Talk:Jaguar XJ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Brands  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Comment[edit]

I changed what I considered to be not only unfair but 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)

OK We are starting to get somewhere: Official from Jaguar Heritate Trust: There is no detailed history of the TWR JaguarSport cars as such. We have no production figures at all for the pre-1988 XJS cars modified by TWR.

Precise production figures of the later "official" JaguarSport converted cars are not available either but we estimate there were around 2200-2400 XJ40s and perhaps 200-plus XJS V12 5.3 litre cars modified by JaguarSport to XJR-S specification in 1988-89, including the 100 "Le Mans Celebration" models.

There were 837 XJR-S 6 litre cars built in-house by Jaguar from 1989 to 1993, including 50 convertibles.

The XJ 40 XJR cars can be identified by VIN or chassis numbers with a prefix starting SAJ-JPAL and in case of the 4 litre cars by an engine number with a prefix starting 9WPF. The XJR-S cars can be identified by VIN or chassis numbers with a prefix starting SAJ-JSAE, and the 6 litre cars have an engine number starting 8W, whereas later non-XJRS 6 litre XJS cars have an engine type 8D.

I am now getting back in touch with John Hook of QCR who currently own the body moulds and who did a lot of the work on the TWR's originally to try to get more info. 88.97.28.108 (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Mk1, Mk2, Mk3[edit]

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?[edit]

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

I've recently seen a small article in a magazine from around 1987-88, featuring a 2-door coupe version of the then current XJ. IIRC Bob "Panther" Jankel was the man responsible. Mr Larrington (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

'Most Powerful Diesel Engine in the World?[edit]

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.

VW's V10 TDi is a likely candidate. Mr Larrington (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Chevrolet V8 engine swaps[edit]

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[edit]

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

Picture not a mismatch[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Safety[edit]

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[edit]

"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[edit]

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[edit]

"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[edit]

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)

is the 90 xj6 front whell drive?[edit]

hi,can any one tell me if it's front wheel drive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.159.238 (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  • No, it's not. All XJ Jaguars have been rear-wheel drive. Claidheamhmor (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

XJC12 Broadspeed.[edit]

I've been trying to find out about the XJC12 Broadspeed and I'm surprised they aren't mentioned at all. Steed had one in the new avengers and I believe they raced them in the 70's. Does anyone know anything about them? Also, was the x300 really available with a manual box because I've never heard or seen such a thing.(82.3.42.38 (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

With about 550 bhp on tape they were fast but not very reliable and terribly hard on brakes, even with water-cooling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Larrington (talkcontribs) 14:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Splitting[edit]

Could this article be splitted into smaller pieces? For example BMW 5-series has own article for every generation and only some facts on the "main" page. That would make this much easier. I dont know how it is done but someone should take this into consideration 212.149.213.242 (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

AJ Gen III Engine[edit]

The project code for this is AJ133. I don't know of any use of the "AJ Gen III" outside this article.

LewisR (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What's an "egghead option"?[edit]

From the "Series 1 (1968–1973)" subsection:

In 1972 the egghead option of a long wheel base version, providing a modest increase in leg room for passengers in the back, became available.

I have no idea what an "egghead option" might be, and Google returns well under 200 hits for the phrase, which suggests it's not simply an Americanism I haven't come across. (On which note, why the repeated use of "sedan" in an article written in British English?) Is there any reason not simply to delete the word "egghead" and leave it as "In 1972 the option of..."? Loganberry (Talk) 23:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Just looks like vandalism to me. The single word was added back in February by an anonymous user. I'll remove it now. Heep (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

MK 4??[edit]

This article really is becoming a mess. The X351 is being called the MK4 when it's very similar underneath to the X350 MK3 (hence the similiarity in project codes). XJ40 & X308 are both being seen as MK2s. IMO, the "MK" designation should be ditched. Jaguar don't and didn't ever use it and I've never seen it used in any motoring publications. LewisR (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree. Would like to see the "MK" designation ditched. Yiba (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

XJ40 1994+[edit]

I thought there were models of the XJ40 post 1994 but the article doesn't make any mention of it. Anyone have any idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozkidzez91 (talkcontribs) 14:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, production of XJ40 ceased during 1994 (probably during the summer when production was shifting to the X300) –Magnus Bäck (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Banger racers?[edit]

What are UK banger racers? And who says they're popular? Unclear terminology and unsourced. Vince (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Fuel Consumption details[edit]

I have just purchased a Jaguar Daimlar 4:0 litre Soverign and cannot find any details of the general day to day fuel comsumption can any feed me the details many thanks Stuart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.117.82.3 (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Rated as B-Class and rated as Mid-importance[edit]

Both ratings are unfortunate, but perhaps understandable. While highly informative and interesting, the article suffers from being, in my view, imperfectly finished and inadequately sourced. For example I would cite the typo 'desiginging' and the (to me anyway) jarring construction 'wheel base'. There is an almost total lack of sources in certain sections, and an IMHO regrettable lack of hyperlinking to other Wikipedia articles. In my opinion, this article does not (yet) do justice to one of the UK's most iconic and revered cars. I would gladly jump in myself and copy-edit it; however I do not have enough knowledge of the subject. I am also not (yet) a registered editor on Wikipedia. Maybe a Wikipedia editor with more knowledge of the subject than me could do so? 78.20.145.31 (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Have a look at the BMW 5 Series section and it is very well laid out. Each model has a brief summary and thena link tgo a page for that generation specifically. It's quite a big demand to do this for the XJ but I think it warrants it. As I'm a developmenty engineer at Jaguar Cars I really should do it myself but it's time and we're very busy! LewisR (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on improving this. I've already created main articles for the XJ40, X300, and X308 specifically. Model-by-model information and technical details should go there, and the general XJ article should be modeled after the one for the Chevrolet Corvette, where each generation of the car has a few paragraphs of summary and a link to the main article for that generation. This should make the general XJ article significantly smaller and more manageable. I may need to defer to others to write the Jaguar XJ (Series) article; one of the XJ40/X300/X308 articles should probably be used as a template. --ColinMB (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Series 3[edit]

"with shallower glass area" surely this should be "with deeper glass area and narrower pillars". The subtle redesign gave the XJ a much brighter cabin with bigger windows, just look at the photographs. DesmondW (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

XJ-C Coupe[edit]

original proposal
alternative proposal

I found this image in the Wikimedia Commons and thought that it would be better than the current image, which doesn't really show the coupe's profile. I just was a bit nervous about adding it, since I'm not sure where it should go. (Replace the image in the info-box, or under the Coupe sub-section?) If others approve, it should probably be added to the main XJ page.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jaguar_XJ12_Coupe_PI_dutch_licence_registration_93-FF-RB_pic_4.JPG PVarjak (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that the Coupe's real feature is how it looks at the rear I think it is reasonable to add a rear three-quarters view. My only objection to the one you propose is that it has people in it. What about the alternative one? It has other cars in the background, sure, but I think that is preferable to random people. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

XJ7?[edit]

Is this a Jag XJ7?

Or this? --98.122.20.56 (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jaguar XJ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)