I have 170 k's on my 1992 XJS V12. No rust, engine strong and driven every day spring /summer and Fall. Stay on top of maintenance and she will give you many miles of shear enjoyment.

 

I’m sorry you're just wrong. Here is why.
When first introduced in 1975 ( 2 years after the factory intended to introduce it. The original EFI was a hodgepodge of German Bosch parts originally used on VW’s and Lucas. Production barely was 1000 units annually. And stayed near that number until 1980. Every few years major changes were made. ( low volume prevented normal development)
That whole period was also labor unrest. Combined with low volume proper sorting out didn’t occur in a timely manner.
Peter Egan slowly brought the work force in line and worked with the venders to put reliability into the car. By the time the new 6 cylinder came out things had improved dramatically both from the venders and the workforce.
By the late 80’s things were much , much, better all around.
Too late for the V12. Its reputation was ruined. Mechanically even from 1971’s introduction the V12 is superb. Massively over built. ( the six is well built too except the 4.0 has such a long stroke the cylinders will wear out long before the short stroke V12 will).
But 95% of all mechanics really are just monkey see monkey do sort of people. The EFI in the six cylinder is just as complex as the 12 cylinder, but it’s far better organized in the six. Not so scary.
Once a reputation is made, few people are willing to admit their earlier judgement may have been premature.
Because Fords’s ownership is such a noteworthy point in Jaguar history it’s remembered. Not the slow steady improvement brought about by Peter Egan. ( and others on his management team)
But not everything Ford did was great. ( I’m a practicing Luddite ;-)) Ford brought that weird French system. To Jaguar and the use of 3 barley corns from the middle of the ear method of measurement (inch) was lost forever. ( attempt at humor) yes they introduced OBD2 which allows mediocre mechanics to fix EFI so I suppose they deserve some credit. Once that was in use Jaguar’s quality miraculously went to the top. Both the V12 and the Six.

 

please read the history of Jaguar before making such a foolish statement. Yes the 6 cylinder is wonderful. ( it was developed from the V12 ) but not perfect. Just different.
Early on all cars with EFI had horrible reputations. Few mechanics could figure them out. Gradually it got better and then OBD2 came out. Told mechanics how to fix the EFI
Then there was the labor unrest when BLMH took over Jaguar starting in the 1970’s When Peter Egan took over Jaguar he gradually fixed things with labor and got venders to make quality products. By the late 80’s those problems were solved. So Ford paid a massive price for something they only intended to own for a short while.
That’s also the point the six cylinders became more common. So the six never had the bad reputation the V12 got but had it been there from the same time as the 12 its reputation would be just as bad.

ps. I’m a racer. The six is lighter than the V12 and has 4 valves per cylinder rather than just two. A really good 6 cylinder driver can make a race with a mediocre V12 driver. But the V12 is the more powerful and smoother engine.

pss the long stroke on the 4.0 six will wear out the cylinders much sooner than the very short stroke V22

 

Your experience with the v12 will largely come down to who the previous owner has had maintaining it, and who you have maintain it.
Or how good you are at doing it yourself.
You're asking a less than impartial group here too mind you.

The production numbers are so low on these one could make an argument that
there isn't a sufficient sample size to say one way or another compared to its peers.
Essentially everyone's experience is anecdotal compared to something with four or
five times the production numbers out in the world.
I suspect you without fail have discussions such as this split between the v12 is
wonderful and just fine guys, and the v12 is a sodding piece of rot guys, simply because
the sample size is so small. But it's just a theory.


Personally I'd go for the six just for ease of maintenance and simplicity since I do my own work.
12 certainly has more power but it's not all that much by current standards.
Later ones are the way to go though.

 

I think Wolf hit the nail on the head with his reply.
However, whatever you get, the typical pathway seems to be plan on spending a chunk initially to catch up on maintenance previously not done, before spending less on ongoing maintenance going forwards. Most of these cars are only run for a few thousand clicks a year so mileage service intervals take a long time to reach and time service intervals may / may not be adhered to.
I have been a V12 owner for a few months (88 coupe). Love the car, but unexpected bills have come. My attitude is that I know it is going to cost me to keep it on the road, but that is just the price of ownership (and no, my pockets are not that deep). Initially the V12 scared me, but with an interest in Jaguars past racing exploits, in retrospect it just had to be a V12 for me. I suspect a six is the sensible choice, but a 12 stirs something deeper.

 

How tall are you?
I am 6'4" and only just fit in my '88. I understand the face-lift cars have slightly less legroom in the front.

 

I’m a racer. So the engine gets massively simpler without all the things the factory did for luxury and pollution.
I’ve been building Race cars since 1962 and in that whole period at full throttle I’ve never blown up a Jaguar engine. In fact I tend to get decades before a rebuild is required. They are that strong and well built. I race really hard against famous international Grand Prix and Indy 500 winners. ( with a remarkable degree of success)
Other engines such as Chevy demand near complete replacement of all internal parts and careful selection of which block to build from. They don’t even last a full season.
With careful selection of accessories you can achieve that same level of Beauty and reliability for the street or just accept higher level of maintenance if originality is most important.

 

Excellent posts - thank you. I am considering a 1991 XJS 12. Low mileage. I have an X351 which is fine but not what I would call a real "classic" Jag. It seems the 1991 is the best one I can find so far. Is there any point waiting for a better one in 92, 93 or 94 etc.? I know in S class W140, early years up until 1997, were trouble, but 1998 and '99 are bullet proof. Hence my question...

Many thanks !

 

If the 91 is what you want , buy it.
It’s simpler. The late 93-94 V12 is the best V12. 6.0 rather than just 5.3 which has an extra 50 hp. While still retaining the forged crankshaft and rods.
But condition and prior owners will determine your ownership experiance.
A rarely used Jaguar will be much worse than one that is regularly used. So low mileage is a warning not something to be desired

 

"Regularly used" is the key.

Personally I don't think low mileage is a problem. I think lack of use is a problem.

A car could be in regular or semi-regular use and yet accumulate few miles. Driven, let's say, on sunny weekends several times per year, accumulating only 1000 miles. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Much more likely to be a problem is low mileage car that sits for very long periods with no use at all. Even worse, one that has been in dead storage for years.

Cheers
DD

 

Well said. Clarified that brilliantly

 

Thank you both - yes I agree 100%, and am aware of those types of challenges... having had a W140 V12. It was regularly driven by a one owner lady, turned out to be (by far) the most reliable car I have had. This XJS is well cared for and has had a lot of preventative maintenance done, so the owner claims; as I am yet to do a PPI. The area the car would be shipped to is very remote with a paucity of decent mechanics. So I have to go quite in depth. The plan is to buy it n the UK and have significant maintenance done before it is relocated. So if you gentlemen have any advice or comments about which year would be best bearing in mind, electrical / computer issues are likely the most difficult to repair in my remote part of the world. I am naturally leaning towards the later years i.e. 1991 - 1996, but under these unusual set of circumstances you may suggest one or two particular years may be best for a e.g. non excessively computer literate salt of the earth mechanic type, to be able to stay on top of. (also I grew up with the cars and am not averse to even a late 1980's model if that could be worked on to be reliable, or which years have the most durable (and lovely smelling) seat leathers). Thank you gents !

PS - I found this and there is a post by FordCrusher that appears to be very detailed and helpful.
https://forums.finalgear.com/threads...uar-xjs.23528/

 

QP7,

I think you're based in the US? So I guess you mean a 1991MY, rather than one just built in 1991. In which case, I presume you know that there's a really significant difference between a 1991MY and a facelift 1992MY, The facelift cars are very different visually, structurally and interior. And moving forward the 1993.5MY are again very different as they have the big plastic bumpers and 6.0 V12 engines. Then later on, outboard brakes were introduced etc etc. So, unless you just want to have the best-maintained car, it would be worth you reading up on the difference between 1991 cars and the later facelift cars before you make your decision.

Good luck

Paul

 

Thank you, Paul; kind of you. I believe the car is represented as "1991" and also advertised as "facelift". Is that possible? It came from Asia... It certainly has the wood trim around the speedometer and rev counter, which I presume is a facelift version? But as you rightly suggest I do not know all the details differences between the various years. To answer you I am not in the US but in a very remote place elsewhere. (I.e. think no decent mechanics) Hence, why we are looking to invest in work on the car before it is shipped. If you have any years you think are best for particular reasons I would welcome your advice and input. Thank you

 

Yes, facelift started in March 1991. So most cars built in 1991 are facelift. It's really the US that refer to cars by MY.

If you want a late 80s / 90s V12 XJS, there's really 4 distinct eras:

- Late 80s pre-facelift 5.3 HE models - pre-March 1991
- Early facelift 5.3 HE models - March 1991 - April 1993
- Early big-bumper 6.0 models with inboard brakes - May 1993 - Sep 1993
- Later big-bumper 6.0 models with outboard brakes - Sep 1993 - Feb 1996

Decide if the look and the engine size is important, or just "the nicest car you can get"

Cheers

Paul

 

Very helpful, thank you, Paul.

In simplest terms which one of those 4 eras do you think would be the least maintenance for an average owner with little DIY skills? And which era do you think is the nicest?

Doug thank you for your write up - I read it in the stickys - very impressive. I am learning... and appreciative. Thank you.

 

Every car is different and it all depends on how they've been used and maintained.

But, I would suggest that if every example was exactly the same in terms of condition, mileage use tec, then, IMO, you'd have to say that the newest car with the outboard brakes, and Ford-improved build quality, is the easiest to maintain.

Paul

 

OK, many thanks Paul - right now we are looking at a 1991 V12 with low miles but driven regularly and a lot of preventative maintenance done and a 1994 V6 with over 100,000 miles but that has clearly been lovingly restored in every way... I wonder how different the driving experience (and leather smell is - I love that, more please !!) between the earlier models late 1980's to early 91, vs early 91 - 93 - vs the 6.0L 93 thru 96 later ones.... In a funny way what a privilege to be even discussing these options !!

 

FYI - a good read...

https://prestigeandperformancecar.co...s-model-guide/

I do wonder which year rides the best / smoothest and the quietest?

 

There are some errors in that article as to when some of the changes happened from 1991 - 1994. The spec and changepoints that I identified earlier are the correct ones.

4 litre cars are a different experience to V12s. Not worse, just different. The feel / handling of either the straight 6 (there never was a V6) or theV12 feels broadly the same, but that's just my opinion. Some may say that the revised weight distribution of the outboard brakes feels different to the earlier inboard brakes, but in daily driving, I don't think there's any difference.

See if you can get to drive a few, particularly if you don't know yet if you want a straight 6 or a V12. I would say that the maintenance of a 4 litre is an easier and cheaper proposition than a V12.

Good luck

Paul