Discussion
Hi all
I'm looking at buy a cheap as chips car and have seen the 3.2 Xj6's and the CLK/E class mercs all going for the same money.
I don't know much about these cars, does anyone know how they would compare on fuel economy? On paper there is 2mpg in it, with the Merc coming out on top. I expect the Merc might be a bit more reliable but the Jag nicer to be in?!
I'm looking at buy a cheap as chips car and have seen the 3.2 Xj6's and the CLK/E class mercs all going for the same money.
I don't know much about these cars, does anyone know how they would compare on fuel economy? On paper there is 2mpg in it, with the Merc coming out on top. I expect the Merc might be a bit more reliable but the Jag nicer to be in?!
Suggest you research when Mercedes quality took a nose dive, but IIRC it was around the mid to late 90's. The X300 benefited from Ford input and mechanically is a simple well engineered car.
Real world fuel consumption for a 3.2 X300 will vary from 28 MPG at best, achievable on a long steady motorway run down to low 20s in daily use and at worst mid to low teens in heavy traffic.
When heavily laden or driving in hilly areas a 3.2 X300 has to be driven quite hard to make progress which in turn uses a lot of fuel. I averaged just 19 MPG over several hundred miles on a touring holiday in Wales 4 up with luggage in mine. The torque converter in the 3.2 gearbox only locks up in 4th gear and the gearbox will only change up into 4th at above 50 MPH so you have no choice but to drive round in third gear with quite a lot of torque converter slip too at any speed below that which is ruinous for fuel consumption.
There is a rare 5 speed manual option which has significantly better fuel consumption and performance.
Real world fuel consumption for a 3.2 X300 will vary from 28 MPG at best, achievable on a long steady motorway run down to low 20s in daily use and at worst mid to low teens in heavy traffic.
When heavily laden or driving in hilly areas a 3.2 X300 has to be driven quite hard to make progress which in turn uses a lot of fuel. I averaged just 19 MPG over several hundred miles on a touring holiday in Wales 4 up with luggage in mine. The torque converter in the 3.2 gearbox only locks up in 4th gear and the gearbox will only change up into 4th at above 50 MPH so you have no choice but to drive round in third gear with quite a lot of torque converter slip too at any speed below that which is ruinous for fuel consumption.
There is a rare 5 speed manual option which has significantly better fuel consumption and performance.
I wouldn't get too hung up on fuel economy, both will be pretty costly in that department. I've seen a lot of Mercs in this price bracket with serious rust issues, so you would need to check carefully everywhere. Parts for the Merc can be ruinous, with the potential to write off the car. As for reliability, the Jag is up there with the German stuff of the same era, it's all about picking up a good one. I would personally go for the Jag, but I am a big Jag fan. The price of these Luxor barges are very tempting, but these are still 50k plus motors with the potential of big bills, so whatever you go for check everything.
Jaguar steve said:
Suggest you research when Mercedes quality took a nose dive, but IIRC it was around the mid to late 90's.
1997 to 2004 is the worst period, especially for rust issues.From 2005 the paint was improved but the steel wasn't- even relatively new Mercs have surprising rust issues. Don't be fooled by the corrosion guarantee, either- not worth the paper it's written on.
After '97 or thereabouts the cost-cutting quickly became obvious- metal parts replaced by plastic, etc.
I had 2 Mercs- I'll never buy another.
Thanks for the guidance chaps. I'm thinking that in this bracket I'll just get the best I can for the experience, and if it fails majorly on it's next MoT then at least I'll have had the experience!
I should remember that the fuel consumption can be offset against the saving I'd make on insurance, which is HALF the price I'm paying on my current car! (mr2 roadster)
I should remember that the fuel consumption can be offset against the saving I'd make on insurance, which is HALF the price I'm paying on my current car! (mr2 roadster)
If you want a car to enjoy and make driving an occasion, go for the Jag. I had one similar to the car you are looking at and it never missed a beat. The only things it needed was front disks and front top mount bushes, both cheap and easy DIY jobs. I paid £1000 for it and sold it for a little more, easily the best car I ever owned.
I've had my X300 for almost 18years now, its been that good. Rust? I've just had to have a few minor spots dealt with before they take hold, the fronts of the sills where they're at the back of the wheel arches, and a couple of little spots on the sills and on one door skin, that was all on a car almost 20 years old. The guy said they spots came straight out, there wasn't any pitting. My wife had a 2001 E-Class, that had 3 tail gates, both front wings, door skin etc... all replaced, it needed loads more doing when we PX it, good thing it came with a 20 year body work guarantee, so apart from the hassle it did cost us anything.
Our MB was the 320CDi, but while shopping we drove a couple of 320 petrol engined E Classes. The 3.2 Jag engine was better is ever respect, except economy, more powerful on the road, much torquier at normal revs (although the MB was better in this respect that the BMW baby V8, which is larger) and smoother. Unlike JS, I've never felt the 3.2 auto to be under powered, its also very happy to spin up the rev range.
General reliability, the 94 Jag is much simpler than the 2001 Merc, we had so many problems with the Merc I hardly washed it in the first few years, it kept going to the garage and they'd send it back nicely valeted. The Jag has been the most reliable car I've ever owned.
Any plus points for the Merc? Sure, if I had to chose the car to do an emergency stop from 120MPH, I'm fairly sure the Merc would have been easier, I've never driven either car even close to that speed.
Our MB was the 320CDi, but while shopping we drove a couple of 320 petrol engined E Classes. The 3.2 Jag engine was better is ever respect, except economy, more powerful on the road, much torquier at normal revs (although the MB was better in this respect that the BMW baby V8, which is larger) and smoother. Unlike JS, I've never felt the 3.2 auto to be under powered, its also very happy to spin up the rev range.
General reliability, the 94 Jag is much simpler than the 2001 Merc, we had so many problems with the Merc I hardly washed it in the first few years, it kept going to the garage and they'd send it back nicely valeted. The Jag has been the most reliable car I've ever owned.
Any plus points for the Merc? Sure, if I had to chose the car to do an emergency stop from 120MPH, I'm fairly sure the Merc would have been easier, I've never driven either car even close to that speed.
Not sure what kind of years you are currently looking into?
Mercs up to the late 90's tend to be reliable and reasonable to fix mechanically.
But around 2000 they really dropped the ball, and I would recommend to avoid anything build until the late 00's. Mechanically, they became a lot more complex, but the majority of the problems seem to be electrical, and really hard to diagnose.
Not sure about XJ's of that period.
Mercs up to the late 90's tend to be reliable and reasonable to fix mechanically.
But around 2000 they really dropped the ball, and I would recommend to avoid anything build until the late 00's. Mechanically, they became a lot more complex, but the majority of the problems seem to be electrical, and really hard to diagnose.
Not sure about XJ's of that period.
Thanks again for the advice. Think out of the two I'd plump for the Jag.
This may be a bit of a curveball,and may make some of you spit your tea out onto your computer (sorry) but I spotted a...Hyundai xg30 earlier. Is that a terrible choice?! I know it loses marks on the looks but economy and equipment wise it's pretty good right?
This may be a bit of a curveball,and may make some of you spit your tea out onto your computer (sorry) but I spotted a...Hyundai xg30 earlier. Is that a terrible choice?! I know it loses marks on the looks but economy and equipment wise it's pretty good right?
Aaaaaarrggghh! They are rare for a reason. Nobody bought them, as they were garbage. You would be better off with a Lexus than one of those, I have only seen one up close and didn't have clue what it was at first. The quality of the interior is dire. The 3 litre engine puts out about 180bhp compared to 240bhp in an S type (now there's a thought) and apparently they are bad on fuel.
Thanks Pete. I do quite like the fact that people don't recognise what they are (perhaps I could get rid of the H logo?! 
)
to be fair I haven't sat in one or anything, only seen from a distance. I just like the equipment levels for the price you can pick them up for. And on paper the Hyundai is better on fuel than a Jag.
I would love to get a Jag but I feel, with my limited knowledge, I'm buying a potential problem as much as I'm buying a very nice car.
) to be fair I haven't sat in one or anything, only seen from a distance. I just like the equipment levels for the price you can pick them up for. And on paper the Hyundai is better on fuel than a Jag.
I would love to get a Jag but I feel, with my limited knowledge, I'm buying a potential problem as much as I'm buying a very nice car.
The Jag that you are looking at (X300) is the ideal way into Jag ownership. Reliable, cheap parts and a good supply of used parts, easy to work on etc. most issues tend to me small niggles etc. Any car can bring with it huge bills, I had that with a 5 series BMW, it's just a case of doing the checks as you would any car.
Gassing Station | Jaguar | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff