Best smoker barges 1-5 large [Vol 10]
Discussion
http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C761387
A line up of dusty E28s.
What`s the story.
Ad is for an M5 at £30k
A line up of dusty E28s.
What`s the story.
Ad is for an M5 at £30k
Edited by golfer19 on Friday 1st July 15:34
Lowtimer said:
k-ink said:
An old Jag... what could go wrong? £22,000 worth of bills since 1998... 
http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C750699
£1,200 a year over 18 years on a V12 Jag is not a lot of money. That amount of money is no more than normal servicing and consumables and and fixing the odd broken thing, not any determined attempt to refurbish the car in any way.http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C750699
derin100 said:
Indeed! It actually says that. So, for me the originality has been seriously compromised.
Personally, I think the days of buying an E34 to go faster than another E34 are long gone. So, the argument for saying a manual E34 is faster than an automatic E34 is a bit spurious; if not down right silly. If you want to go "fast" there are easier, cheaper and...well, faster ways to do it these days.
In any event and for it's worth, the difference in performance between a Manual and an Automatic E34 540i isn't as vast as this chap is suggesting. Yes, a manual might well be "more involving" but that's the same for all manual cars...they involve the driver more because he/she has to do more to make them drive! They involve using both your left leg and left arm more.
However, from the handbook the performance figures are:
Both limited to 155 mph...I'm not going to test that.
0-62 mph: 6.4s (manual) 6.8 (automatic)
Standing Kilometre: 26.3 (manual) 26.8 (automatic)
Hardly vast?
(And as with all such older cars...these are at least 20 years old now...the above would assume both are still functioning in top/as new fettle)
While I am a little surprised that there isn't a greater gap in performance, but raw figures don't take into personal preference/driving experience. While I don't mind autos because they are better 90% of the time, a manual gearbox does make for a much more involved drive, even in a barge.Personally, I think the days of buying an E34 to go faster than another E34 are long gone. So, the argument for saying a manual E34 is faster than an automatic E34 is a bit spurious; if not down right silly. If you want to go "fast" there are easier, cheaper and...well, faster ways to do it these days.
In any event and for it's worth, the difference in performance between a Manual and an Automatic E34 540i isn't as vast as this chap is suggesting. Yes, a manual might well be "more involving" but that's the same for all manual cars...they involve the driver more because he/she has to do more to make them drive! They involve using both your left leg and left arm more.
However, from the handbook the performance figures are:
Both limited to 155 mph...I'm not going to test that.
0-62 mph: 6.4s (manual) 6.8 (automatic)
Standing Kilometre: 26.3 (manual) 26.8 (automatic)
Hardly vast?
(And as with all such older cars...these are at least 20 years old now...the above would assume both are still functioning in top/as new fettle)
derin100 said:
Personally, I think the days of buying an E34 to go faster than another E34 are long gone. So, the argument for saying a manual E34 is faster than an automatic E34 is a bit spurious; if not down right silly. If you want to go "fast" there are easier, cheaper and...well, faster ways to do it these days.
How much time and energy have we spent lusting after and seeking out the faster and therefore obviously 'better' versions of our chosen barges, ignoring the fact they many of them are into classic territory now and condition & is way more important.
When I think of the time and £ I've wasted chopping and changing W/S 124s because the 2.6 is quicker than the 2.3 and the 3.0 has another 20bhp (so what?) and the 3.2 is quicker still etc.
A perfect example of this nonsense is my E320. I paid over the odds for it on the basis that it was all sorted. It wasn't. I'm having to spend on it to sort out the lowering springs, air con and the dreaded wiring loom issue (££!!). Once it's all done it could end up costing up to £6k.
While this is going on, a very smart, 90k and apparently very well maintained CLK430 pops up for sale locally at an asking of £2,000. Only £2k! OK it's a CLK and not a W124, but if performance is what I'm after why am I fannying around with a W124? Why any 20+ year old car?
And - regardless of the E320 Vs CLK 430 argument - I can look out of my window right now and see my 1989 260E across the road. Only 166bhp. Pathetic.
Which of the 3 would I prefer to be getting into to go home this evening?
279 said:
k-ink said:
Agreed. Although an E34 540 in that spec and condition would be immensely expensive. Double, maybe triple the price?
I'm expecting that one to finish for £5k-6k. I find it difficult to imagine a factory car would pull it substantially more than that (maybe £8k-£9k), but then I wouldn't have imagined this car would be up to 4.4K with 4 days to go either...I still find it staggering that there are now so many buyers for a car that would have probably struggled to sell for £4995 5 years ago.
That said, I don't think I will find anything. So it is highly likely I'll be buying a far newer car. Boo, dull, etc.
Lowtimer said:
k-ink said:
An old Jag... what could go wrong? £22,000 worth of bills since 1998...
http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C750699
£1,200 a year over 18 years on a V12 Jag is not a lot of money. That amount of money is no more than normal servicing and consumables and and fixing the odd broken thing, not any determined attempt to refurbish the car in any way.http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C750699
So I can only imagine this example was run into the ground, or was a bit of a lemon. Or maybe the garage saw the owner coming!
May I offer a counterpoint?
I quite like an old car—a young classic, if you will—that is fast; perhaps not absolutely fast, but faster than 90% of the new stuff on the roads. Try as we might, it is impossible always to restrain ourselves, impossible always to resist showing that angry young man in the 1.9TDI a clean pair of heels. And I also like to use my cars for the purpose for which they were intended and fitted, which is not the purpose of the modern motor. I like to use them to cover ground fast, to make progress across country, to put huge distances under the wheels, to do so in comfort, in style, in speed and, perhaps above all, to do so free from constraint.
This is what I miss about my 500 SEC, the one I fitted up with a 300bhp 5.6litre engine. It was devastatingly fast and that added considerably to its charm.
And it was automatic. I am convinced that automatic is always faster. I watch the cars I duel with stumble as the driver changes gear. I know from experience that it is difficult to execute a full-throttle shift quickly, impossible to do it every time. And you would not want to do it every time, such is the mechanical abuse it entails. A bad shift interrupts the power flow for one, maybe two seconds, a lifetime in the traffic light grand prix. Thus I think my ideal car would be a w124 400 E.
I quite like an old car—a young classic, if you will—that is fast; perhaps not absolutely fast, but faster than 90% of the new stuff on the roads. Try as we might, it is impossible always to restrain ourselves, impossible always to resist showing that angry young man in the 1.9TDI a clean pair of heels. And I also like to use my cars for the purpose for which they were intended and fitted, which is not the purpose of the modern motor. I like to use them to cover ground fast, to make progress across country, to put huge distances under the wheels, to do so in comfort, in style, in speed and, perhaps above all, to do so free from constraint.
This is what I miss about my 500 SEC, the one I fitted up with a 300bhp 5.6litre engine. It was devastatingly fast and that added considerably to its charm.
And it was automatic. I am convinced that automatic is always faster. I watch the cars I duel with stumble as the driver changes gear. I know from experience that it is difficult to execute a full-throttle shift quickly, impossible to do it every time. And you would not want to do it every time, such is the mechanical abuse it entails. A bad shift interrupts the power flow for one, maybe two seconds, a lifetime in the traffic light grand prix. Thus I think my ideal car would be a w124 400 E.
k-ink said:
Our V12 XJS never required any work at all. Although it was garaged since virtually brand new. It just required oil and plugs to be kept mint.
So I can only imagine this example was run into the ground, or was a bit of a lemon. Or maybe the garage saw the owner coming!
18 years and 136,000 miles, for that one. No car is being kept properly if over that extent of usage and time passed it has not had the benefit of multiple sets of tyres, discs and pads; at least one complete suspension rebuilt with new dampers, drop links, track rod ends, dampers; replacement of multiple hoses and other rubber items. almost certainly including door seals, multiple filter replacements etc etc. So I can only imagine this example was run into the ground, or was a bit of a lemon. Or maybe the garage saw the owner coming!
Lowtimer said:
18 years and 136,000 miles, for that one. No car is being kept properly if over that extent of usage and time passed it has not had the benefit of multiple sets of tyres, discs and pads; at least one complete suspension rebuilt with new dampers, drop links, track rod ends, dampers; replacement of multiple hoses and other rubber items. almost certainly including door seals, multiple filter replacements etc etc.
