Practical Classics

[Classic_car]

November issue of Practical Classics Magazine is just out and has a 7 page article comparing Mercedes w126 500sel with the Jaguar SIII XJ6. The article refers to an original 1979 'Car Magazine' review of the w126, which ran the rather xenophiobic headline 'Will the Germans ever win'. I think we can safely say they did, as the Merc w126 and BMW E32 trounced the Jag in the 1980's. I loved the XJ SIII's I have owned, but they are flawed jewels, the S-Class is undeniably a better car.

Jack

 

[Scott_F]

A fairer test would have used an XJ12 5.3 which would be a closer comparison to the Mercedes 5.0 V8 than the aged XK lump.

Such tests are always subjective but for cabin opulence and driving experience then the Jaguar was in no way "trounced". And let's face it, that's what most of the middle-aged buyers would have looked for. Despite the age of the IFS and IRS units, the Jaguar's handling and suspension refinement was always outstanding and was particularly so when viewed in 1979.

A 1988 What Car test rated a Series III Daimler Double-Six above offerings from BMW, Mercedes and even a Rolls Royce Silver Spirit.

Build quality is a different matter of course !

 

[Classic_car]

It was a 5.3 v12 they were comparing, not a 4.2. I would agree that Jags have the more opulent and special cabin, but cramped, so not as comfortable on long journeys. I have owned the Jag and find the S-Class eats the miles much better, it is much more relaxing to drive and much more comfortable on long trips. I do think the S-Class wins easily far that reason. The Jag suspension is superb, but because of the lack of leg room and narrowness inside, not to mention small windscreen, it feels tiring on a long cruise, which is what these cars are mean't for.

 

[Scott_F]

Shortage of luggage space and a lack of cabin space, particularly for rear passengers, was always a bugbear with the Jaguar XJ which the introduction of long-wheelbase saloons only partially addressed. The shallow windscreen betrays the car's 1960's origins.

However, as a drivers car they beat the W126 hands down and are a long-distance cruiser par excellence. The difference between between the two would be most apparent away from the motorway where the Jaguar's handling would make the 500SEL look like an overweight luxo-barge.

Where the Mercedes would really outpoint the Jaguar is in build quality and reliability but by 1979 a Model T Ford would have beaten an early Series III Jaguar on those criteria !

 

[Classic_car]

Trips over to France in the XJ, left me aching all over and feeling knackered. But the same journey in the S-Class was 10 times easier and I got out of the car feeling fine. That's why I think its the better car and the build quality, although they both rust.

 

[Scott_F]

I'd choose the V12 Jaguar any day but an XJ will out-rust the competition every time. Front wings, bonnet hinges, sills, rear arches, rear quarter panels, fuel tanks - the list is endless.

 

[bpsorrel]

I even think the 211 E class beats the Jag for comfort, let alone the S. For a long time I owned an XJ40 Sovereign and lovely car though it was, the cabin was really cramped. I guess in a way, a sporty feel for such a large car, but my 211 is way more comfortable for long journeys.

 

[Scott_F]

The W211 dates from 2002 - long after the demise of the Series I - III XJ and also the XJ40 (which was a low point in the history of big Jaguar saloons) so doesn't really make for a comparison in this context.

 

[corned]

I have to say that my S211 doesn't ride and handle as well as my old X300 XJ6 used to.

Jaguar ride and handling was almost universally regarded as peerless - at any price - from the late 60s onwards. Haven't seen any up-to-date comparison reports however.

 

[Classic_car]

also the XJ40 (which was a low point in the history of big Jaguar saloons) so doesn't really make for a comparison in this context.

I do have to defend the XJ40 here against your accusation it was a low point for Jag, it is a very under-rated car. In many ways it is superior to both the S3 before it and the X300 after it. Especially the later models that are actually very reliable and easily capable of 200k before serious work. The x300 is a nice car and does ride well, but it does not feel as 'Jaguar' as the previous XJ's, the leather inside is cheaper quality and some of the trim. The XJ40 is less cramped for the driver than the S3, has a much better autobox and grips much better in the wet, better brakes and it also feel safer.

I still say the best car for a long trip in comfort and speed (what these cars are intended for), is the S-Class. The Merc is significantly more ecconomical than the S3, has much more room inside, better seats, 4sp instead of 3sp gearbox, better reliability, feels safer, grips better, stops better and gets you to your destination more relaxed.

 

[Scott_F]

I do have to defend the XJ40 here against your accusation it was a low point for Jag, it is a very under-rated car. In many ways it is superior to both the S3 before it and the X300 after it. Especially the later models that are actually very reliable and easily capable of 200k before serious work. The x300 is a nice car and does ride well, but it does not feel as 'Jaguar' as the previous XJ's, the leather inside is cheaper quality and some of the trim. The XJ40 is less cramped for the driver than the S3, has a much better autobox and grips much better in the wet, better brakes and it also feel safer.

I still say the best car for a long trip in comfort and speed (what these cars are intended for), is the S-Class. The Merc is significantly more ecconomical than the S3, has much more room inside, better seats, 4sp instead of 3sp gearbox, better reliability, feels safer, grips better, stops better and gets you to your destination more relaxed.

The XJ40 was supposed to be superior to the Series III - that was the whole point. And it should have been considerably better too as it was replacing a design concept that was essentially 18 years old.

Build quality was better in many areas but still not great - ask owners about electrical gremlins, rusty bootlids and rattly glove boxes amongst other gripes. Mechanically it was a leap forward but again the AJ6 engine was replacing the XK engine dating back to 1948 !

But most of all it was the first Jaguar saloon who's looks just left you totally uninspired. It is bland and boxy in a mid-80's sort of way with none of the style and panache of its predecessors. But then again it was the first Jaguar saloon which had no lineage to Sir William Lyons. It is no coincidence that it only out-lived the ancient Series III (at least in flagship V12 form) by 2 years before the X300 arrived on the scene despite the fact that it could also accommodate the V12 engine.

I wouldn't agree that a contemporary S-Class would feel safer, grip better and stop better than an XJ12 but I would certainly recognise that it would come second best in terms of cabin room and general reliability.

Despite that, I'd feel totally relaxed after a trip in either car but a glance over my shoulder at the Jaguar's sleek elegant looks would put a smile on my face that the slab-sided Mercedes never could !

 

[Classic_car]

I've owned several S3, XJ40 and x300 and so can compare from experience. I agree the xj40 is boxy, I like cars from the mid 80's and think it looks very good, but that is personal taste, I accept that. The electrical gremlins were all sorted on the Xj40 by about 1990, they rust about the same as the Mercedes, but not as bad as the S3.

The reasons behind the XJ40 only outliving the S3 by a couple of years are nothing to do with it's looks, it was political. The S3 survived so long and over-lapped the XJ40 only because of political wrangles within the company that delayed the v12 engine going in the xj40.

I can assure you my 80's w126 S-Class, feels very considerably safer to drive than the S3. The S3 is fun in the wet if you are in the mood for sliding it about, but can really catch you out sometimes. Wet weather grip is very poor, even in the dry, grip is far worse than the Benz. Brakes are much better on the Mercedes too (it has ABS).

 

[Scott_F]

I've owned several S3, XJ40 and x300 and so can compare from experience. I agree the xj40 is boxy, I like cars from the mid 80's and think it looks very good, but that is personal taste, I accept that. The electrical gremlins were all sorted on the Xj40 by about 1990, they rust about the same as the Mercedes, but not as bad as the S3.

The reasons behind the XJ40 only outliving the S3 by a couple of years are nothing to do with it's looks, it was political. The S3 survived so long and over-lapped the XJ40 only because of political wrangles within the company that delayed the v12 engine going in the xj40.

I can assure you my 80's w126 S-Class, feels very considerably safer to drive than the S3. The S3 is fun in the wet if you are in the mood for sliding it about, but can really catch you out sometimes. Wet weather grip is very poor, even in the dry, grip is far worse than the Benz. Brakes are much better on the Mercedes too (it has ABS).

I've owned several XJ Jaguars and wet weather grip could never be described as poor. As long as you have the correct tyres and decent suspension rubbers / bushes then the grip and handling are superb with far less rolling and wallowing than you would get in a W126 of the period even though the latter is a much newer design. The steering is far more precise too than the W126's box arrangement.

I really like the cut-from-solid-granite look of the W126 and it has wonderful presence but a properly sorted V12 Jaguar offers a much more special driving experience (the W126 interior is dull and sterile by comparison) and it looks better both inside and out. But as you say views on styling and looks are purely personal and it would be a dull world if we all liked the same car.

 

[Classic_car]

You have owned a S3 v12? Perhaps it was the tyres on my S3 then, I think they were Dunlops, from memory. It used to slide and aquaplane in the wet, quite badly if the road was a certain camber. The 3 speed autobox did not help, as you can find the revs in the wrong place at the wrong time, if you know what I mean?

Going round sharper corners in the wet (or even dry if you were in a hurry) would get the rear out very easily. Fun if it's deliberate, not so fun if you are not in he mood or your passenger is easily scared!

Have you driven a W126 may I ask? Whilst I would concede the steering is not as direct, a well known issue, in terms of grip the Merc is far superior to the S3. I'd say it rides as well or very nearly and is certainly more comfortable, not least because of the legroom.

I guess we will have to agree to differ, as you seem quite entrenched in your view, as I am in mine! Don't get me wrong, I am a Jaguar fan, been in the club for many years and love the S3. But, from experience, the w126 is a better car, whichever way you look at it.

Good debate though!
Jack

 

[Scott_F]

I have to own up and say that I have only ever owned 6-cylinder Jaguars as the running costs and complexity of the V12 engine scared me away but I always enjoyed their handling and refinement. If I remember correctly, Dunlops were original spec on Series I cars but I'm sure that would have changed by the 1980's.

I seriously thought about buying a W126 last year but again the V8 would put me off and I was considering a 300SE. For the age I think it would give less trouble on a day-to-day basis than a 25 year old Series III but I went for a W124 instead. One reason for this was garage space - the W124 is a little tight and I'm not sure the W126 or Jaguar would fit at all.

The W124 is a very comfortable drive but not exactly involving but then I've been used to fwd and rack and pinion steering in recent years.

 

[Classic_car]

The w124 is a great car, I had a 300ce a few years back, not a rocket, but a very nice dependable car. The thing with Mercedes i've found is that they grow on you, slowly over time. It takes a bit of time to appreciate how good they are, a Jag is immediately appealing, the looks the interior etc. A BMW is entertaining to drive and feels taught, Volvo's are always comfortable, Saabs quirky etc (I'm talking 80's models here as I am not a modern car person).
Mercedes is a slow burner, but whenever I sell one I miss it.

The only thing that I really find annoying about Merc's is that they always seem to leak oil! Mine has just developed a new oil leak somewhere in the last few days, I had only recently fixed a leak at the back of the engine, now there is a new one at that front!

 

[Scott_F]

The Mercedes has been well behaved in terms of leaks so far. The last Jaguar XJ I owned considered leaking oil to be too mundane and leaked from the o/s fuel tank instead - an all too common problem.

 

[Stratman]

A long time ago I had a Series 1 XJ6 4.2

Great comfort and performance, grippy around the twisty bits if you could afford to replace the Dunlop SP Sports every 5000 miles and the cabin was a very pleasant place to be.

On the downside, it was a collection of rust traps badly welded together. The traditional leak from the OS fuel tank reduced the range to about 180 miles at around 19 mpg and the oil consumption wasn't much better. Poor rear legroom and a tiny boot were a bit of a letdown considering the road space it took up.

As a single twenty-something when I had the Jag it was a hoot to drive and popular with young ladies who saw it as a better ride home than an Escort or Capri. When it eventually died (t-boned) it was replaced by a Daimler V8 (MkII Jag shape with the 2.5L hemi) which was even more expensive to run.

Do I regret having them? Most certainly not.

Would I have a Jag today? See above.

 

[Classic_car]

The Mercedes has been well behaved in terms of leaks so far. The last Jaguar XJ I owned considered leaking oil to be too mundane and leaked from the o/s fuel tank instead - an all too common problem.

Lol, i've been there, had to replace the fuel tanks both sides on a Daimler S3. Got the garage to do it as im not too confident when it comes to petrol. I think the tanks were around £150 each, which wasn't too bad parts wise and the car was over 20 yrs old, so to be expected. It actually resulted that I still had a leak, and it was the rubber hoses between the tanks that were leaking, I think the tanks were pretty shot though anyway.

Trouble with the tanks on s3's and Xj40's is that the filler is facing upwards, so a high pressure wash can let water in the tank and rust it from the inside out. Also, previous owners often do not check the drainage holes near the filler are clear, so water sits next to the filler cap and gradually works it's way into the tank that way.

 

[Classic_car]

A long time ago I had a Series 1 XJ6 4.2

Great comfort and performance, grippy around the twisty bits if you could afford to replace the Dunlop SP Sports every 5000 miles

I love Jags too, but can't agree about the grip, certainly in the wet the grip is rubbish. The Dunlop's, whether new or not, let the back break free very easy in the wet. May be it's the way I drive ..