Happy February!

The search, and education, continues.
.

1. I have formed a distinct preference for the nose styling of the 2004 model year over the 2005, though i am concerned with functional differences. My primary concern is if the additional nose scoop (underneath the main) was due to a need for additional cooling. Was this the case?
   .
2. For some reason i had the impression over all the listings i've viewed that some of the 2005 XKR models did not have the lower additional scoop. Might this be the case or was the styling a definite change with the model year?
   .
3. Is there a website i can visit that would additionally note all the changes between all of the XKR years that is RELIABLE!!! My secondary concern is to get the most reliable trans with that specific body style (unless someone weighs in yelling "You are making a mistake!!!).

Thank you VERY much!!!
-Bruce

 

I would categorize the 4.2 transmissions as being more reliable than the 4.0 XK-8 transmissions, but not as “strong” as the 4.0 XKR transmissions. The 4.2 XKR transmission may be as reliable as the 4.0 XKR unit, I don’t know the disposition of that, but the 4.0. XKR transmission (AKA 722.6), sourced from Mercedes, does make it onto several lists as being one of the strongest auto transmission ever made.

Z

 

That IS the one i am willing to make sacrifices for, but i need to find when they actually started putting them into the XKR because when i did a Google search at one point the answer i was given was 2005. If i can get a combination of the 4.2 AND that trans in an earlier model it will open up more opportunities.

I really hate having to be patient...

 

ALL the 4.2L cars (MY2003 on), XK8 and XKR, have the ZF 6HP26 transmission

 

If you want an XKR, follow this path - decide if you want coupe or convertible, decide what exterior colour you want and what interior colour you want, then go out and buy the best condition car that meets those criteria. If you think you will somehow get a more reliable car based on whether it was built 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21 or 20 years ago, you will be sorely disappointed.

 

Proof of maintenance is the top indicator of how reliable any X-100 car will be.
These cars have numerous known fault areas. Those areas will differ from year to year.

Records should show that these problematic parts have been replaced.

If those records are not available, then count on a costly ownership.

Z

 

Given the responses i can see i was not clear in my post, though Mr. michaelh was quite succinct(!). I apologize for the lack of clarity and hope this post clears up my thoughts as presented.

Very simply put - i know i wish an XKR with the most reliable transmission.

The next issue and equally important is the styling, being the more "pointy" nose without the under-scoop, such as the difference seen between the 2004 vs 2006 where an additional nose scoop is added just below the rocker panel line.

And the last issue is going for what in at least some years is Red Pearl i think (Burgundy with metal flake), or Anthracite Metallic/Pearl/Mica (i think Anthracite was terminated in 2002, but if there is something similar - simply put in non-marketing terms, "Charcoal"). Burgundy metal flake or Charcoal metal flake.

This brought me to wondering if there were other year-to-year issues that i might ponder, given the remote possibility of finding two relatively equal cars, one in each color (sure. And a snowball has a chance in Hell...).

I wanted to define the transmission first of all, of which over the few months i have been looking i ran into conflicting or non-specific information. At this point i am secure in the Mercedes transmission being the only one from late 2002 - 2006, and this dictates with the 4.2. Good. Two items defined!

Next, as the "Title" at the start defines, is the body style, specifically, the "nose". I wish a single scoop rather than the double scoop that was later employed either in 2005 or partway into the 2005 production line, which was that which i am trying to determine because when this changeover occurred is confusing as can be for me, i have looked at so many pictures trying to determine this. Are all 2005 "double scooped"? Integral to the single vs double scoop choice: Might the double have been employed due to a deficiency in prior years' cooling for the engine coolant, engine oil cooling, transmission fluid cooler, or the condenser?

Having narrowed the search down to late 2002 to probably 2004 (possibly partway into 2005), i wondered if there were any other differences. If something matters to me it is much easier to make the decision prior to purchase than after...

Though my budget is a bit on the low side i have been able to increase it by several thousand dollars. As things stood, the previous put me at or just below the average pricing i found for 2005-2006 (per several prominent websites analytics), which was the year range i previously sought. Though i'd love to be in the $15,000 to $25,000 range or more and not have a care over the amount; "God told me" that isn't the case at this point in my life...

As to Maintenance and repair, the only things i don't do presently would be engine work that goes beyond head gaskets, transmission work or welding. Provided i have you good folks to provide guidance i feel confident i can keep up with normal issues. Or body work (I've tried, I stink.) My biggest problem is i now know all too well what my father meant by "Oh my aching back".

Though a wider range of years are fine cars and despite trying to get the odds in my favor, i know even the best car can fail (i used to sell cars. I would tell people that these are mass produced and they are mechanical. Things WILL go wrong.), but i do want to play against the house as best i can to try and beat the odds-

Warm Regards,
Bruce

 

I am not a fan of the final body style changes. Gives it too much of a "road rhoomba" look for my taste.

I don't know of any airflow variations that were added.

Keep in mind, those changes were being made to a model in its sunset year. No manufacturer (especially Ford at the time) is going to retool significant systems just for cosmetics on a dying model. I always figured they did it to keep the lineup selling until the X150 was offered.

FWIW, my dealer always considered the 04 to be the "sweet spot" of the X100 line that rolled up all the best improvements without sacrificing the original style.

