Talk:Jaguar XJ

Comment

I changed what I considered to be not only unfair but inaccurate characterization of the X300/308 design as "poor packaging" or the rear legroom "exceptionally cramped". I own one of these cars (X300), I'm 6'0" tall (1.81m) and weigh around 190lbs (87kg) and I've not only had occasion to use the back seat myself but I've travelled long distanced with four other passengers at least as large as me and there haven't been any complaints that the rear accomodation is "exceptionally cramped". It isn't as roomy as it might be and certainly some vehicles from Mercedes and BMW (to name just two manufacturers) can claim that their products are better in this regard but that's no reason to do a hatchet-job on the X300/308. This isn't a "major problem", it didn't prevent Jaguar from competing directly with BMW or Mercedes in this market segment and, despite the author's implications to the contrary, Jaguar has - at least since the improvements in build-quality and reliability in the Series III cars in the early 80s - always been able to stand firm against its competitors. So, I removed the unnecessarily snide and equally inaccurate "Finally, the Jaguar XJ can stand more firmly against its German competitors" line.--JonGwynne 15:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I owned a 1973 XJ6 Series I for a number of years. It had a 4.2 litre engine but I see no mention of this engine size in the article. I'll add it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:40, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

I have owned two XJ40s and an X300, and I would have to agree, the leg room in the back is very poor, especially if the driver/passenger have the seat far back (as I did). Jaguar improved things with the long wheelbase version. I read somewhere, that the British Prime Minister John Major used to complain about it! Still a great car, all the same.--Stuart 11:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I own a 1990 XJR. Now there were I believe several versions of this: 1. The original TWR Jaguar conversion, which perhaps does not belong in this article except as the heritage of the XJR itself. 2. What I would think of as the 'pucker' one, which is a 4 Litre XJ40 with bodykit, interior changes to wheel and seats, different wheels, uprated brakes and suspension, and uprated valves to the engine. There may be other differences but these are the main ones. 3. A version which comes in a 3.6 Litre form, and perhaps as a 4 Litre (though I have never come across one), which has just the wheels and styling details. I do think a complete history of the XJ warrants a mention of these models (ie both the XJR and the RS) as they are a rare and rapidly disappearing part of the XJ40 history. The first XJR's were produced by Jaguar after their sports director had a Jaguar badged XJR made with the TWR modifications (in fact the vehicle I own) following which Jaguar received requests for the model and made a limited edition of only 200 of them. I'm afraid most of this is hearsay and talk with the few other remaining XJR owners and the previous owner of mine, so any corrections are welcome. 88.97.28.108 (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mk1, Mk2, Mk3

I have never known the Jaguar XJ Series to be catagorised in this manor. Having worked at Whitley for 4 years I can catagorically say that this is something that was an unofficial desination. Furthermore, being an avid follower of Jaguar cars it seems that this designation has only been used by the author of this article. It seems a bit awkward to me. The saloons have always proceeded as S1, S2, S3, XJ40, X300, X350. LewisR 11:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

XJC, XJ Coupes?

I would very much appreciate more details about this model, many thanks.

'Most Powerful Diesel Engine in the World?

As far as I'm aware, this is not the case when talking of the XJ's 2.7, and I've changed that. Daimler 00:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC).

No, you're correct. It wasn't when it was launched and isn't by some margin now. "in the world" would probably be in a ship or somesuch. BMW's 3.0 in the 535D probably holds that title for that in a car.

Chevrolet V8 engine swaps

Since the introduction of the XJ series (pre-Ford era), some Jag owners who claim that the stock motor (either the inline six or V12) were usually swapped for a Chevrolet small block since the automatic tranny which was standard with the Jag (THM400) was used with GM powerplants. Pre-1998 XJs also came with the 4L80-E tranny (same tranny from the Chevrolet/GMC C/K series (GMT400) where it is likely for an LS1 swap.4.230.54.128 18:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture/text mismatch

UNder heading on side box "series II" is a picture of a Series III. Just being pedantic user:winstonwolfe

