RE: Jaguar XJ-S V12 | The Brave Pill

RE: Jaguar XJ-S V12 | The Brave Pill

Saturday 17th August 2019

Jaguar XJ-S V12 | The Brave Pill

There are at least a dozen reasons to love this time-warp version of Jag's seventies sportscar



Sometimes choosing our Brave Pill leads to the sort of passionate office debates that get stationery thrown, desks dented and create the sort of trans-generational blood feuds that our grandchildren will still be fighting in years to come. On other occasions there's a worrying lack of inspiration as the deadline approaches, a situation solved more than once by judicious use of the Classifieds' excellent search function. This week's Pill has been brought to you by selecting V12 and then sorting by price ascending.

The resulting XJ-S isn't the cheapest currently listed, but has been selected for what seems the most compelling combination of price and condition. It also serves as elegant proof that, as has been the case for at least three decades, the XJ-S remains the most affordable way to experience the enhanced levels of risk and reward that come from a dozen cylinders.

While values have been rising for years, the XJ-S remains far cheaper than even the shabbiest examples of the E-Type it replaced, and much less expensive than most of the distinctly less well-cylindered alternatives from the same era. It's not long since unloved examples of both the XJ-S and its saloon sisters were priced low enough to be popular prey for the banger racing fraternity, something that led to the spectacular deaths of many.


Indeed, it's barely a decade since a former colleague bought a bargain XJ-S for a magazine feature intended to prove it was possible to go 150mph for £150. He almost managed it, being somewhere past 140mph when the engine failed spectacularly on Bruntingthorpe's two-mile runway; unfortunately during what was meant to be a sighting run and before any pictures had been taken. Those days are behind us, but this is still a smart-looking example of a V12-powered modern classic for less than five figures.

The XJ-S was big news when it first came out, although not always for the right reasons. It effectively replaced the pensionable E-Type, sitting on the same platform as the XJ saloon but with a two-plus-two layout and a long, low shape that was largely the result of work done by Jaguar's legendary aerodynamicist Malcolm Sayer prior to his death in 1970. Power came from a reworked version of the E-Type's mighty V12, with Autocar running a manual gearbox version from 0-60mph in 6.9-seconds and on to a top speed of 153mph. That was pretty much supercar performance - and 18mph faster than the then range-topping Mercedes SLC 450 could manage from its fweeble V8.

Styling was controversial. Even in 1975 Jaguar had plenty of traditionalists who disliked the move to oval headlights and were particularly scornful about the 'flying buttresses' which ran from the roof to the back of the car - and were vital to the aerodynamic performance. Perhaps fittingly, given the era it was born into, these also make the XJ-S look slightly like it is rocking a pair of heavily flared loon pants. The cabin's lack of wood trim also drew complaints from the Bufton-Tufton types who thought a Jag should be as well timbered as their mock Tudor houses; something that was rectified with later cars like our Pill.


Beyond its groovy design, the XJ-S had bigger problems. Most obviously being launched into the era of the Fuel Crisis, an inopportune time to be introducing a car that struggled to deliver more than 15 miles on a gently-driven gallon. More significantly, the fact it was being produced by British Leyland during the period of peak Bolshevism, when a bitter class struggle was being fought between unions and management. Strikes were frequent, build quality often terrible - and early owners soon discovered the XJ-S's position at the top of the corporate range didn't give it any greater resistance to rust than the company's lesser models.

Things improved over time. The Series II cars that arrived in 1981 were better finished and came with what was referred to, non-ironically, as the High Efficiency version of the V12 engine. This had a redesigned cylinder head to boost output to 295hp and cruising economy to the high teens, a six-cylinder version was also introduced. Beyond that the inelegant targa version was replaced by a much better looking full convertible in 1988 and, under Ford ownership, another substantial Series III facelift arrived in 1991, the XJS losing its hyphen and staying in production until 1996, being replaced - after 21 years - by the XK8.

My first memory of the XJ-S dates from the early 1980s, and being given a lift back from a friend's birthday party in one. I would have been about seven and this was definitely an era before obsessive consideration of occupant safety: there were four small boys crammed into the back and I was one of the lucky pair who got to share the front passenger seat. Our chauffeur spent much of the time driving one-handed because of the need to hold his burning cigarette in vague proximity to the pair of substantial his-and-hers ashtrays that sat on either side of the gear selector. My dad had a Morris Ital so this was off-the-scale posh, I still remember the engine's creamy soundtrack and squeal-inducing acceleration.


By modern standards the XJ-S won't feel particularly fast or dynamically focussed, but there will still be an abundance of waft and the V12 should still deliver solid urge with little apparent effort. The design hasn't aged as well as that of the E-Type, but I'm finding the seventies lines look better and better as time goes on; this relatively unadorned Series II more handsome than the smoothed-off Series III that followed.

