When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I presently have a 2011 XKR coupe and a 96 XJS convertible. I am thinking of selling both and buying an XK8 convertible. I don't like a bunch of electronic wiz bang things that go wrong and are difficult to find and fix. So Which year would be the one with the least electronic stuff? Is there even one year that is better than others? I am also going to sell my Corvette and Mercedes. I just don't want 5 cars any more.
New to Jaguar last year I purchased an 2001 xk8 convertible. It was rear-ended and totalled and next I purchased a 2004 XKR Convertible. The only electronics difference I see is the dash gague illumination bulb sockets had + in the down position in 2001 and in the up position in 2004. The cars seem virtually identical with the exception of the Supercharger and much more power on the XKR. My 2 cents.
Mark
As said, there isn't much in it over the model years. However, there were a few gizmo options that you can steer clear of, if that's your preference:-
Optional Recaro seats (favored as it deletes powered Head rests).
Optional Sat Navigation.
Optional CATS Computer Active Technology Suspension.
Optional Adaptive Active Cruise Control.
There may be other options that members can highlight....
To loosely paraphrase my 'Dear Old Dad', "Opinions are like 'belly buttons', everybody's got one". After a lot of reading, I started looking for a 2004-2006 due to previous years predominately mech problems. I ended with a '06 Victory edition that had the Nav system and a few other minor problems. I replaced the Nav system with a 'Real Gauge' 3 gauge cluster, and also replaced a couple of elect. modules(not too hard to find).
This may be more work than you want, but I enjoyed(?) the work. Now have a relatively dependable almost daily driver.
Look at all the responses on this forum and go with your best guess. Sounds like you have a nice stable that you are clearing out, so you should know your way around the lot. Good luck with your decision.
I don't think there's much difference in the electronics offered - nothing that will interfere with a driving experience...
If I were to buy again I would look for something 2002 onwards and avoid the 5hp24 Transmission, Plastic timing tensioners and Nikasil liners that can be a worry on the earlier models.
I think one trade off could be a slightly more leak prone hydraulic system on a convertible.
2003 because it's the best looking version mostly becuase ti doesn't have the side strips and like on later cars it doesn't have the silly sill covers. Best engine and transmission.
I went with a 2003 because of known issues with 4.0 motor. I have since discovered that 03 was first year of waterborne paint and I have clear coat issues
I went with a 2003 because of known issues with 4.0 motor. I have since discovered that 03 was first year of waterborne paint and I have clear coat issues
Waterborne paint is exactly what the name implies. Solvent-based paints use solvent to suspend the paint pigments and deliver them to the surface to be covered, while waterborne paints use water.
Waterborne paint is exactly what the name implies. Solvent-based paints use solvent to suspend the paint pigments and deliver them to the surface to be covered, while waterborne paints use water.
Waterborne paint is exactly what the name implies. Solvent-based paints use solvent to suspend the paint pigments and deliver them to the surface to be covered, while waterborne paints use water.
Google for more info
Hi Randy, I'm located in Surprise as well! I have a 03 and have lots of cracking in my clearcoat, this is the first time learning about this waterborne paint.
....Hmmm. If I had cracks all over the body, I might just save up for a year or so, and pay for the $2800 new coat.
I guess we can't blame the old clear coat---it was the cutting edge of new paint technology at ITS TIME (not today's time). So even if you do the waxing, aren't the cracks going to multiply as more and more of the old coat fails?
But to the author's question, my heart goes out only to the XKR. The 2004 is the first version I started to admire, body-wise. Soft enough in the snout and headlamp shape to give it an airy continental feel, but WIDE in the body to add a sense of prowess and a little muscle (especially in the convertible variation).
I didn't really like the "back" and rear wheel shoulders of the XKR (looked a little too suburban, like a Pontiac sunbird or such)---I didn't like the rear lines of the car much at all until a good seven years later when the design altered, but the 2004 was where the car started to get my attention.
After 20+ years of operation it’s pretty easy to find an X -100 series of any model year that has already had all the major known issues fixed.
Having the substantiating repair and maintenance documents is the key to buying one of these cars. I’ve been reading this forum long enough to learn that no model year is free from known mechanical issues. And all years are subject to expensive repairs when particular parts wear or age out of usefulness.
Which Year XK8 to Buy?
