David S. Wallens
David S. Wallens Editorial Director
6/6/13 8:48 a.m.

Here's some practical advice from our friends who know all about these classic Jags.

Read the rest of the story

Ransom
Ransom PowerDork
11/16/18 7:30 p.m.

This is going to sound ridiculous, but I recall the article having two cents from someone who basically had a "favorite XJ6 recipe" along the lines of starting with a Series 2 (or 3?) and doing some backdating? Wondering whether something got clobbered in the move to digital; you can see that Dean A. Cusano's block of tips got partially duplicated... Anything else lost in transition?

frenchyd
frenchyd UltraDork
11/23/18 4:51 p.m.

My personal preference is the series one. Elegant in a very classic sense ( without need of rugged rubber baby bumpers) Shorter means it’s a tad bit more nimble.  While the later cars had more rear seat room I prefer the pleasure of driving to that of being a passenger.  

Mechanically the hardware on the V12 sedans and XJS,  bolts straight forward onto the XJ6. Thus potentially improving the  sporting character, braking of the car. 

The cast Iron 4.2  is better with the later Fuel Injection heads and fuel injection although the earlier carbs while simple suffers from fuel mileage and loss of horsepower. 

If butchery or poor maintenance has the engine beyond salvation there are countless good sound engines to be found from sources including other XJ6’s suffering from the dreaded Tin worm or victims of the dreaded butchery of engine transplants. 

The Transmission while durable is the Jaguar’s great weakness. John’s cars offer a  alternative. What they call a 1/4 breed the adaption of a GM Transmission 

Parts  are not always available new but are frequently available used from a variety of sources. 

noddaz
noddaz SuperDork
11/24/18 8:06 a.m.

Nothing to add but the fact that those cars have always been beautiful.  

wspohn
wspohn Dork
11/24/18 10:13 a.m.

Sadly, they are underappreciated. A friend has a concours level early Mk 1 and has found that they aren't worth much and there are very few people interested in them. Nice drivers, though, if you can find a rust free example.

frenchyd
frenchyd UltraDork
11/25/18 10:24 a.m.
wspohn said:

Sadly, they are underappreciated. A friend has a concours level early Mk 1 and has found that they aren't worth much and there are very few people interested in them. Nice drivers, though, if you can find a rust free example.

I quiet agree. Sadly unappreciated, when they are very nice ridding/ driving cars that are both smooth and quiet.  The early MK1 has simple carburetors that with just normal maintenance gives decades of pleasure and class.  Fold  down the little built in picnic tray and dine in style and class while the poor people sit on grass fighting the ants and other crawly things.  

No they aren’t the fastest thing out there with just 210 horsepower and 4600 pounds to carry around but we don’t enter our elders in a footrace do we?  Performance is best described as sufficient. 

Ransom
Ransom PowerDork
11/25/18 11:02 a.m.
frenchyd said:
No they aren’t the fastest thing out there with just 210 horsepower and 4600 pounds to carry around

Good heavens, they aren't that bad, are they? I've found no definitive sources, but the only mentions I've found give the figure as close to 3800 lbs. Still not light, but it would be a meaningful 800 lb difference...

stuart in mn
stuart in mn UltimaDork
11/25/18 11:13 a.m.
Ransom said:

Good heavens, they aren't that bad, are they? I've found no definitive sources, but the only mentions I've found give the figure as close to 3800 lbs. Still not light, but it would be a meaningful 800 lb difference...

 

That's about what I've found online, but on the other hand car weights as quoted by the manufacturers typically are dry weight - no fuel, no coolant, no oil, just the car in its barest form.  Actual weight in real time use is going to be more.

frenchyd
frenchyd UltraDork
11/25/18 11:27 a.m.

In reply to Ransom :

Simply  going off an admittedly less than perfect memory.  I looked it up, The XJS is 4656 pounds in the later ( post 1978) configuration with the XJ12 at 4300 pounds. 

Now the All aluminum V12 is 30 pounds lighter than the cast Iron 4.2 in the XJ6 so add the 30 pounds to that for the cast Iron 4.2 and you are at 4330 

The series 1 without the added weight of rugged rubber baby bumpers and door beams  comes in at 4030 pounds and the Hens teeth 2 door comes in at 4300 pounds in North America configuration.  The European Model is at  4075. ( not imported to US until 1978 ) 

That is fuel tanks full, with the heavier automatic ( a 4 speed was available as was A/C delete) 

All weights from Haynes owner workshop manual 

Ransom
Ransom PowerDork
11/26/18 10:36 p.m.

In reply to frenchyd :

That's deeply horrible. I may have just lost my appetite for an XJ6. That's more than can be made up for with a lighter engine...

I'm crossing my fingers that Haynes has flubbed this bit.

frenchyd
frenchyd UltraDork
11/27/18 7:40 a.m.

In reply to Ransom :I don’t think so.  The cast Iron 4.2 engine designed originally during WW2  with an extremely long stroke ( 4.17 )  weighed about 660 pounds and a cast Iron case automatic transmission originally used in post war Oldsmobile’s etc. is  just heavy.   The bare front crossmember is over 220 pounds and is designed to take all that weight and isolate it so no road noise or vibration is felt by the driver.  

The rear end assembly was designed in late 50’s using the big heavy Dana 44 rear end with two swing axles and 4 shock absorbers.   The whole assembly weighs around 500 pounds at an estimate.  

So swapping in the later Jaguar all  aluminum 4 valve per cylinder 4.0 liter six cylinder with it’s much more modern ZF transmission  will get you an additional overdrive gear, another 40 horsepower but only save you a little over 300 pounds.  

Incidentally, swapping in a Chevy small block from the 70’s, 80’s, early 90’s will achieve about the same.  ( power  190-240 ) and weight savings)  but among collectors such cars are called lumps and only worth parts.  

Ransom
Ransom PowerDork
11/27/18 10:43 a.m.
frenchyd said:

In reply to Ransom :

Incidentally, swapping in a Chevy small block from the 70’s, 80’s, early 90’s will achieve about the same.  ( power  190-240 ) and weight savings)  but among collectors such cars are called lumps and only worth parts.  

They don't seem to have a lot of monetary value either way... Which is good news for actually acquiring and driving one!

Anyhow, it's a dang shame. It's just too heavy to be anything but a comfy cruiser, and the shape and the promise of pace to go with the grace and space just suggest so much more.

 

frenchyd
frenchyd UltraDork
11/28/18 6:35 a.m.
Ransom said:
frenchyd said:

In reply to Ransom :

Incidentally, swapping in a Chevy small block from the 70’s, 80’s, early 90’s will achieve about the same.  ( power  190-240 ) and weight savings)  but among collectors such cars are called lumps and only worth parts.  

They don't seem to have a lot of monetary value either way... Which is good news for actually acquiring and driving one!

Anyhow, it's a dang shame. It's just too heavy to be anything but a comfy cruiser, and the shape and the promise of pace to go with the grace and space just suggest so much more.

 

There is one alternative.  The Jaguar V12 has 284-314 horsepower compared to A Chevy V8 of the same era with as little as 160-210    And the All aluminum V12 is 30 pounds lighter then the Cast Iron Six. 

While you are doing the swap you can add a smaller more efficient Japanese Sanyo air conditioner and save weight over that heavy old York. Later V12 use a much smaller, lighter gear reduction starter and other weight and space saving moves. 

Finally if 300 horsepower doesn’t seem sufficient then toss a couple of little T3 turbo’s under the front fenders and now you are in the 500 horsepower range.   

Our Preferred Partners
IVBI4LF7HomQAL8jqmjxrFqHdcL0K64au98jRQuI3OFCG5CtPZDKjhU4dBqpoINS