Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 08:11:41 GMT From: "Geoff" <Jeffe_Verdenopsamail.com> Subject: Re: Horsepower or Torque? Which is more significant?
Not just the motors, Justin -- don't forget the lovely Lucas electrics that were constantly failing, and the multiple side-draft SE carbs that needed constant tuning and calibrating (parents had a 6 and a 12 in the 70's -- I spent a least a weekend a month tuning or fixing one of them). But for all that - I think Jags got a bad rap on reliability (except for the electrics which were crap). The problem was the pre-80 Jags were basically race engines dropped in a street car, and most people treated them like there were , well - Fords. If you treated them like race engines and kept them in constant tune, they ran great. But all that went away with the '82 Vandenplas - they've quite been reliable since that major overhaul (Just to prove their point, Jag put a 100k mi warranty on the Van's). And you're right about the current motor - a work of art. Geoff Justin VanAbrahams wrote in message <362E3F0D.7050nopsamnet>... >Garry wrote: >> >> >> Real story. I was checking out 8 months ago a BMW 325 at Jaguar dealership. I had >> commented on new cars in front of the dealership, most British cars look >> beautiful to me. A dealership representative, knowing that I am interested in a >> Bimmer, told me: >> >> "Stay away from Jag's, They are very unreliable and expensive to maintain" >> > > >Man, whoever you were talking to must have been a part-time crack >dealer. The V8 that Jag using in all their cars is one of the >best engines designed this century... it's an amazing accomplishment, >and I'm sure Cosworth's intervention didn't hurt. > >The OLD V12 had some reliability problems, as did the early V6, >but both of these issues were corrected around a decade ago with >the final revision the XJS and XJ6. > >Sounds like you believe everything you are told... > >-Justin
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
