Opinions---Jaguar

"Alotta Fagina" > wrote in
message . ..
> Jaguar is now Ford, I dont know about pre-2001 models but now it's
Ford.
> Ford also runs Mazda, RollsRoyce (??, maybe not), Volvo, Saab (??),
etc.
>
>

Saab is part of General Motors.

I can answer a little for the Jaguar question. I have an older one (86/xj6)
and I must say, it is a bit differant to deal with with all of its
specialized ways of handling things. i.e. fuel coolers, pre-warmer this and
that, various pressure valves, unique transmission etc. Once you are
acquainted with a model, its not so bad if you work on such things and can
get parts etc. but cheap doesn't come CHEAP if you don't work on cars
especially Jags.

Once you are
> acquainted with a model, its not so bad if you work on such things and can
> get parts etc. but cheap doesn't come CHEAP if you don't work on cars
> especially Jags.


This was one of the concerns. This young man is not very good about
maintaining his
car, apparently has little desire to learn, nor can he afford to spend a
lot, particularly if maintenance is frequent or expensive.

He has expensive tastes, a desire to appear prosperous, but little ability
to $upport the habit.

The negative comments I've read seem too apply to the much older inline
6 and V-12 engined Jags. Those cars exhibited the the usual problems
long associated with the name.

The later V8 powered models are supposed to gave no more problems than
you would expect as a car ages. The only complaint I've read has more
to do with styling.

"John S." > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The negative comments I've read seem too apply to the much older inline
> 6 and V-12 engined Jags. Those cars exhibited the the usual problems
> long associated with the name.
>
> The later V8 powered models are supposed to gave no more problems than
> you would expect as a car ages. The only complaint I've read has more
> to do with styling.
>

Thanks John S.
I found one website that shows this model to be better than average with
respect to reliability
and lower than average with respect to repair cost.
Another gave it an "F".
He has bought the car, there is no going back, so we'll see how it does for
him.

That's a classy car, I'm sure he will enjoy it. If it were me I would
have a mechanic who knows Jag's or a dealer go through it. At a
minimum I would have all fluids changed in addition to the usual
inspection.

Oh my...warning bells are ringing after reading this paragraph.

"This young man is not very good about
maintaining his car, apparently has little desire to learn, nor can he
afford to spend a
lot, particularly if maintenance is frequent or expensive. He has
expensive tastes, a desire to appear prosperous, but little ability
to $upport the habit."

A Jag (or any expensive car) is not a good one to ignore maintenance
and repairs on. His limited resources will be stretched to breaking if
a transmission or engine goes out for lack of simple maintenance.

"John S." > wrote in message
oups.com...
> That's a classy car, I'm sure he will enjoy it. If it were me I would
> have a mechanic who knows Jag's or a dealer go through it. At a
> minimum I would have all fluids changed in addition to the usual
> inspection.

He is not one to ask for, or to accept, good advice.

ed wrote:
> I can answer a little for the Jaguar question. I have an older
> one (86/xj6) and I must say, it is a bit differant to deal with
> with all of its specialized ways of handling things. i.e. fuel
> coolers, pre-warmer this and that, various pressure valves,
> unique transmission etc. Once you are acquainted with a model,
> its not so bad if you work on such things and can get parts etc.
> but cheap doesn't come CHEAP if you don't work on cars especially
> Jags.

Is yours' a vintage with mineral-oil brake fluid? I recall Jag,
Rolls-Royce, and maybe Citro=EBn went off the deep end in the 80's
and spec'ed their brake systems with this stuff:

<http://www.classicgarage.com/luprmioil.html>

Another brand is Castrol HSMO (Hydraulic System Mineral Oil).

On Sun, 15 May 2005 21:51:20 GMT, "Jose El-Martinez"
> wrote:

>Dollars are not equal to fun, i say again spending 72K on a car is
>ridiculous, 40K is the limit, after that I'd go around the world for the
>remaining 32K

The reason some people have 72k to spend on a car is that they don't take
(half) a year off to travel around the world.

Jasper