XJS...bit classy isn't she for Punto money?

[Madeira Jon]

I owned a Series 3 XJ6 4.2 - it was and still is the best riding car I've ever driven. Like a magic carpet.

I'd really like to get hold of a good S3 4.2 Sovereign to restore.

Thoroughly agree. Apart from the rust problems on door and wheel arches. I think the nearest I've had to that ride was a Subaru XT Turbo with "air suspension" but still not quite as good as the longer wheelbase Jag. Incidentally mine was the long wheelbase model. I did look at the XJS but personally found them ugly.

 

[del320]

Boy, you lot make me smile - going misty-eyed over a pile of BL tat!

Spookily, both the XJS and the C124 ceased production in mid 1996. The XJS was already 12 years old when the 188bhp 300CE was introduced so it is no surprise the 3.6 trounced the MB in 1988 with greater torque, 33 more bhp and costing only £23500 compared the £30100 of the 300CE – before extras!

By 1996 the Jaguar XJS 4.0 was £38950 whilst the E320 Coupe was £42450 – again, before extras which could easily add another £7k. Depending what contemporary tests you read, both cars had pretty similar performance. XJS – 147mph, C124 – 145mph. 0–60 – 6.9/7.6, ave 24.3/25.3mpg.

Of course, by 1996 the Jaguar was a positively ancient cramped two-seater compared to the C124 which is a spacious four-seater and bright inside.

I have driven one of the last 4.0 Celebrations. It’s so claustrophobic you feel your knuckles touching the windscreen when holding the top of the wheel. Fittings and switchgear are just as good as you would expect in a BL car whose roots go back over 30 years.

The two cars were definitely competitors in their day and I concede that today the baroque Jaguar still has that sense of occasion but for driving pleasure and day-to-day practicalities it wouldn’t even come close to a 500/560/SEC, never mind a C124.

 

[mattc]

whilst we are all eulogising the thing i don't think any of us would want to run one! neither did the previuos ownes by the look of the mileage....it reallly is a high days and holidays car these days.

you can see from my profile where my preferences lie

Boy, you lot make me smile - going misty-eyed over a pile of BL tat!

Spookily, both the XJS and the C124 ceased production in mid 1996. The XJS was already 12 years old when the 188bhp 300CE was introduced so it is no surprise the 3.6 trounced the MB in 1988 with greater torque, 33 more bhp and costing only £23500 compared the £30100 of the 300CE – before extras!

By 1996 the Jaguar XJS 4.0 was £38950 whilst the E320 Coupe was £42450 – again, before extras which could easily add another £7k. Depending what contemporary tests you read, both cars had pretty similar performance. XJS – 147mph, C124 – 145mph. 0–60 – 6.9/7.6, ave 24.3/25.3mpg.

Of course, by 1996 the Jaguar was a positively ancient cramped two-seater compared to the C124 which is a spacious four-seater and bright inside.

I have driven one of the last 4.0 Celebrations. It’s so claustrophobic you feel your knuckles touching the windscreen when holding the top of the wheel. Fittings and switchgear are just as good as you would expect in a BL car whose roots go back over 30 years.

The two cars were definitely competitors in their day and I concede that today the baroque Jaguar still has that sense of occasion but for driving pleasure and day-to-day practicalities it wouldn’t even come close to a 500/560/SEC, never mind a C124.

 

[Ade B]

Boy, you lot make me smile - going misty-eyed over a pile of BL tat!

Spookily, both the XJS and the C124 ceased production in mid 1996. The XJS was already 12 years old when the 188bhp 300CE was introduced so it is no surprise the 3.6 trounced the MB in 1988 with greater torque, 33 more bhp and costing only £23500 compared the £30100 of the 300CE – before extras!

By 1996 the Jaguar XJS 4.0 was £38950 whilst the E320 Coupe was £42450 – again, before extras which could easily add another £7k. Depending what contemporary tests you read, both cars had pretty similar performance. XJS – 147mph, C124 – 145mph. 0–60 – 6.9/7.6, ave 24.3/25.3mpg.

Of course, by 1996 the Jaguar was a positively ancient cramped two-seater compared to the C124 which is a spacious four-seater and bright inside.

I have driven one of the last 4.0 Celebrations. It’s so claustrophobic you feel your knuckles touching the windscreen when holding the top of the wheel. Fittings and switchgear are just as good as you would expect in a BL car whose roots go back over 30 years.

The two cars were definitely competitors in their day and I concede that today the baroque Jaguar still has that sense of occasion but for driving pleasure and day-to-day practicalities it wouldn’t even come close to a 500/560/SEC, never mind a C124.

I vaguely recollect a contemporary road test (mid-late 80's) which put a limited edition V12 XJS against a 928 - from memory the conclusion was very favourable to the XJS (mainly as it was a lot cheaper than the Porsche) - never thought of it as an alternative to a C124 - the XJS is much better looking


Ade

 

[mattc]

Moderators!!!!

please get this heretic off the site .

I vaguely recollect a contemporary road test (mid-late 80's) which put a limited edition V12 XJS against a 928 - from memory the conclusion was very favourable to the XJS (mainly as it was a lot cheaper than the Porsche) - never thought of it as an alternative to a C124 - the XJS is much better looking


Ade

 

[verytalldave]

Beauty is, as always, in the eye of the beholder.
Who, for example would choose the first model over the second model?

I rest my case......................

 

[grober]

Aston DB7??

I read somewhere the Aston Martin DB7 chassis was based on a modified XJS floorpan with a somewhat different body on top. Still, don't know if I would like to drive a car with a chassis developed pre 1975 tho!! Of course some folks don't treat them with the same respect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXqJmqBPDss

 

[del320]

Beauty is, as always, in the eye of the beholder.
Who, for example would choose the first model over the second model?

I rest my case......................

Horses for courses?

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

I read somewhere the Aston Martin DB7 chassis was based on a modified XJS floorpan with a somewhat different body on top. Still, don't know if I would like to drive a car with a chassis developed pre 1975 tho!! Of course some folks don't treat them with the same respect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXqJmqBPDss

Yup, that's about right.

Engine was a Jaguar parts bin raid too, with a supercharger for good measure.

 

[stats007]

The six was supercharged - the V12 was the one to have though.

There was a Dunhill version on Pistonheads not so long ago - not pretty!

 

[neilrr]

I remember the huge hooha when the XJ-S was released in the '70's and the huge disappointment I felt when I first saw it.

The E-Type was a sensational looking car & I fell in love with it. I remember when our next door neighbour bought a brand new fastback (that's what they were called in the US) in silver. What a car! It's looks would stop you dead in your tracks.

When I saw the first XJ-S I thought "That's ugly."

 

[stats007]

Pretty much the same response when the R107 replaced the W113 and the R129 replaced the 107. A good design lasts - though may shock at first.

 

[neilrr]

Have to disagree.

First time I saw a 107 or a 129 I immediately liked the the look of them. Liked the 113 too.

The XJ-S is just plain ugly IMHO & over the years it's proven itself to be unreliable, rusty, thirsty and a piece of expensive poo.

I'd have a good S3 XJ6 in a heartbeat however. They look lovely so I could forgive them some faults.

 

[stats007]

You, Sir, are obviously mad .