Hello everyone, i am a prospective XKseries owner. I am in the market for a coupe model not beyond 2005 at most, as anything beyond that year model is not as good looking in my opinion (gotta love that classic look). I have missed some great deals on the XKR coupe which was my initial main target and it is getting even harder to find any at all. In the light of this, i am starting to give the XK8 coupe some thoughts. I understand it has less hp compared to the R version, do you think the difference is worth it? Are there specific year models better avoided? Is there any difference in the cost of maintenance/ownership? I don't see any significant feature that are unique to the XKR, nothing except for the Horsepower (True?). Does the 290hp in the XK8 feel like enough power or is it a boring ride? lacking? I realize they are both rare in coupe, the XKR more so. And finally as i am looking for a stock car, are there certain signs of originality to look for? I am sorry if these are too many questions all at once, any contribution will be genuinely appreciated. I am hoping to learn from your wealth experiences and become a bonafide member of this community. Thank you.

 

Just from the perspective of a pure driving experience, there'd nothing wrong with the XK8. But rather. just more "right" with the XKR.

Someone more knowledgeable than I will have to respond to the value and depreciation comparisons. But on the surface, it would seem that the more rare car would hold value better if the demand is equal for both.


Z

 

I own a 2004 XK8 base model convertible. It goes MUCH faster than I will ever drive it and accelerates harder than I will ever need. I chose to buy the XK8 because I figured it would be mechanically a bit less complex than the R and also I figured that the XKR would probably have been driven harder. My opinions only, not based on research...others may differ

I would purchase a later model 4.2L car because there have been issues with the timing chains tensioners on the earlier 4L models. Also a later car ( all else being equal ) will be less likely to have corrosion

 

Here in the states 2006 is the last model year for the x100 body style. Coupes are definitely rare in either NA or supercharged, IIRC somes years are as high as 9:1 for convertible vs coupe production. If you are set on a coupe of either form you will have to be a bit more patient.

I own a NA convertible but most enthusiasts are probably going to tell you to hold out for an R version. After all, why not buy a faster model? I have ridden in supercharged Jaguars with the same powerplant and while yes, they are faster with the extra horseppwer, only you can decide if it is worth it. What are your plans for it? If you are going to track it or drive it hard you will want the R model. I drive mine like a grandpa so the R model wouldn’t be of much use to me. Less moving parts (no supercharger) usually means less things to break (but they normally don’t), plus supercharged models on any make are usually driven harder over their lifetime than base cars, though this is not always the case. I think the base 4.2 is plenty fast, but it depends what you are used to.

The most important point with Jaguars is to buy one with maintenance history. If they have not been maintained you will be playing catch up on it and the likelihood of premature wear of other parts is higher...either way it can get expensive really fast.

With either model I believe you will like it, these are beautiful cars and quite enjoyable to drive.

 

decisions, decisions. i tested both when making my decision and later after owning the 4.0 NA for a while an NA 4.2. the NA 4.2 could be a nice compromise over an R as it has nice pull at the low end if you do not like to rev high. the NA 4.0 requires a little winding which is enjoyable IMO. i like to climb winding hills with nice turns such as a mountain that is local. there is no shortage of power with the NA 4.0. my decision was based upon the sounds that i prefer and do not. perhaps this was determined by the fact that i was purchasing a convertible and drive through a lot of natural areas where i do not want that sound to dominate. the supercharger sound was not for me but it was still an awesome car. never purchase a car without trying it out. if you are ever in NYC, look me up if you wish to try. my friend has an NA 4.0 coupe if you would like to see one in person. the coupe is beautiful, good luck.

 

There are three main things that made me go with an R:
1. The very satisfying gentle but relentless shove in the back when you put your food down.
2. The accompanying supercharger whine.
3. The engine bay look, lots of engine rather than a plastic cover.

 

Thank you, i would imagine there is nothing wrong with the XK8, im beginning to do more research on that model and i see the sense in what you are saying here. Many thanks Zray.

 

Yes Barry, i read about the timing chain tensioners being made of plastic (don't understand how that made sense to jaguar engineers anyway). Just like you have stated, someone else advised to look starting from later production 2002 with 4.2L engine just to avert that problem. I will take all your points into consideration, whether or not they are based on personal opinion, you make sense. Thanks again Barry.

 

"If you are set on a coupe of either form you will have to be a bit more patient." Haha, i realize that now. I will have to hurry slowly for that coupe. I dont intend to track or race the car, matter of fact, it will not be driven as frequently as the other cars. And now that i think about it, if i ever buy an XKR, most of the power will lay dormant. I have noted all the points you touched on, Chillyphilly.
I literally took notes from every response on this thread.Thanks everyone for taking time to respond and helping to make this decision much easier. I think 290hp is enough power if the motive is not to race and push the car very hard. XK8 it is. Now let the waiting begin. I appreciate you guys. Will update the thread as the search progresses and show you pictures when i finally get it.

 

Worth keeping in mind, if considering earlier 4.0 litre model is the R will have the more reliable Mercedes gearbox.

 

Also worth considering - while it's true that the most notable difference between the XK8 and XKR is power, there are other subtle cosmetic differences (e.g. 17" vs 18" rims on some years, and varied designs on others).

 

most of the surviving early XKR's have had the cam chain tensioner / water pump gremlins exorcised by this time. Easy to check if the seller has the repair documentation, or CarFax was reported on the repairs.

Z

 

I have the 4.2 NA s-type and the XKR. The wife thinks the 4.2 NA is faster than the XKR. They are both rapid and difficult to pick the speed difference between them. Speeds here are limited to 100km/60miles/hr so the fun is short lived. The xkr with 20inch rim look horny. Sex on wheels!

 

 

I also recently faced this dilemma, XK8 or XKR and what year to get? This site was of tremendous help to me in making that decision. From readings here and a few other places, I knew I wanted to stay between a 2003 to 2006 with the 4.2 and the 6 speed tranny since most of the earlier bugs were worked out with those year models. I was up in the air between the coup vs. the convertible but leaned slightly towards the rag top. I chose the XK8 for many of the reasons mentioned here but most especially, less mechanical complexity and easier to do my own maintenance on it. And I got such a deal on the convertible, the coup couldn't compete. The only thing I really liked more about the XKR (besides the extra horsepower that came at too much additional complexity for me) was the louvered hood. Man, that thing looks good!

IMO The standard XK8 has plenty of power and while I often baby it around, I "accidentally" hit 110 MPH the other day when testing out a repair. I just goosed it a bit to put some strain on things to see that the repair would hold and by the time I looked at the speedo, I was there and it still had plenty to go if I had stayed on it! When passing traffic that's doing 50 to 55 MPH I have to be careful not to over do it as you can hit 90 MPH with out even trying hard and before you even realize it.

 

Both are good, the later the better but the R is great; better looking, tend to be better equipped and much more torque as well as BHP. The only downside is the difficulty of replacing the valley coolant pipework when it needs doing. I much prefer the coupe styling, and being more rigid handles better and is less prone to corrosion.

As has been pointed out already, the main thing is to buy a car which has been loved by someone who didn't try to save on maintenance. A well cared for one will run forever. If you do decide upon a 4.0, check that the timing gear has been upgraded, or allow for it in the price offered.

 

Its a mistake to think the Supercharged version is somehow less reliable than the normally aspirated version. The R has a supercharger, the 8 has Variable Valve Timing (VVT). Do a search on the forum to see which gives more problems (clue, its not the supercharger).

As already mentioned the 4.0 XKR has the Mercedes gearbox and also had other upgrades as standard, such as the metal thermostat tower. Once you update the timing chain tensioners to the latest spec you will have one of the most reliable versions of the X100 Jaguar made. There is a reason there is a sticky at the top of the forum for ZF transmission problems.

And if you are worried that a supercharged car will have been thrashed, remember it doesn't have to work as hard as the normally aspirated version - its the 8 that needs to be thrashed to try and keep up with the R, not the other way around.

 

'Couple of things that haven't been mentioned. You'd take a hit on MPG with the supercharged version. Why pay for that if you're not going to use the additional HP? And, bottom line, these are GT (Grand Touring) cars meant for casual (or spirited) top-down motoring, not sports cars. You want a sports car, get a 'Vette. I'm reminded of a quote by Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear fame, upon his initial review of the X100: "The XK8 is more agile than an XJS but it’s still not a sports car. It’s a heavyweight which will tolerate brutal treatment but quite frankly it would rather you just grew up and slowed down a bit."

I'm quite pleased with my XK8.

 

agree and will add that with the xk8 ZF trans you are either upgrading the A-drum now or later; recommend now. once you do this and ensure the upgraded timing chains and tensioners a 4.0 NA is very reliable. however either an xk8 or R with the later Merc six speed will have better highway fuel economy.

a lot of problems were worked out along with improvements to the engine (VVT functionality being one) and systems 2000 model year and up. some also like the refinements to the original body shape; this is a matter of taste.

 

My opinion is buy what you want and can afford to maintain. I stayed away from R's because I did not want yet another machine attached to the main engine to maintain and a 150mph XK8 was well beyond what I needed(with70 mph speed limits)and was not planning to track the car or drag race teenage mutants driving loud Civics.