RE: Jaguar XJ-S V12 | The Brave Pill
Discussion
Nudrev breac said:
From experience of them, could be a problem In the wet. Back end went very easily, like most Jaguars.
I've found they can be fine in the wet unless the rain is practically torrential which would be unsettling in most cars. Ice, however, can certainly make them very tail happy. Nudrev breac said:
From experience of them, could be a problem In the wet. Back end went very easily, like most Jaguars.
If you have lead feet then a car with 440 - 500NM of torque available at practically any engine speed and with instant response to throttle inputs might not be the car for you, that's true. I have never accidentally lost the back end of any of the Jaguars I've had, other than the usual challenges with snow driving on summer tyres.I daresay a knackered one with wonky suspension geometry, dampers that don't damp, and on ditchfinder tyres could be quite a handful though.
Jaguar steve said:
I drove dozens of AJ6 Jaguars when I was in the trade.
That engine is as as rough as a badgers arse at high RPM particularly when mated to the agricultural Getrag manual gearbox and was noticeably less refined then the XK engine it replaced. The refinement of a contemporary BMW 6 cylinder engine in comparison was on a completely different level altogether.
.
Early ones were grim but later ones from '87 (XJ40) were pretty good. That engine is as as rough as a badgers arse at high RPM particularly when mated to the agricultural Getrag manual gearbox and was noticeably less refined then the XK engine it replaced. The refinement of a contemporary BMW 6 cylinder engine in comparison was on a completely different level altogether.
.
Touring442 said:
Jaguar steve said:
I drove dozens of AJ6 Jaguars when I was in the trade.
That engine is as as rough as a badgers arse at high RPM particularly when mated to the agricultural Getrag manual gearbox and was noticeably less refined then the XK engine it replaced. The refinement of a contemporary BMW 6 cylinder engine in comparison was on a completely different level altogether.
.
Early ones were grim but later ones from '87 (XJ40) were pretty good. That engine is as as rough as a badgers arse at high RPM particularly when mated to the agricultural Getrag manual gearbox and was noticeably less refined then the XK engine it replaced. The refinement of a contemporary BMW 6 cylinder engine in comparison was on a completely different level altogether.
.
The AJ6 was manufactured with different capacities around 1990 and heavily revised and renamed AJ16 in the last year of XJ40 production in 1993/4. The AJ16 was better mainly due to different valve train components but it's never been a class leader IMO and it's only real virtue is torque and longevity.
The V8 that replaced it in 1996 was initially bedeviled with problems and that was revised a few years after launch and is a whole world apart in terms of refinement and power compared to the AJ engine.
Within a few days of driving a XJ with the new V8 I'd got one bought it was that much better than the 6 cyl cars.
Jaguar steve said:
Touring442 said:
Jaguar steve said:
I drove dozens of AJ6 Jaguars when I was in the trade.
That engine is as as rough as a badgers arse at high RPM particularly when mated to the agricultural Getrag manual gearbox and was noticeably less refined then the XK engine it replaced. The refinement of a contemporary BMW 6 cylinder engine in comparison was on a completely different level altogether.
.
Early ones were grim but later ones from '87 (XJ40) were pretty good. That engine is as as rough as a badgers arse at high RPM particularly when mated to the agricultural Getrag manual gearbox and was noticeably less refined then the XK engine it replaced. The refinement of a contemporary BMW 6 cylinder engine in comparison was on a completely different level altogether.
.
The AJ6 was manufactured with different capacities around 1990 and heavily revised and renamed AJ16 in the last year of XJ40 production in 1993/4. The AJ16 was better mainly due to different valve train components but it's never been a class leader IMO and it's only real virtue is torque and longevity.
The V8 that replaced it in 1996 was initially bedeviled with problems and that was revised a few years after launch and is a whole world apart in terms of refinement and power compared to the AJ engine.
Within a few days of driving a XJ with the new V8 I'd got one bought it was that much better than the 6 cyl cars.
300bhp/ton said:
On the flip side I've always rather liked the the straight 6, especially in AJ16 form and supercharged XJR format. It was also the engine Aston Martin selected as the basis of the 3.2 supercharged DB7. So IMO I'd say it was a class leader.
Jaguar cobbled the DB7 together out of whatever was expedient, being "class leading" in any way had little to do with it. "Right side of acceptable" maybe 
Note that they used the smaller 3.2 litre AJ6 as a starting point as it wasn't as coarse as the larger engines.
