XJS 3.6 or 4.0 Manual - What Are They like ?

XJS 3.6 or 4.0 Manual - What Are They like ?

Author
Discussion

redgriff500

Original Poster:

26,766 posts

262 months

Friday 20th April 2012
quotequote all
I'm looking for a 2+2 I want something nice.

I'd like a 4200GT but I'm unwilling to pay £15k and the associated running costs, an XK8 would do but they don't make manuals and I hate Autos.

I've considered and dismissed a Monaro, 996, 968.

I know an XJS isn't really in the same league but will it be a nice drive and able to be hussled along an A road ?

There seem to be a few about £3-6k

jagnet

4,095 posts

201 months

Friday 20th April 2012
quotequote all
Granted, I'm somewhat biased towards the XJS and frequently wax lyrical about them, but imho the XJS is a glorious car to drive, from a time and a manufacturer that understood ride quality. That's not to say that it can't be hustled along some twisty A-roads either, the lighter I6 being better in that respect than the V12.

Pick an example that's been polybushed, or budget accordingly, and it really tightens up the handling in the curves; not that the standard rubbers are bad per se (well, aside from the steering rack ones), but it's a big car and like all big cars it can eat rubber bushes fairly quickly.

It's often forgotten that Jaguar's suspension designs were technically superior to most other manufacturers at the time, and the reason why the XJS could combine ride comfort with prodigious grip in the corners.

At the front, double wishbones with anti-dive geometry to allow the spring rates to be reduced. At the rear, a clever system that mimicked long arm double wishbones but using the axle shafts as the top link, together with radius arms to deal with the fore/aft movement it strongly resembles that of the legendary Lotus 18. Chapman knew a thing or two about suspension and long advocated soft springs and firm damping - exactly what's found on the XJS.

The standard brakes are very good, firm with plenty of feel, and more than up to the job of fast road driving.

It's a big car, so no matter how clever the Jaguar designers it was never going to be a B-road blaster, but give it space and it doesn't disappoint.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLbCWO34Kdk - Kutuka's XJS "Helen" at Cadwell, managing not to look too "old man" amongst the Evos.

3k to 6k should see you in a very nice example.

Alternatively, no need to dismiss the XK8/R straight away - the auto issue could be remedied with a 5-speed Tremec manual gearbox conversion.

redgriff500

Original Poster:

26,766 posts

262 months

Friday 20th April 2012
quotequote all
jagnet said:
Alternatively, no need to dismiss the XK8/R straight away - the auto issue could be remedied with a 5-speed Tremec manual gearbox conversion.
I looked into that last year despite seeing ads etc I couldn't find anyone actually offering a conversion.

IIRC it was also going to cost £5k which on a £5k car makes no sense and on a £10k car - I'd rather buy a 4200GT

Needa308GT4

311 posts

145 months

Friday 20th April 2012
quotequote all
I grew up in Jag XJSs.


My old man had a string of them. The were woeful then and even more troublesome now.

Bit like old Alfa's, you have to REALLLY love 'em to keep them on the road.


I am a huge Jag fan but, having looked into it just last year, you really would be better off with a well kept XK8, possibly 2000/2001 vintage for the same price as a 'so-called' well kept XJ-S (to give it its proper badging).

Futuramic

1,763 posts

204 months

Friday 20th April 2012
quotequote all
redgriff500 said:
I looked into that last year despite seeing ads etc I couldn't find anyone actually offering a conversion.

IIRC it was also going to cost £5k which on a £5k car makes no sense and on a £10k car - I'd rather buy a 4200GT
A manual conversion would be hideously expensive; which is why they were never offered as a conversion kit though the idea is a good one. I recall reading that the Jag V8, as opposed to the earlier six, runs integrated engine and gearbox management systems. The engine ECU is programmed to react to gear selection input as well as the other sensors.

An ordinary conversion would require a custom made bell housing or adapter ring and probably a bespoke flywheel as there was never an off the shelf option.

Add to that the fact that the ECU would need major re-programming and it becomes an expensive proposition. That is why the Jag engine has never caught on in hot rodding circles, despite being plentiful and cheap. I suppose you could go down the stand alone management route, or even carburettors, but having that work in concert with the rest of the car would be tricky.

williredale

2,866 posts

151 months

Friday 20th April 2012
quotequote all
Needa308GT4 said:
XJ-S (to give it its proper badging).
Only XJ-S until '91. XJS from then on nerd

vixen1700

22,671 posts

269 months

Saturday 21st April 2012
quotequote all
williredale said:
Only XJ-S until '91. XJS from then on nerd
My old '92 had XJ-S on the rear side window.

Had a 3.6 and a 4.0 and much preferred the 3.6, it felt much sportier for some reason and didn't have the whiff of the golf club like the 4.0 did, or maybe it's because I had the 3.6 in my early 30s and the 4.0 when I was 45. hehe

I'd go for the very best 3.6 you can find. smile

300bhp/ton

41,030 posts

189 months

Saturday 21st April 2012
quotequote all
redgriff500 said:
I'm looking for a 2+2 I want something nice.

I'd like a 4200GT but I'm unwilling to pay £15k and the associated running costs, an XK8 would do but they don't make manuals and I hate Autos.

I've considered and dismissed a Monaro, 996, 968.

I know an XJS isn't really in the same league but will it be a nice drive and able to be hussled along an A road ?

There seem to be a few about £3-6k
3.6 is more revvy and eager, although some will call it less refined. Think they made 223hp. The AJ6 4.0 made 225hp and maybe a tad more mid range torque and was smoother. The last of the AJ16's made 241hp.

Styling wise The rear window changed shape and new dash, but retained older bumpers. then they refreshed the bumpers to be more modern looking.

All great just watch for rust.


If you fancy a project and I'm amazed more haven't been done. But a manual XJS with the XJR6's 4.0 supercharged engine and a couple of tweaks. I see no reason why 380-400hp isn't possible.

NormanD

3,208 posts

227 months

Monday 30th April 2012
quotequote all
Futuramic said:
A manual conversion would be hideously expensive; which is why they were never offered as a conversion kit though the idea is a good one. I recall reading that the Jag V8, as opposed to the earlier six, runs integrated engine and gearbox management systems. The engine ECU is programmed to react to gear selection input as well as the other sensors.

An ordinary conversion would require a custom made bell housing or adapter ring and probably a bespoke flywheel as there was never an off the shelf option.

Add to that the fact that the ECU would need major re-programming and it becomes an expensive proposition. That is why the Jag engine has never caught on in hot rodding circles, despite being plentiful and cheap. I suppose you could go down the stand alone management route, or even carburettors, but having that work in concert with the rest of the car would be tricky.
The major problem has been to develop a Magic Black box to fool the engine ECU etc


This is now done and all the machanics will be available

As soon as I have the final production Black Box I will be fitting the full kit to my car then I will be in a position to offer kits to other owners

See www.XKRTransmissions.co.uk

richw_82

992 posts

185 months

Monday 30th April 2012
quotequote all
I've had a few XJS (V12 and I6) but the one that was most fun out of them all was the 3.6 manual! The manual gearbox turns it into something with a completely different character to the auto, it's as if you've weaned it off sedatives.

The later 3.6 (not facelift!) with the rear anti-roll bar and lower suspension are deceptively quick for an older car.

bga

8,134 posts

250 months

Monday 30th April 2012
quotequote all
I've only driven a 3.6 manual bit it was good fun to waft at speed and was pretty good on A roads. The manual box in the car I drove was quite vague and agricultural. It did force you to plan ahead and drive smoothly.

richw_82

992 posts

185 months

Monday 30th April 2012
quotequote all
bga said:
The manual box in the car I drove was quite vague and agricultural. It did force you to plan ahead and drive smoothly.
The vagueness is not really the gearbox causing the problem. The linkage at the base of the gear lever and the knuckle joint where it goes into the selector rod wear badly, and it gives horrific side to side movement of the lever, even when in gear.

As for the agricultural feel - its similar to the earlier Jaguar manual gearbox, so I feel comfortable with it.

Royster

491 posts

215 months

Monday 30th April 2012
quotequote all
What about buying a V12 and having a manual gearbox conversion done? That's what I've got, along with some AJ6 Engineering goodies, it's an absolute flyer, and the acceleration above 100 mph is just relentless (had a Cerbera 4.5 before this).

Sounds rather special and sooooo smooth.

redgriff500

Original Poster:

26,766 posts

262 months

Monday 30th April 2012
quotequote all
Royster said:
What about buying a V12 and having a manual gearbox conversion done? That's what I've got, along with some AJ6 Engineering goodies, it's an absolute flyer, and the acceleration above 100 mph is just relentless (had a Cerbera 4.5 before this).

Sounds rather special and sooooo smooth.
It is tempting (my Dad has a V12 with manual box in his garage) BUT at 8mpg I simply wouldn't use it.

Royster

491 posts

215 months

Monday 30th April 2012
quotequote all
8MPG? Ouch.

I live in London and around town, mine averages 15 mpg, and on the motorway it does 30 mpg (according to the obc).

Has very long diff ratio so 70mph is about 1800 rpm.

redgriff500

Original Poster:

26,766 posts

262 months

Monday 30th April 2012
quotequote all
Royster said:
8MPG? Ouch.

I live in London and around town, mine averages 15 mpg, and on the motorway it does 30 mpg (according to the obc).

Has very long diff ratio so 70mph is about 1800 rpm.
Well thats what his last V12 HE XJS made (he did mainly short trips as do I)

I recently had a 5.7 Monaro and averaged 12-14.

Burt124

122 posts

207 months

Monday 30th April 2012
quotequote all
I have a 1994 XJS 4.0 manual coupe which I acquired in December and have been using almost daily since then.

Mine is Kingfisher Blue with Magnolia leather has has done about 65k. It is by far the best XJS I have driven, hence the reason I keep driving it.

I have spend about £1300 on it since December but almost all of this has been improvement I have wanted to make. I have stripped out the interior, fitted a new carpet set, cleaned and refubished the leather, fitted new shocks, sorted out the air con, replaced the rear transmission mount and er, fitted new badges because the chrome had started to wear off.

The Jag failed to proceed once when the hydraulic pipe to the clutch slave cylinder split and left me without a clutch. I did manage to drive it for repair but it was a bit stressful in traffic.

It is currently in for some new rear suspension bushes which sound arrive tomorrow, I probably don't really have to do them but I like it to be spot on.

In my opinion the facelift XJS is a great improvement on the earlier model, it seems to drive like a much more modern car. About 18 months ago I owned this:

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/3191809.htm

I was tempted to keep it but basically didn't find it very good to drive. Too shaky with a very unresponsive auto box. I also found the 11mpg it returned unacceptable.

If you're near Oxford you are welcome to drive mine.


richw_82

992 posts

185 months

Monday 30th April 2012
quotequote all
Burt124 said:
In my opinion the facelift XJS is a great improvement on the earlier model, it seems to drive like a much more modern car.
That's probably why I don't get on with it then!

Richkaz

20 posts

174 months

Tuesday 8th May 2012
quotequote all
richw_82 said:
I've had a few XJS (V12 and I6) but the one that was most fun out of them all was the 3.6 manual! The manual gearbox turns it into something with a completely different character to the auto, it's as if you've weaned it off sedatives.

The later 3.6 (not facelift!) with the rear anti-roll bar and lower suspension are deceptively quick for an older car.
Agree with that !
Iv'e either owned or driven most XJS variants and the 3.6 manual is the most fun. Of course it depends if you
are using the car as an everyday driver or like me, it's a weekend fun car.
The 3.6 is the quickest of the 6 cylinder cars due to it not being suffocated by a catalytic converter.
The main gripe from contemporary road testers was ' Why are Jaguar updated models slower than the models they replace'?
Even the last AJ16 models would struggle to keep up with a 3.6 until well past the speed limit.
The 3.6 manual manages 0-60mph in 7.1 seconds which isn't bad for a 25 year old GT weighing close to 2 tons.
However if you really must have lots of torque the 4.0l engined cars might suit you better. Saying that, my current 3.6 manual will
happily negotiate roundabouts in 4th gear ( If that syle of driving is your thing ).
The 6 cylinder cars are 200 lbs lighter than the V12's and feel more sporty in standard trim. 88 onwards pre facelifts are very smooth and I find the Getrag 5 speeder a delight to use.
3rd gear is a very potent weapon on the manual cars.
As with every classic car, they all rust and that can be tricky to treat. The pre facelift cars have difficult to access inboard brakes so it would help if you found a car with a recent back axle and brake refurb. If the complex Delanair aircon doesn't function budget on £ 800 to put it right.
Are 3.6 or 4.0l manuals any good ? YES !
In 2 years of ownership mine has never let me down.


williamp

19,217 posts

272 months

Tuesday 8th May 2012
quotequote all
Richkaz said:

God that looks great. Fuelled and ready to chase some unseen horizon!!!