Hi, im a new member, just decided to fulfil my dream of bying my
first jag ( with blessing from my spouse 
) I have decided on
the X300, 95-97 mod. The question is: I have heard
different ‘‘warnings’’ on the 3.2 versus 4.0. anyone who can share
their experiences with me? What other things should I be ware off
about this car ( typical problems) I have heard the internal clock,
seat memory etc. Any other more serious ‘‘stuff’’? Im thankful for
any comments to this ‘‘newbie’’–
lucifer666
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
Hi and welcome:)
If you can find a decent one go for the 4.0 (or find a dead 3.2 and
fit the larger engine;). IMHO the 3.2 is a bit underpowered and
mileage if anything is worse compared to the 4.0. The clock issue and
other things are the same on either model.
cheers,–
Arnoud
iMac, therefore I am
In reply to a message from Arnoud sent Wed 20 Jun 2007:
Having had a 3.2 and now a 4 litre, I’d broadly agree with Arnoud.
I don’t think you’d normally regard the 3.2 as underpowered,
though, it’s no slouch and still accelerates very quickly
(screaming away in 2nd to do so), but on a long hill or mountain
pass ours could never make up its mind whether to be in 2nd or 3rd,
the constant shifting was always a bit irritating.
Our 3.2 definitely had the edge as regards fuel consumption, on a
run and keeping within the speed limits it was quite easy to get
over 30 mpg; but the 4 litre, even on the same journeys, only seems
to do about 28. That said, individual cars can be different !
The gearbox is better on the 4 litre as it adapts itself to your
driving and has a sport / normal switch, and I believe the 4 litre
has a higher axle ratio.
Moi, I’d go for the 4 litre !–
Anthony Richards
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
In reply to a message from lucifer666 sent Wed 20 Jun 2007:
They’re both good cars IMO. The 4.0 is more relaxed and has
more grunt at speed, low down I don’t think you notice a
great deal of difference though. I get mid-high 20’s mpg out
of mine, even touched 30 once on a quiet A road. I heard the
3.2 was the same or maybe 2mpg worse on fuel, probably
depends on how you drive it. The autobox on the 4.0 is good,
yes I believe it’s adaptive like the GM fitted to the XJR
depending on your driving style - I may be wrong here. The
AJ16 4.0 is quick, don’t get me wrong - it’s no Ferrari but
no slouch either, give it vast amounts of happy pedal on
twisty roads and it will stick like glue and really march on
without feeling stressed, that 3500rpm + roar is magic.
Either will feel really nimble for a big luxury tank, more
so if you go for a model with the sport suspension. And then
you get the mighty V12, perhaps your wife will talk you out
of that one once she reads the MPG figures :-).
Overall, unless you’re very unlucky the cars have proven
rugged, I won’t dare say bullet proof but you get the idea.
Not cheap if you have to entrust work to a garage and bear
in mind most of the maintenance you will need to do will be
small things and perhaps time consuming. Given clean oil
regularly and a bit of respect, the AJ16 is a pretty strong
lump, the X300 is regarded as the mose reliable Jag built.
Early cars (like mine) had some rust problems but by no
means severe, more like mild corrosion and bubbling under
the paint, if you want the best you might look for a 96 or
97 model, the teething troubles were well sorted by then. A
few of the electric gizmos can cause grief but nothing to
lose sleep over, check the A/C works and check for service
history.
Concentrate on the service history, don’t worry about the
clock or phantom seats until afterwards 
Good luck.–
The original message included these comments:
Hi, im a new member, just decided to fulfil my dream of bying my
first jag ( with blessing from my spouse) I have decided on
the X300, 95-97 mod. The question is: I have heard
different ‘‘warnings’’ on the 3.2 versus 4.0. anyone who can share
their experiences with me? What other things should I be ware off
about this car ( typical problems) I have heard the internal clock,
seat memory etc. Any other more serious ‘‘stuff’’? Im thankful for
any comments to this ‘‘newbie’’
–
Regards, Bruce. 1995 XJ Sport 4.0
Colchester, Essex, United Kingdom
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
In reply to a message from lucifer666 sent Wed 20 Jun 2007:
Hi lucifer666.
The X300 is one of the nicest and most reliable Jaguars since the
Mk 2’s of the early sixties IMHO. Whether the 3.2 or 4.0? Six of
one and half dozen of the other I’d say. I went for the 3.2 which
is certainly not underpowered and has a hardy gearbox, the 4.0
having more electronics in it to go wrong. No inherent rust
problems, just look at the obvious places as with any car. Water
pumps have plastic impellers whick can give trouble but many cars
have this ‘oddity’ these days. Prone to leakage at the diff. pinion
oil seal so check that out. Easy to maintain by a reasonably
competent DIY mechanic too. As for economy I’d say Anthony was
being over-optimistic with his 30+ mpg, 26-27 is nearer the mark
driven with care. However if you run a Jaguar, fuel economy
shouldn’t be highest on your list!
Don’t rush, look for a nice one. Mileage not too important if it
has obviously been well cared for. Enjoy!
Cheers, Tom.–
The original message included these comments:
Hi, im a new member, just decided to fulfil my dream of bying my
first jag ( with blessing from my spouse
the X300, 95-97 mod. The question is: I have heard
different ‘‘warnings’’ on the 3.2 versus 4.0. anyone who can share
their experiences with me? What other things should I be ware off
–
1996 XJ6 3.2 Sport, 2005 Citroen C4 1.6 SX (shops trolley)
DUNFERMLINE, Scotland, United Kingdom
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
In reply to a message from tom7035 sent Thu 21 Jun 2007:
Always dismayed when I read these sorts of MPG figures. My 97 3.2
gets about 17 around town and if I really baby it on the motorway
the best I have ever got is about 24. So an average year all year
round of about 20mpg.
Not complaining, just don’t understand why it differs so much from
car to car. Mine has been regularly serviced properly (Jag most of
it’s life, specialist now) and has had most of the ‘‘common’’
failures as the mileage heads up now towards 135K:
Cracked exhaust manifold
Rear suspension bushes
Faded clock
A/C condensor leak
As for power - I agree with previous lister it can feel
underpowered going uphill and the accelaration from a standing
start is not great. The bit that brings a smile every time is when
kick down brings you up to about 4000rpm - she really kicks in then
and nudges you back in your seat.
In my opinion she isn’t much fun to throw around winding country
roads as she wallows around like a boat but stick her on a motorway
at 70 and she’s glued to the road and the miles roll by
effortlessly.
Whichever you get she will bring a smile to your face every time
you turn the key!
Tim
97 X300 3.2–
timf
Didcot, United Kingdom
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
In reply to a message from timf sent Thu 21 Jun 2007:
Don’t be too dismayed, I didn’t get quite the figures Anthony
quoted when I owned the same car! A lot depends on driving style,
tyre pressures etc. I am reliably informed all the hills in Welsh
Wales are downhill, so Anthony has those to thank for his fuel
economy
Think the bext I ever got out of the 4.0 was 28 by really
feathering the throttle on a long motorway run at around 65-70. May
have shown 29-30 momentarily on the computer but by the end of the
trip there will have been non-motorway roads too and on long trips
a real-world 26 was do able whereas normal round town/mixed
driving was 20-21 or less. When using sport mode a lot and pressing
the loud pedal for maximum progress it would drop further but by
those speeds economy was the last thing on your minmd as you were
having too much fun…
The 4.0 did often give 1-2 mpg better economy on long runs than the
3.2 which preceded it, however, mainly I suspect because it was
higher geared at the diff.–
Peter Crespin 66E, 76 DD6 Coupe, 84 DD6, 85 XJS 5sp convert
Cambridge, United Kingdom
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
In reply to a message from timf sent Thu 21 Jun 2007:
G’day Tim,
Wow, I get very similar mileage from my V12 and I don’t always
drive it sedately. Gotta have some fun sometimes. ;^) Average is
around 13.6 ltrs/100kms or just a hair over 20mpg, though if you
bury your right foot the trip meter will read well over
150ltrs/100kms but you’ll be in the next county before you know it!
The car itself, I love it, I’d go for the bigger engine.
Regards,–
The original message included these comments:
Always dismayed when I read these sorts of MPG figures. My 97 3.2
gets about 17 around town and if I really baby it on the motorway
the best I have ever got is about 24. So an average year all year
round of about 20mpg.
–
Jeff Watson
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
In reply to a message from lucifer666 sent Wed 20 Jun 2007:
Hi There,
I went through the process you are currently going through in Jan -
March this year. I am a pretty competent judge of cars and know
generally what to look for but its always best to take along
someone with mechanical knowledge and ideally someone who also
knows his Jaguars.
I found several X300 3.2’s and 4.0’s and was advised to go for
something towards the end of the X300 range as they are pretty much
well sorted (According to my ‘expert’ the Straight 6 engine is
pretty much ‘Bomb Proof’) and it’s just characteristics… he too
thought the 4.0’s gearbox has a few more electronics to go wrong
and whilst not steering me to the 3.2 it seemed a valid
consideration. Most other problems are applicable to both models
similarly.
As for fuel comsumption I get between 23 and 27mpg on a mix of
motorway and general road (town) driving thus far I have never got
less than 22.5mpg despite sitting in traffic for over 3 hours on
that tankfull. I have not yet taken the car out for a good run…
only using it for the 34 mile round trip to work and back. I
generally drive pretty much within the speed limits and only push
it when on clear roads… My colleague has a 4.0 and reports very
similar fuel consumption to mine though he has been away touring in
his and average about 29 to 31mpg on the trips which included a
fair bit of motorway and open road driving. On the whole having
driven both his seems a little more punchy off the blocks and just
a tad quicker mid range but this is not terribly noticable… as
has been said the 3.2 can make a bit of pace especially on kick
down. In any case it is certainly no slouch and in any case I find
most boy racers tend to give the Jag and Mercs a wide berth as they
really don’t know much about them… probably owing to the jags not
having a hatchback!!
I chose my car (1997 X300 3.2Sport) in the end based on its
condition, history and fairly low mileage (almost 80,000). It
would have made no difference at that stage whether it was the
3.2.or 4.0 litre.
Things to be aware of… try and decide what options you are
looking for and could not do without… I had cruise control on my
last car (V6 Mondeo) and used it a lot… the Jaguar I got doesn’t
have it and I miss it terribly. Also I seem to have a car that was
part of a strange period for jaguar in that they were producing
both the X300 and X308 in 1997 and I seem to have a hybrid as I
have found out having purchased a CD Autochanger to fit into it…
It would appear that the CD Autochanger on this has to fit where
they fit on the X308… its about to go back to Jaguar dealer to
verify this (and they haven’t charged me for checking it out
either). So if I’d got one which already had a CD Autochanger and
Cruise Control I’d have had no cause for complaint.
Whatever you get I’m sure you’ll love it… and it will change your
life. B The odd little problem is all part of classic ownership
Ian–
The original message included these comments:
the X300, 95-97 mod. The question is: I have heard
different ‘‘warnings’’ on the 3.2 versus 4.0. anyone who can share
their experiences with me? What other things should I be ware off
–
1997 XJ6 (X300) 3.2 Sport
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
In reply to a message from EvoGB sent Thu 21 Jun 2007:
Mmm, well I’ve checked both the 3.2 and the 4.0 on a 120 mile round
trip to Liverpool & back, which for us is a good run as it’s all
main roads and dual carriageways and fairly flat; no towns and just
roundabouts to slow you down and just me in the car, so probably
about the optimum for economy. And the 3.2 did about 31, the 4.0
about 28.5.
Which is not to say the computer’s accurate, of course, I know on
the Series 3 it’s very optimistic. Best we ever had was on, of all
things, an MG Maestro Efi - if it said you’d used 10.22 gallons
that’s exactly what it took to brim the tank again !
Hills in Wales, Peter ? Nothing compared to Buxton !–
Anthony Richards
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
In reply to a message from Anthony Richards sent Thu 21 Jun 2007:
Good point raised by Anthony when he says ‘’…if the computers
accurate…‘’. Next time I fill up I shall do a manual test of MPG
and see if it differs. Why has it taken me this long to figure that
out; I work in IT, I should know computers are rubbish!!
Tim–
The original message included these comments:
Which is not to say the computer’s accurate, of course, I know on
–
timf
Didcot, United Kingdom
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
In reply to a message from timf sent Fri 22 Jun 2007:
Hi everyone. I must say im overwhelmed over your response. I use
several forums ( im into computing), and seldom have I seen
response like this. I just want to say thanks, I have now some
things to consider. Im living on the western part of Norway, and
now and then I drive home to my parents appr 700 km one way,
climbing up and down up to 1200m over sea-level, so you can say
that enginepower combined with fuel-economy is a matter I have to
consider…As one of you said, listening to the gearbox switching
all the time is not fun. Had an Granada 2.8 in the old days, and it
did switch gear all time during climbing, it drove me crazy…–
lucifer666
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
Hello all, sorry if this has been asked before, however I
had a quick search and couldn’t find anything.
Im in the market for buying a used XJ. From the research I
have done so far it seems that post 1994 is what I should be
looking at. However I have a limited budget so it will be
not much newer than that.
Anyway, I was wondering if anyone could advise me on the
main pros and cons of the 3.2 and the 4.0 autos. Any help
will be greatly appreciated. Oh and I live in the UK, so it
will be UK models.
Regards, Edd–
Eddiec
Teesside, United Kingdom
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
Well Ed,
We answer this question just about two times each week so there is much
in the archives on this however, the '95 thru '97 MY X300s are great
cars that have some things that wear out over time. The clocks stop
working, the headliner sags, the sunroof gets out of alignment, the
paint goes bad, the inside rear view mirror leaks, the steering reach
motor cable breaks and the suspension bushings get worn out.
Cheers,
Jack - '99 XJ8L PA USA
< snip >
Hello all, sorry if this has been asked before, however I
had a quick search and couldn’t find anything.
Im in the market for buying a used XJ. From the research I
have done so far it seems that post 1994 is what I should be
looking at. However I have a limited budget so it will be
not much newer than that.
Anyway, I was wondering if anyone could advise me on the
main pros and cons of the 3.2 and the 4.0 autos. Any help
will be greatly appreciated. Oh and I live in the UK, so it
will be UK models.
Regards, Edd–
Eddiec
Teesside, United Kingdom
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
< snip >
In reply to a message from Eddiec sent Wed 4 Nov 2009:
Having owned both in X300 guise I would say beyond a shadow of
doubt go for the 4 litre. Forget the fuel economy on paper - in
reality the 3.2 will return the same mpg as it has to work harder.
The 3.2 will also struggle on an incline with passengers and
luggage. A line of impatient Ford Focus diesel drivers will be
queued up behind you waiting to overtake!
You need the torque of the 4 litre to progress in a Jaguar-like
fashion. That’s why the 3.2 was never offered in the US! The only
attraction in Europe was lower purchase tax. The only possible
advantage of the 3.2 over the 4 I can think of is its mechanical
gearbox which is considered more reliable than the electronically
controlled 4 litre unit. But even so, either gearbox is considered
tough compared to the later sealed V8 units.–
Stuart Williams
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
I just don’t see this as fact.
Jack - '99 XJ8L PA USA
< snip >
But even so, either gearbox is considered
tough compared to the later sealed V8 units.–
Stuart Williams
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php
< snip >
In reply to a message from Jack Hollibaugh sent Wed 4 Nov 2009:
You are right - this is idle conjecture. I have never heard of a
gearbox failure, sealed unit or otherwise, outside of this forum.–
The original message included these comments:
I just don’t see this as fact.
–
Stuart Williams
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
Well, Stuart, to be fair to you, I believe that to seal a transmission
is just dumb. I can’t understand what the issue is with having a
dipstick.
OTOH, I don’t see that the transmission in and of itself as weak, just
cumbersome to care for properly.
Then there’s always the X300 guys poking at us early X308 guys and
sometimes I just poke back :-P>
Cheers,
Jack - '99 XJ8L PA USA
< snip >
You are right - this is idle conjecture. I have never heard of a
gearbox failure, sealed unit or otherwise, outside of this forum.–
The original message included these comments:
I just don’t see this as fact.
–
Stuart Williams
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php
< snip >
In reply to a message from Jack Hollibaugh sent Wed 4 Nov 2009:
poke.
As it were, I having never experienced the 3.2 say why
bother. Their is a reason that they never bothered selling
the smaller engines here (in the US). Not that their is
anything wrong with a 3.2 (as far as I know). I’m just
happy with the 4 litre.–
1989 xj40 (sold), but I’ve got an 1997 Xj6 L instead.
Jupiter, Florida, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
In reply to a message from Jack Hollibaugh sent Wed 4 Nov 2009:
Hi this Q is for jack, what suspention bushings go bad thanks joe–
The original message included these comments:
cars that have some things that wear out over time. The clocks stop
working, the headliner sags, the sunroof gets out of alignment, the
paint goes bad, the inside rear view mirror leaks, the steering reach
motor cable breaks and the suspension bushings get worn out.
Cheers,
Jack - '99 XJ8L PA USA
–
jaguarjoe 54 XK 120 rdstr 1961 MKIX 94 XJ6
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –