Just how slow is a 2.9 XJ40?
Discussion
i dont think my 3.2 is fast enough, 125mph isnt great and it really revs when you overtake and it kicks down, not the easy power you want from a Jag, im gonna buy a 4 litre when i find the one i want, possibly im a bit biased though as my last cortine had a 200bhp V6 in it and it weighed 600kgs less so the Jag feels ponderous.
mat1227 said:
Had just seen a particularly good one - it's the 'effortless' angle. I find most compelling. Thanks all 
Fair enough mate, but a particularly good 2.9 is still not a particularly good XJ40.The AJ16 engine is far more reliable, pokier and better on fuel. And, as someone else stated before, the 2.9s are early cars which have a number of reliability issues besides the head gasket/timing chain engine troubles.
Look for the latest model you can afford as build quality improved considerably once ford had taken over.
oversteerxj12 said:
The AJ16 engine is far more reliable, pokier and better on fuel.
The 3.2 AJ16 engine is a peach.It's very smooth and has enough grunt to give the raft factor you expect from a Jag. When I drive a mates 3.5L BMW V8 I couldn't believe how much harder you had to work it and it still didn't produce the results of the 3.2 straight six Jag.
a8hex said:
oversteerxj12 said:
The AJ16 engine is far more reliable, pokier and better on fuel.
The 3.2 AJ16 engine is a peach.It's very smooth and has enough grunt to give the raft factor you expect from a Jag. When I drive a mates 3.5L BMW V8 I couldn't believe how much harder you had to work it and it still didn't produce the results of the 3.2 straight six Jag.
Jimbeaux said:
a8hex said:
oversteerxj12 said:
The AJ16 engine is far more reliable, pokier and better on fuel.
The 3.2 AJ16 engine is a peach.It's very smooth and has enough grunt to give the raft factor you expect from a Jag. When I drive a mates 3.5L BMW V8 I couldn't believe how much harder you had to work it and it still didn't produce the results of the 3.2 straight six Jag.
The AJ16 engine was introduced with the X300 models and was subsequently also fitted to the XJS (in 4L guise only). The AJ16 was produced in 3 versions, the 3.2, 4.0NA and 4.0SC (AJ16S).
To the best of my knowledge the AJ16 wasn't fitted to production a XJ40.
a8hex said:
Jimbeaux said:
a8hex said:
oversteerxj12 said:
The AJ16 engine is far more reliable, pokier and better on fuel.
The 3.2 AJ16 engine is a peach.It's very smooth and has enough grunt to give the raft factor you expect from a Jag. When I drive a mates 3.5L BMW V8 I couldn't believe how much harder you had to work it and it still didn't produce the results of the 3.2 straight six Jag.
The AJ16 engine was introduced with the X300 models and was subsequently also fitted to the XJS (in 4L guise only). The AJ16 was produced in 3 versions, the 3.2, 4.0NA and 4.0SC (AJ16S).
To the best of my knowledge the AJ16 wasn't fitted to production a XJ40.
This from Wiki:
"AJ16
Both the 3.2 and 4.0 were substantially revised for the 1995 launch of the new X300 saloon. These are the "AJ16" engines, both now featuring coil-on-plug distributorless ignition, new engine management systems, magnesium alloy valve covers, revised pistons and other detail changes. The AJ16 was discontinued with the launch of the AJ-V8 (XK8 and XJ8 in 1996/7)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_AJ6_engine
Sorry guys! I got mixed up with engine codes etc.
All XJ40s had AJ6 engines (except v12s obviously). The 2.9 had a single overhead cam whereas the 3.2, 3.6 and 4.0 all had double overhead cams. The single cam 2.9 suffers with timing chain and head gasket issues and uses more fuel for less power than the 3.2 and doesn't do much better than the 3.6.
2.9 and 3.6 were fitted to earler cars where build quality can be an issue, whereas later 3.2 and 4.0 cars were built under ford management where quality was much improved. Seeing as though all models from all years can be had for peanuts then it seems non-sensical to go for an older model.
All XJ40s had AJ6 engines (except v12s obviously). The 2.9 had a single overhead cam whereas the 3.2, 3.6 and 4.0 all had double overhead cams. The single cam 2.9 suffers with timing chain and head gasket issues and uses more fuel for less power than the 3.2 and doesn't do much better than the 3.6.
2.9 and 3.6 were fitted to earler cars where build quality can be an issue, whereas later 3.2 and 4.0 cars were built under ford management where quality was much improved. Seeing as though all models from all years can be had for peanuts then it seems non-sensical to go for an older model.
a8hex said:
I'm sure somewhere in my filing cabinet I've got the Jaguar brochure about the X300, I was looking to buy a new one when they were out. My X300 is a very early example registered in Nov 94.
It may well have been in the X300 as well, but the AJ16 only came for two years and in 4.0L. I do not often argue about such engine specifics as I am often incorrect. However, I am very sure I am correct on this one. Edited by Jimbeaux on Sunday 27th December 19:04
Hi Jim,
It's just occurred to me, you're out States side, so you'll only have had the 4L version. In Europe the X300 was available with both the 3.2 and 4L sizes and all 6 cylinder X300s have AJ16 engines. The 4L version also shipped in the XJS. I'm pretty certain that the 3.2 didn't get exported to the US market where a 4L engine isn't viewed as large.
It's just occurred to me, you're out States side, so you'll only have had the 4L version. In Europe the X300 was available with both the 3.2 and 4L sizes and all 6 cylinder X300s have AJ16 engines. The 4L version also shipped in the XJS. I'm pretty certain that the 3.2 didn't get exported to the US market where a 4L engine isn't viewed as large.
a8hex said:
Hi Jim,
It's just occurred to me, you're out States side, so you'll only have had the 4L version. In Europe the X300 was available with both the 3.2 and 4L sizes and all 6 cylinder X300s have AJ16 engines. The 4L version also shipped in the XJS. I'm pretty certain that the 3.2 didn't get exported to the US market where a 4L engine isn't viewed as large.
That could well be; thanks! It's just occurred to me, you're out States side, so you'll only have had the 4L version. In Europe the X300 was available with both the 3.2 and 4L sizes and all 6 cylinder X300s have AJ16 engines. The 4L version also shipped in the XJS. I'm pretty certain that the 3.2 didn't get exported to the US market where a 4L engine isn't viewed as large.
There were IIRC over 200 revisions to the AJ6 engine when it was re named AJ16 and fitted to the X300 and XJS. It's actually a much nicer engine, and far quieter under load then the AJ6 which has always sounded a bit gruff to me.
When the AJ6 was introduced in the XJS I thought it was an awful engine compared the XK 6 cyl in the Series XJ's it was eventually to replace. I remember driving a customer's 4.2 Series 3 auto and then getting straight into a XJS 3.6 manual and couldn't believe how dog-rough it was in comparison. I used to regularly drive the bosses Audi 100 with the 5 cylinder motor at the time too which was - compared to the 6 cyl AJ6 - absolutely lovely. The Audi lump had bucketloads of torque and was creamily smooth at any engine speed and it sounded fantastic when winding it up to the red line. It had an almost explosive throttle response and absolutely begged to be thrashed, exactly the opposite to the AJ6 which although it was quite torquey, had little top end power and just got noisier and rougher the harder you reved it.
When the AJ6 was introduced in the XJS I thought it was an awful engine compared the XK 6 cyl in the Series XJ's it was eventually to replace. I remember driving a customer's 4.2 Series 3 auto and then getting straight into a XJS 3.6 manual and couldn't believe how dog-rough it was in comparison. I used to regularly drive the bosses Audi 100 with the 5 cylinder motor at the time too which was - compared to the 6 cyl AJ6 - absolutely lovely. The Audi lump had bucketloads of torque and was creamily smooth at any engine speed and it sounded fantastic when winding it up to the red line. It had an almost explosive throttle response and absolutely begged to be thrashed, exactly the opposite to the AJ6 which although it was quite torquey, had little top end power and just got noisier and rougher the harder you reved it.
Jaguar steve said:
There were IIRC over 200 revisions to the AJ6 engine when it was re named AJ16 and fitted to the X300 and XJS. It's actually a much nicer engine, and far quieter under load then the AJ6 which has always sounded a bit gruff to me.
When the AJ6 was introduced in the XJS I thought it was an awful engine compared the XK 6 cyl in the Series XJ's it was eventually to replace. I remember driving a customer's 4.2 Series 3 auto and then getting straight into a XJS 3.6 manual and couldn't believe how dog-rough it was in comparison. I used to regularly drive the bosses Audi 100 with the 5 cylinder motor at the time too which was - compared to the 6 cyl AJ6 - absolutely lovely. The Audi lump had bucketloads of torque and was creamily smooth at any engine speed and it sounded fantastic when winding it up to the red line. It had an almost explosive throttle response and absolutely begged to be thrashed, exactly the opposite to the AJ6 which although it was quite torquey, had little top end power and just got noisier and rougher the harder you reved it.
So, the AJ16 is decidedly more desireable than the AJ6?When the AJ6 was introduced in the XJS I thought it was an awful engine compared the XK 6 cyl in the Series XJ's it was eventually to replace. I remember driving a customer's 4.2 Series 3 auto and then getting straight into a XJS 3.6 manual and couldn't believe how dog-rough it was in comparison. I used to regularly drive the bosses Audi 100 with the 5 cylinder motor at the time too which was - compared to the 6 cyl AJ6 - absolutely lovely. The Audi lump had bucketloads of torque and was creamily smooth at any engine speed and it sounded fantastic when winding it up to the red line. It had an almost explosive throttle response and absolutely begged to be thrashed, exactly the opposite to the AJ6 which although it was quite torquey, had little top end power and just got noisier and rougher the harder you reved it.
Gassing Station | Jaguar | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff