Was just reading a misc article and was surprised to learn that later XKs had a 5L engine with 100 hp more than the XK8's 4.2L . While I think the XK8 is better looking car....100hp is very tempting

I know the later cars have an aluminum body ( which is NOT good for where i live ) . Are there any other significant differences ?

Are there any other significant differences in repair issues / problems between the 4.2 vs 5 L ?

 

I don't know anything about the 5 L XK, but I'm curious, why is an aluminum body not good for where you live?

 

I'd be very concerned about corrosion especially due to galvanic action wherever aluminum came into contact with steel. Old Landrovers had aluminum bodies and had serious corrosion issues form this. I had a 72 and was in the local club, it was a known issue and mine suffered from it. I have also heard anecdotal reports of issues with newer F150 trucks with aluminum bodies.

 

We just lost our 2003 XKR and had an overnight with a 2010 XKR (5.0).

They are like completely different cars. Seriously, very little in common except design language.

The X100 is has a bit of a retro engineering feel and handling. 2010+ is a thoroughly modern car.

-dsd

 

^^ Yep, most folks who own both or are very familiar with both report that they prefer the looks and heritage of the older XK8/XKR but the performance and handling of the newer XK line. My wife loves her daily-driver XK8 but has no interest in the much more powerful XK due completely to the aesthetics. I won't argue with her....

 

FYI, if an old Land Rover or Jaguar from that era had galvanic corrosion badly, I can't imagine the same vehicle in the steel at the time would have even faired that well. My dad's E Types were babied and still rusted up quite badly and did so prematurely compared to the American vehicles of the time, but still a bit better than japanese cars.

I owned a 2004 Audi A8L in michigan and it was aluminum and a HUGE benefit. There are 95 A8s that are driving around that have minimal corrosion at best with 250-300k. Mechanically needy garbage cars, but the aluminum was a very good choice.

I do have experience with the newer F150s and really other than costing more to repair, we've used them at work with absolutely no issues that the earlier steel vehicles wouldn't have had. Looking forward to hood edges, cab corners, rear wheel wells and tailgates lasting more than 5 years in our salt covered hell.

If the steel body and the higher horsepower appeals, I'd say get an X100 XKR and call it good!

 

My most recent Jaguars have been 2001 XK8 4.0, 2005 XK8 4.2, 2007 XK 4.2 and currently a 2014 XK 5.0 to the final 2015MY specification.

As the models have progressed from 1996, the electronics have become more complex. The XK's have a lot more on suspension and braking systems that could fail and for troubleshooting, the Jaguar SDD is essential. The 5.0 engine is an entirely new design but, apart from early water pumps, has none of the fundamental weaknesses (e.g. tensioners) of the earlier 4.0 engine.

I had less issues with the 2005 XK8 than I did with the 2001 as it benefited from developments during the model run.

The 2007 XK was the most reliable Jaguar I've owned in over forty five years and had little more than one worn rear suspension bush and a failed pedestrian impact sensor in the four years I ran it. Although a completely new body design, the powertrain was carried over from the XK8 and has a good reputation for robustness.

My logic in going for the final specification XK 5.0 is that it too will have benefited from development and should be as reliable as the final series XK8.

I live in a country where vehicle corrosion is rampant but didn't have too many problems when putting over a quarter of a million miles on a LR Series III Safari and LR 90 in twelve years. In contrast, my aluminium bodied Aston Martin DB5 was almost entirely rebuilt around the ignition key!

Graham

 

Thanks all ..very informative

 

Graham,

What year Aston Martin DB5 did you own? How long did you keep it and how many miles did you put on it? And did you get rid of it because it rotted away?

 

I like your taste in cars!

The X150 in any form is a very good car and I'd love to have one eventually. Great looking and robust cars.

 

1. 1964
2. 34 years
3. about as many thousand miles as I spent UKP on it
4. not exactly ..........



I enjoyed it in the days when it was possible to drive and park it anywhere. When it got to the stage I couldn't let it out of my sight, it was time to sell.

Graham

 

I hope it was well sold. I think I could buy the hotel I'm in right now with today's value :-)

 

It was well sold but the Bentley Continental R next to it lost a staggering amount in the eleven years I owned it.

We only pass this way once. No reason to travel in anything but some of the World's finest cars.

Graham

 

While Jaguar might have learned something from the original tensioner problems when they launched the 4.0 engine, they don't seem to have learned them all for the launch of the 5.0:-

https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/x...-techs-159928/

On the XK Owners Page on facebook at the moment there is a 5.0 XK with 74,000 which has been with Jaguar since December for tensioner problems. The owner is fed up and talking about buying a BMW.

 

Jaguar has gone back to the old in-line 6 cylinder design of tensioner on the 5.0 litre V8 with a piston on a ratchet.

These will almost inevitably rattle on startup until hydraulic pressure builds but are far less likely to disintegrate than the early plastic 4.0 litre tensioners.

That being said, I have a long history of destroying 6 cylinder Jaguar engines in my youth so perhaps reliability isn't increasing with development and they only last longer because I'm just less inclined to use the throttle as an ON/OFF switch nowadays.

Graham

 

The Bentley and AM looked great together, I'm sure they were fun.
I will be looking to purchase a used x150 this spring. I was considering 2009 XKR with lowish mileage (due to depreciation) but if the 2010 is much better in other respects than just the engine I will save up a bit longer.
The question...is there a significant difference in the 2007~2009 vs 2010+ xkr?
thanks for your thoughts on this.
wj

 

A used Jaguar will always be a lottery. There's some obvious preferences built up from personal experience and the posted experience of forum members but it always comes down to carefully assessing a particular vehicle and the obvious often doesn't apply.

An enthusiast-owned 2007 with massive mileage could easily be a better bet than a 2010 garage queen which has never been properly warmed up.

Graham

 

Thanks Graham,
I'm well aware of that, my question had to do with the actual mechanics and platforms. FI, does the 2010 have an ediff or is everything (short of the engine) just 'improved a bit here and there'? and similar to 2007-2009

wj

 

I think these are best answered in the X150 forum. That said, each model year will have its pros and cons. It really comes down to what you want. Always choose the car in the better condition, though.