When we finally sold it the buyer said it was the best one he'd ever seen. It only came out in the sun. It was only serviced by Jaguar specialist Alan Collins. It wanted for nothing. But nothing went wrong 
r129sl said:
I am convinced that automatic is always faster. I watch the cars I duel with stumble as the driver changes gear. I know from experience that it is difficult to execute a full-throttle shift quickly, impossible to do it every time. And you would not want to do it every time, such is the mechanical abuse it entails. A bad shift interrupts the power flow for one, maybe two seconds, a lifetime in the traffic light grand prix. Thus I think my ideal car would be a w124 400 E.
How very true that is. My wife's ancient 1.6 Honda Civic auto is a serial Traffic Light GP winner. k-ink said:
When we finally sold it the buyer said it was the best one he'd ever seen. It only came out in the sun. It was only serviced by Jaguar specialist Alan Collins. It wanted for nothing. But nothing went wrong
What was the mileage and length of time you used it for, and how did those factors compare with life of the car in the advert? Disgracefully, I have been absent from these discussions for too long with work and domesticity getting in the way of the important things.
I'm happy to report the E39 BMW 540i touring, purchased a few months ago, thanks to the wisdom of this thread, now has a new MOT. It initially failed on:
Headlight aim (curiously every car I've ever had tested by this particular MOT man has failed on headlight aim)
The handbrake being 1% under the required performance - the result, he suggested of it being stood for a few weeks whilst work/domesticity intruded preventing me mot-ing it. A quick clean remedied this.
One (offside) rear fog light not functioning - a result of a mis-functioning light control unit. Until I have a chance to have the unit repaired he, somewhat pragmatically, ran a temp power feed from the other fog light.
the only advisory was both rear discs are a little pitted, but they're on the list to be changed anyway...
It's SO nice to be driving it again, I've been pottering around in a 2002 1.0L Micra my mother donated to my children for them to lean to drive in, after she stopped driving, for the last few weeks.
I'm happy to report the E39 BMW 540i touring, purchased a few months ago, thanks to the wisdom of this thread, now has a new MOT. It initially failed on:
Headlight aim (curiously every car I've ever had tested by this particular MOT man has failed on headlight aim)
The handbrake being 1% under the required performance - the result, he suggested of it being stood for a few weeks whilst work/domesticity intruded preventing me mot-ing it. A quick clean remedied this.
One (offside) rear fog light not functioning - a result of a mis-functioning light control unit. Until I have a chance to have the unit repaired he, somewhat pragmatically, ran a temp power feed from the other fog light.
the only advisory was both rear discs are a little pitted, but they're on the list to be changed anyway...
It's SO nice to be driving it again, I've been pottering around in a 2002 1.0L Micra my mother donated to my children for them to lean to drive in, after she stopped driving, for the last few weeks.
r129sl said:
I am convinced that automatic is always faster.
Up to a point, Lord Copper, and I know what you mean, but not always. On anything with a CVT or DSG or a modern 7+ speed Merc or 8-speed ZF epicylic box with proper electronic control, then I'm sure the automatics are objectively quicker in just about every form of road use. But it;s still not an assertion I would accept universally, especially for '80s and '90s cars which are so popular among us in this backwater of the overall Pistonheads ocean. r129sl said:
I watch the cars I duel with stumble as the driver changes gear. I know from experience that it is difficult to execute a full-throttle shift quickly, impossible to do it every time. And you would not want to do it every time, such is the mechanical abuse it entails. A bad shift interrupts the power flow for one, maybe two seconds, a lifetime in the traffic light grand prix. .
"Traffic lights GP", yes, fair enough, under most circs. If you're talking about a straight-line 0-60 scenario on the public roads, in the dry, with non-abusive drivers who actually own their cars, and that the automatic is at least a four-speeder of reasonable quality, then I agree that nine times out of ten, maybe more, the auto with the throttle buried will be quicker than the manual with the same engine. I suggest if it's a powerful and torquey car with limited traction off the line, then not necessarily in the wet, where in the absence of electronics the wheelspin can be blended into motion much more effectively in a manual, whereas in an automatic the car is likely to complicate things by changing gear as you modulate the throttle.
And not if it's something like a Porsche 924 or 944, or an early 911, or an '80s Lotus, or a Rover SD1 say, where a good 5-speed manual plays a truly dreadful 3-speed slushbox which puts two or three seconds on to the 0-60.
More broadly, the traffic lights GP is not the speed that most of us want, is it? I can't remember doing one the last 25 years or so. Once you change the definition of speed to speed over the ground in the typical 50-100 mph range, where you're having to overtake and corner and make the use of the straights between, there's really no reason for a car with a typical 90s and 00s four speed or five speed slushbox to outstrip its manual 5-speed or 6-speed equivalent, especially where the engine is relatively highly tuned or an early turbo which needs the revs to be in a certain range for maximum go. For a hard charge over a twisty Dales B-road the manual will be quicker every time unless the driver is completely clueless.
But modern stuff, yes. My Prius with what effectively equates to a CVT is a good example of a car which has relatively poor Autocar-style road test acceleration figures, but which punches well above those numbers on the roads in everyday circumstances.
Lowtimer said:
k-ink said:
When we finally sold it the buyer said it was the best one he'd ever seen. It only came out in the sun. It was only serviced by Jaguar specialist Alan Collins. It wanted for nothing. But nothing went wrong
What was the mileage and length of time you used it for, and how did those factors compare with life of the car in the advert? Not sure I understand the second question...
What I was trying to divine is whether the use and treatment your car got was likely to be representative of that likely car in the advert, or whether yours was swaddled in cotton wool and barely used, vacuumed out weekly, never put away wet, never left dirty, waxed every month and so on. You obviously must have been sympathetic and careful owners (with good dry garaging) to clock up a decent chunk of mileage without spending money.
Mind you, I'm still wondering how you managed to do all that mileage with no replacement tyres, brakes or any of the other stuff that needs to be added to plugs and oil! And I'll never accept that any 100,000+ mile car on all-original suspension is really handling and riding the way the makers intended. But if it wears on gradually over time it can be hard to notice unless you compare it with a new example, or a car that's had everything renewed.
Mind you, I'm still wondering how you managed to do all that mileage with no replacement tyres, brakes or any of the other stuff that needs to be added to plugs and oil! And I'll never accept that any 100,000+ mile car on all-original suspension is really handling and riding the way the makers intended. But if it wears on gradually over time it can be hard to notice unless you compare it with a new example, or a car that's had everything renewed.
Rust is the enemy of old Jags, rather than lots of things going wrong. This car has had extensive bodywork repairs according to the advert. They probably make up quite a percentage of the £22,000 - along with routine servicing which will have been done twice per year if it has been serviced according to Jaguar's official service intervals which are every 7,500 miles or six months.
The car is actually Westminster blue rather than 'Royal blue' - and the Queen Mother's cars were a very dark maroon rather than blue anyway!
The car is actually Westminster blue rather than 'Royal blue' - and the Queen Mother's cars were a very dark maroon rather than blue anyway!
Edited by dbdb on Friday 1st July 17:06
RE: XJS... Oh it did have tyres and pads! I just meant it never had items replaced due to faults. In fact it just had a bulb swapped once, as far as I know. Yes it was pampered and cared for.
Right, after this SEC chat I've had a look. They are pricey aren't they! So I also looked at CE models...
This might not be a perfect example, but just look at it!
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/mercedes-W124-e220-coupe...
Sexy old girl! I'll add these to my list of searches
Can we have an E34 v W124 CE debate please. CE wins on sexiness!
Right, after this SEC chat I've had a look. They are pricey aren't they! So I also looked at CE models...
This might not be a perfect example, but just look at it!
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/mercedes-W124-e220-coupe...
Sexy old girl! I'll add these to my list of searches
Can we have an E34 v W124 CE debate please. CE wins on sexiness!
k-ink said:
Personally I am coming to the conclusion that if I don't buy one now, I never will. I have a budget of £10k to play with. Of course I have my pick of newer cars. But if something vintage pops up which is mint and straight I will be interested. Im not bothered about slightly iffy examples. For me it has to be spot on or nothing. That includes the history. So although that E34 is interesting it fails for me in being 100% straight on paper. I'd pay strong money if the car was A1.
That said, I don't think I will find anything. So it is highly likely I'll be buying a far newer car. Boo, dull, etc.
If you'd been 4 months earlier you could have had my last one...I sold it for £10K :That said, I don't think I will find anything. So it is highly likely I'll be buying a far newer car. Boo, dull, etc.
http://www.bmwclassics.co.uk/1995_E34_540i_Saloon/
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff