Discussion
Just felt like chiming in - My 1995 XJS 4.0L XJ16 is doing remarkably well after a couple of years (knock on wood). 
AT about 100K, the straight 6 will happily kick in at about 70MPH and quietly climb to 100+ with little fuss, passing many a riceboys' homemade eyesores while maintaining an aire of dignity. 
I have done various "just to be safe" services upon acquiring her, regular services afterwards. I think I bought a specimen at just the right window in time. ETA: Oh, and there is NOTHING that looks like this car.
AT about 100K, the straight 6 will happily kick in at about 70MPH and quietly climb to 100+ with little fuss, passing many a riceboys' homemade eyesores while maintaining an aire of dignity. I have done various "just to be safe" services upon acquiring her, regular services afterwards. I think I bought a specimen at just the right window in time. ETA: Oh, and there is NOTHING that looks like this car. Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 24th November 03:30
The AJ16 in my X300 continues to be beautifully smooth too. Last of the line of the great Jaguar straight sixes. I've had mine for 12.5 years now, still can't find anything I'd rather have as a daily, but I still sometime regret not having bought one of the Celebration XJSs at the time.
a8hex said:
The AJ16 in my X300 continues to be beautifully smooth too. Last of the line of the great Jaguar straight sixes. I've had mine for 12.5 years now, still can't find anything I'd rather have as a daily, but I still sometime regret not having bought one of the Celebration XJSs at the time.
True, that would have been a good move. Hindsight is 20/20, etc. 1995/96 are the only two years that XJSs had an AJ16. Of those two years, only 1995 had the coupe (hardtop). I did not know this when I bought it, I found out later that only about 348 of these were made. Pretty nice surprise.
I'd have bought the convertible.
We test drove one at the local dealer. I'd just parked my Celica GT4 in a ditch (better than someone else's boot) and was looking to buy an X300. We went to look at one at the dealer in Burnham and sitting next to it was this lovely look V12 XJS converitble, a 92 or 93 model. The misses fell in love. All the years I'd known her she would come up with reasons why I couldn't have an open top sports car and all of a sudden all these objections melted away. So we arranged a test drive. But on that day it was raining, so rather than taking the car out of the showroom straight away the salesman suggested we tried the new demonstrator. We both loved that, so we went back to try the V12, I got 50 yards up the road before saying I thought there was something wrong with the wheel balance. The salesman said "No, they all do that" so I gave up and didn't but it. The misses didn't want to spend the money he wanted for the demonstrator, but that was just a psychologically thing.
I now think the salesman was wrong. I've felt the exact same problem on various XK8 convertibles (and other makes) that have stood for a while. I often used to get them as rentals out of SFO and they'd often feel like the front wheels were imbalanced for the first 5 or 10 minutes. The rest of the week they'd be perfect.
We test drove one at the local dealer. I'd just parked my Celica GT4 in a ditch (better than someone else's boot) and was looking to buy an X300. We went to look at one at the dealer in Burnham and sitting next to it was this lovely look V12 XJS converitble, a 92 or 93 model. The misses fell in love. All the years I'd known her she would come up with reasons why I couldn't have an open top sports car and all of a sudden all these objections melted away. So we arranged a test drive. But on that day it was raining, so rather than taking the car out of the showroom straight away the salesman suggested we tried the new demonstrator. We both loved that, so we went back to try the V12, I got 50 yards up the road before saying I thought there was something wrong with the wheel balance. The salesman said "No, they all do that" so I gave up and didn't but it. The misses didn't want to spend the money he wanted for the demonstrator, but that was just a psychologically thing.
I now think the salesman was wrong. I've felt the exact same problem on various XK8 convertibles (and other makes) that have stood for a while. I often used to get them as rentals out of SFO and they'd often feel like the front wheels were imbalanced for the first 5 or 10 minutes. The rest of the week they'd be perfect.
??? What about the 1996 4.0 coupes? I appreciate (like mine registered Jan 1996) they may have been made in 95 but surely not all of 'em. One or two even had P plates I think.
Jimbeaux said:
1995/96 are the only two years that XJSs had an AJ16. Of those two years, only 1995 had the coupe (hardtop). I did not know this when I bought it, I found out later that only about 348 of these were made. Pretty nice surprise.
x200sxy said:
??? What about the 1996 4.0 coupes? I appreciate (like mine registered Jan 1996) they may have been made in 95 but surely not all of 'em. One or two even had P plates I think.
Not sure; I read somewhere that all AJ16 coupes were of 1995 manufacture. I will check. Jimbeaux said:
1995/96 are the only two years that XJSs had an AJ16. Of those two years, only 1995 had the coupe (hardtop). I did not know this when I bought it, I found out later that only about 348 of these were made. Pretty nice surprise.
