A Pocket Friendly Jaguar!!
The following post was written by Greg Harvey, another classic car addict, who’s own blog’s called Classic Cars Blog, in which he deals with the grave contrast of how good classic cars are for the soul and how bad they can be for the pocket…
Leslie’s last post, featuring a nice picture of a leggy blonde model
in London (and a Jaguar E-Type, in case you didn’t notice) reminded me
of a subject which may be of interest to the Antique Cars Club
readers. Readers of my blog may have noted I was (and am) seriously
considering importing a Jaguar XJ-S convertible from the USA back to
Europe. That aside, I would like to spend a post considering the
virtues of this wholly under-rated vehicle.
The XJ-S is, without question, a lovely car. It is quiet, comfortable,
fast, classic in looks but modern enough to be relatively trouble
free. It has all the mod cons you would expect from a high quality
luxury car (power hood, air conditioning, leather seats, wooden dash,
electric seats and warmers, good stereo, etc.) but here’s the kicker.
In America at the moment you can get a good XJ-S convertible from the
early ’90s for $12,000 and a fixed-head coup? for $4,000.
They’re nearly as cheap in the UK and those prices are just silly!
These cars simply *cannot* get any cheaper than that. If you have a
few thousand dollars to spare, you want a nice, fun car that you can
still use day-to-day and you want to buy something which will not
depreciate, and will in all likelihood *appreciate*, in value then my
top tip is a Jaguar XJ-S.
“I can’t afford to run a 6-litre, V-12 Jaguar with gas prices like these!”
I hear ya. Neither can I. In fact, neither can my father, whose V-12
XJ-S is not seeing very much of the current warm weather here in
England. But there is a 6-cylinder model, which, driven gently, can
return quite sensible fuel economy. And (this is something which makes
me smile, as a European looking to import) because, until recently,
big has been better when it comes to American car engines, the
6-cylinder models are the same price, if not cheaper, than their V-12
equivalents. A situation which surely can’t last. Another tip of mine
is if you have a V-12 XJ-S, sell it and buy a straight-6, now!
Sure, the 6-cylinder engine isn’t as smooth. Nor is it as quick in a
straight line. But it isn’t slow either! Up to 100mph there is little
difference between the 12-cylinder and 6-cylinder models. In fact, the
0-60 time of the V-12 is listed at 7.5 seconds, the straight-6 does
the same in 7.4 seconds! It’s actually quicker because of the
significant weight-saving of the smaller engine block. Quarter mile
times are a similar story. The difference is the 6-cylinder runs out
of breath at around 140mph, while the V-12 apparently pulls on through
to nearly 155mph. But who’s going to quibble over the top speed, when
even the (relatively) small-engined model goes 140mph?? This is no
track car, so unless you’re German you will *never* test the top speed
anyway. And if you buy the 6-cylinder you can allow yourself the smug
satisfaction of knowing you’re spending nearly half as much on fuel
and getting all of the performance, and some, of the V-12 version at
road speeds.
So there you have it. Your author believes there has never been a
better time to buy yourself a Jaguar - and there never will be again.
Until we run out of oil, of course. But we’ve got a few years yet. If
we’re nice to the Russians.
Pocket friendly? Hmm… I’m not sure that either the (70s/80s) XJ-S or the (90s) XJS could be qualified as such. Both V12 and Inline-Six cars demand owners with deep pockets and stout hearts. Overheating V12s on the XJ-S caused hoses and electrical wirings to fry leading to various cataclysms. And both the straight-six and the twelve drank their share of premium unleaded while providing only casually quick performance times. Have a friend who once owned an XJ-S V12 coupe. It lived at the mechanic’s shop - though - he claims that above his other cars (ranging from BMWs to Infinitis) the Jag was the ride he claimed attracted the most attention from the fairer sex. And there’s the real selling point.
Hi. Thanks for the comment. Firstly, you’re right - there’s no such thing as a pocket friendly classic, period! Even my 1558cc Lotus consumes gas at a frightening rate, but a straight 6 Jag uses a similar amount of fuel, which makes it *comparatively* inexpensive, as classics go. Secondly, all cars have varying owner experiences. There are many people who will tell you Lotus stands for Lots Of Trouble, Usually Serious. However, my personal experience is I’ve had zero serious problems with a 1974 Lotus having owned it for nearly 6 years now. Similarly, I know four separate individuals with well maintained XJ-S V-12s, ranging from the late 1970s to the late 1980s, all of whom have had no major issue. Sure, every car has its individual traits, and the long Jag engines do have a tendency to get too hot towards the back of the bank *IF THEY ARE NOT PROPERLY AND REGULARLY SERVICED* to ensure oil and coolant is flowing properly. But my father has spent about $4,000 in the last three years on the maintenance and repair of his V-12 XJ-S. Which is less than I’ve spent on the Lotus but more than I’d expect to spend on a modern car, but that’s just classic motoring. And don’t forget that with a new car you lose (or in the UK you do) $4,000 in depreciation for simply driving the car off the forecourt!
Greg, nice perspective. I must say that I personally lust after the XJS convertible of the mid 90s. The successor XK8 was a sexy auto, and perhaps upstaged its droptop forebear, but the XJS was beautiful in its own quirky way. I’ve only driven an XJS coupe - and all I had to do was sit in the car to be completely seduced. But at the end of the day I knew that despite the modest price tag, the moment I’d need to replace so much as a shock absorber or some other consumable - it’d hurt in the long run. But what a fine cat…