Discussion
Good motors, the model your looking at will have down turned tailpipes because it hasn`t a DPF which is handy if you do a lot of urban driving.
Check the service history.
Auto boxes can give trouble and although `sealed for life` its worth getting the box oil changed at 60k.
Make sure the car gets up to speed smoothly and both turbos pull well from 2k.
I`ve heard of a chauffeur company who had a couple with 325k on theirs.
Check the service history.
Auto boxes can give trouble and although `sealed for life` its worth getting the box oil changed at 60k.
Make sure the car gets up to speed smoothly and both turbos pull well from 2k.
I`ve heard of a chauffeur company who had a couple with 325k on theirs.
Had 2, the first went from 47-84K in 18months. The one I have now has done 44K & was bought 2 years ago with 15K. Heavy on brakes, but genuine Mintex on EBAy for £75 an end. Not the cheapest to run, but dealers are fantastic which is why they are winning the JD power type stuff. I get 35MPG everywhere but don't drive gently & don't pay for fuel. My last one needed a bush in the rear suspension & a boost pipe. This one at the 3 year service needed odds & sods over & above the service. Ping me a PM & I'll send you the spreadsheets.
26mpg in my old 3.0 S-Type was getting expensive so I changed for a 2006 2.7D with 70K. Now get 40mpg average and totally delighted with it.
Compared to the 3.0 it feels heavier at the front - ie a relative tendency to understeer - and there's noticable lag at low revs when pulling away which can make nipping into gaps at roundabouts go awry - but once it gets going there's no stopping it. A great long distance cruiser with boggling economy - it seems to be more economical at 80 than 55!
Compared to the 3.0 it feels heavier at the front - ie a relative tendency to understeer - and there's noticable lag at low revs when pulling away which can make nipping into gaps at roundabouts go awry - but once it gets going there's no stopping it. A great long distance cruiser with boggling economy - it seems to be more economical at 80 than 55!
Edited by Simpo Two on Sunday 18th July 23:27
Simpo Two said:
26mpg in my old 3.0 S-Type was getting expensive so I changed for a 2006 2.7D with 70K. Now get 40mpg average and totally delighted with it.
Compared to the 3.0 it feels heavier at the front - ie a relative tendency to understeer - and there's noticable lag at low revs when pulling away which can make nipping into gaps at roundabouts go awry - but once it gets going there's no stopping it. A great long distance cruiser with boggling economy - it seems to be more economical at 80 than 55!
Jeez, that seems a bit steep. The missus is getting that from her 4.2 S-Type over the whole working week, including shopping and other errands at the weekend.Compared to the 3.0 it feels heavier at the front - ie a relative tendency to understeer - and there's noticable lag at low revs when pulling away which can make nipping into gaps at roundabouts go awry - but once it gets going there's no stopping it. A great long distance cruiser with boggling economy - it seems to be more economical at 80 than 55!
Edited by Simpo Two on Sunday 18th July 23:27
Have one, and have done so for the last 2 years, and to be honest, they're great. All f my driving is motorway stuff, and regularily get 45mpg plus.
Am just about to get a L200 pickup for work, so the Jag's got to go, which is a shame, as it has been a nice place to sit for the last couple of years. Not sure about replacing it with a truck though!
Am just about to get a L200 pickup for work, so the Jag's got to go, which is a shame, as it has been a nice place to sit for the last couple of years. Not sure about replacing it with a truck though!
Gassing Station | Jaguar | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff




