I am intrigued

"sm70- why not Duesenberg?" (sm70-whynotduesenberg) 04/24/2019 at 11:00 • Filed to: None

0

19

Badges on this car indicate that this is an XJ6. However, running the plate comes back to a 1992 Jaguar Vanden Plas Majestic. And unless I’m greatly mistaken, the ‘92 Vanden Plas of this bodystyle was a V12 - the XJ6 had already changed to the square light XJ40. So what’s going on here?

PartyPooper2012 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 04/24/2019 at 11:02

0

could be both...

https://www.kbb.com/jaguar/xj/1992/xj6-vanden-plas-sedan-4d/

edit... I see what you mean about the lights.... never mind. i dont know. but maybe it could be both?

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > PartyPooper2012 04/24/2019 at 11:05

0

Right but a ‘92 XJ6, Vanden Plas or otherwise, does not look what I posted - it looks like this:

smobgirl > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 04/24/2019 at 11:09

3

Gonna guess the owner has more than one Jag, rarely are any of them running, and just moved the plates to go for a drive?

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > smobgirl 04/24/2019 at 11:12

0

That’s certainly possible.

fintail > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 04/24/2019 at 11:22

1

As far as I know, last model year for this style in the US was 1987, XJ40 after that. With those bumpers, probably no grey market shenanigans.

EDIT: I also notice this car appears to lack a CHMSL, so before 1986.  

PartyPooper2012 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 04/24/2019 at 11:34

0

yep. I would go with fake VP badges... similar to M badges on non m class BMWs

diplodicus forgot his password > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 04/24/2019 at 11:37

0

How do you run a plate? 

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > PartyPooper2012 04/24/2019 at 11:52

1

...but this one doesn’t have any Vanden Plas badges.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > diplodicus forgot his password 04/24/2019 at 11:53

0

CarFax

PartyPooper2012 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 04/24/2019 at 11:58

1

oh yeah... then.... fake news? Maybe registration is messed up? 

Long_Voyager, Now With More Caravanny Goodness > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 04/24/2019 at 12:17

3

Trusting Carfax, your first mistake.......

Thomas Donohue > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 04/24/2019 at 12:58

1

You’ll have to snap a pic of the VIN.  Just make sure not to chalk the tires when you do!

RPM esq. > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 04/24/2019 at 13:05

1

CarFax is useful for registration and title stuff but isn’t much good for VIN decoding beyond the model and year—it doesn’t always differentiate between trims. Try running a 4Runner sometime, as I often have, and it will usually say Toyota 4Runner SR5/Limited/etc. (i.e. all possible trims) rather than listing the actual trim of the VIN in question .

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > RPM esq. 04/24/2019 at 13:26

0

Right but in this case I think it has the year wrong, not the trim.

RPM esq. > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 04/24/2019 at 13:56

1

That would be unusual since the year should be baked into the VIN--don’t think I’ve seen that before!

MiniGTI - now with XJ6 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 04/24/2019 at 14:03

1

It’s clearly a series III so 1987 or older US. I think the s3 XJ12 was made a little longer but not sold in us. In fact s3 12 cal w as rare if sold in the US at all. Source: own a s3 XJ6. 

AlfaCorse > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 04/24/2019 at 14:26

1

I’m gonna go with it’s an 87 or earlier, either CarFax has the wrong year or the owner put plates from another Jag they have . Production of the series III XJ6 ended with the 87 model year for all markets , only the v12 continued until 92 with the series 3 body.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > MiniGTI - now with XJ6 04/24/2019 at 14:59

0

Ah yes I remember seeing yours 

MiniGTI - now with XJ6 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 04/24/2019 at 16:58

1

Still have it, still runs great. I’ve got most of the 30-year old car problems sorted now (belts and hoses) and it’s been perfectly reliable. I’v e pr obably done at least 7000 miles since you saw it.