by "Honeybunchesofgoats" (honeybunche0fgoats)
Published 06/05/2017 at 09:14
by "Honeybunchesofgoats" (honeybunche0fgoats)
Published 06/05/2017 at 09:14
No Tags
STARS: 2
But, come on, $6k for a 1990 XJS V12 with over 100,000 miles on it? That’s incredibly CP. For $10k–$13k, you can have your pick from any number of XJS garage queens with 20k–30k on the clock. Sure, that’s almost twice the price, but this is a fucking XJS. A fucking XJS with 110k on the clock. If that extra $4–$6k is a barrier for you, you’re going to run into a lot of trouble really fast.
Some examples of just V12s:
https://cnj.craigslist.org/cto/6127664817.html
35k for $15k (negotiable) with service records.
https://southjersey.craigslist.org/cto/6159643706.html
26k for $13k.
https://jerseyshore.craigslist.org/cto/6130061485.html
44k for $8250, although, granted, no photos.
And that’s just on my local Craigslist.
"BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires" (biturbo228)
06/05/2017 at 09:35, STARS: 6
I have a bit of a theory that it’s better to buy older, potentially unreliable cars with higher mileage than lower.
What I’ve found with ‘garage queens’ is that they accrue so little mileage over the years that the owners never get round to replacing anything. Bushes are knackered, timing belts (if it has them) are decades old, oil have been changed maybe 4 times in 20 years. Basically, everything age related is completely shot. but has never been replaced because the owner only does 200 miles a year and it’s not worth it.
If you have an XJS with over 100k miles on it, it’s proof that it has had an owner who has been able to accrue that many miles on it. You don’t get that by not doing your maintenance on a car like that.
You see the same with Biturbos. If I see a Biturbo that has 20k miles on it, to me it’s proof it has had an owner who was not capable of keeping it running for more than 20k miles.
"SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie" (sidewaysondirt)
06/05/2017 at 09:36, STARS: 2
Personally, I’d rather the high mileage one. I doubt that sitting is less bad for a Jag V12 than for other cars.
"LongbowMkII" (longbowmkii)
06/05/2017 at 09:41, STARS: 1
With a garage queen almost none of those vacuum lines or wires have been replaced in nearly 30 years
"Honeybunchesofgoats" (honeybunche0fgoats)
06/05/2017 at 09:44, STARS: 1
I can definitely see that, especially with my experience with Ford Jags, where anything under 100k gives me pause, because it means it’s very likely that issues like timing tensioners haven’t been fixed (and in older cars, that the Nikasil engine linings haven’t had a chance to start shedding).
Still though, with an old V12 XJS, you’re going to have so many problems anyway, that I’d personally rather start replacing everything on a model with 1/5 of the mileage.
Plus, a lot of the responses are “cheap V12 Jag goodness? NP!!” I sort of feel that if your motivation is the low entry price, then you really should not be buying a 27 year old British car engineered in a time when the company was on the verge of collapsing
"WilliamsSW" (williamssw)
06/05/2017 at 09:51, STARS: 1
Isn’t there an argument to be made, though, that if you’re going to replace everything anyways, you might as well buy it for $6k instead of $8-$15k? The one for $8,250 may be intriguing, but the lack of photos is a red flag.
"duurtlang" (duurtlang)
06/05/2017 at 09:55, STARS: 2
Exactly. I thought the same thing when I read the above. Freakishly low mileage for the age is more of a disadvantage than an advantage. I’d rather have a realistic low mileage car, which a 100k miles car is. 100k on a 27 year old car is less than 4k miles a year, that’s very little but enough for maintenance. 1k miles a year is not enough.
"SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie" (sidewaysondirt)
06/05/2017 at 09:55, STARS: 0
My thoughts exactly. The most problematic bits have been dry-rotting for decades.
"diplodicus" (diplodicus)
06/05/2017 at 10:16, STARS: 1
The Nikasil lining should be ok with lower sulfur content in todays fuel though. Unless the Jag engines are worse than the BMW M60.
"BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires" (biturbo228)
06/05/2017 at 10:34, STARS: 1
Your second point is spot on, and exactly why a lot of XJS’ are in poor condition. People see them as a cheap entry point to V12 goodness, and often don’t have the means (monetary or experience) to keep them in good running nick.
I’ll agree with WilliamsSW though. If I’m going to be replacing things anyway, I’d like a $4000 head-start on that. Half of that would pay for all of the replacement parts you’d need and you’d still be up $2000.
"BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires" (biturbo228)
06/05/2017 at 10:35, STARS: 0
That’s a good way of looking at it. 4k miles a year is enough for problems to become noticeable and irritating enough that they get fixed. 1k miles a year is little enough that people could live with problems year after year and it not be worth fixing them.
"someassemblyrequired" (someassemblyrequired)
06/05/2017 at 11:42, STARS: 2
I wouldn’t take a V12 XJS if it was given to me. Now a late 4.0 car with the refresh, or one of the 3.6L 5 speed unicorns? That’s a different story.
"Honeybunchesofgoats" (honeybunche0fgoats)
06/05/2017 at 17:06, STARS: 0
It’s crazy how much late models can go for.
"Honeybunchesofgoats" (honeybunche0fgoats)
06/05/2017 at 17:08, STARS: 0
That’s good to know. I’ve basically been writing off any XK8s before 2001 just because of that, even though some of them are really starting to bottom out in price.