XJ6 & XJ12 Series I, II & III 1968-1992

how reliable?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 14, 2011 | 11:53 AM
  #1  
JaguarXKR's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 883
Likes: 63
From: Illinois / Wisconsin
Default how reliable?

I was just wondering how reliable the 94-96 xj12 with the 6.0 v12 is?
 
Reply
Old Apr 14, 2011 | 12:19 PM
  #2  
Fraser Mitchell's Avatar
Veteran Member
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,547
Likes: 2,546
From: Crewe, England
Default

AFAIK the V12 cars were equally as reliable as the cars with the straight six engines. Not many were sold, (certainly in the UK) due to their huge thirst for fuel.

YOu mention 1994-1996, and this crosses over from the XJ40 "squared-off" look to the more shapely X300-type body which looks better and the later car was better made as Ford had finally sorted out the Jaguar factories by then. The V12 is probably a better bet than the later V8 if you want a lot of cylinders in your engine.
 
Reply
Old Apr 14, 2011 | 07:57 PM
  #3  
dba-one's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 222
Likes: 11
From: Palm Harbor, FL
Default

I'd buy one as part of a personal collection so it couldn't be a daily driver.
 
Reply
Old Apr 14, 2011 | 08:09 PM
  #4  
Doug's Avatar
Veteran Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 25,526
Likes: 11,719
From: Pacific Northwest USA
Default

Originally Posted by Fraser Mitchell
AFAIK the V12 cars were equally as reliable as the cars with the straight six engines. .


I agree.

And it should be pointed out that "reliable" doesn't necessarily mean inexpensive or easy to own :-)

A 15-20 y/o Jag can be very reliable but it takes some money and effort to get there.

Cheers
DD
 
Reply
Old Apr 14, 2011 | 09:07 PM
  #5  
JaguarXKR's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 883
Likes: 63
From: Illinois / Wisconsin
Default

Originally Posted by Fraser Mitchell
AFAIK the V12 cars were equally as reliable as the cars with the straight six engines. Not many were sold, (certainly in the UK) due to their huge thirst for fuel.

YOu mention 1994-1996, and this crosses over from the XJ40 "squared-off" look to the more shapely X300-type body which looks better and the later car was better made as Ford had finally sorted out the Jaguar factories by then. The V12 is probably a better bet than the later V8 if you want a lot of cylinders in your engine.
Dont all of the 94-96 have the same engine in them, the 6.0? So what your saying is the x300 in more reliable even with the same engine than the xj40(the ones with the square headlights?
Thanks
 
Reply
Old Apr 14, 2011 | 10:02 PM
  #6  
Doug's Avatar
Veteran Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 25,526
Likes: 11,719
From: Pacific Northwest USA
Default

Originally Posted by JaguarXKR
Dont all of the 94-96 have the same engine in them, the 6.0? So what your saying is the x300 in more reliable even with the same engine than the xj40(the ones with the square headlights?
Thanks


I think Fraser was trying to say the the 6.0 V12 wouldn't make the car any *less* reliable. That is, the 6.0 isn't a reliability liability :-) :-)

Broadly speaking the X300 is considered more reliable than an XJ40. The last of the Xj40s were known to be pretty good, though.

To jump on my oft-repeated soapbox, reliability of a 15-20 year old Jag is gonna depend primarily on the care it has rec'd thus far...and the care it receives in the future. Weak points or defects to the *original* design and build quality are not really relevent 15-20 years down the road. If it lasted 15-20 years it couldn't have been too bad to begin with :-)

Cheers
DD
 
Reply
Old Apr 15, 2011 | 03:28 PM
  #7  
Fraser Mitchell's Avatar
Veteran Member
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,547
Likes: 2,546
From: Crewe, England
Default

Just to butt in again.......

Reliability is more than just the engine, and I think most people accept that the X300 saloons were far better specced and assembled than the XJ40 series. Improvements in the production facilities were huge over the period mentioned. Ford spent a fortune on production facilities. They had to, the Jaguar stuff was not only worn out it was decades old.

Ford then spoiled it with the early V8s
 
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
hoodun
XJS ( X27 )
40
Feb 20, 2023 05:52 AM
LilaJagHubby
US Lower Atlantic
5
Mar 1, 2017 10:20 AM
wannabebuyer
XF and XFR ( X250 )
4
Oct 1, 2015 12:34 PM
bydand
XF and XFR ( X250 )
8
Sep 28, 2015 09:47 AM
bydand
XF and XFR ( X250 )
1
Sep 27, 2015 12:00 PM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:42 AM.