ETA: I cannot determine if the 1996 4.0 coupes were all built in 1995, thus limiting their number or are all 1996 coupes "celebration" models. I am now confused.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 24th November 16:00
I adore the AJ16 in my XJR its power delivery is just sublime, but without wanting to sound like a prick I can't imagine having anything except the 12 dancers under the bonnet of my S. I can't describe what I'm trying to say just that an XJS should be a V12.
The XJS was the last of a very special breed, the end of Jaguars big Sports Grand Tourers. When Jaguar released the 3.6l version it was always considered as a compromise, sort of a poor mans version. If economy was the issue then they should have built a bloody diesel...God forbid.
Granted that when touring France last year in the S a major consideration was the fuel economy (or lack of it
) and its subsequent range isn't exactly worthy of pub bragging rights, but the feeling when planting my foot on the Autoroutes was just wonderful, no cartoons running around my head having to listen with increased paranoia to every rattle and hum from the engine (unlike when nailing the Cerbera)making cruising at big leptons was an absolute joy.
The AJ16 is an awesome power plant but like its 6 cyl predecessors IMO should have remained in the saloon cars.
The XJS was the last of a very special breed, the end of Jaguars big Sports Grand Tourers. When Jaguar released the 3.6l version it was always considered as a compromise, sort of a poor mans version. If economy was the issue then they should have built a bloody diesel...God forbid.
Granted that when touring France last year in the S a major consideration was the fuel economy (or lack of it
) and its subsequent range isn't exactly worthy of pub bragging rights, but the feeling when planting my foot on the Autoroutes was just wonderful, no cartoons running around my head having to listen with increased paranoia to every rattle and hum from the engine (unlike when nailing the Cerbera)making cruising at big leptons was an absolute joy.The AJ16 is an awesome power plant but like its 6 cyl predecessors IMO should have remained in the saloon cars.
Cooky said:
I adore the AJ16 in my XJR its power delivery is just sublime, but without wanting to sound like a prick I can't imagine having anything except the 12 dancers under the bonnet of my S. I can't describe what I'm trying to say just that an XJS should be a V12.
The XJS was the last of a very special breed, the end of Jaguars big Sports Grand Tourers. When Jaguar released the 3.6l version it was always considered as a compromise, sort of a poor mans version. If economy was the issue then they should have built a bloody diesel...God forbid.
Granted that when touring France last year in the S a major consideration was the fuel economy (or lack of it ) and its subsequent range isn't exactly worthy of pub bragging rights, but the feeling when planting my foot on the Autoroutes was just wonderful, no cartoons running around my head having to listen with increased paranoia to every rattle and hum from the engine (unlike when nailing the Cerbera)making cruising at big leptons was an absolute joy.
The AJ16 is an awesome power plant but like its 6 cyl predecessors IMO should have remained in the saloon cars.
I understand, but from a performance standpoint, the extra six bangers in the 12 did little to enhance apart from top end.The XJS was the last of a very special breed, the end of Jaguars big Sports Grand Tourers. When Jaguar released the 3.6l version it was always considered as a compromise, sort of a poor mans version. If economy was the issue then they should have built a bloody diesel...God forbid.
Granted that when touring France last year in the S a major consideration was the fuel economy (or lack of it
) and its subsequent range isn't exactly worthy of pub bragging rights, but the feeling when planting my foot on the Autoroutes was just wonderful, no cartoons running around my head having to listen with increased paranoia to every rattle and hum from the engine (unlike when nailing the Cerbera)making cruising at big leptons was an absolute joy.The AJ16 is an awesome power plant but like its 6 cyl predecessors IMO should have remained in the saloon cars.
P e r f o r m a n c e D e t a i l s
Engine BHP MPG Fuel Ins Service 0-60 Top Speed
3.6i 24v/6 225/ 24/ 4-Star/UL 18 / 6000 Miles / 7.5 Secs /141 m.p.h
4.0i 24v/6 223-237 24-26 UL 18-19 6000 Miles / 6.9 Secs /147 m.p.h
5.3i/V12 286-299 19-22 4-Star/UL 18-19 6000 Miles / 7.8 Secs/ 147 m.p.h
6.0/V12 318 19 UL 19 6000 Miles / 6.6 Secs /161 m.p.h
Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 24th November 17:39
Well I was perfectly happy with the 3.6l I had (until it rusted away). Performance-wise it was perfectly happy up to and slightly beyond legal speeds, and I used to regularly annoy a bloke in an Aston DB7 v12 by being quicker off a roundabout and off up a hill on the dual-carriageway between Milton Keynes and Leighton. Saw him one or two days a week for a few months, and never grew tired of passing him (he always glared at me when I did this!)
I love our old V12 XJS. The only problem I have is keeping one step ahead of the tinworm and keeping the keys out of my Father's clutches. I did have a 3.6 at one point and liked how sprightly it felt, but it did have the rear anti roll bar on it and the stiffer springs.
I've been looking at putting an AJ16 4.0 litre into a 1977 Series 2 XJ6 I have for the benefit of classic looks and performance.
Ric
I've been looking at putting an AJ16 4.0 litre into a 1977 Series 2 XJ6 I have for the benefit of classic looks and performance.
Ric
richw_82 said:
I love our old V12 XJS. The only problem I have is keeping one step ahead of the tinworm and keeping the keys out of my Father's clutches. I did have a 3.6 at one point and liked how sprightly it felt, but it did have the rear anti roll bar on it and the stiffer springs.
I've been looking at putting an AJ16 4.0 litre into a 1977 Series 2 XJ6 I have for the benefit of classic looks and performance.
Ric
I am lucky in the rust department. In the 1992 and up, Ford began galvanizing the things. My '95 has no rust. I've been looking at putting an AJ16 4.0 litre into a 1977 Series 2 XJ6 I have for the benefit of classic looks and performance.
Ric
The AJ16 is great; putting one in your '77 would be a good move IMO.
Jimbeaux,
The figures you posted speak for themselves, pure common sense denotes the AJ16 is far superior in many ways. The V12 is a big lazy monster of an engine. Do you have comparative torque figures?, that would be interesting to see.
It would also make interesting reading comparing the two engines in race guise, I seem to recall the xj220 was originally designed to run the V12 until it was found to be in contravention of US emission laws.
I was in no way trying to belittle the later version of the XJS, I was just making a poor attempt at saying 'the cars an icon' and as such its about the marriage of the big V12 and the sleek (ahead of it's time) styling. For me what makes the XJS so special is what is actually is...'the sum of its parts'
The figures you posted speak for themselves, pure common sense denotes the AJ16 is far superior in many ways. The V12 is a big lazy monster of an engine. Do you have comparative torque figures?, that would be interesting to see.
It would also make interesting reading comparing the two engines in race guise, I seem to recall the xj220 was originally designed to run the V12 until it was found to be in contravention of US emission laws.
I was in no way trying to belittle the later version of the XJS, I was just making a poor attempt at saying 'the cars an icon' and as such its about the marriage of the big V12 and the sleek (ahead of it's time) styling. For me what makes the XJS so special is what is actually is...'the sum of its parts'
Cooky said:
Jimbeaux,
The figures you posted speak for themselves, pure common sense denotes the AJ16 is far superior in many ways. The V12 is a big lazy monster of an engine. Do you have comparative torque figures?, that would be interesting to see.
It would also make interesting reading comparing the two engines in race guise, I seem to recall the xj220 was originally designed to run the V12 until it was found to be in contravention of US emission laws.
I was in no way trying to belittle the later version of the XJS, I was just making a poor attempt at saying 'the cars an icon' and as such its about the marriage of the big V12 and the sleek (ahead of it's time) styling. For me what makes the XJS so special is what is actually is...'the sum of its parts'
Great points; I totally agree! :thumbsup: The iconic"ness" counts for plenty in classic rides. The figures you posted speak for themselves, pure common sense denotes the AJ16 is far superior in many ways. The V12 is a big lazy monster of an engine. Do you have comparative torque figures?, that would be interesting to see.
It would also make interesting reading comparing the two engines in race guise, I seem to recall the xj220 was originally designed to run the V12 until it was found to be in contravention of US emission laws.
I was in no way trying to belittle the later version of the XJS, I was just making a poor attempt at saying 'the cars an icon' and as such its about the marriage of the big V12 and the sleek (ahead of it's time) styling. For me what makes the XJS so special is what is actually is...'the sum of its parts'
The lazyness of the V12 also benefits the longevity by being understressed. Good point in pointing out the race versions. I am sure that the V12 has far more potential to tap into in the modding arena.Cooky said:
Jimbeaux,
, I seem to recall the xj220 was originally designed to run the V12 until it was found to be in contravention of US emission laws.
Nothing to do with the US or their laws,It wasnt meant to be sold to them.V12 in the prototype was too long and they still needed space in the area between the cockpit and engine for fuel tank.To find space and reduce length rather than increase it, they opted for V6...I should imagine cost may have been a factor as well., I seem to recall the xj220 was originally designed to run the V12 until it was found to be in contravention of US emission laws.
Gassing Station | Jaguar | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff