XJ220's value?

[SSpongey]

Hey guys,

I have always been a big fan of the 222mph Jag. I may even say it's a "top 10". I had just got thinking, are they half affordable now? It's been over fifteen years since they were announced.

£400,000 new IIRC, surely they are nowhere near that now?

Tah,

[deevlash]

£100k for the interior from a granada and the engine out of a metro. Stupid things.

[SSpongey]

deevlash said:

£100k for the interior from a granada and the engine out of a metro. Stupid things.

I wouldn't call it stupid. It's faster than anything of the same age. From what I know, the interior is actually quite luxurious.

[rudecherub]

SSpongey said:

deevlash said:

£100k for the interior from a granada and the engine out of a metro. Stupid things.

I wouldn't call it stupid. It's faster than anything of the same age. From what I know, the interior is actually quite luxurious.

I've said this a couple of times, but look at Bugatti super sport.

Look at the XJ220.

See the price differential, what is it going to cost to swap that metro engine for something say LS7 putting out 1000 bhp+ ?

In a car already designed for 220 mph,...

[Gompo]

Generally £100k+ as said, but I seem to think one 'sold' at auction for a fair bit less, maybe closer to £70k, a few years ago.

[deevlash]

SSpongey said:

deevlash said:

£100k for the interior from a granada and the engine out of a metro. Stupid things.

I wouldn't call it stupid. It's faster than anything of the same age. From what I know, the interior is actually quite luxurious.

Luxurious in the same way burger king is gourmet?

[Carfolio]

rudecherub said:

SSpongey said:

deevlash said:

£100k for the interior from a granada and the engine out of a metro. Stupid things.

I wouldn't call it stupid. It's faster than anything of the same age. From what I know, the interior is actually quite luxurious.

I've said this a couple of times, but look at Bugatti super sport.

Look at the XJ220.

See the price differential, what is it going to cost to swap that metro engine for something say LS7 putting out 1000 bhp+ ?

In a car already designed for 220 mph,...

You still won't have a Bugatti SS and you'd have fked up an XJ220.

[williamp]

deevlash said:

SSpongey said:

deevlash said:

£100k for the interior from a granada and the engine out of a metro. Stupid things.

I wouldn't call it stupid. It's faster than anything of the same age. From what I know, the interior is actually quite luxurious.

Luxurious in the same way burger king is gourmet?

Six. Count 'em SIX air vents!!! Now thats luxury.

Compare it to others of the same age: Porsche 959. Not as fast, not as luxurious.
Ferrari F40. Not as fast, very basic inside. Ferrari F50. Not as fast, very basic inside. Bugatti EB110: not as fast, not as nice inside

Besides, why does it have to be luxurious? Its a genuine 217mph car. More if the track wasnt as banked. Why do you want masses of luxury?

And cut the crap with the "engine from a Metro". You know it isnt true. A metro 6R4 IS NOT A METRO. And the engine in the Jaguar is only loosely based on the 6R4 engine.

[rudecherub]

Carfolio said:

rudecherub said:

SSpongey said:

deevlash said:

£100k for the interior from a granada and the engine out of a metro. Stupid things.

I wouldn't call it stupid. It's faster than anything of the same age. From what I know, the interior is actually quite luxurious.

I've said this a couple of times, but look at Bugatti super sport.

Look at the XJ220.

See the price differential, what is it going to cost to swap that metro engine for something say LS7 putting out 1000 bhp+ ?

In a car already designed for 220 mph,...

You still won't have a Bugatti SS and you'd have fked up an XJ220.

lol, so every engine swap ruins a car, I guess the metro V6 is such a special motor?

This is a car you can still buy with delivery miles on them because they just didn't sell.

No. you won't have a Bugatti and that's the fricking point. What you will have is something a damn sight better looking, a damn sight cheaper, that you can run on tyres and wheels etc that you don't have to buy from VAG at huge cost.

Plus it would still be a better car than the Aeromax.

Private Jet vs Bugatti, the former is cheaper to run. If you want to join the 250mph club I don't see a more cost effective way, and with the spare change you could still run a fleet of supercars.

[deevlash]

williamp said:

deevlash said:

SSpongey said:

deevlash said:

£100k for the interior from a granada and the engine out of a metro. Stupid things.

I wouldn't call it stupid. It's faster than anything of the same age. From what I know, the interior is actually quite luxurious.

Luxurious in the same way burger king is gourmet?

Six. Count 'em SIX air vents!!! Now thats luxury.

Compare it to others of the same age: Porsche 959. Not as fast, not as luxurious.
Ferrari F40. Not as fast, very basic inside. Ferrari F50. Not as fast, very basic inside. Bugatti EB110: not as fast, not as nice inside

Besides, why does it have to be luxurious? Its a genuine 217mph car. More if the track wasnt as banked. Why do you want masses of luxury?

And cut the crap with the "engine from a Metro". You know it isnt true. A metro 6R4 IS NOT A METRO. And the engine in the Jaguar is only loosely based on the 6R4 engine.

The engine deserves to have the piss ripped out of it, the whole project was mess, they even let Tom Walkinshaw bullst them into accepting the metro engine with his bks excuses so he could get the v12 for his own supercar. The f40 and f50 interiors arent meant to be luxurious, theyre both great. The Bugatti is rank, I'll give you that but the 959 interior is far better


Plus as we all know it was only the fastest car for about 5 minutes until the F1 came out, stole the Jags dinner money and pulled its pants down.

[rudecherub]

deevlash said:

The engine deserves to have the piss ripped out of it, the whole project was mess, they even let Tom Walkinshaw bullst them into accepting the metro engine with his bks excuses so he could get the v12 for his own supercar. The f40 and f50 interiors arent meant to be luxurious, theyre both great. The Bugatti is rank, I'll give you that but the 959 interior is far better

No the 959 isn't far better, if anything it's much the same, being of the same period, just very 911 - except the leather is better in the xj220, those 959 seats are rank.

I agree the project wasn't what Jaguar promised, and the car was too big ( at least for UK roads ) and not as fast or as focused as an F1.

But it's still a fabulous shape, to my eyes the best looking of it's peers and ultimately very focused, very light, and that truck sized width makes it a very stable 200 mph + platform.

[williamp]

Ahh yes width. The other reason why the XJ220 is "rubbish"

Accoridng to that well known in ternet encyclopedia, the XJ220 is 79.2in wide.

Huge? Well, the Ferrari F40 is quoted as 78in, the F50 as 78.2in wide, and the current large Ferrari, the 599 as a 77.2

Wide? Not really at the time, and certainly not really now.

For years I have been conveinced that if anyone other then Jaguira had made the car, it would be revereed for the speed icon it really is. But because its british. And Jaguar, its a "silly" car, "too big" and "too powerful" for the roads.

[andyps]

I don't know about an XJ220 being cheap, but to refer to it as a Metro engine is hardly fair, Metros had A-Series engines, and the XJ220 definitely didn't have one of those. What it had was basically a bespoke race engine. If you want more performance, however, try this - http://www.motorsport-sales.com/index.php?main_pag... - shamelessly stolen from another thread on this forum

[williamp]

I'm a big fan (does it show???) In fact, often I feel I am the only fan, banging the drum and walking against the crowd.

[rudecherub]

williamp said:

Ahh yes width. The other reason why the XJ220 is "rubbish"

Accoridng to that well known in ternet encyclopedia, the XJ220 is 79.2in wide.

Huge? Well, the Ferrari F40 is quoted as 78in, the F50 as 78.2in wide, and the current large Ferrari, the 599 as a 77.2

Wide? Not really at the time, and certainly not really now.

For years I have been conveinced that if anyone other then Jaguira had made the car, it would be revereed for the speed icon it really is. But because its british. And Jaguar, its a "silly" car, "too big" and "too powerful" for the roads.

In defence of the too wide thing, all of those cars you mention are really too wide for the UK, this is why Gordon Murray set a target width of 1800mm for the F1 and got 1820mm IIRC.

Again TBH I find TVR's can be too wide for cross country B-road work, it's fine having the power, but if you can't get past the 4x4... and these Supercars, including the wider than an XJ220 Murcielago make even A roads tricky.

But that's only here, in say America...

[a8hex]

rudecherub said:

williamp said:

Ahh yes width. The other reason why the XJ220 is "rubbish"

Accoridng to that well known in ternet encyclopedia, the XJ220 is 79.2in wide.

Huge? Well, the Ferrari F40 is quoted as 78in, the F50 as 78.2in wide, and the current large Ferrari, the 599 as a 77.2

Wide? Not really at the time, and certainly not really now.

For years I have been conveinced that if anyone other then Jaguira had made the car, it would be revereed for the speed icon it really is. But because its british. And Jaguar, its a "silly" car, "too big" and "too powerful" for the roads.

In defence of the too wide thing, all of those cars you mention are really too wide for the UK, this is why Gordon Murray set a target width of 1800mm for the F1 and got 1820mm IIRC.

Again TBH I find TVR's can be too wide for cross country B-road work, it's fine having the power, but if you can't get past the 4x4... and these Supercars, including the wider than an XJ220 Murcielago make even A roads tricky.

But that's only here, in say America...

My XK150 is only 1600mm wide but it's still really difficult to get past 4xSlows on country roads they are normally drive down the middle.

As to "In America..." if you find a winding country road in the US they aren't appreciably wider than many B roads in the in the UK. Well at least the kind of B roads you stand any chance of over taking on. There are some great drivers roads out there. The only problem is trying to find a time when they aren't full of RVs, you think 4xSlows are bad!

[rudecherub]

a8hex said:

rudecherub said:

williamp said:

Ahh yes width. The other reason why the XJ220 is "rubbish"

Accoridng to that well known in ternet encyclopedia, the XJ220 is 79.2in wide.

Huge? Well, the Ferrari F40 is quoted as 78in, the F50 as 78.2in wide, and the current large Ferrari, the 599 as a 77.2

Wide? Not really at the time, and certainly not really now.

For years I have been conveinced that if anyone other then Jaguira had made the car, it would be revereed for the speed icon it really is. But because its british. And Jaguar, its a "silly" car, "too big" and "too powerful" for the roads.

In defence of the too wide thing, all of those cars you mention are really too wide for the UK, this is why Gordon Murray set a target width of 1800mm for the F1 and got 1820mm IIRC.

Again TBH I find TVR's can be too wide for cross country B-road work, it's fine having the power, but if you can't get past the 4x4... and these Supercars, including the wider than an XJ220 Murcielago make even A roads tricky.

But that's only here, in say America...

My XK150 is only 1600mm wide but it's still really difficult to get past 4xSlows on country roads they are normally drive down the middle.

As to "In America..." if you find a winding country road in the US they aren't appreciably wider than many B roads in the in the UK. Well at least the kind of B roads you stand any chance of over taking on. There are some great drivers roads out there. The only problem is trying to find a time when they aren't full of RVs, you think 4xSlows are bad!

That's interesting - my US experience is limited to mainly California, and no real off the beaten track driving.

I changed from a Ginetta G33 to a Griffith 4.0 and while I found the TVR more useable, the Ginetta was just better at b roading because it was narrower, almost the same as your XK for width, for the same reason my sisters MX5 at the same time, which I had occasion to drive had that advantage despite being less powerful.

The worst thing about 4X4's are those that expect you in the sports car to go off road! when they are far by far better suited to putting a wheel off the hard stuff and into the long grass.

Also the XK150 underlines the bloat that IMO spoils more modern cars, eg the 1 series being bigger and wider than the E30 3 series.

[a8hex]

rudecherub said:

a8hex said:

rudecherub said:

williamp said:

Ahh yes width. The other reason why the XJ220 is "rubbish"

Accoridng to that well known in ternet encyclopedia, the XJ220 is 79.2in wide.

Huge? Well, the Ferrari F40 is quoted as 78in, the F50 as 78.2in wide, and the current large Ferrari, the 599 as a 77.2

Wide? Not really at the time, and certainly not really now.

For years I have been conveinced that if anyone other then Jaguira had made the car, it would be revereed for the speed icon it really is. But because its british. And Jaguar, its a "silly" car, "too big" and "too powerful" for the roads.

In defence of the too wide thing, all of those cars you mention are really too wide for the UK, this is why Gordon Murray set a target width of 1800mm for the F1 and got 1820mm IIRC.

Again TBH I find TVR's can be too wide for cross country B-road work, it's fine having the power, but if you can't get past the 4x4... and these Supercars, including the wider than an XJ220 Murcielago make even A roads tricky.

But that's only here, in say America...

My XK150 is only 1600mm wide but it's still really difficult to get past 4xSlows on country roads they are normally drive down the middle.

As to "In America..." if you find a winding country road in the US they aren't appreciably wider than many B roads in the in the UK. Well at least the kind of B roads you stand any chance of over taking on. There are some great drivers roads out there. The only problem is trying to find a time when they aren't full of RVs, you think 4xSlows are bad!

That's interesting - my US experience is limited to mainly California, and no real off the beaten track driving.

Highway 1 north of SanFran it a lovely drive, if you can find it clear. Has dumb speed limits on it though. I've spent quite a lot of weeks in the Cupertino/Mountain View area, out to the west there is Skyline and there are some nice drives around there.

Around Fort Collins in Colorado there are loads of good roads up into the Rockies.

New England has lots of places where the roads are old enough to have pre-dated cars.

rudecherub said:

I changed from a Ginetta G33 to a Griffith 4.0 and while I found the TVR more useable, the Ginetta was just better at b roading because it was narrower, almost the same as your XK for width, for the same reason my sisters MX5 at the same time, which I had occasion to drive had that advantage despite being less powerful.

The worst thing about 4X4's are those that expect you in the sports car to go off road! when they are far by far better suited to putting a wheel off the hard stuff and into the long grass.

Also the XK150 underlines the bloat that IMO spoils more modern cars, eg the 1 series being bigger and wider than the E30 3 series.

This is very true, Polos are bigger and heavier than Golfs used to be. The new Mini is a Maxi, the new one they've had on the news recently look enormous. But even my XK150 is 200KG heavier than the XK120 and about 400KG heavier than the stripped out ones they used on the track.

I saw a Ginetta in Bracknell the other day, hadn't seen a G33 for ages, probably not since the Motorshow where it was launched and I was thinking of trying to buy one. Proper tiny car, however little did they weight?

[rudecherub]

a8hex said:

I saw a Ginetta in Bracknell the other day, hadn't seen a G33 for ages, probably not since the Motorshow where it was launched and I was thinking of trying to buy one. Proper tiny car, however little did they weight?

they are light 874kg / 1927lb

There was also a cosworth powered version with the turbo 4, rarer still.

Mine was a bit skittish, I think if I'd known what I know now I'd have worked on tweaking the suspension.

The downside is the hood which was next to a Lotus Elise mk 1 ie useless, well I mean to say a real faff to put up, but it's a fair weather car so that's really not that important.

[a8hex]

The G33s I was looking at were Rover V8 powered, Big engine Small car