XK-E vs XJ-S

Enzo Ferrari called the Jaguar XK-E the most beautiful car ever built, who am I to disagree with that..

However beauty is only one part of the value of something..

Rarity increases value..

Jaguar made 38,419 series 1 XK-E's (1961-1968)

Jaguar made 14,800 series 1 XJ-S's (1975-1981)

Convertibles? Top goes down the price goes up!

Jaguar made 33,996 XK-E convertibles Jaguar made 12, 372 XJ-S convertibles.. (not counting the few modified here in the US)

Power?

The earliest XK-E Jaguars had 265 horsepower (well ponies with very skinny legs) from there power went down as pollution requirements went up..

The earliest XJ-S Jaguars had 254 horsepower, (well Clydesdale's due to the torque of a V12 over a six) and power went up to 314 in the last (1996 versions)
While a few British magazines were able to get their hands on specially "tuned" XK-E's and record 150 MPH speeds few XK-E's actually could perform to that level.

In reply to frenchyd:

You should also note +1000 lbs and +2 sec 0 to 60 on the XJ-S vs the XKE. Do you want svelte and timeless or big, poorly received by the market and niche? What was the quality control at Jaguar in the years the XJ-S was being built? If it were me, I'd be looking at XK8 (with the fixed engine) or XKR.

I'm just going to leave these here:

TWR Jag @Bathurst Bob Tullius car @goodwood

Given, you're not going to find either of those on craigslist, but with a handful of mods (well, some really expensive ones and a half dozen Weber down-draughts.) you can have a very mean feline.

Rarity only increases the value of something if demand outstrips supply. Given the number of XJ-S' being practically given away on Craigslist etc, I don't think that applies in this case. That's fortunate for me, since I'm watching the local ads for a nice XJS at a bargain price.

Isn't the original Aston Martin DB7 (the one with the inline 6) basically an XJ-S with a different body? I would argue that's on par with the XK-E in the looks department, and the price is a lot higher than an XJ-S. I'm not sure what my point is here, though.

In reply to frenchyd:

You just can't base things on being rare. If so my Triumph TR8's (2800 produced) should be huge collector cars and things like the run of the mill Porsche 911's should be give aways. But its a strange world. 25 yrs ago I spent $8500 for a clean TR8 over an average Porsche 911T for the same price. Drove both cars and thought the TR8 was way cooler, more unique and a better investment. The 911T is worth a lot more today so I was only right about two of the three. Never regretted buying the TR8 however.

Couple of comments.

The XKE power spes are gross and the XJS are net.

The XKE was relatively svelte as only a car built in the years before safety requirement proliferation can be. The XJS is a pig, weighing a couple of tons albeit in a small package - more than my Jensen Interceptor with big block Chrysler power. And the performance was only lukewarm, exacerbated by the fact that we only got automatics in America.

While certainly not in the same ballpark in terms of production numbers as an MGB, they did make 115,000 of the XJS.

I had a couple of friends that owned and use XJS for many years so was able to drive and appreciate them. My impressions are a tight rattle free car, that felt heavy and a bit ponderous and lacked much snap in the engine department (particularly in North American spec), and was so well muffled that you had zero sporting character - could have been a V8, a V-12, or whatever, you wouldn't know it. That was all intentional as it was a different time and people were willing to by a luxo-barge over a hair-shirt old style sports car every time.

Sadly, there are many rat-bags out there and they are expensive to restore if rusty, but a good XJS is a fine car as a driver, if that sort of car suits you.

One thing that did surprise me about the two is that the XJS apparently has a comparable Cd to the better looking XKE!

My dad has owned a fair condition driver quality 1969 XKE for 16 years and my brother recently traded in his excellent condition 1990 XJS convertible which he owned for about 20 years. Both are/were summer only weekend cars. My brother spent untold thousands of dollars on several occasions on the XJS and it rarely ran well for more than a couple of months. It was his baby and he took excellent care of it. The XKE soldiers on for pennies on the dollar by comparison.

I have much more seat time in the XKE. Obviously they are very different cars but I much prefer the XKE. It is really hard to believe it is a 47 year old car it rides and drives so well even considering the suspension could use a refresh.

BillBall wrote: In reply to frenchyd: You should also note +1000 lbs and +2 sec 0 to 60 on the XJ-S vs the XKE. Do you want svelte and timeless or big, poorly received by the market and niche? What was the quality control at Jaguar in the years the XJ-S was being built? If it were me, I'd be looking at XK8 (with the fixed engine) or XKR.

I note the difference but the buy in for a semi decent project XK-E is well north of $30,000 with some asking +$60,000. While entry level for a project XJ-S is in the few hundreds range while decent drivers are in the $3-6000 range! Quality control? Really!!?? On cars up to 42 years old? So what if some limp wristed assembly line worker comparing his paycheck to those of management failed to tighten the ground wire properly? By now any shortcoming has long since been rectified or will be rectified in restoration. The reliability of a Jaguar V12 is vastly superior to that of the other V12 choices of the era like Ferrari or Lamborgini.

As a racer, most of the weight difference goes away and the size of the XJ-S makes it accept decently wide tires (Group A in Europe had 13 inch wide by 17 inch wheels on stock fenders) without the requirement for big fender flairs.. Compared to a Camaro or a Corvette and it's contemporary the Mercedes 450 they are all similar sized..

The earliest XJ-S's are 42 years old already.. and their lineage traces back to Sir Lyons.. While the XK-8 is a pure Ford project..

wspohn wrote: Couple of comments. The XKE power spes are gross and the XJS are net. The XKE was relatively svelte as only a car built in the years before safety requirement proliferation can be. The XJS is a pig, weighing a couple of tons albeit in a small package - more than my Jensen Interceptor with big block Chrysler power. And the performance was only lukewarm, exacerbated by the fact that we only got automatics in America. While certainly not in the same ballpark in terms of production numbers as an MGB, they did make 115,000 of the XJS. I had a couple of friends that owned and use XJS for many years so was able to drive and appreciate them. My impressions are a tight rattle free car, that felt heavy and a bit ponderous and lacked much snap in the engine department (particularly in North American spec), and was so well muffled that you had zero sporting character - could have been a V8, a V-12, or whatever, you wouldn't know it. That was all intentional as it was a different time and people were willing to by a luxo-barge over a hair-shirt old style sports car every time. Sadly, there are many rat-bags out there and they are expensive to restore if rusty, but a good XJS is a fine car as a driver, if that sort of car suits you. One thing that did surprise me about the two is that the XJS apparently has a comparable Cd to the better looking XKE!

No-one can say anything bad about an XK-E except, well the prices. Entry level XK-E's are well above my budget. While I can buy a XJ-S and race it for much less than a project XK-E will cost.. A racing XJ-S is a thing of beauty! and if you have some mechanical skill not at all intimidating..

Remember all the complex junk on a V12 goes away in a race configuration.. Then it's just a simple engine that is really stout and decently simple to work on.. Don't worry if you have to take your shoes off to count to 12.. Jaguar makes it simple! It's 1-6 side A or B If fuel rejection scares you there are carbs that work, and no you don't have to buy Webers,, Remember Group 44 and Huffaker made over 450 horsepower on just 4 S.U's. (that's in the days when Corvette race cars made about the same power)

Schmidlap wrote: Rarity only increases the value of something if demand outstrips supply. Given the number of XJ-S' being practically given away on Craigslist etc, I don't think that applies in this case. That's fortunate for me, since I'm watching the local ads for a nice XJS at a bargain price. Isn't the original Aston Martin DB7 (the one with the inline 6) basically an XJ-S with a different body? I would argue that's on par with the XK-E in the looks department, and the price is a lot higher than an XJ-S. I'm not sure what my point is here, though.

I used to buy XK-E with a little rust in the rocker panels and scrap them just for their engine. Going price? $50.!! I paid $300 for my XK-E V12 race car. (a 1972 roadster with chrome wire wheels and the 4 speed) Junk XK-E's were all over the place..

Those so common XJ-S's are already as much as 42 years old and people will look back at these prices with wonderment..

Cactus wrote: I'm just going to leave these here: TWR Jag @Bathurst Bob Tullius car @goodwood Given, you're not going to find either of those on craigslist, but with a handful of mods (well, some really expensive ones and a half dozen Weber down-draughts.) you can have a very mean feline.

Prices for the originals is going through the roof but you can have the same amount of fun and vintage race a Jag XJ-S for peanuts (The oldest ones are 42 years old) compared to an XK-E

A semi decent XJ-S is a few hundred dollars especially if the unimportant stuff is trashed (interior, paint, tires, etc.) once stripped of all the pollution junk, A/C etc. the engine really is gorgeous! And relatively simple to work on! 4 S.U.'s will get you in the neighborhood of 400 horsepower with just a modest low budget. 750 is possible with a big budget but still probably less than a serious vintage racer has in his XK-E's engine

If you remove the undercoating, sound deadening, bumpers, interior etc.. even with a roll-cage you approach 3000 pounds. Toss out glass (except windshield) and it's mechanism hollow out the doors to the skins and properly gut it like a race car you can approach 2700 pounds.. A really focused effort can reduce it from there..

Transmission? Well any decent fabricator can take a Chevy scattershield and adapt it to the later (post 1977) V12 block. (hint; the dowel pins line things up)

Want affordable big racing brakes? Call Wilwood! Want cheap wheels? Look at Corvette..

In short you can make a Group 44 tribute car for a budget that won't buy you a competitive Miata. Then thunder around and have an insane amount of fun!! Isn't that what it's supposed to be about?

wspohn wrote: Couple of comments. The XKE power spes are gross and the XJS are net. The XKE was relatively svelte as only a car built in the years before safety requirement proliferation can be. The XJS is a pig, weighing a couple of tons albeit in a small package - more than my Jensen Interceptor with big block Chrysler power. And the performance was only lukewarm, exacerbated by the fact that we only got automatics in America. While certainly not in the same ballpark in terms of production numbers as an MGB, they did make 115,000 of the XJS. I had a couple of friends that owned and use XJS for many years so was able to drive and appreciate them. My impressions are a tight rattle free car, that felt heavy and a bit ponderous and lacked much snap in the engine department (particularly in North American spec), and was so well muffled that you had zero sporting character - could have been a V8, a V-12, or whatever, you wouldn't know it. That was all intentional as it was a different time and people were willing to by a luxo-barge over a hair-shirt old style sports car every time. Sadly, there are many rat-bags out there and they are expensive to restore if rusty, but a good XJS is a fine car as a driver, if that sort of car suits you. One thing that did surprise me about the two is that the XJS apparently has a comparable Cd to the better looking XKE!

What drives the cost of a restoration? Mainly labor and the degree perfection is desired.. If we assume driver quality any reasonably skilled D-I-Y person can make a presentable car on a tiny budget compared to a concourse ready car. Delete all the expensive interior and trim bits not required in a race car and the cost of fun becomes even more affordable..

Go with wrapped instead of painted and even some less than perfect body work can be made 10 foot presentable.. When I was racing I'd go to Fleet Farm and buy tractor paint to paint on a tiny budget.. Now days though I'd buy on-line and get lacquer since it dries so fast and runs, drips, and mistakes can be so quickly sanded off and repainted if needed..

With perfect examples of XK-E's selling for well over $100,000 and project car's selling for $30,000 Vintage racing an XK-E can't be done well on even a $50,000 budget..

Project XJ-S's on the other hand sell for a few hundred dollars and can be easily made track ready for $5000..

Imagine the sound of the V12 with an open exhaust and 400 horsepower under your foot.. Race ready it wouldn't be that difficult to get it to around 3000 pounds which would yield you around 7 pounds per horsepower.. That $50,000 Jaguar XK-E would be easily less than 300 horsepower Thus having you race around 8+ pounds per horsepower

frenchyd wrote: The earliest XJ-S's are 42 years old already.. and their lineage traces back to Sir Lyons.. While the XK-8 is a pure Ford project..

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for the XJ-S, they will unfortunately sit in the XKE's shadow. I do take issue with the blanket miss-understanding of the Ford ownership period. The ONLY Ford platform Jaguar was the X-Type. The only Ford engines in a Jaguar were the Duratec derived V6 engines used in the S-Type and X-Type. And No, the S-Type was not a re-skinned Lincoln LS.. the opposite was true. The Lincoln and retro Bird rode on the Jaguar platform and actually used their own version of the Jaguar AJ-V8, the 3.9. I in fact learned a whole lot about this platform, having had a 2005 S-Type.

The XK8 was a pure Jaguar design, actually borrowing much from the XJ-S. It was different enough to be given it's own platform designation, X100. Now, given what I know and what I have seen through the years, my personal crystal ball pegs the later 4.2L XKR as a future collectible. Fairly rare, attractive in a classic way, better performance and reliability from the 4.2 and 6 speed ZF trans... but that is just speculation. Honestly Ford did well during their stewardship of Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston Martin, Volvo, and Mazda. Not like what GM did to Saab and Isuzu. All the former Ford companies are still doing just fine.

JOsworth wrote:

frenchyd wrote: The earliest XJ-S's are 42 years old already.. and their lineage traces back to Sir Lyons.. While the XK-8 is a pure Ford project..

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for the XJ-S, they will unfortunately sit in the XKE's shadow. I do take issue with the blanket miss-understanding of the Ford ownership period. The ONLY Ford platform Jaguar was the X-Type. The only Ford engines in a Jaguar were the Duratec derived V6 engines used in the S-Type and X-Type. And No, the S-Type was not a re-skinned Lincoln LS.. the opposite was true. The Lincoln and retro Bird rode on the Jaguar platform and actually used their own version of the Jaguar AJ-V8, the 3.9. I in fact learned a whole lot about this platform, having had a 2005 S-Type. The XK8 was a pure Jaguar design, actually borrowing much from the XJ-S. It was different enough to be given it's own platform designation, X100. Now, given what I know and what I have seen through the years, my personal crystal ball pegs the later 4.2L XKR as a future collectible. Fairly rare, attractive in a classic way, better performance and reliability from the 4.2 and 6 speed ZF trans... but that is just speculation. Honestly Ford did well during their stewardship of Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston Martin, Volvo, and Mazda. Not like what GM did to Saab and Isuzu. All the former Ford companies are still doing just fine.

Ford spent a fortune on Jaguar Not the least of which went into their formula 1 project, However Sir William Lyons made Jaguar. From a motorcycle side car business through The awesome XK-E and into The XJ platform his touch and vision made Jaguar what it was.. Lyons could have made a V8 but decided that a V12 simply had more cachet. At the time Only Ferrari was making V12's and V12's have always been considered a premium motor..

I don't dispute the XK-E's value or worth.. (I've owned several) However in today's market they are simply priced out of a person with a modest budget reach. You can buy an older XK-8 which came about only because of Fords investment. (which is why I call it a Ford product) and it has a much higher degree of reliability than the earlier Lyons products could ever lay claim to.. But in doing so you will be accepting a product devoid of Sir William Lyons eye and attention to detail.

In my shop I have a 3.8 litre DOHC Jaguar six and several V12's one of which will join my collection of motors on display.. I've looked at the V8 and cannot find one worthy of display.. Once you get underneath the plastic it looks like everything else cost accountants had a hand in building.. yes it may be more modern and powerful but it sure isn't beautiful.

Frenchy how dare they come and make difference on all things jag v12 or xjs?

Can we call it an E-Type, like Jaguar did, not XKE like Americans did?

LMGill wrote: Can we call it an E-Type, like Jaguar did, not XKE like Americans did?

I differ to your choice sir and feel properly chastised

And if it matters, there was no XKD either - it was a D type. But the XKSS was dubbed that by the factory, IIRC.

Easy call, I don't fit in an E-Type but do in an XJS.

I was seriously looking for one and checked out several local examples. Even in Florida, rust was an issue and I absolutely won't buy a rusty classic. There are too many places to spend your money on a V12 Jag without having to do rust repair. I ended up with a rust free BMW 633Csi. More room, less complicated.

Good call on the 633csi - nice looking. I also like the 850 series with V12, but don't think I'd like the maintenance cost if anything went wrong!

maj75 wrote: Easy call, I don't fit in an E-Type but do in an XJS. I was seriously looking for one and checked out several local examples. Even in Florida, rust was an issue and I absolutely won't buy a rusty classic. There are too many places to spend your money on a V12 Jag without having to do rust repair. I ended up with a rust free BMW 633Csi. More room, less complicated.

Or you can do as I did this week.. I brought home an absolutely rust free nice, good interior,Southern California XJ-S V12 for tiny money.. The trick is buy something that doesn't run and hasn't run in a long while (over 10 years in this case)..

It's an engine.. all engines are very simple!! Gas, spark on time, and it will run. Find out if it's getting fuel at the correct pressure, then check the spark and timing.. If the engine was junk (it's not) a good running engine sells for between $500- $1500. With proper tools and experience it's about 20 hours to swap out..

Shops have learned to scare checkbook experts and will quote silly numbers and the customer who leads with his checkbook deserve it.. My local Honda dealer quoted my fiancé over $600 for a brake job.. it had to be done!!! Well there was over 10,000 miles left on those brake pads but to calm her nerves I replaced them anyway.. It took me 55 minutes and cost less than $50.. I'm 69 years old and 100 pounds overweight..

maj75 wrote: Easy call, I don't fit in an E-Type but do in an XJS. I was seriously looking for one and checked out several local examples. Even in Florida, rust was an issue and I absolutely won't buy a rusty classic. There are too many places to spend your money on a V12 Jag without having to do rust repair. I ended up with a rust free BMW 633Csi. More room, less complicated.

I've seen plenty of rust free Jaguars even here in the rust belt. I've also seen plenty of rusty BMW's, etc. So they are out there it's simply a matter of where and when..

As for complicated, any engine designed in the 1950's and built in the 1970's and later isn't that complicated.. Gas, spark at the right time, and the engine will run (unless something is seriously broken).

OK there are hoses all over the top of a Jaguar, I wish they'd spent a few extra minutes in the design room and cleaned it up but that isn't too hard to do. Hoses should be replaced every 5 years or so and absolutely need it after 10 years unless you want to park along a road with some fluid running out. That is the perfect opportunity to go the extra mile the factory bean counters didn't go.. It's not just Jaguar's, have you ever looked under any hood? There is either a plastic cover hiding all the hoses or the engine is buried underneath..

I am just finishing a story where I compared the new F-Type vs. the E-Type. I think you guys will like this one.

In reply to Tim Suddard: I'll look forward to reading it! OH, did you know the Jag V12 weighs 712 pounds while the V8 weighs 441 pounds? I guess the new plastic valve covers and intake manifold really helped with the weight issue..

Also the V8 had 294 horsepower when it first came out in 1996 compared to the 318 horsepower of the V12 they just finished producing.

frenchyd,

Good info, thanks.