2009 Jaguar XK
Discussion
Jimbeaux said:
Breadvan have you had any issues with the supercharger? I am trying to decide between XK or XKR. I know there are more options and cosmetics with the XKR, but I’m asking about the engine itself. Thanks!
My main issue with the supercharger is that the car doesn't have a supercharger!Speaking for myself, as an old bloke who wants a GT rather than a hooligan, the NA 385 BHP is super plenty. I have a tiny red mid engined sports car scream machine for the hoolies. The Jag is for wafting across Europe at high speed without spilling my Martini.
OzzyR1 said:
Big hat off to you for taking a Jensen on a European trip, mine was a an exercise in why you should follow your head rather than your heart.
A fond recollection was feeling a reduction in power, if that is possible given the generally torpid nature of the engine despite having over 7 litres at it's disposal.
Check of the pressure and temperature gauges - all is fine. Ten seconds later that lovely chromed radiator cap made a break for freedom, the shape impressed into the bonnet, steam billowing everywhere and still the dials reported all was OK.
Few months later, a falling tree limb broke the rear screen during a storm. The cost to replace that was outrageous even in today's money.
Still miss the old girl though.
Sorry for yer probs, My Jensen was a reliable daily for two years (2010-2012). It was a very early Mark 1, built in December 1969, and had the smaller but better 6.3 litre engine - more power, less weight. I loved that car very much!A fond recollection was feeling a reduction in power, if that is possible given the generally torpid nature of the engine despite having over 7 litres at it's disposal.
Check of the pressure and temperature gauges - all is fine. Ten seconds later that lovely chromed radiator cap made a break for freedom, the shape impressed into the bonnet, steam billowing everywhere and still the dials reported all was OK.
Few months later, a falling tree limb broke the rear screen during a storm. The cost to replace that was outrageous even in today's money.
Still miss the old girl though.
Cliff J said:
I love these. You never really get the proper sense of how big these are in photos unless you park next to another average sIzed car for reference.
The XK feels like a newer more modern step up for myself, I have a 4.4L V8 E64 6 series, hence the interest I show in yours.
Strangely the wheels do look better smaller, I think sometimes a GT car just needs lots of tyre to keep the beefed up muscular look.
I would recommend this model without hesitation to anyone who wants a fast, stylish and comfortable GT. I am getting a lot of satisfaction from this car. A bargain when you compare it to an Aston Martin of similar age.The XK feels like a newer more modern step up for myself, I have a 4.4L V8 E64 6 series, hence the interest I show in yours.
Strangely the wheels do look better smaller, I think sometimes a GT car just needs lots of tyre to keep the beefed up muscular look.
I must get on and sell the old wheels on eBay.
This thread seems like it has the kind of people I like to hang out with. I've always liked the XK, I ended up buying an AM V8V because it has a manual gearbox and I wanted to row my own gears but in hindsight, I should have probably bought one of these because I'd be less paranoid about driving it.
I doubt very much if the 2007+ era XK's have anything to do with the XJS, the replacement to the XJS actually became the Aston Martin DB7 after Ford decided that they wanted to a new Aston Martin and owned both companies. This car probably has a lot more in common with the V8V as they were built in the same era.
I also have a 94 XJS V12 Convertible and a couple of Jensen Interceptor project cars. The goal is to make one good one out of the two.
I doubt very much if the 2007+ era XK's have anything to do with the XJS, the replacement to the XJS actually became the Aston Martin DB7 after Ford decided that they wanted to a new Aston Martin and owned both companies. This car probably has a lot more in common with the V8V as they were built in the same era.
I also have a 94 XJS V12 Convertible and a couple of Jensen Interceptor project cars. The goal is to make one good one out of the two.
The mid 1990s end of line XJS was a great car - my ex had one for a while and it was a good drive. Earlier XJSs are way cool, but more problem prone.
I have had three Jags before - a 1972 (Daimler badged) XJ6, a 1990 XJS, and a 2004 X Type Estate (not as Ford as people say it is, but still a compromise - RWD car on FWD platform). My dad briefly had a manual XJS but it was a rough one. I have also driven 1960s Jag and Daimler saloons, and had one go in an E Type (disappointing). This XK feels proper Jaaaaaaag.
I would love a good early XJ6, or any XJC, or a good late XJS, but cannot afford those!
I have had three Jags before - a 1972 (Daimler badged) XJ6, a 1990 XJS, and a 2004 X Type Estate (not as Ford as people say it is, but still a compromise - RWD car on FWD platform). My dad briefly had a manual XJS but it was a rough one. I have also driven 1960s Jag and Daimler saloons, and had one go in an E Type (disappointing). This XK feels proper Jaaaaaaag.
I would love a good early XJ6, or any XJC, or a good late XJS, but cannot afford those!
Breadvan72 said:
My dad briefly had a manual XJS but it was a rough one. I have also driven 1960s Jag and Daimler saloons, and had one go in an E Type (disappointing). This XK feels proper Jaaaaaaag.
I recently sold an 86 XJ-SC with a 5 speed manual. It went to Norway. I also have a 75 XJ12C. It's been partially dismantled since I had it painted a couple of years ago. I should get back on it. The nice thing about cars that have lived in Texas all their life is that there is zero rust on any of them.
Jimbeaux said:
Piersman2 said:
Jimbeaux said:
Breadvan72 said:
PS: I think that it may have been the XK8 that had some XJS underpinnings (just as a DB7 has). I like the elegant shape of the XK8, but if I am going to battle rust I would rather do it on something that has a proper Jaaaaaag straight six rather than a somewhat Fordy V8. I shun V12s because they have twice the hassles of sixes. But a good XK8 is now 5K, whereas a good XJS is 15K or more.
I love my AJ16 straight six in my XJS but iirc, the 5.0 in the XKs are not “Fordy”, are they? Maybe the 4.2 before?
Cracking engines though, the 5.0 S/C particularly, both my current cars have this engine, immense oomph when you want it.
General issues with these engines can be the water pumps being a bit weak and there seems to be some concerns on line about chains/tensioners causing issues but strangely that seems to be more related to the XFR use than XKR, maybe just becuase more XFRs were built?
Anyways, my Range Rover 5.0 S/C is on 120k miles and needed 1 water pump, and my XKR 5.0 S/C is on 100k and I've had to replace the coupler. I've done maybe 30k miles in the RR and about 20K in the Jag.
Stuart70 said:
Jimbeaux said:
Breadvan have you had any issues with the supercharger? I am trying to decide between XK or XKR. I know there are more options and cosmetics with the XKR, but I’m asking about the engine itself. Thanks!
Not BV72, but I ran an XFR with the same engine for 3 years and 40k miles. Engine was perfect: immense and sonorous. It never needed anything other than servicing. Window regulators and minor electrical items were less impressive; but that does not impact your choice. Breadvan72 said:
Jimbeaux said:
Breadvan have you had any issues with the supercharger? I am trying to decide between XK or XKR. I know there are more options and cosmetics with the XKR, but I’m asking about the engine itself. Thanks!
My main issue with the supercharger is that the car doesn't have a supercharger!Speaking for myself, as an old bloke who wants a GT rather than a hooligan, the NA 385 BHP is super plenty. I have a tiny red mid engined sports car scream machine for the hoolies. The Jag is for wafting across Europe at high speed without spilling my Martini.
That’s good though; you gave me an NA report to go with Stuart’s SC version. Thanks guys!
Breadvan72 said:
The mid 1990s end of line XJS was a great car - my ex had one for a while and it was a good drive. Earlier XJSs are way cool, but more problem prone.
I have had three Jags before - a 1972 (Daimler badged) XJ6, a 1990 XJS, and a 2004 X Type Estate (not as Ford as people say it is, but still a compromise - RWD car on FWD platform). My dad briefly had a manual XJS but it was a rough one. I have also driven 1960s Jag and Daimler saloons, and had one go in an E Type (disappointing). This XK feels proper Jaaaaaaag.
I would love a good early XJ6, or any XJC, or a good late XJS, but cannot afford those!
