RE: Holy smoke - Jag's 70s diesel flirtations

RE: Holy smoke - Jag's 70s diesel flirtations

Author
Discussion

beetroute

45 posts

208 months

Friday 16th November 2012
quotequote all
The jpster said, "The V12 didn't fit. It cost Ford a truckload of money to turn the XJ40 into the XJ81 so it would take the big twelve and then they only sold it four a couple of years (plus a couple more as the X305".

Yes, sort of - but it was Ford's own fault !

XJ81 had already been engineered and tooled to accept the V12 as XJ82 (a 4" stretch behind the B pillar) but the project was stopped when money got tight and the were tools oiled and stored. Later, a Ford Bean-Counter noticed the charge for storing the tools and Bill Hayden (Jaguar Chairman at the time) had them scrapped.

Having done this, Ford decided to put the V12 in the standard wheelbase XJ40 saloon (creating XJ81, but with lots of new BIW tooling to get the V12 in)

Next, Hayden drove a pre-production XJ81 one weekend and came in on Monday to delay the project for another twelve months. He deemed the performance to be unacceptable, so the 5.3 V12 was enlarged to 6.0: JaguarSport already had a 6.0 of course, but it was a bit pricey for larger scale production. More money spent then ....

Last of all, somebody suggested that a longer wheelbase might help reduce complaints about the lack of rear room in the car, so a 5" stretch behind the B pillar was engineered as an SVO project.

Ah, the hilarious cost of not making a plan and then sticking to it .....




chrisemersons

143 posts

144 months

Friday 16th November 2012
quotequote all
masermartin said:
That is absolute class, thanks for posting that - happy days pml . His is a nicer colour than mine was just!!

chrisemersons

143 posts

144 months

Friday 16th November 2012
quotequote all
masermartin said:
That is absolute class, thanks for posting that - happy days pml . His is a nicer colour than mine was just!!

Upatdawn

2,184 posts

149 months

Friday 16th November 2012
quotequote all
masermartin said:
mine did 85+ mph and 60mpg, if you run a fleet of 100 vehicles doing 30,000 miles each the change from a 30mpg petrol to a 50mpg diesel saves 40,000 gallons of fuel a year is a hell of a saving

masermartin

1,629 posts

178 months

Friday 16th November 2012
quotequote all
I did love that series smile

robsa

2,260 posts

185 months

Friday 16th November 2012
quotequote all
I had a Ford Scorpio with a 2.5 TD VM engine in it. Brilliant car, let down only by the woefully unreliable engine.....

mat777

10,401 posts

161 months

Friday 16th November 2012
quotequote all
LewisR said:
JREwing said:
mat777 said:
yes

Until Jag can explain why their XF 2.2D manual is less economical than and makes more CO2 than an Audi A6 3.0 auto, then my family will unfortunately continue to buy German frown
Is there a manual XF?
Nope, there is no manual XF. I'd know if there were.
Sorry, I was getting cars mixed up there. But my point still stands - 2.2 eco model costs more on emissions tax than a 3.0 sport Audi? Sort it out, Jag

anonymous-user

55 months

Saturday 17th November 2012
quotequote all
robsa said:
Ford Scorpio
robsa said:
Brilliant car
Generally not two sets of words ever seen together in the same sentence before scratchchin

thejpster

227 posts

163 months

Saturday 17th November 2012
quotequote all
beetroute said:
...
Last of all, somebody suggested that a longer wheelbase might help reduce complaints about the lack of rear room in the car, so a 5" stretch behind the B pillar was engineered as an SVO project.

Ah, the hilarious cost of not making a plan and then sticking to it .....
Weren't those stretched 'Majestic' bodies built by CPP? I recall they carried a huge price premium over the SWB version. I know a chap who has several.

My X330 was built in-house, which made it cheaper. Although of course that's nothing compared to what it actually cost me to buy one a year ago. Massively undervalued at the moment.