Just curious, is the V12 edition of the X27 more rare within the U.S. then the V6?

 

There are more V-12's in the US then I6's (inline). XJS's never came in a "V6" configuration.

 

Haha, there are more v8s than v6s!

 

Yep, more V8's for sure.

The XJ-S MUST be a V12, the others are only "half a car", but I an biased.

Very few I6 versions down here.

 

I6 versions only came to the US in mass numbers after the facelift in '92 and the introduction of the 4.0 liter. And when they did they quickly outnumbered the V12's. In fact I've heard only 100 V12 xjs's came into the US in 1995 and 1996; 50 coupes and 50 convertibles.

The 3.6 I6 available in the UK in the 80's was never available in the US. I've seen a few here but they are all RHD..

 

I think the 100 v12 imports refers to the number of TWR versions brought to the US. Those came as 50 coupes and 50 convertibles and only in 1993 MY. Reason why is because Jag was reworking the 5.3 to 6.0 and the only v12s available were TWR carsthat year. 1994 MY saw the new 6.0 which sold about 1/3 as popular as I6. 1995 was half as many 12s as in 1994. 1996 there were no 12s imported to the US. But i read somewhere that Jag only made 3 to 10 total of v12 cars after 1995, cutting production options (coupe bodies and v12 engines) for xk8 factory tooling space.
The last xjs was a v12 coupe tho... just because...

 

I wonder why. This was the opposite in the US and particularly in California.
Sales of facelift cars were very strong in the US and most of them were AJ6 and AJ16 cars. But this is why. It is a well known fact that the 5.3L V12 enjoyed a horrible reputation in the US, especially here in CA and this is clearly what gave birth and so much success to the Chevy conversion industry; not BMW, or Mercedes, or whatever other Euro V12's were involved in Chevy conversions, only the Jaguar V12's. People really liked the Jaguar cars' looks (including myself), but they chose to "stay away from that dreaded V12" (including myself from advice from the local Jaguar dealer service manager) along with the many who got nailed with an engine fire, they all welcomed a conversion. So, it only makes sense that, when Jaguar announced their new "safe engine" alternative, with that subtle and modernized body styling, people jumped to their local dealers to finally get one of these beauties, thus the XJS added several additional sales success years thanks to the AJ6 and AJ16 power plants.

OK, I'm tickled and I admit it.

I know that this forum is well populated by V12 die-hards, many of whom not hesitating to make statements placing the V12 on top of the I6, sometimes masking the belittling as "amusing", or for fun, including that the I6 is "half the car". Well, some time somebody has come up and speak for the super AJ6 and AJ16 Jaguar power plants and wake some up with, not wife's tales, but rather actual facts. --- In addition, when shopping for my XJS, I drove several V12 cars and several I6 cars, overall at least 25 cars in a one year span, paying special attention to those V12 owners statements that the V12 is so much smoother than the six. Well, not from my personal test drives, I did not discern such a subtle difference, no way and most appeared pretty well taken care of.



The I6 is half the car only in the number of cylinders. How can the first US I6 ('93) be only "half a car" when compared to the US '92 (last 5.3 V12) if it is:

1. Faster 0 to 60 by no less than 0.5 seconds?
2. With 1.3 L less displacement?
3. Using 27% less fuel?

As soon as I get my scanner fixed I'll paste the actual pages from the July, 1993 Motor Trend Magazine to verify the following copy from the magazine:

‘93 Jaguar XJS Coupe.
“Sporty Performance with an emphasis on style and grace”
by Ron Grable

We have some good news and some bad news: The bad news is that all production Jaguar coupes for’93 have the 4.0-liter straight-six engine: no V-12’s. (Actually, there’ll be a few: Jaguar-Sport, aka Walkingshaw Racing, will build 100 signature-edition XJR-S, with a 6.0-liter version of the V-12, but all are spoken for already).

The good news is this 4.0-liter six-cylinder XJS is a better performer than Last year’s V-12 version, anyway. Comparing test data for the ’92 V-12 XJS and the ’93 AJ6-engined version, we found the ’930.5 seconds quicker to 60 mph and 0.4 seconds quicker in the quarter mile (but almost 1.0 mph slower). In ’92 trim, the V-12 made 263 horsepower with a curb weight of 3970 pounds, so each horse was responsible for accelerating 15.1 pounds, while each of ‘93’s 219 horse power has to haul 17.0 pounds up to speed. How can the ’93 be quicker? The answer is the rear-axle ratio. This year’s car has a ratio of 3.54:1 compared to last year’s 2.88:1, with near identical first three gears in the transmission, giving the ’93 a big advantage in quarter mile acceleration. The EPA watchdogs are placated by an overdrive fourth gear (0.73:1) in the new-for-’93 four-speed automatic, giving it taller overall ratio than last year’s three speed automatic (1:1 top gear). Such engineering black magic allows better acceleration with less power, and a 27-percent-better EPA highway number. Have your cake and eat it, too.

It's only fair to say it like it is. Just imagine how silly it would look if facelift owners made it a habit to state things like "Facelift I6's rule; they're quicker than the big, thirsty and inefficient V12"? And that is considerng that such a statement is actually a fact...

OK, enough.

 

Reinaldo, I love both equally. I have no axe to grind and can't disagree with your sentiment. And, yes, the six cylinder cars are generally accepted to be faster accelerating than the V12 cars for the exact reason mentioned: gearing.

However......


I have a slew of XJS magazine road tests and the speed/performance/acceleration results vary quite a bit. Just going from memory the 5.3 V12 0-60 ranged from about 6.5 to 8.5 seconds (that's huge) and the 4.0 six cylinder 0-60 times ranged from about 7.4 to 8.6 seconds.

And, since you mentioned the USA market specifically, the USA-spec 5.3 V12 cars naturally tend to be at the slower end of the spectrum as they're down about 30 horsepower compared to the ROW models. I think a USA-spec 5.3 Coupe comes in at about 7.8 seconds. The 4.0 cars might not look quite so favorable if pitted against an ROW 5.3 car !

Maybe this weekend I'll compile the results of all these road tests and post them....not to prove anything one way or the other but just for general interest.

Cheers
DD

 

Yes, it is true that the US, and particularly CA, kind of ruined it not only for Jags, but for everybody else. However, this power reduction was generated by additional US/CA emmission reduction steps and, as such, I would imagine that the I6 cars should've been similarly affected.

You say: "The 4.0 cars might not look quite so favorable if pitted against an ROW 5.3 car..." would that be an ROW 4.0L?

You mentioned a 7.8 sec 0 to 60 for the US 5.3 Coupe and that is what Jaguar advertised for (my car) the 4.0L AJ6 cars: 7.8 sec, which for the V12 is an improvement over Motor Trend's whole half a second slower. That would put the V12 at par with the 4.0L car, yet with a far more expensive (cost + operation) power plant. Even if tests were found where the V12 does out run the straight six car, it would have to be by a considerable margin in order to justify the extra $10,000 acquisition cost, the extra 1.3L displacement and the 27% poorer gas mileage. Perhaps, at least something like 6.0 sec 0 to 60?

I find it very unfortunate that Jaguar was forced to tarnish V12 engines' otherwise traditional quick/fast "aura" (Ferrari, Lambo, Mercedes, etc) by sacrificing low end torque performance with such a tall 2.88:1 rearend, but there was no choice in light of the V12's inefficiency (big/heavy/thirsty) that forced them to manipulate performance for the sake of fuel efficiency, even after the HE improvement.

All I'm saying is that, judging these cars/engines by their merits, the AJ6 and AJ16 cars cannot possibly be "less" than the cars with the 5.3L V12. Neither am I saying that the V12 5.3 is less of a car either, as I'm sure that they're, too, a joy to drive when in top condition and in similar fashion as our AJ6 and AJ16 cars are. It is clear that there exists a strong, rare bond between the V12 cars and their owners and I love it when this happens, with any car. But....

I'd be nice to see some of that data, Doug.

Cheers,

 

the Jaguar XJS was designed and engineered for a V12 engine, right from the start of the idea of a smooth GT hi-way cruising automobile!

and when i have my car at car shows, with the hood open, people say out loud, WOW,!this car has a 12 cylinder engine!

you know deep inside you would like to own an XJS JAG V12.

and if you are aware of new technologies, a simple modern 4 cylinder TURBO engine would run circles around both Jag V12 and Aj16 engines!
AKA: Cadillac ATS sedan., and if you are interested ,look up GM/Cadillac LF4 engine specs,(V6).