So if you like the 04, get that one. Nothing to worry about either way.

If you are set on an XKR, I would suggest that you drive both XK8 and XKR to be sure. While the XKR has that power to push you back in the seat with a big grin, it also comes with a completely different driving experience. XKR is a lot more road feel, a lot more noise (particularly with the convertibles), increased repair costs (shocks/brakes/supercharger), and a few less MPG. I was less concerned with bragging about the supercharger power than enjoying a quiet smooth glide so I went with XK8.

Bottom line. Both are great cars. Get whichever one makes you smile the most. Smiles are guaranteed.

 

Don't all XKRs have a Mercedes trans?

 

The lower scoop was introduced in January, 2004 for the MY2004.5 arrival at VIN A40265 - see 'points of interest' in the attached Heritage document.

The fractional MY changes are not generally referred to, so a car advertised as '2004' may or may not have the extra opening. AFAIK, it's just for looks as the XK isn't prone to overheating. Definitely not a styling improvement, IMO

If you definitely want the Merc. transmission, then you are limited to the earlier 4.0L cars - although, as Z says, maintenance history is key.

 

Uhg. I'm going in circles from what before i would call conflicting advice, but i suspect there is a high degree in errors in my interpretation.

Because i fear transmission problems more than anything and i think i was told that the XKR line have superior transmissions i went from looking at XK8s to XKRs.

I honestly like the looks of the XK8 better!

Edit: Just to note - I've made it to probably (...) turning 70 this year. I've slowed down tremendously. It once was hardly anyone ever passed me, now it seems everyone does, but i like looking at what's around me! One of the appeals of the supercharger was that it is on top of the engine instead of under the car. As i don't have a lift nor experience tearing down a trans, i figured that would be an easier exploration if i had to choose one to break down-

 

If I were shopping for another X100 model range, here are the guardrails I would follow. Its not so much about the specific year to me.

4.0 engine only consider XKR since the 5HP in the XK8 has lots of issues with its innards - the Mercedes transmission is a beast that will likely outlast the XKR engine. Even a 5HP that has been rebuilt is no better than in its original form which is more risk than I would want.

4.2 engine buy either XKR/XK8 since the 6HP has few issues and risks are minimal if past mileage is reasonable (<100K or so) - steer clear of high miles unless you want to immediately refresh the 6HP fluid, seals (use a ZF certified shop!) then you are good as the innards rarely seem to fail in the 6HP. The 6HP is also in my 2011 XJL (X351) and has been flawless so far at 43K miles and 15 years.

Just more advice for the pile I guess.

Good luck with the search.

 

Excuse me, I'm going to share my experience and then ask a question, correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't seen in another thread.

When I bought my XK8 (registered in 2004), I specifically looked for the 4.2 engine with the ZF gearbox. I bought it with 86,000 km and, as soon as I got it to the garage, I changed the gearbox oil, the oil cooler hoses, and the differential oil. Besides that, I checked for safety issues, loose parts, and any fluid leaks. I also ran a diagnostic check on the official diagnostic computer. The biggest problem I've had so far was with the left door lock (I replaced one of the microswitches), and while I was at it, I had the door panels rebuilt. The headliner had already been reupholstered.

But my question is about emissions levels. Do all 4.2 models have the same emissions? Or were the later models, the "final edition," built according to stricter emissions standards? In Europe, these would be EURO 3 and EURO 4 for the early models and the final edition, respectively.

By the way, I had an XK8 4.2 with over 300,000 km. I could tell you how I broke it, but that's another story.
I mean, go for it. If the car hasn't been mistreated, I think it's a great idea, and you'll have a car to take care of (because it needs attention). I didn't dare buy the XKR. I thought there was another component that needed attention.

 

Considering selling my 02 XK8 convertible and 03 XJR-1 to fund a low mileage XKR convertible. Looks like the sweet spot is a later 02 with third gen tensioners or an earlier one with replacements. On the 36k on your post, is that miles or kms? Low either way. Guess on Jersey no long trips. What is the max speed limit on the isle?

 

Miles. We're also still using medieval units for measuring distances.
The island is 9 miles by 5, with a max. speed limit of 40, although the great and the good are slowly whittling that down piecemeal towards having someone carrying a flag out front

My car had a reman motor fitted in 2004, and I've replaced the main pressure valve in the transmission, so hopefully I'm clear of the two main problems of the early cars.

 

My 2001 XKR and a 2004 XKR would both have Distintivo Ambiental B. I think you have to go to the X150 to get the C rating. This means of course that I can drive my 4 litre supercharged car in London's ULEZ area without restriction and similarly in Madrid's ZBE - not that I have any plan to visit either in my car, preferring to take my chances with the train network.

By the way the supercharger on my car is more reliable than the VVTs on your car and my VCATS label is a printed piece of paper. I won't tell you were they keep that data on your car, but make sure you have a floppy disc handy. Sometimes newer or normally aspirated isn't necessarily less complicated.

Back to the OP - if you want a reliable gearbox, all the XKRs have one, but I am still going to make the point that any car that has survived 20+ years is by definition a reliable car or it would have been scrapped back when a new engine or gearbox was worth more than the car.

 

^^^^^this^^^^^^

is exactly what I was getting ready to post.

Z