how reliable?
#2
AFAIK the V12 cars were equally as reliable as the cars with the straight six engines. Not many were sold, (certainly in the UK) due to their huge thirst for fuel.
YOu mention 1994-1996, and this crosses over from the XJ40 "squared-off" look to the more shapely X300-type body which looks better and the later car was better made as Ford had finally sorted out the Jaguar factories by then. The V12 is probably a better bet than the later V8 if you want a lot of cylinders in your engine.
YOu mention 1994-1996, and this crosses over from the XJ40 "squared-off" look to the more shapely X300-type body which looks better and the later car was better made as Ford had finally sorted out the Jaguar factories by then. The V12 is probably a better bet than the later V8 if you want a lot of cylinders in your engine.
#4
I agree.
And it should be pointed out that "reliable" doesn't necessarily mean inexpensive or easy to own :-)
A 15-20 y/o Jag can be very reliable but it takes some money and effort to get there.
Cheers
DD
#5
AFAIK the V12 cars were equally as reliable as the cars with the straight six engines. Not many were sold, (certainly in the UK) due to their huge thirst for fuel.
YOu mention 1994-1996, and this crosses over from the XJ40 "squared-off" look to the more shapely X300-type body which looks better and the later car was better made as Ford had finally sorted out the Jaguar factories by then. The V12 is probably a better bet than the later V8 if you want a lot of cylinders in your engine.
YOu mention 1994-1996, and this crosses over from the XJ40 "squared-off" look to the more shapely X300-type body which looks better and the later car was better made as Ford had finally sorted out the Jaguar factories by then. The V12 is probably a better bet than the later V8 if you want a lot of cylinders in your engine.
Thanks
#6
I think Fraser was trying to say the the 6.0 V12 wouldn't make the car any *less* reliable. That is, the 6.0 isn't a reliability liability :-) :-)
Broadly speaking the X300 is considered more reliable than an XJ40. The last of the Xj40s were known to be pretty good, though.
To jump on my oft-repeated soapbox, reliability of a 15-20 year old Jag is gonna depend primarily on the care it has rec'd thus far...and the care it receives in the future. Weak points or defects to the *original* design and build quality are not really relevent 15-20 years down the road. If it lasted 15-20 years it couldn't have been too bad to begin with :-)
Cheers
DD
#7
Just to butt in again.......
Reliability is more than just the engine, and I think most people accept that the X300 saloons were far better specced and assembled than the XJ40 series. Improvements in the production facilities were huge over the period mentioned. Ford spent a fortune on production facilities. They had to, the Jaguar stuff was not only worn out it was decades old.
Ford then spoiled it with the early V8s
Reliability is more than just the engine, and I think most people accept that the X300 saloons were far better specced and assembled than the XJ40 series. Improvements in the production facilities were huge over the period mentioned. Ford spent a fortune on production facilities. They had to, the Jaguar stuff was not only worn out it was decades old.
Ford then spoiled it with the early V8s
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
wannabebuyer
XF and XFR ( X250 )
4
10-01-2015 01:34 PM
bydand
XF and XFR ( X250 )
8
09-28-2015 10:47 AM
bydand
XF and XFR ( X250 )
1
09-27-2015 01:00 PM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)