I've been thinking about a jag for quite some time now. I like the XJS and the XK8. Not 100% sure which I like better. If I go with an XK8 I will get as new as I can afford, 2003 or later, based on what I've read on the forums. If I decide on an XJS I will research the best years, 6 or 12 etc before I buy. I thought I'd conduct a little poll on both forums and get opinions and also see if I could find the opinion of somebody who has had both. Likes, dislikes, good, bad and the ugly.

Thanks!

 

I had an XJS V12 coupe. Wonderful car, especially if one is able to do most of thier own repairs.
I searched for a long time to find a BRG with 4 headlight (non-facelift) and never had the sides adulterated with aftermarket trim.
I found it in a used ar lot down the road from me and the spokes were a plus. Has not one mark onit inside and out. Everything works like new.
http://mulone.com/hwm/XJS_Jaguar/jaguar.xjs.htm

 

@Terry

There will probably be some responses to this but for me I think you are choosing how high and how low your feelings are going to be owning both cars.

If you buy a 2003+ XK8, assuming you shop diligently you will have trouble free, reliable and relatively affordable motoring for years, even if you do not work on the car yourself. It will make you smile most of the time, and frown occasionally, probably when you get a random warning light appearing on the dash from time to time (ASC/TRAC is the current favourite I think judging from these forums)

If you buy an XJS, no matter which one you buy, it will be by definition an old car (the youngest you could reasonably get would be 15 years old now) and will come with all the usual old car problems, plus lots more interesting "Jaguar" only problems, and a really rare and exotic set of "XJS" problems. As Frank said, if you are willing to do a lot of your own repairs, and enjoy spending time in your garage, and view the whole thing as an experience, you'll survive. As far as feelings, you'll get super lows (My '92 caught fire after a Marelli ignition failure) and super highs (hotel valet moved a Ferrari California to place my XJS in front of the hotel. Came back to a crowd of people standing round it, most asking what it was and where they could get one)

As you can see from my signature, I am very lucky to have a bit of both so when I'm in the mood for an adventure, it's the XJS. When I just want to get somewhere fast, in total comfort, and its raining, the XJR

@Frank

Great picture of a beautiful car. The only thing I regret about buying a convertible is I don't have the buttresses !

 

Sarc summed it up pretty well.

I loved my XJS and hope to have another some day. It was a challenge to own at times though. Old and quirky, as Sarc says. Not only old in pure years but in design/enginering "age" as well. The car was introduced in '75 and design goes back several years earlier, of course.

If you're accustomed to modern cars an XJS will feel a bit strange. Strange in a nice way, but still strange. :-)

Cheers
DD

 

Gents,

Don't forget also that another important thing to bear in mind is the difference between a sports car and a Grand Tourer.

An XK8 being the sports car in this case and the XJS the GT.

I've hung on to my XJS for years rather than upgrading to a newer more reliable XK8 for this exact reason.

Matt

 

One additional point I forgot to make in the last post is that the XJS was never meant to replace the E-type.

It caused quite a storm at the time. Again a GT model as opposed to a sports car.

 

I've always considered the XK8 a "GT". What characteristics, in your opinion, make the XK8 a sportscar?

I'm asking, not arguing :-).

Cheers
DD

 

Hard to say really. The XK8 being a newer car 'should' be more reliable and economical - but will devalue more quickly. A six cylinder XJS will return
22 -30 MPG and prices have levelled out. Looks are very subjective but an XK8 parked alongside my 1990 3.6 manual in a small Hampshire village. I was with 3 others when we returned to the car. All 3 commented on the fact that the XJS was an instantly recognisable classic with looks that have improved with age.
One thought the XK8 'might be an imitation Aston or a large Mazda.They all thought it looked pretty good but could easily be confused with lots of other cars.
Not a scientific survey but if you don't want people to talk to you or show unwelcolmed interest in your car - buy the XK8.
In the late 80's I drove a XJS 5.3 HE as a business car for a couple of years and it never let me down. I have owned my current white 3.6 manual for 9 months as a classic and it has never let me down. But things like seals and aircon will probably need renewing or updating on most XJS's.
Thing to remember on both cars is that they are very long so be prepared to miss alot of parking spaces and be sure it fits your garage !
Why not take both cars for a test. You pays yer money and you takes your choice. Happy hunting !

 

as most all here have said; it depends what you are looking for...
When I was looking I was split between the two as well, but 2 very powerful factors made decide for the xjs (mine now - http://www.cardomain.com/ride/383035...guar-xj-series

1. there were no available xk8 locally so I could not drive both to test... there was only one local xjs for sale.
2. the price; I'm broke and the xjs was a bit cheaper.

now, there are more choices locally:
http://jackson.craigslist.org/cto/2046465926.html
http://jackson.craigslist.org/cto/2046623312.html
http://jackson.craigslist.org/cto/2081983620.html

I still like both styles (i'm trying to convince my wife that she needs and xk8); but i don't regret buying the xjs; it looks very classy and classic...

I agree with other comments that the xk8 looks like other cars; if you get earlier years, it looks like a large miata; if you get the later years, it looks like anston martin (i prefer a car that looks like an aston martin than one that looks like a miata).

 

Richkaz, that's a really nice XJS. Good for you !

DD

 

I totally attest to Sarc's remarks: The XJS is the ultimate head turner and thumbs up generator and, yes! people do tend to gather 'round it. Also, in its 4.0L, straight six form, it is immensely more reliable than the V12, confirmed in many fronts, including my 10 years of ownership. I have come to like the XK8 much better of late, and I do understand that it is the easier driven car (not unlike my XJR), however, they're like night and day: The XJS is a classic; the XK8 is a modern car. At the shows that my XJS is shown, the XK8 would not call similar attention at all: Just a little too common here in SoCal. I drove my 1994 convertible BRG XJS much more years back, but currently, it is pretty much a show car only (although can no longer claim to be "original", for obvious reasons), but I do take it out for a spin weekly.

A low miles "Celebration" model ('95 or '96), preferable from California, Nevada, or even Texas, well sorted out and inspected (the great majority comes in the 4.0L six version) will be your forever love, hands down.

 

There is NO choice, ONE OF EACH, and the XJ-S MUST be a V12, just because.

I do agree 100% with the "old versus new" quirky explaination. Much like when I went from the one of our S2's to the X300, duh, another world, BUT not the penash with the newer car.

Giving up my XJ-S V12 as the daily driver for the X300 was a real sad day, at least the "boss" now uses it and I get to ride in it if I'm good. Once you have had an XJ-S as a daily for 14 years there really is NO OTHER car. Aussie logic there.

 

Doug, just to answer your question:

My view and a lot of magazine reviews I've read. The XK8 is slightly smaller and has sharper or 'sportier' road handling which is more akin to the e-type. The XJS somehow seems more appropriate for long high mileage cruising at speed rather than tight handling and accelerating down country lanes.

Interesting comments you make there Forcedair1.

5 or 6 years ago when I was showing my '91 4.0 XJS with the drivers club here in the UK it never got a look in. It was always the Mk2s, XK8s and the e-types that got attention. Bit different now with less XJSs about. Suddenly its a gem and a classic.

 

Similarly in this area, Rocketlift. When I bought mine ten years ago, the XJS was popular and eBay had pages and pages of them, so it wasn't as rare as it is today. However, it was the facelift convertible the one that placed the XJS on the California map, making it the sales "shot in the arm" that encouraged Jaguar to continue the model to the mid 90's (interesting that, here in California, over 50% of those later buyers were...women). People here love the XJS, especially the facelift version in convertible form, even when -here in the US- it had to overcome the significant negative tag that the pre-facelift V12's had earned. The straight six only became available with the 1992 model, which explains the boosted sales from the straight six's newly gained customer confidence. By now, whenever two XJS' drive by each other, the arm wave is guaranteed...

 

I've had my 4.0 six cylinder 1996 XJS for a little under a year and use it as a weekend car, but I can say it has been relatively trouble free once a couple of minor issues were worked out. As was pointed out it is a 15 year old car so some quirks are to be expected.

The six cylinder 4.0 and 4 speed transmission have been rock solid on trips between San Francisco and LA . Nothing like running Coast Highway 1 or cruising around the various wine country regions with the top down on a nice day. It certainly generates some comments wherever it goes and I for one prefer the uniqueness of the older styles.

My experience has been if you get an XJS get one from the west or southwest to avoid the body rusting issues so prevalent in the XJS models, find a low(er) mileage car (say less than 50k, maybe 60k miles) with decent maintenance records (carfax is pretty helpful) where the previous owner(s) hasn't "customized" the wiring or systems too much (may make it more difficult to sort out a problem).

 

I have a 1991 VJ-S V12 and a 2002 XKR. I love both of them. They are two different machines intended for different purposes/customers. Both are very reliable and fun to drive. I've made handling and performance inprovements to the XJ-S, such as a 5 speed manual trans. It handles well and reliably.

It is sometimes difficult to decide which Jag to drive on a given day. However, if we take a long trip we take the XJ-S. It was built for such use and delivers what is expected of a GT.

If I want to torment guys in Mustang and Comaros I drive the XKR and it does the job with glee in full comfort.

If I could have only one of the two, it would be the V12 XJ-S. However, I'd buy another XKR again later.

 

I'll have to chime-in for the XJS. They really are head turners and a joy to drive. The V-12 is a smooth as silk. I have a '84 coupe and a '90 rag top. The coupe's my daily drive and has a few mods...exhaust to make the V-12 sound like it should, updated electronic ignition, shift kit and high stall torque converter, etc and the rag top is the 'Date' car. Be sure to do your homework and buy the best one you can find. A rough one can turn in to a money pit. The 'key' is to drive them on a regular basis and stay on top of maintenance.....especially the cooling system.

 

I have a '96 XJS Convertible. I can't get much more than 19mpg...should I really be expecting 22-30?!?! I'm stunned by that.

My math may have been off, but the one time I took it on a long highway ride with no traffic I may have seen 22mpg, but like I said, my math might have been off. I can't believe I could get to the upper end of the 20s in terms of mpg.

 

Can I check if your car is a V12 or six cylinder ?
The contemporary road tests of the 3.6 showed from memory an average of about 21 MPG whilst on test. This figure included clutch burning acceleration tests and 130 MPH runs. Urban figures were 28-30 MPG. The six cylinder cars are only turning 2500 RPM at 70 MPH. I recently tanked up and with a mixture of spirited 'B' road driving and motorway cruising ( 70 MPH max in the UK) averaged 27.5 MPG. My car is a five speed manual but auto's with the 4 speed box are supposed to be pretty much as economical.
My old V12 5.3 HE averaged 13 -14 MPG on a good day. Computer showed 9 MPG in town

 

It's the 4.0L six.

Wow, I wonder if I have something going on with my car?

No codes are thrown.

I roundtrip it in about 50 miles, mostly highway, but I do hit morning traffic.

I never thought it was off since all the "official" data reflect exactly what I get.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/12541.shtml