Our Pill is being sold with an advert that seems determined to let its pictures do the talking, reporting minimal detail. The salient points being the fact the vendor has owned it for the last 24 years and that - to judge from both images and the MOT history - this one doesn't seem to have any of the rust that usually comes as standard on the non-galvanised earlier cars. Indeed, it looks like it's come from 1989 pretty much unblemished, with the history remarkably short on both advisories and miles; having wound on just 167 in the last decade, most of these were likely to and from the testing station.

There are still plenty of other areas to go wrong beyond corrosion, of course. The V12 needs regular fluid changes to stay healthy, timing chains can get rattly and there's an auxiliary air valve that often fails expensively. Automatic gearboxes can leak, suspension components don't like neglect and the brakes often suffer from seized callipers - four MOTs in a row reported a grabbing near-side brake before it turned into a fail. But if our Pill really is as rust-free as it seems to be then it looks ready for another 30 years. Try finding a more compelling V12 for less.


See the original advert here

Search for a Jaguar XJ-S here

Author
Discussion

Agent57

Original Poster:

1,631 posts

153 months

Saturday 17th August 2019
quotequote all
Not with those wheels.

sidewinder500

1,096 posts

93 months

Saturday 17th August 2019
quotequote all
The wheels you could change to original spec for peanuts, but 9k...
Brave indeed.
But still a looker, always liked it more than the E, except the series 1, of course

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 17th August 2019
quotequote all
I think it's aged well, very much of the 70's style wise. I remember the first one I got to drive one and was astounded how a car that appeared large (for the time) outside, was so small inside. A colleague bought a V12 on on a demonstration run, the kickdown reduced the (digital!) display to 7mpg. I don't think the 6cyl car was much slower either.

cerb4.5lee

30,189 posts

179 months

Saturday 17th August 2019
quotequote all
I've always loved these, that engine! cloud9

I would prefer one with a manual gearbox though. I'm also not keen on those wheels and they don't suit it for me.

can't remember

1,077 posts

127 months

Saturday 17th August 2019
quotequote all
I bought mine out of the Bargain Basement section of Auto Mart. Fuel costs were crippling and on a quiet damp day you could hear the bodywork gently fizzing. For roughly four weeks wages it made a 20 year old lad feel like a king.

Augustus Windsock

3,340 posts

154 months

Saturday 17th August 2019
quotequote all
First-ever girlfriends dad had a silver XJ 5.3C from new.
Looked at replacing it with an XJ-S
Remember him mumbling that the build quality of the XJ-S was shocking and he couldn’t bring himself to throw/waste his money on one.
Went out and bought a Pontiac Trans-Am instead... Bonkers.

As an aside, does anyone remember that you could actually buy a watch whose shape aped that of the rear window (seem to think it was in the early years of the XJ-S)????

Muzzer79

9,806 posts

186 months

Saturday 17th August 2019
quotequote all
My dad had one

Red, black interior. Cracked leather and tired in general, it wasn’t in the finest of fettle

I don’t actually remember him driving it that much. He owned a petrol station (literally) so fuel wasn’t an issue, but I don’t think he really got on with it.

Then, it dropped a valve and he didn’t have the bottle to open up the V12 so he got rid.




300bhp/ton

41,030 posts

189 months

Saturday 17th August 2019
quotequote all
How prices have changed!!!

The XJ-S was a dream car of mine growing up. And maybe by fluke I managed to buy one at the tender age of 19 for £700.

Awesome car. Especially at that point in my life. The 5.3 V12 is such a wonderful engine. Mine was not a minter, but pretty tidy. I had it repainted and the gearbox had a rebuild. But it was actually quite reliable. Although had a tendency to burst coolant hoses until I’d replaced most of them.

Mine was an X reg very early HE. Think the factory claimed 295hp. My Dad had previously had a 6.0 litre XJ40 that had the GM 4 speed 4L80e gearbox. Where as the the XJ-S used the older 3 speed auto.

The box made it smooth. But did blunt the performance somewhat. A slightly reluctance to kickdown to 1st. But manually using the lever helped.

That said it ran really well. Not the quickest of the line but picked up speed well. Took mine to a Jaguar World day at Santa Pod and after about 10 attempts could not beat the 6.0 XJRS that I’d been racing. But could usually maintain only a 1 ca gap. Which I thought was pretty good. It was also trapping about 100mph. Again pretty good for a car of that vintage.

I can honestly say I did see 156mph on the speedo. And even over 140mph four up!!

It was significantly quicker than a mates freshly rebuilt and modded 2.9 Sierra 4x4.

Probably shouldn’t have got rid. But I couldn’t justify keeping it after I bought the Camaro.

But very glad I owned one. And it didn’t disappoint in the least! biggrin


Best thing I ever did to mine was uncork the V12 by removing half of the silencers in the exhaust. Stock they are near silent and you hear nothing from the engine at all. But they actually sound wonderful cloud9

https://youtu.be/PuIphvFo8Ug






Edited by 300bhp/ton on Saturday 17th August 10:31

Sandpit Steve

9,885 posts

73 months

Saturday 17th August 2019
quotequote all
Article said:
This week's Pill has been brought to you by selecting V12 and then sorting by price ascending.
Glad to know it’s not just me who does things like that with the search function! biggrin

Great choice, striking the balance between a great car and a potentially ruinous repair bill.

cerb4.5lee

30,189 posts

179 months

Saturday 17th August 2019
quotequote all
Very nice 300! thumbup

Such a cool car and yours certainly did sound awesome. smokin

Greg the Fish

1,410 posts

65 months

Saturday 17th August 2019
quotequote all
My Dad had a succession of these in the early 80s

He rolled one

Green one (B252 JYJ I think) blew up spectacularly and was reduced to a smouldering pile of ash

Couple of silver ones

An 'Antelope' coloured one

Few others. Used to get a new one every 6 months or so.

Always laughed at the 'H.E' idea. Yeah, I guess compared to a Lockheed SR-71 it was pretty economical.

Mike 83

50 posts

59 months

Saturday 17th August 2019
quotequote all
I've bought jags in the past that have lost 9k in the first years then worth next to nothing so to me it doesn't seem bad value if you're going to keep it and look after it. Now I'm of to look at x300 v12s again smile

swisstoni

16,850 posts

278 months

Saturday 17th August 2019
quotequote all
Had an XJ12 of exactly the same vintage.
Engines last well past reasonable expectations.
Interior lasts forever.
Body lasts 10 mins.

If that thing is truly rust free I might buy it myself!

steve-V8s

2,899 posts

247 months

Saturday 17th August 2019
quotequote all
Preferred the look with the twin headlamp conversion, also you could then at least see where you were going. As said by others, a gloriously smooth effortless engine. Seem to remember the air con was similarly untroubled, it dispensed cold air without any fuss and not even a hint of a fan running.

Mine leaked into both foot wells so the carpets were always wet and trying to keep electrical bits working was a challenge. Nothing I had before or since has got anywhere near the extraordinary fuel consumption.

Was a bit disappointing to drive, no real involvement, the steering was over assisted, you just got in and wafted silently between filling stations.

300bhp/ton

41,030 posts

189 months

Saturday 17th August 2019
quotequote all
Greg the Fish said:
Always laughed at the 'H.E' idea. Yeah, I guess compared to a Lockheed SR-71 it was pretty economical.
HE was high efficiency. Moving mpg from 9-10 to 12-15. Which in percentage terms is a pretty big jump.

Greg the Fish

1,410 posts

65 months

Saturday 17th August 2019
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
HE was high efficiency. Moving mpg from 9-10 to 12-15. Which in percentage terms is a pretty big jump.
Which was still worse than the V12 Ferrari we also had at the time.

samoht

5,633 posts

145 months

Saturday 17th August 2019
quotequote all
"the 'flying buttresses' which ran from the roof to the back of the car"

In today's era of aerodynamically pierced supercars, I think it's worth keeping the distinction between a 'flying buttress', which has a gap underneath, and a plain buttress, which is solid. See handy guide below:




Equus

16,768 posts

100 months

Saturday 17th August 2019
quotequote all
samoht said:
"the 'flying buttresses' which ran from the roof to the back of the car"

In today's era of aerodynamically pierced supercars, I think it's worth keeping the distinction between a 'flying buttress', which has a gap underneath, and a plain buttress, which is solid.
If we're going to be that anal, then we might as well recognise that - whether flying or not - a 'buttress' has a specific structural function... to transfer the outward thrust of roof loads on a wall.

On a car, the feature serves either an aerodynamic or visual function and is non-critical structurally, so the proper terminology would be 'fairing'.

Once you've enclosed it in inverted commas, though, most people would accept that you can call it whatever the fk you like, and it doesn't much matter, so long as everybody understands what you're talking about, wink

Etypephil

724 posts

77 months

Saturday 17th August 2019
quotequote all
I exhanged a tidy (ish) early one for a clapped out Manta B and £300, selling it a year later for £3,000; the profit didn't even cover the fuel

in 1988.

Nice to drive, although I never really saw the point of them given that an XJ 5.3 C could do everything that the XJ-S could, but was better looking, and carried 5 people.

Edited by Etypephil on Saturday 17th August 20:58

Olivera

7,065 posts

238 months

Saturday 17th August 2019
quotequote all
Greg the Fish said:
300bhp/ton said:
HE was high efficiency. Moving mpg from 9-10 to 12-15. Which in percentage terms is a pretty big jump.
Which was still worse than the V12 Ferrari we also had at the time.
Very few people seem to use XJS for a decent run, with most quoting MPG pootling about town or a short country drive.

I did a good few 300-400 motorway miles in one day in my properly running XJS V12 HE, mpg worked out manually and accurately was about 22mpg.