Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Classic Cars Buying Luxury used cars
411 messages, Last post on Jul 13, 2009 at 10:22 AM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jan 08, 2009 3:55 pm) 
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jan 08, 2009 3:55 pm) I always wondered why they didn't just put one single tank under the trunk. Unless, because of the shape of the car, maybe that would make the trunk itself too shallow to be useful? Nowadays, if a RWD car has IRS, they put the tank under the back seat, just like in FWD. Wonder why they didn't do that with the Jag? Unless again, there just wasn't that much room under there?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jan 09, 2009 3:51 am) They did improve the horrible automatic transmission on the XJ6, and finally got fuel injection on there--but even that had its problems. Like, why would you put rubber fuel injection hoses under the manifold? And why have the AC cool the fuel? And inboard brakes in the rear? (you have to drop the entire rear suspension and differential to change the rotors out). Fires are something to watch out for, especially in the V-12s. You have those quirky injection lines cracking and leaking, the saddle tanks rusting out and leaking, and the fuel pump in the trunk often leaking. The fuel injection for the V-12 model is sometimes referred to as "the auxiliary heating system", in typical British humor. I like to think of an XJ6 as a cruel mistress. Pretty but very deadly. As you know, I am very biased against this model, because it represents Jaguar's abandonment of its glorious sports car tradition (think Porsche) in order to make land yachts (think Buick).
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jan 09, 2009 8:49 am) Was the XJ6 a direct replacement for that porky thing from the 1960's? The 420 or whatever it was called? Those things weren't considered sporty, were they? Hey, in looking at some old pics, I just had a revelation. Well, to me at least...probably nothing new to most people. But it just hit me that the 420 is nothing but a clumsy re-skin of the old Mark II. Looking at pics side-by-side, it looks like the doors, roof, and all glass is the same. Would the 420 at least still perform like a Mark II, or did they find a way to botch that up in transition?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jan 09, 2009 8:59 am) I love the Mark II cars, (not the S Type, which I think is rather homely), especially with 4-speed manual trans with OD, wire wheels, 3.8 engine. Sweet car. Really the only 4-door car in automotive history I can think of that I'm in love with. Some others I "like" (61 Lincolns, 65 Corvair 4D HT, blah blah) but the Mark II just "gets it all right". |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jan 09, 2009 9:13 am) 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jan 09, 2009 9:25 am)  That's about...what...a 1967 model? Shoot, I'd rather have a Benz 280SE sedan for same or less money.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jan 09, 2009 9:13 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: texases (Jan 09, 2009 9:39 am) |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jan 09, 2009 9:31 am) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Classic Cars Buying Luxury used cars
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