 

I might like to drive one every now and again, but I'd rather own the 6.

It's kinda like a super hot, high maintenance woman. Shes the one you want to spend some time with, but She's not the one you wanna keep.

Happy with the 6, couldn't take the time to keep up with the 12. There are too many maintenance items on that engine that just take too damn long to do. The 6 is just so easy to access.

 

Absolutely, and there is a whole Jaguar community that will second that statement.

Cheers,

 

Cheers,[/QUOTE]
+1

 

Or... put lower gears in the v12 and hang on tight.

The 6.0 v12 also had a 4sp auto and 3.54 diff gears if I recall correctly. It was a second quicker to 60.

0-60 doesn't really matter on the road IMO. 30-90 accelleration runs are what most drivers do and the 12 is very good at that.

 

For me it has always been the Jaguar 6. Jaguar built their reputation on it and the upside of the Jaguar V-12 is not worth it. The limited amount of extra horse power with the extra weight and the loss of mpg and lack of access is just not attractive to myself and many, many others.


To be frank it makes me laugh when I hear things like "Jaguar designed the XJS with the V12 and therefore that is the only correct engine for the XJS" . The reality is Jaguar simply did not have the money to develop a world class V8 back in the late 60's and early 70's. This is the same reason why the XJS was only offered as a factory coupe for the first 13 years and also why the XJS for many, many years was almost exclusively offered with only a 5.3L V-12.


I do not take it personally when some on this forum make remarks like " the XJS without the V12 is only half the car " because the reality is I may have one half the cylinders but my car is worth twice as much.

 

I have a V12 in my XJ-S, an XK 4.2 in my XJ6 and the AJ16 in my X300 "XJ6". The six cylinder cars are reliable daily drivers, the V12 is in the shop so much that when I have it, it's like a child being home from school. The engine is solid but the heat kills everything around it. Yes, the power and smoothness is intoxicating but I'd be happier if my XJ-S had an AJ16 inline 6.

 

Yes, the six is easier to work on.

Once you get in the V12 spirit of things, though, what once seemed like harrowing or labor-intense tasks really aren't so bad. You just go slow, relax, work meditatively. Simply resign yourself to removing lots 'things' in order to reach THE 'thing' you're after....and all's well. Soon enough you'll be savoring every turn of the wrench. There's a real sense of satisfaction and accomplishment when you're done.

Besides.....the service interval for a lot of that V12 'stuff' is measured in years so it's not like you have to replace fuel hoses or sparkplugs every six months !

To be honest the 'under the hood' work I did on my V12 XJS was never as brutal as the 'under the dashboard' work....like removing and repairing blower motors. *That's* really something to complain about.

None of this is to disrespect the 6 cylinder cars. I'd be happy to own one.

Cheers
DD

 

Hmm... Somebody from the South making such a statement?
Or from anywhere in the US, for that matter?

America= 1/4 mile drag, low end torque, tire burning, big block, remember?

Cheers,

 

It's irrefutable.
I had already heard enough V12 horror stories (the best ones being from the mechanics working at the Chevy conversion shops, wow) but I wanted to hear it from a person in a position familiar with both engine versions, my acquaintance the young Brit Jaguar service manager (Later poor sales killed that dealer and many others). He was honest and helpful with his knowledge and experience more than anything else when to my question "So, which one should I go for, since I don't perceive any earth shattering differences in my test drives"? He responded: "Maintenance and cost of operation"..."We have the V12's here all the time, yet we hardly ever see the sixes"...adding "They're great engines when they're running, but there's always something with the V12"... "And then, the extra fuel consumption is significant".

So, I stopped testing V12's.

Cheers,

 

And it seems to me that this very approach that you describe is what, not only puts you in a mood to battle the problem and win, but it will eventually give birth to this unusual bond between car and owner, I'd say. Once that hurdle is sorted, the V12 car and its difficult ownership becomes "mentally manageable" and what would be absolutely unacceptable to most car owners becomes just another routine fix. I guess there's nothing wrong with that.

Cheers,