08-2017, 08:22 AM
Hey Fraser,
Interesting that, although I suspect if this 2.8 engine has made it thus far, it might be OK for awhile longer
I have with some regret declined the 2.8, it was super cheap at £2350, with MOT until May, but timing just wrong for me. I very much hope I don't regret this decision!
Should any other forum member be interested, I can but you in touch with the 78 year old owner, or more likely, his representative, who was helping with the sale. Contacts in the link below as well.
More info in this link to the eBay page, but most likely to be a private sale now, this was our arrangement as the bidding had ended with the winner a no show.
Hopefully I'll find another series 1 closer to the time, or perhaps an S-Type.
All the best, Russ
Interesting that, although I suspect if this 2.8 engine has made it thus far, it might be OK for awhile longer
I have with some regret declined the 2.8, it was super cheap at £2350, with MOT until May, but timing just wrong for me. I very much hope I don't regret this decision!
Should any other forum member be interested, I can but you in touch with the 78 year old owner, or more likely, his representative, who was helping with the sale. Contacts in the link below as well.
More info in this link to the eBay page, but most likely to be a private sale now, this was our arrangement as the bidding had ended with the winner a no show.
Hopefully I'll find another series 1 closer to the time, or perhaps an S-Type.
All the best, Russ