Picture not a mismatch

The picture actually is a Series II - it's a very late one, a 1980, built in Cape Town, South Africa. On the late Series II models (1978 onward, I think), the chrome bumpers were replaced by massive steel bumpers covered with a black rubber skin. These bumpers weren't the Series 3 ones - they were at least twice as deep, and of a completely different design. Some of the Series II cars, like mine, as shown in the picture, had the grid section of the grille coated black, leaving the surround and central rib in chrome. This was different from the Series 3 chrome vertical grille. The wheels are the starfish alloys; the Series 3, I think, used the pepperpot alloys (though perhaps the early Series 3s used the starfish wheels too). This car does have the big square mirrors that were introduced on the Series 3 - I think that the 1979-onward Series II may have used them.
- Claidheamhmor 06:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we get a better Series 2 picture. Although this is technically a Series 2, it is hardly a typical example and does not indicate what most Series 2s looked like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.78.50 (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Daimler XJ6 4.0 1990. Fuel requirement

Having just aquired the above vehicle, could anyone say if it requires 98 octane fuel, or will it run on 95 octane?83.76.199.139 23:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reg Routh

• I would be inclined to say that 95 should be OK. However, take a look at the XJ40 mailing list and info at Jag-Lovers, and they should be able to give you more accurate info. - Claidheamhmor 07:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I own 2 XJ 40's, a 91 and a 94. Both have well over 155K miles. Weaned them off of premium and onto plain old 89 Octane with no problems.

X300/X308 Project Codes

I'm not 100% sure that X305 & X308 was ever Jaguar's official designation of the V8 X300. I was at Jaguar's engineering centre for 4 years when the "300" was current and that's how we always referred to it, I6, V12 or V8. The vehicle codes typically referred to a body shell in white (BIW) and not a vehicle model/engine configuration. The bodyshell for the in-line 6 (AJ16) engined XJ was, as far as I know, unchanged when it took the V8 (AJ26). Therefore, a project name change would have been unlikely.
LewisR 00:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

LWB X350

As far as I am aware, the LWB X350 is known as the X355.
LewisR 00:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Safety

The DFT Statistics do *not* show this about the XJ Series. So I have removed it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.105.149 (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

X300 Changes to X308

"1997 saw the "Mark 2" XJ revised for a final time, and this time the car (known as X308) had changed more over the X300 than the X300 had done over the XJ40."
This seems a bit subjective and non-quantitive.
The X300 received the follwing changes from the XJ40:
-Bonnet
-Front wings
-Rear wings
-Boot lid
-Self-levelling rear suspension dropped
-ZF steering rack
-Seats
-Revised cylinder head induction porting
-Revised camshafts
-Pistons
-Power & torque for both engine sizes up by around 9% & 5% respectively

The XJ8 received no BIW changes from X300 but did have the AJ27 engine. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not convinced that X308 was ever an official project code at Whitley.
LewisR 00:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

AJ6 Engine

The article states (under the XJ40 title):
"The single cam 2.9 L straight-6 engine found in Europe was a derivative of Jaguar's legendary 6.0 L V12 HE, but it proved to be underpowered and thirsty compared to the 3.6 L"
The 3.6l engine (AJ6) had been used in the XJS since 1983 and it was that engine that was originally a derivative of the V12 engine. The 2.9l engine used the same block retaining the 91.0mm bore but had a reduced stroke (74.8mm from 92.0mm). The 2.9l engine does have May designed combustion chambers and SOHC which the HE V12 had.
LewisR 00:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

X350 Overview

"The Super V8, also known as the Daimler Super Eight, is the fastest and most expensive model, with the XJR a close second."
The Daimler Super V8 uses the same engine and transmission as the XJR but being in a longer bodyshell and having more equipment will be heavier than the XJR and therefore will not be faster. Furthermore, it is much more expensive (£80,040 vs £62,040 )
LewisR 01:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

where can I find the paint code on a 1990 jaguar xj6

I have recently aquired the above car and there is s small bit of fust from an accident I want to cover. Please can someone tell me where to locate the paint code. The only thing I can see is BEC7828 but I don`t think that is it. Please help, Martyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.215 (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)