Greetings all,

I have been following this forum but just registered and first time posting.

I've been searching for my first XK8 for obvious reasons

Due to financial concerns I was looking closer at the 1999 period due to the average cost of owning one in that year with reasonable mileage is quite good; generally I'm finding around 10k give or take.

Having done my homework with the help of many here I have come to learn most of what to look out for and be aware of. I understand the 2003-2005 years are more desirable given the upgraded engine & transmission which also solved quite a number of prior issues.

I'd like to throw out a hypothetical scenario for you and would appreciate your feedback. Let's assume I find myself with the following choices:

1) 1999, 70,000 miles, very good/excellent condition - $10,000

2) 2002, 30,000 miles, excellent condition - $18,500

3) 2003, 70,000 miles, very good/excellent condition - $16,000

Put the "may need to change tensions" aside for the moment as some 1999's have and some have not and assume the 2002 was manufactured late enough to address that issue. Also assume no negotiation on the prices shown.

One more thing, this will be my main car, anticipate driving 7,000 per year as I work from home so don't foresee reselling the car for a very very long time if possible.

Which of the three would you buy?

I personally prefer the 2003 due to the upgrades but the low low mileage of the 2002 even with the high price suggests that is a far safer and more practical approach.

Your feedback would be greatly appreciated.

PS: Please keep in mind there really aren't a ton of choices around the country and especially not ones at a distance that one who is not a mechanic (I am not) can properly qualify. What I'm trying to say is yes there is always inventory but it's not huge.

Thank you kindly.

Cheers -T

 

I don't believe that the tensioners were fully corrected until the 2003 models, although I'm not certain. I think maybe early 2002 engines had faulty tensioners and later ones did not?

 

The tensioners were corrected in the later 2002 models but if we can put that out of the equation for the sake of discussion; which would you pick given my needs and what I explained.

Thank you.

 

Are they all the same color, coupe or convertible, finance or cash, or you're just looking at mechanical differences?

I would choose the 2003.

 

Buy a Honda for your daily driver and keep the jag for fun.

 

My vote would be for the 2003. That gets you the better 4.2L engine and the ZF 6 speed 6HP26 trans. The 6HP is much better than 5HP24, though you would be under the threat of a possible torque converter replacement. Some of the early 6HP's had a surge condition that required a converter. So, from a "Gee, what's it gonna cost me in the long run?" perspective, it's a wash. Tensioners? The latest design metal housing parts were not introduced until 2005, so they are still a consideration for any car built before then.

Cheers,

 

Moggy 1000 every time! 65hp as standard but 980hp could be achieved with a little "porting" on the wiper arms, lateral side spoilers that double as semaphore direction indicators, a must when negotiating hump back bridges above 17mph, Armstrong lever dampers,even Mclaren dont use those!
Road gripping 4" tyres on the front, and to cope with the performance 4" tyres on the rear. No unnecessary cabin weight , i.e cd player, air con or **** like that, big bore 1and3/4" exhaust.

Go with the latest one with FSH
Bob

 

My choice would be the `03 for the same reasons mentioned. I bought an `03 last year with 37000 miles, it is not my daily driver but it has been great so far. Best of luck to you!

 

An opinion and only that..... get the one that when you look at it and sit in it... and drive it... and feel it..... you know it's yours. I bought a 2005 XK8 Carbon Fiber edition, and when I got it home, I realized it wasn't that comfortable compared to others I had looked at and driven. And it ended up costing me 8000 for site unseen maintenance issues. Don't get me wrong... it's a beauty, but I'm constantly having to get the former owner out of the car, if you know what I mean. Buy the one you fall in love with. I should have bought the other one I was looking at!

 

Terrapin

My dailey driver is a 1999 Cabrio, (95,000 miles) which I drive 6000 miles a year in the UK.

The cost differential would indicate that even if the 1999 needed Tensioners, waterpump and Transmission Flush ( The holy trinity of XK8 preventative maintenace) it would appear to be the most cost effective.

However there are always the unknows so before you buy any XK8 Cabrio get the following checked as a minimum:-

Suspension Bushes
AC works Particularly the Condensor which is apt to corrode in wet climates.
Roof speed
Corrossion rear left wing bottom ( Condensation collects inside. the opposite side which has an arial/ antenna has a drain so it tends not to rust)
Rust around the plate under the front drivers seat.
Check every electrical button/ gadget works.

Obviously if one of them is a 4.2 the tensioners and water pump issue have been delt with at the factory.

At the end of the day the newest/ lowest milage/ best service history should be the most reliable, subject to previous owners diligence. Plus there is your personal preference on colour and spec.

But will the 2002 give you $8,500 or 85% more fun than a 1999?

Il'd keep the extra money in your back pocket because whichever car you buy you'll need to spend something.

Hope this helps.

regards

 

+1 I spent the extra money for a 2003. With the upgrade in the drive train and IMO the best styling in the line to date I think these will be considered the cherry years in the future.

 

Thank you for your replies.

I am surprised none of you are suggesting the 2002 with barely 30k miles in perfect condition.

If I drive 7k per year, in 5-years I will only have 65k on that 2002. On either of the other choices I will be at over 100k and more likely facing a transmission or closer to it. Note, the cost of a transmission for the 2003 is twice the price of a prior year.

I prefer to not sell this car in 5 years but to have it for 10. I just don't see how i can do that with a car that begins with 70k in miles without huge potential costs that I simply wouldn't e facing with the 2002 at 30k.

Thoughts?

 

Of course the additional $8,500 won't provide $8,500 of more fun (although it is a "like new" car and does up the fun factor a lot) but it will likely save me a lot of money and headaches. At the end of the day isn't it more about cost of driving the car over time? I wager the 1999 at 70k will cost me exactly what the 2002 with 30k will cost me over the next 5-10 years but with one exception, I'll have far less downtime with the 2002 and be able to drive it for many more years.

 

I paid 17k for my 03 with 37k on the clock four months ago. I think the performance upgrades on the 03 are worth the price. Maybe you should consider shopping around a little more for something with less miles, if you have the time.

 

I vote for the 2002 with the least amount of mileage. I bought a 2002 XKR in spectacular condition about 18 months ago with about 60K on it for $15,800. It had a full service history at Jaguar dealerships which helped me with my decision. I have put about 20K miles on it since, with no engine problems, but with the usual hydraulic fluid leaks from the convertible top and the abs/traction control warning lights problem. The higher mileage cars will immediately require new bushings and shocks to maintain any kind of decent ride while the 30K car will still give you years of service without those expenses. There are a lot of these cars in great shape available in the marketplace, take your time, shop wisely, and get what you like.

 

I'd actually get the 2003 over the 2002 all else being equal. One thing you didn't share was maintenance records and how the cars were stored, which could be very telling / important. I've been restoring cars for over 30 years and many people don't understand that cars don't like to sit, they rot.

A low mileage car probably wasn't driven regularly and could have had many short trips. This can cause sludge build-up in the engine, exhaust system problems (condensation doesn't get a chance to burn off), and numerous fluid leak issues (areas that are supposed to be regularly exposed to fluid circulation don't get it...think coolant and brakes in particular). Add to that if the car was primarily a city car, it would experience more potholes, speedbumps, etc. These are some reasons a car with many highway miles can be a far better buy than one with few city miles. So if the 2002 is really calling out to you, I'd at least get a buyer's check by a good independent Jag mechanic.

Add to that the 2003 had over 900 improvements according to Jag. Some are so minor or are simple cosmetics they don't matter much, while others like the powertrains are major factors. Seems to me the only reason the previous gen 2002 has such a premium is the very low miles, which will go away over time as you drive it. Longer term the 2003-2006 cars will be considered the ones to have, so I'd get that one with it's reasonably low miles.

 

I took the 2002 to a Jag mechanic. He personally prefers the 5-speed transmission because he feels they are more reliable and the 6-speed are twice the cost to replace. He inspected the car for an hour and said it was like brand new and only needed a battery.

All things aren't equal. A 2003 with 30k, if I could even find one would be way beyond what I will spend. The 2003 given as a real option has 70k. I only drive 7k per year. In 5-years I would have less miles on the 2002 than what the 2003 is even starting at.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but only one person in this thread appears to feel the 2002 is the way to go and pushing back for the purpose of discussion and because I think the 2002 is the way to go as well.

The history is the 2002 was leased for 3 years in a warm western climate and driven 20,000 miles. In 2005 it was purchased by the current owner and obviously used as a 2nd or 3rd car since a mere 8,000 miles were put on it over those 6-years. It's been properly serviced.

Thanks

 

That's certainly an option but the deal you made is an anomaly, at least based upon my research. If you take a look at cars.com or the craigslist from various areas of the country I'd be shocked to find a 2003 at a comparable mileage and price as what you obtained. You did insanely well compared to what I'm seeing.

 

Terrapin, that's a reasonable way to look at it and you had a buyer's check so should be pretty comfortable. Then again, the first thing my mechanic said when he checked over our car was, "good, you have the 4.2 engine, as that is a sweet one." And given the age of these cars now, the miles are only one half of the equation, the rubber and plastic bits are the others due simply to age. This is another reason storage and how the car was used are important factors.

Some more market data we saw in TX area. When looking for our car late last year we found several 2004's in the $21K range. We ended up getting a 2006 Victory Edition with 37K miles and the Select warranty still in effect for $26K.

 

When I bought my 2001 XK8 w/57k mi., it was from a dealer that provided a 3 yr. Easycare extended warranty. That provided peace of mind and was used to repair many issues that came up after owning the car. Even at that, the ZF5HP24 needed to be rebuilt at 118k mi. Other owners have said to be aware that the XKR parts can be more expensive, because of the high performance features. Also in California, every car must pass the smog test or you have to fix it.

My XK8 is still a wonderful daily driver and I am putting on as many miles of fun as I can.