Someone would have to pull a gun (faster than I do) to get my XJS; love that car. The 1995 is rock solid IMO. I’ve driven it since 2007 with no issues. I have had three Jags before - a 1972 (Daimler badged) XJ6, a 1990 XJS, and a 2004 X Type Estate (not as Ford as people say it is, but still a compromise - RWD car on FWD platform). My dad briefly had a manual XJS but it was a rough one. I have also driven 1960s Jag and Daimler saloons, and had one go in an E Type (disappointing). This XK feels proper Jaaaaaaag.
I would love a good early XJ6, or any XJC, or a good late XJS, but cannot afford those!
Even the boggo NA version is a lovely engine. Makes a good noise when you want it to, quiet when you want to waft. Very responsive on the throttle, and stupid speeds easily achieved. I keep trying to out drive the autobox by using the paddles on the steering wheel, but keep giving up.
The MPG is great for such a big engine - the lightness of aluminium helps, but the engine itself is way greener (in relative terms) than the old sixes were. So, Greta might be a bit pissed off at you, but she won't be really cross as she would be if you were in some Chelsea Tractor.
The MPG is great for such a big engine - the lightness of aluminium helps, but the engine itself is way greener (in relative terms) than the old sixes were. So, Greta might be a bit pissed off at you, but she won't be really cross as she would be if you were in some Chelsea Tractor.
Piersman2 said:
BV2's isn't the S/C version so I'll answer your question based on what I've seen. Main issue with S/C specifically is the isolating coupler that sits inside the S/C snout, it can get a bit worn and start knocking. I replaced mine at about 80k miles, there's a kit that can be bought from Jaguar to replace the snout and coupler. Other than that they seem indesctructible.
General issues with these engines can be the water pumps being a bit weak and there seems to be some concerns on line about chains/tensioners causing issues but strangely that seems to be more related to the XFR use than XKR, maybe just becuase more XFRs were built?
Anyways, my Range Rover 5.0 S/C is on 120k miles and needed 1 water pump, and my XKR 5.0 S/C is on 100k and I've had to replace the coupler. I've done maybe 30k miles in the RR and about 20K in the Jag.
Thank you sir; that is all helpful data for me. General issues with these engines can be the water pumps being a bit weak and there seems to be some concerns on line about chains/tensioners causing issues but strangely that seems to be more related to the XFR use than XKR, maybe just becuase more XFRs were built?
Anyways, my Range Rover 5.0 S/C is on 120k miles and needed 1 water pump, and my XKR 5.0 S/C is on 100k and I've had to replace the coupler. I've done maybe 30k miles in the RR and about 20K in the Jag.
Jimbeaux said:
Someone would have to pull a gun (faster than I do) to get my XJS; love that car. The 1995 is rock solid IMO. I’ve driven it since 2007 with no issues.
Buying an end of range car often a great idea - all the problems sorted. Jag was having a good mid 90s. My friend in Toronto has a glorious late XJS in a gold colour. I have been tempted by the more affordable 90s XJ6s, but have not succumbed - I'd want an earlier one.
Breadvan72 said:
Even the boggo NA version is a lovely engine. Makes a good noise when you want it to, quiet when you want to waft. Very responsive on the throttle, and stupid speeds easily achieved. I keep trying to out drive the autobox by using the paddles on the steering wheel, but keep giving up.
The MPG is great for such a big engine - the lightness of aluminium helps, but the engine itself is way greener (in relative terms) than the old sixes were. So, Greta might be a bit pissed off at you, but she won't be really cross as she would be if you were in some Chelsea Tractor.
I have always leaned toward NA as I’m an old school grumpy too. The MPG is great for such a big engine - the lightness of aluminium helps, but the engine itself is way greener (in relative terms) than the old sixes were. So, Greta might be a bit pissed off at you, but she won't be really cross as she would be if you were in some Chelsea Tractor.
My wife and I just drove about 12 hours from Louisiana to Florida to see the MIL in our SLK 350. Great car but for trips like that I imagine the XK would be far more comfy.
Gassing Station | Readers' Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff