At 22:09 2005-11-17 -0800, Doug Dwyer wrote:
My conclusion is that the A/T really holds this car back,
Oh, yes, agreed…further crippled by the 2.88 diff. The V12 is not a
torque monster, and the 400 trans is notoriously parasitic and the ratios
just don’t seem to work.
There’s an article in Feb/Mar 1997 Musclecar_Review titled Turbo 400 Hop
Up. I spotted the magazine while waiting in a waiting room one afternoon
a few years back (accompanying a relative for a CAT-Scan), and jotted down
the magazine specifics and ordered up a copy from their backissue department.
I’ve not yet performed the modification on any of my TH400s (three cars
with them), but removing a few valve balls and replacing the transfer plate
whill give you harder shifts. It also shows a plug you can install to set
the transmission to hold first as long as it’s in first (not that the TH400
setup in the XJ-S needs to hold first past 6260 RPM, or that you’d want to
race the engine much higher). There’s comment about a TRUCK pan for the
TH400, which gives you 2.5 quarts more fluid capacity, which affords you
cooler running (which = longer transmission life). I dunno if the deep pan
would be suitable on the XJ-S though: exhaust lines and the low ride both
might pose issues. There are various other pointers in the article as well.
As maligned as the TH400 is by some, it remains a very popular tranny
amongst hot rodders (those running A/Ts at least), because it’s pretty much
indestructable. Yea, a TH350 squanders fewer HPs, but a TH400 can handle more.
I only mentioned my (old and now sold) Mustang GT as basis of comparison in
that its true acceleration times are known to me, and I know my XJS couldn’t
even come close to matching it, as-is.
My wife owns a 5.0L Mustang GT Convertible (1993, last year of the “fox”
body), and it is quite a bit peppier off the line than the XJ-S. Same goes
for my Buick GS (which, despite being relegated to storage in the wide
parking area alongside my garage right now, will still smoke most cars off
the line). However, the front of the Buick starts to “float” somewhere
above 100mph (which is amazing considering how much weight there is up
front - it is an iron block, not aluminium), and the Mustang isn’t the best
handler at speed either. I’ll take the XJ-S for a high speed run any day
over the competition.
I think one and all would agree that the changes that the Corvette
has undergone in the meantime are nothing short of astounding.
The new ones are butt-ugly though. Was browsing them while waiting for
some service on my Suburban (which has a 454 engine ) recently. I’m not
really sure what it is they’re trying to do. There’s painted bodywork
INSIDE the cabin between the seats, which makes it look more like a toy
than anything else, and the ass end is, cripe, I don’t know how to describe it.
My (foster) father was really into Corvettes. He had nearly completely
restored a 1969 from the remnants of THREE separate cars (frame, plus
front and rear ends from two separate totals, and of course obligatory
replacement pieces here and there) before he passed from a stroke about 3
years ago. IMO, prior to the 70’s, the Corvette was a much nicer looking
car than it is now. Since then, it’s just gone downhill, even if they’ve
beefed it up in the engine department.
— '88 Jaguar XJ-SC 5.3L V12 (LHD) ‘Black Cat’
Sean Straw '85 Jaguar XJ-S 5.3L V12 (LHD) ‘Bad Kitty’
Sonoma County, California '91 Jaguar XJ40 4.0L (LHD) ‘Trevor’
http://jaguar.professional.org/ '69 Buick GranSport 455 V8
// please trim quoted text to context only