|
|
| Author |
Message |
Ellis
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1386
Location: Betws y Coed, North Wales
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:04 pm Post subject: XJ40 - the last British Jaguar |
 |
|
[im g]
[im g]
How often do you see a 1986-94 Jaguar XJ6 these days?
Sadly, the last one I saw was a aged wreck on the back of a dismantler's truck en route to it's fate.
Rusted, dirty and covered in "green outdoor rash" it still maintained a dignity all of it's own being a metallic grey Sovereign model.
The first one around here was a black 2.9 Sovereign which was bought new in October 1986 by a local undertaker and his major complaint was that it was "gutless". He part exchanged it 12 months later for and got more than he paid new and replaced it with a black 3.6 Sovereign which he described as "better".
I owned a 3.6 Sovereign myself in 1991 - "crimson with doeskin" was the then well known description - and kept if for two months because, once again, I could not take to the auto box despite the "Randle Handle" which permitted some manual control.
Over all , I thought it was a beautiful car but not without niggling faults. Comfortable, quiet and spacious if not very powerful despite the 3.6 litre straight six engine. I drove another example to compare and it felt no different. The 3.2 and 4.0 litre later engines were better I understand.
When the late Sir William Lyons was shown the final version of the XJ40 prototype in 1985 he expressed his approval and admiration.
Ford bought Jaguar in November 1989 and Sir John Egan, independent Jaguar's last chairman was shocked when told the news.
The XJ40 was in production from 1986-1994. The last British Jaguar.
What are your opinions of the model?
[/img]
_________________
Starting Handle Expert
1964 Jaguar Mark 2 3.4 litre
1962 Land Rover Series 2a 88"
2002 BMW M3 E46 Cabriolet |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ukdave2002
Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 4263
Location: South Cheshire
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They always struck me as an old man's car. My then boss had a new one around 1994, I recall we got the keys and slipped a pipe onto the dash and some slippers in the footwell...he only had it for a couple on months and traded it in for a 7 series.
Just mentioned this post to my wife, and jokingly said that now that we are the wrong side of 40 should we concider a Jag...I can't repeat her comments!!
Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dipster
Joined: 06 Jan 2015
Posts: 408
Location: UK, France and Portugal - unless I am travelling....
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The shape was so bland. To my eyes it could have been an up market mass produced Jap. I think that`s where they went so wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 22807
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peter scott
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 7215
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
What struck me about the XJ40 was that it was incredibly small inside (rear legroom) given what a large car it was outside.
Peter
_________________
https://www.nostalgiatech.co.uk
1939 SS Jaguar 2 1/2 litre saloon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 22807
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| peter scott wrote: | What struck me about the XJ40 was that it was incredibly small inside (rear legroom) given what a large car it was outside.
Peter |
My XJR (X308 type) was the same, but it was a wonderful car so I forgave it its few foibles 
The X300 was based around the XJ40 structure AFAIK, but was modified quite a lot when the V8 X308 came along. The interior dimensions remained the same though.
RJ
_________________
Rick - Admin
Home:https://www.oldclassiccar.co.uk
Videos:https://www.youtube.com/user/oldclassiccarRJ/videos
OCC & classic car merchandise (Austin, Ford ++):
https://www.redbubble.com/people/OldClassicCar/shop |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peter scott
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 7215
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rick wrote: | | peter scott wrote: | What struck me about the XJ40 was that it was incredibly small inside (rear legroom) given what a large car it was outside.
Peter |
My XJR (X308 type) was the same, but it was a wonderful car so I forgave it its few foibles
RJ |
I traveled about 500 miles in the back of one and fortunately I was the only rear seat passenger so I could sit diagonally and make use of the opposite footwell but I just couldn't believe how auful it was for a car that is supposed to be for comfortable travel for four people.
Were rear seats an after thought? You can excuse small cars for having cramped rear seats and most mid sized cars offer greater legroom and comfort than the XJ40.
The XJ40 was a total design failure as a comfortable four seater.
Peter
_________________
https://www.nostalgiatech.co.uk
1939 SS Jaguar 2 1/2 litre saloon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 22807
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray White
Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 7205
Location: Derby
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I always thought it looked like a Jaguar with the style ironed out. Obviously, it was cheaper to produce than its predecessor; a shame then that these savings were not invested in thoughtful design. The end result was that it can now be seen as a low point with the X300 being a big improvement. I was not aware of the rear leg room problem which would have been carried over. In all, a missed opportunity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
emmerson
Joined: 30 Sep 2008
Posts: 1268
Location: South East Wales
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are only two reasons why I don't have a XJ:
1) I love my Range Rover lse
2) People would insist on calling it a "Jag", which I detest, even more than I hate people who call my car a "Rangie"!
But overall, I like the Jaguar, and it would probably be my second choice car. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray White
Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 7205
Location: Derby
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| emmerson wrote: | There are only two reasons why I don't have a XJ:
1) I love my Range Rover lse
2) People would insist on calling it a "Jag", which I detest, even more than I hate people who call my car a "Rangie"!
|
I get mine called a "Chelsea tractor" which is only partly true. It has got nothing to do with Chelsea but when it is covered in mud so it looks like a tractor.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goneps
Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Posts: 601
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rick wrote: | | peter scott wrote: | What struck me about the XJ40 was that it was incredibly small inside (rear legroom) given what a large car it was outside.
Peter |
My XJR (X308 type) was the same, but it was a wonderful car so I forgave it its few foibles
The X300 was based around the XJ40 structure AFAIK, but was modified quite a lot when the V8 X308 came along. The interior dimensions remained the same though.
Rick |
Rick,
Placing the Jaguar alongside another large machine renowned for cramped accommodation is one way to drive home the point!
Richard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 22807
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray White
Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 7205
Location: Derby
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Can you still get the Janspeed conversion kits? I know they were fitted to the Rover sd1 and Range Rover with good results. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 22807
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
