E36 vs XJ6 fuel consumption

[ThrottleBod]

Hi all, just after a bit of advice from anyone who may know. Im currently driving a 1995 328i manual and thinking of swapping it for a 1997 jag xj6, its the 3.2 v8 auto. Just wondering how much worse it could be on fuel? Both cars are worth less than a grand so thats not an issue. I do around 20 miles a day to and from work, mainly 20-30 mph speed. I get around 120 miles from £30 in the BMW doing this.

Trying to convince myself the jag is a good idea as i've always wanted one, what do you think? Thanx in advance.

[xRIEx]

ThrottleBod said:

...a 1997 jag xj6, its the 3.2 v8 auto.

Wouldn't that be a straight 6 then?

[davepoth]

xRIEx said:

ThrottleBod said:

...a 1997 jag xj6, its the 3.2 v8 auto.

Wouldn't that be a straight 6 then?

The 6 in xj6 tends to be a giveaway, yes.

[Zwolf]

I make that around 24 mpg you're getting from the BMW. As such, think around 16-18 for the XJ 3.2 in either I6 or V8 form in similar use (you say XJ6 but also V8, the V8 ones are XJ8s).

Not quite the same, but having run various BMWs with that engine, including an E36 328i Touring from which I averaged 32 mpg over a 60 mile/day mostly m-way commute and both 4.0 & 4.2 S-Types and two XJRs, the 4.0 S Type came out at 23 mpg, the 4.2 better at just over 25 and the XJRs struggled to better 19-20.

[ThrottleBod]

Apologies, i did mean xj8 yes. Thanx for the replies, very tempting.

[MDT]

I have got a XJ8 (3.2) and over all it is averaging 20.1mpg
Sit on the M-way with the cruse control on at 70ish and it will average 28mpg

Think of it a bit like going to the pub with Oliver Reed, and him saying as you walk in "dam it I think I have lost my wallet"

you know it is going to cost you, but it will be fun

[xRIEx]

MDT said:

Think of it a bit like going to the pub with Oliver Reed, and him saying as you walk in "dam it I think I have lost my wallet"

you know it is going to cost you, but it will be fun

Best simile I've heard in a long time

[Six Fiend]

xRIEx said:

MDT said:

Think of it a bit like going to the pub with Oliver Reed, and him saying as you walk in "dam it I think I have lost my wallet"

you know it is going to cost you, but it will be fun

Best simile I've heard in a long time

Thgat's very apt for such cars, my reasoning behind the E34 540 I ran

[somnv]

I've heard a lot of bad things about the V8 Jag of that age. I'd stick with the BMW, or consider the earlier 6 cylinder Jag, or the later X350 model.

[fourwheelsteer]

I don't know if my experience of the X300 XJ6 is indicative but I wouldn't bother with the smaller engined Jaguars. With the XJ6 the 3.2 had a slightly less sophisticated automatic gearbox and (crucially, I suspect) lower gearing than the 4.0. I don't think I've met anyone who would say that the smaller engine is more economical and most say that the bigger motor is better on fuel. My experience with a 4.0-litre X300 (over 4,000 miles last year) is that you average about 18-19mpg in town and 30mpg on a run at typical motorway speeds (up and down the M40 in my case). Best I've seen (brim-to-brim) was 35mpg. Considering it is nearly two tonnes of not very aerodynamic car the economy is nothing short of astonishing. I can't see why the XJ8 couldn't do as well - or better as it is supposed to be more modern.

Not that I'd swap my XJ6 for an XJ8.

[ThrottleBod]

I think i can live with that fuel consumption for a while, i need a jag at some point! Speaking to a few people who have said that the straight six is more reliable than the V8's so may keep looking.

[fozzymandeus]

You like your engines with bore liners made of feta don't you, OP!

Stick with the E36. More of a viable old smoker than the Jaaaag, even though it's not as much fun to swoop about it.