I enjoyed the AJ6 and AJ16, don't get me wrong, but I can't imagine Jaguar were ever truly happy with it's refinement at higher engine speeds (not that it ever revved that high for an I6). Obviously it was better than the by then very dated and uncompetitive Rover V8, but compared to the competition from overseas it was at the back of the pack. As Jaguar Steve has mentioned the AJV8 is like something from another era.
The V12 was superb right up until the end though, if you ignore it's gargantuan weight and thirst. Even the AJV8 can't touch it for refinement and smoothness of power delivery.
alabbasi said:
The V8 was pretty much a ford engine, used in the Lincoln LS. It had problems common to Fords of the era like the chain tensioners.
Not as much of a problem as the 5.3 V12 which like to drop valves even if mildly overheated but a problem none the less.
The Ford input to the Jaguar V8 was as a contract manufacturer, not as designers, despite their ownership of Jaguar during the development period and beyond. The engine fitted to the Lincoln LS, and the Ford Thunderbird for that matter, was of similar design, but used entirely different major componets; cylinder block, crankshaft, pistons, connecting rods etc, and did not even get VVT and electronic throttle control until 2003. The reason for timing chain tensioner problems on such engines was the ridiculous material specification, later revised.Not as much of a problem as the 5.3 V12 which like to drop valves even if mildly overheated but a problem none the less.
I spent almost fifty years buying, selling, and fixing Jaguars, yet not once have I encountered a V12 with a dropped valve; either it's not very common, or I and my customers were very fortunate.
Etypephil said:
I spent almost fifty years buying, selling, and fixing Jaguars, yet not once have I encountered a V12 with a dropped valve; either it's not very common, or I and my customers were very fortunate.
I see them all the time. Either dead or with small block Chevy conversions. Etypephil said:
The Ford input to the Jaguar V8 was as a contract manufacturer, not as designers, despite their ownership of Jaguar during the development period and beyond. The engine fitted to the Lincoln LS, and the Ford Thunderbird for that matter, was of similar design, but used entirely different major componets; cylinder block, crankshaft, pistons, connecting rods etc, and did not even get VVT and electronic throttle control until 2003. The reason for timing chain tensioner problems on such engines was the ridiculous material specification, later revised.
I spent almost fifty years buying, selling, and fixing Jaguars, yet not once have I encountered a V12 with a dropped valve; either it's not very common, or I and my customers were very fortunate.
You certainly read about it a lot in the US, particularly the rear cylinders. Whether this is due to a hotter climate, or due to them being maintained to the same low standard required for cast iron pushrod V8s I do not know. I can well imagine that the somewhat underspecified cooling system of the V12 could cause problems in 90F+ climates when it's a few years old and still on the original coolant.I spent almost fifty years buying, selling, and fixing Jaguars, yet not once have I encountered a V12 with a dropped valve; either it's not very common, or I and my customers were very fortunate.
Jaguar steve said:
Its the same engine 'tho...
The AJ6 was manufactured with different capacities around 1990 and heavily revised and renamed AJ16 in the last year of XJ40 production in 1993/4. The AJ16 was better mainly due to different valve train components but it's never been a class leader IMO and it's only real virtue is torque and longevity.
The V8 that replaced it in 1996 was initially bedeviled with problems and that was revised a few years after launch and is a whole world apart in terms of refinement and power compared to the AJ engine.
Within a few days of driving a XJ with the new V8 I'd got one bought it was that much better than the 6 cyl cars.
Sort of - Jaguar put a lot of effort into the AJ6 to make it good for the XJ40. The 3.6 in those was a nice engine and a lot better than the 3.5 BMW six.The AJ6 was manufactured with different capacities around 1990 and heavily revised and renamed AJ16 in the last year of XJ40 production in 1993/4. The AJ16 was better mainly due to different valve train components but it's never been a class leader IMO and it's only real virtue is torque and longevity.
The V8 that replaced it in 1996 was initially bedeviled with problems and that was revised a few years after launch and is a whole world apart in terms of refinement and power compared to the AJ engine.
Within a few days of driving a XJ with the new V8 I'd got one bought it was that much better than the 6 cyl cars.
Touring442 said:
Sort of - Jaguar put a lot of effort into the AJ6 to make it good for the XJ40. The 3.6 in those was a nice engine and a lot better than the 3.5 BMW six.
That's a heck of a statement. The BMW M30 engine was probably the best engine BMW ever made. I know several cars with close to 400k miles on their original engines.If jaguar made a better engine. They'd have a different reputation today.
Touring442 said:
Jaguar steve said:
Its the same engine 'tho...
The AJ6 was manufactured with different capacities around 1990 and heavily revised and renamed AJ16 in the last year of XJ40 production in 1993/4. The AJ16 was better mainly due to different valve train components but it's never been a class leader IMO and it's only real virtue is torque and longevity.
The V8 that replaced it in 1996 was initially bedeviled with problems and that was revised a few years after launch and is a whole world apart in terms of refinement and power compared to the AJ engine.
Within a few days of driving a XJ with the new V8 I'd got one bought it was that much better than the 6 cyl cars.
Sort of - Jaguar put a lot of effort into the AJ6 to make it good for the XJ40. The 3.6 in those was a nice engine and a lot better than the 3.5 BMW six.The AJ6 was manufactured with different capacities around 1990 and heavily revised and renamed AJ16 in the last year of XJ40 production in 1993/4. The AJ16 was better mainly due to different valve train components but it's never been a class leader IMO and it's only real virtue is torque and longevity.
The V8 that replaced it in 1996 was initially bedeviled with problems and that was revised a few years after launch and is a whole world apart in terms of refinement and power compared to the AJ engine.
Within a few days of driving a XJ with the new V8 I'd got one bought it was that much better than the 6 cyl cars.
From launch of both cars and up to 1990 the 3.6 AJ6 engine in the XJS was exactly the same as the 3.6 AJ6 engine in the XJ40.
I never liked them when they were new - maybe because I just loved the E-Type.
But then in the early 80s a former school-mate picked me up for a night out in one - back then it felt like a rocket-ship, and so smooth and comfortable. Although when we got to a mini-roundabout it's handling limitations and sheer bulk soon became apparent!
As time has gone by I've grown to like their looks, but I much preferred the manual BMW 635CSi my same former school mate had a few years later.
But then in the early 80s a former school-mate picked me up for a night out in one - back then it felt like a rocket-ship, and so smooth and comfortable. Although when we got to a mini-roundabout it's handling limitations and sheer bulk soon became apparent!
As time has gone by I've grown to like their looks, but I much preferred the manual BMW 635CSi my same former school mate had a few years later.
My Old Man always had XJS's through the 1980's. Initially V12s then manual AJ6 versions. His first burnt out on the A38 when it was 10 months old and nearly fried him, thereafter he just lost loads of money on each and every one he owned.. Still absolutely love them - I nearly bought a manual 88' last December, even though I knew it would have been a money pit. Totally illogical but it's that sort of car - nothing else like it.
stickleback123 said:
Nudrev breac said:
From experience of them, could be a problem In the wet. Back end went very easily, like most Jaguars.
If you have lead feet then a car with 440 - 500NM of torque available at practically any engine speed and with instant response to throttle inputs might not be the car for you, that's true. I have never accidentally lost the back end of any of the Jaguars I've had, other than the usual challenges with snow driving on summer tyres.I daresay a knackered one with wonky suspension geometry, dampers that don't damp, and on ditchfinder tyres could be quite a handful though.
DonkeyApple said:
If you look up the 50-70 times for the Jag V12 cars they were startlingly quick for their day. It was something like 2.3 seconds. This was the joy of the 3 speed box. It was also what helped heavy footed punters get it wrong while travelling between 50 and 70 mph.
My XJRS was laugh out loud quick for such an old car once it was locked in 2nd and was above 3k. I was quite surprised that it had little trouble keeping up with a 2006 Audi S3 up a steep-ish motorway slip road, given it's weight and transmission disadvantage. It must have been like the millenium falcon among the Sierras and Cavaliers of 1992. A colleague of mine used to drive these in the 70s and 80s and did say that you could rest assured that unless you came across a genuine supercar you would be the fastest thing around and usually by a very, very long way.
stickleback123 said:
My XJRS was laugh out loud quick for such an old car once it was locked in 2nd and was above 3k. I was quite surprised that it had little trouble keeping up with a 2006 Audi S3 up a steep-ish motorway slip road, given it's weight and transmission disadvantage. It must have been like the millenium falcon among the Sierras and Cavaliers of 1992.
A colleague of mine used to drive these in the 70s and 80s and did say that you could rest assured that unless you came across a genuine supercar you would be the fastest thing around and usually by a very, very long way.
The 928 had the same party trick. Once you were up and running they were absolute rocket ships in their day from about 40-80. A colleague of mine used to drive these in the 70s and 80s and did say that you could rest assured that unless you came across a genuine supercar you would be the fastest thing around and usually by a very, very long way.
Today they are probably the ultimate, out of the box, affordable classic for dispatching the diesel pensioner who blight country A and B roads and ruin many a classic car outing.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff