[xj] XJ8-Is it vehicle you respect?

All of you who know so much more than I do: What do you think of
XJ8? $=wise I can probably only go to 2003. Timing chain ruins
engine? Transmission self-destructs on nicest day of the year?
What is the consensus?

thanks,

dave in st. Louis on 1st Jaguar quest.–
scootafan
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–

===================================================
The archives and FAQ will answer many queries on the XJ series…
FAQs: http://www.jag-lovers.org/xjlovers/xjfaq/index.html
Archives: http://www.jag-lovers.org/lists/search.html

To remove yourself from this list, go to http://www.jag-lovers.org/cgi-bin/majordomo.

// please trim quoted text to context only

Dave:
For clarification: the information you give suggests that you are speaking
of the 4 litre V8 used in the xj8 from 1998 to 2003, not the aluminum-body
car with the 4.2 litre V8 (2004 to the present). These are entirely
different animals in every way.

The 1998 to 2003 xj8 are excellent cars, but you want one built IN 2001 or
later, the later the better. The earlier engines had 3 potential problems:
timing chain tensioner failure; water pump failure and nikasil cylinder
coating failure (please note that Jaguar was not alone with these problems -
the nikasil issue was HUGE for BMW). All of these issues were eventually
cured and the 2002/2003 cars are really good (and again for the record, the
later aluminum-body cars have none of these issues; the engine was
redesigned in significant ways including a return to a duplex timing chain).
There were also some transmission issues in the early cars (again, not
confined to Jaguar), so all in all, if you can manage a 2002 or 2003 car, go
for it. They are fine machines.

Gregory
1966 Mark 2 3.8
1992 Series III V12 Vanden Plas (#92 of the last 100)
2002 X-Type
2004 XJ8 4.2-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xj@jag-lovers.org [mailto:owner-xj@jag-lovers.org] On Behalf Of
scootafan
Sent: September-24-08 7:20 PM
To: xj@jag-lovers.org
Subject: [xj] XJ8-Is it vehicle you respect?

All of you who know so much more than I do: What do you think of
XJ8? $=wise I can probably only go to 2003. Timing chain ruins
engine? Transmission self-destructs on nicest day of the year?
What is the consensus?

thanks,

dave

===================================================
The archives and FAQ will answer many queries on the XJ series…
FAQs: http://www.jag-lovers.org/xjlovers/xjfaq/index.html
Archives: http://www.jag-lovers.org/lists/search.html

To remove yourself from this list, go to http://www.jag-lovers.org/cgi-bin/majordomo.

// please trim quoted text to context only

Try an X300 with the supercharged 6 – it seems very nice indeed.–
Alex
79xj6L SII (BRG + wires)
86xj6 SIII (Black)
61 Sprite MkII (Red)
Menlo Park, Calif.

scootafan wrote:

All of you who know so much more than I do: What do you think of
XJ8? $=wise I can probably only go to 2003. Timing chain ruins
engine? Transmission self-destructs on nicest day of the year?
What is the consensus?

thanks,

dave in st. Louis on 1st Jaguar quest.

===================================================
The archives and FAQ will answer many queries on the XJ series…
FAQs: http://www.jag-lovers.org/xjlovers/xjfaq/index.html
Archives: http://www.jag-lovers.org/lists/search.html

To remove yourself from this list, go to http://www.jag-lovers.org/cgi-bin/majordomo.

// please trim quoted text to context only

In reply to a message from scootafan sent Wed 24 Sep 2008:

Hello Dave

As you have found, Jag fans often know about several model ranges
and Dr Andrachuck knows more than most. However, for the best info
on these cars you are in the wrong place. Please visit the X300
forum, as this one deals with 1968-1986 six cylinder cars and the
V12s to 1992. The nomenclature is slightly confusing to newcomers,
for which I apologise on behalf of Jag-Lovers (Dr Andrachuck has
pithy views on that too!).

As Alex mentioned, it might be worth trying a 1995-1997 six
cylinder car if this is your first Jag. For your budget you should
be able to get an absolutely pristine example of that type, with
plenty of money left for servicing etc. The driving experience is
very similar but costs a lot less money and offers somewhat better
DIY access and dependability - compared to an early 97-2000 V8
anyhow…

Pete
XJ Admin–
66 2+2, 68 OTS lump, 94 X300 Sovereign, 94 XJR Manual
Cambridge, United Kingdom
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

===================================================
The archives and FAQ will answer many queries on the XJ series…
FAQs: http://www.jag-lovers.org/xjlovers/xjfaq/index.html
Archives: http://www.jag-lovers.org/lists/search.html

To remove yourself from this list, go to http://www.jag-lovers.org/cgi-bin/majordomo.

// please trim quoted text to context only

Yes, I agree. The 1995 to 97 (and the later the better) 6 cylinder cars have
the same body as the XJ8 cars to 2003, and they have an excellent
reliability record; and indeed the supercharged models are superb.
And let’s not get into the reason why a 1996 XJ6 is called an X300. It
defies logical explanation - and by using that designation this powerful,
world-wide group of Jaguar enthusiasts perpetuates it. Yes, I do indeed
believe that we could change this usage to the more logical and traditional
XJ “Series” designation (this would make the 1995-97 cars “Series V XJ6”). I
never give up.

Gregory
1966 Mark 2 3.8
1992 Series III V12 Vanden Plas (#92 of the last 100)
2002 X-Type
2004 XJ8 4.2-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xj@jag-lovers.org [mailto:owner-xj@jag-lovers.org] On Behalf Of
PeterCrespin

Please visit the X300
forum, as this one deals with 1968-1986 six cylinder cars and the
V12s to 1992. The nomenclature is slightly confusing to newcomers,
for which I apologise on behalf of Jag-Lovers (Dr Andrachuk has
pithy views on that too!).

As Alex mentioned, it might be worth trying a 1995-1997 six
cylinder car if this is your first Jag.

===================================================
The archives and FAQ will answer many queries on the XJ series…
FAQs: http://www.jag-lovers.org/xjlovers/xjfaq/index.html
Archives: http://www.jag-lovers.org/lists/search.html

To remove yourself from this list, go to http://www.jag-lovers.org/cgi-bin/majordomo.

// please trim quoted text to context only

Gregory, how about “Series V X300J6”?
;]–
Alex
79xj6L SII (BRG + wires)
86xj6 SIII (Black)
61 Sprite MkII (Red)
Menlo Park, Calif.

Dr. Gregory Andrachuk wrote:

Yes, I agree. The 1995 to 97 (and the later the better) 6 cylinder cars have
the same body as the XJ8 cars to 2003, and they have an excellent
reliability record; and indeed the supercharged models are superb.
And let’s not get into the reason why a 1996 XJ6 is called an X300. It
defies logical explanation - and by using that designation this powerful,
world-wide group of Jaguar enthusiasts perpetuates it. Yes, I do indeed
believe that we could change this usage to the more logical and traditional
XJ “Series” designation (this would make the 1995-97 cars “Series V XJ6”). I
never give up.

===================================================
The archives and FAQ will answer many queries on the XJ series…
FAQs: http://www.jag-lovers.org/xjlovers/xjfaq/index.html
Archives: http://www.jag-lovers.org/lists/search.html

To remove yourself from this list, go to http://www.jag-lovers.org/cgi-bin/majordomo.

// please trim quoted text to context only

In reply to a message from Dr. Gregory Andrachuk sent Wed 24 Sep 2008:

I totally concur with Dr. G’s assessment…

I would only add that a friend (who used to post here as Flyer94a)
bought a 1998 XK8 on the cheap about 3 years ago (blown engine) and
found another engine with 50K miles (cheap) that he replaced the
cam tensioners in with upgraded versions. 'Dropped it in there with
tranny IIRC et voila - he had an XK8 for under $10,000.

He recently found another low mileage engine with tranny for cheap
cheap cheap. He only needed the tranny, or so he thought - turns
out he only had a cracked flywheel on his XK8 engine! So now he has
a spare low mileage engine tranny combo and he’s begging me to buy
a dead XJ8 from the 1998 vintage so he can get rid of the engine
tranny combo.

I wont do it now because I don’t want a low gas mileage car
anymore - I WANT a 2004+ XJ8 instead. 30MPG Highway!!

The point of all this being - you can buy the early XJ8/XK8s with
blown motors all over the place now - cheap. If you are tenacious
and talented mechanically - you can drive an early XJ8 (or XK8) for
little or no money invested. What were nightmares for former DPOs,
are now DIY delights. :smiley: (yeah, they do need some handholding, but
not like our Series III’s need now, so you just have to take your
pick of poisons - unless you buy a 2004+).–
The original message included these comments:

For clarification: the information you give suggests that you are speaking
of the 4 litre V8 used in the xj8 from 1998 to 2003, not the aluminum-body
car with the 4.2 litre V8 (2004 to the present). These are entirely
different animals in every way.


Ted Macklin/'85 XJ6SIII
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

===================================================
The archives and FAQ will answer many queries on the XJ series…
FAQs: http://www.jag-lovers.org/xjlovers/xjfaq/index.html
Archives: http://www.jag-lovers.org/lists/search.html

To remove yourself from this list, go to http://www.jag-lovers.org/cgi-bin/majordomo.

// please trim quoted text to context only