New to the forum - great resource!

I am looking for an XKR in New Zealand, so the options are limited. I like the old body shape, could do without the rub strips on the sides of the car, and like the smaller nose cone. If I want this AND the 4.2L, am I right in thinking some 2003 and 2004 models will fit the bill? Taken me a while to get clear on the different years (and I did wonder if part of what I like about the older shape is actually the older cars' front suspension sagging more commonly than the newer??)

Thanks for any advice!
jx

PS I understand it's fairly easy to change over to three-dial from satnav?? Will be counting my pennies, as these cars are relatively expensive down here...

 

Hi and welcome!
Sounds like you are looking for pretty much exactly the same thing I was, the pre-2005 body styling and the reliability of the 4.2L. The 2004 XKR I picked up fit the bill perfectly.
Hope you find one!

 

Thanks! Didn't know it was a thing, but glad to realize.

Am I just imagining that the earlier body is sleeker / less 'typical' of modern cars? I love them, but I've looked at them and the 2004/5 onward shape so long I feel like I might be magnifying the differences

In New Zealand, many of the XKRs are imported from Japan - I did wonder if there might be more/different variation in engine/body combinations over there.

 

There is very little difference between the 4.2 cars and the 4.0 XKR in terms of reliability. The early cars problems stemmed from Nikasil engine linings, the fragile 5 speed ZF gearbox, plastic timing chain tensioners, short lived capacitors in the ECM - all of these problems were history by the time the last of the 4.0 XKRs came out. Even if you get an earlier car with the old timing chain tensioners, they can be updated to the latest versions (if they haven't already been done so). The Mercedes 5 speed gearbox in the XKR is every bit as reliable as the screeching/chirping gearbox in the 4.2 litre cars. As others have found out to their cost, the 4.2 litre engine introduced something called a VID block complicating module swaps and of course has the more expensive fancy fuel pump, rather than a pair of cheap ones by Ford found in the 4.0 car.

In other words buy the car you like, with the body shape you like, the colour you like and no rust, rather than trying to find the mythical "more" reliable 20 year old car which someone else just sold for a reason.

 

Thanks, that's great to know.
So my buy box just expanded to 2001-2006??
Everything costs a lot here, so it's probably wise to get a well-sorted one rather than cheaping out on the purchase.
jx

 

All the 4.0 XKRs had the Mercedes gearbox. The latest tensioners were introduced in August 2001 (engine build date) - this thread has full information:-

https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/x...r-when-234474/

Although it really doesn't matter as any car before that build date can already have had the latest tensioners etc installed.. If you find a car you like, having or not having proof of the latest tensioners being fitted is nothing more than a negotiating point on the asking price. Oh and if anyone tells you the XK8 is the more reliable car because it doesn't have a supercharger, look up VVT and if anyone tells you the 4.2 has superior electronics, look up VID block.

 

Thanks - I've read and watched quite a lot, and it seemed the 6-speed gearbox is a good bit better? Maybe that isn't the consensus view...

 

for ruggedness and longevity I think it very hard to beat the Mercedes 722.6 transmission that came in the 4.0 XKR’s.

I don’t miss having more gears, the Mercedes transmission is a 4 speed plus an overdrive. I think Mercedes called it a “4matic” on some of their trunk badging.

the reliability of the 4.0 XKR transmission is one factor that swung me toward a 4.0 XKR vs the 4.0 XK-8. The 4.0 XK-8 were known to have some A-drum issues that are costly to fix. So I opted for the XKR. Reasoning that it may have some complexity associated with the supercharger, but a supercharger would be easier to fix or replace than a transmission.

I might have a biased and outlier opinion, but I’d rather have the Mercedes tough transmission with one less gear than the 6 speed transmission that came on the later years models. My car came to me with 116,000 miles on it . Now it has 191,400, and no transmission issues.

Z

 

Thanks!

 

I picked the 2004 model because it was the cleanest looking shape to me. The later cars have those silly sill extensions and the earlier cars have those side trims running down the doors. 2003-2004 cars don't have any of that stuff. I think the only things that would be cool woul dbe to move the number plate placement and remove the overiders in the grill. I had a sticker number plate a few years back but I was pulled over and fined by the police for the black and silver plates I had. They did look nice but apparently nto OK on a modern car. Maybe int he future when they become a classic I could get away with it again.

 

And they all have very bad brakes due to low manifold vacuum,,,easily cured with an electric vacuum pump ...I wrote it up earlier.

 

Those side trims come off if you really dislike them - they are just glued on and can be removed without damaging the paint.