XJ40: What do they go rong? Discuss...

[Semi-C]

G'day mon brers de merde, I am set to view a 1989ish, 3.2 XJ40 (possibly, of the stick shift persuasion) tomorrow afternoon and I'm absolutely clueless as to what weaknesses or "well known" troubles these models can offer.

I've got very little info from the ad or the vendor about it. Apparently it has some MOT & it smokes when you start it...that's it!

 

Any advice you have for me or lists of things to check comprehensively would be most gratefully received and thoroughly digested.

 

I already fancy it, now I just need some gen...

 

Please help me Autoshite, you're my only 'ope.

[EssDeeWon]

I am probably wrong but I thought an XJ40 was a 4.0 and the XJ6 was the 3.2?

 

My dad had a 1991 XJ40, lovely car but he managed to pick a day when something wasn't wrong and flog to the first person to come along, and this was over 10 years ago on a low mileage and apparently cherished example.

[320touring]

  On 29/05/2015 at 22:46, EssDeeWon said:

I am probably wrong but I thought an XJ40 was a 4.0 and the XJ6 was the 3.2?

 

My dad had a 1991 XJ40, lovely car but he managed to pick a day when something wasn't wrong and flog to the first person to come along, and this was over 10 years ago on a low mileage and apparently cherished example.

Xj40 is the model, could be had with 2.9/3.2/3.6 and 4.0

 

Re what is wrong? Juwt the bit between front and rear bumpers:)

[Partridge]

Something I wrote a couple of years ago for a rag. No idea if it will be helpful, I just copy and pasted.

 

Considering owning a classic Jaguar? Then consider an XJ40.
    
As far as styling went, the XJ40 always stood out amongst other Jaguars owing to it’s lack of curves. Like a true Jaguar though, the XJ40 is a car that has matured into its looks. Elegant in profile, with a long, sleek bonnet to please Jaguar traditionalists. Ride and handling was improved over its predecessor, and it delivers comfort and class for a fraction of a new hatchback’s RRP. Sadly, it never reached its full potential by not selling as well as it perhaps could, nor won as many fans as its forbears. Languishing as a banger for years, many fell victim to poor maintenance and died too young. At least this means the roughest examples are now mostly gone from our roads, so prices for good ones are no longer at rock bottom and the XJ40 has finally attained classic status in the eyes of most enthusiasts. And not before time either, because the “banger†image has always been hiding a capable car. The XJ40 is one of the few cars which can shrug off the miles and still drive like a million dollars, even if it’s been neglected.

Production started in nineteen eighty six, and first impressions were good. The press were taken with it, and they needed to be because the XJ40 was a gamble for Jaguar. Not only did it loose the curves of the Series Three, it gained a modern, if very un-Jaguar “Tokyo at night†digital instrument display. It also had a tough act to follow and tough opposition to beat: by the ‘Eighties German cars were popular executive choices. The BMW 7 series and Mercedes-Benz S-Class were highly competent, but opposition also came from less obvious angles. The Citroen CX was still a credible alternative, and the XJ40 would also compete for sales from Austin Rover Group’s new Rover 800 launched in the same year. Those who didn’t care for badges had Ford’s Grenada or Vauxhall’s Carlton, with the Senator due a year later.

Under the bonnet were more changes. The aging XK engine was replaced by the all alloy Advanced Jaguar Six (better known as the AJ6). The new unit was available as a 2.9, which produced an anemic 165 bhp, or a 3.6, producing 221 bhp. Both shared the XJ6 badge. A five speed manual or a four speed automatic gearbox drove the rear wheels. For now a V12 would remain off the XJ40 option list, because the engine bay wasn’t yet able to accommodate it.

For nineteen ninety the XJ40 was heavily revised with Ford now in control. Possibly to combat the Lexus LS launched a year earlier, thirty five million pounds was spent upgrading the XJ6. The digital instrument display was dropped and replaced by conventional analog dials.
The 2.9 became the 3.2 with a healthier two hundred bhp, and the 3.6 was uprated to four litres. Then finally the XJ40 was made to accept a V12, but the new XJ12 (dubbed the XJ81) wouldn't surface until nineteen ninety three.

Today there’s plenty of nice examples around. Buy well, and you’ll be rewarded with a desirable classic, if you bag a lemon, be prepared for trouble. Avoid the earliest XJ40s made from ‘eighty six to ‘eighty seven as these suffered from suspension, steering and electrical maladies. 2.9s should also be avoided thanks to sluggish performance for little gain in economy over larger capacity XJs, and will be difficult to sell on. As with all cars of this vintage, make sure the electrics work as they should. The XJ40 is a complex machine, and electronic faults can be tricky to rectify. If possible, buy one which has been stored in a garage. Damp can and will wreak havoc with an XJ40’s electrical system, so steer clear of cars which have been kept outside if your budget allows. Also remember that many XJ40s have air conditioning that won’t work, but a good one will.

Check for rust. XJ40s like to rot in front wings, door edges and boot lids, but pay particular attention to the front and rear screens. These often corrode around their frames, which can cause serious structural rust when left unchecked. If the interior or boot carpet is damp, walk away. There’s plenty around, so be fussy. Range topping V12s in top condition can command prices up to four thousand pounds, and solid XJ6s with good specifications shouldn't cost much than two and a half thousand pounds.

In conclusion, it’s a misunderstood car. Some criticism was deserved but it’s every inch worthy of being a Jaguar. If you have the space and money to run one, and buy carefully, it will be a rewarding car that will make you smile every time you turn the key.

[Magnificent Rustbucket]

Yes, XJ40 is just the model designation given to the car by Jaguar when they developed it. The original Series 1 Jaguar XJ6 was codenamed XJ4, whilst the XJ-S was called the XJ27, for example.

 

The car is called an XJ6 in entry level spec with quad headlights;

 

Sovereign in higher spec (standard leather, electrically adjustable front seats, A/C, standard metallic paint, alloy wheels, polished stainless steel door frames, rectangular fish tank headlights (many converted to the quads now)

 

Daimler - very posh; like the Sov, but with individualised rear seats and fold down picnic tables on the front seats. These also had fish tank headlights when new.

 

Where do they go wrong?

 

Early cars (1986-1989) are 2.9 or 3.6 litres. These have a digital dash which is cool in a StarTrek-Lowtek sort of way, but can be unreliable. These cars can have a LOT of warning light difficulties.

 

 These early car rust like buggery - so there are very few left. These are the cars with the troublesome door handles - a reputation they definitely deserve. Later cars have an improved design which don't go wrong much.

 

The Girling power brakes are another weakness of the earlier cars. Analogue dash cars (from 1990MY) have a different (Teves) system, which is generally reliable and slightly more powerful. All Teves cars have ABS.

 

The 2.9 is one to avoid. The engine is not big enough for a car of the XJ40's weight. It really struggles and has poor economy as a consequence. The 2.9 is a single cam engine - timing chain problems are far from unknown and shortcomings on the engine breather system means some of them can be very smoky.

 

The 3.6 is a much better car. The performance is good and the engine is nigh on indestructible. They are a very strong unit. The 3.6 is better in the XJ40 than the earlier effort in the XJ-S, but it is considerably less smooth than the later 3.2 and 4 litre.

 

The 3.2 litre came out in the 1991 model year. All 3.2 litre cars have the analogue dash. Both the 3.2 and 4 litre engines are very strong - they are basically the same engine as the 3.6.

 

Smoke on startup is caused by oil seeping past the valve stem seals when the car is parked up. Most XJ40s have some - indeed, these cars will have been smoking at startup for a decade at least. Start up smoke isn't a problem - the engine should be smoke free at other times though.

 

A faulty oil pressure sender is a common XJ40 fault - it will sink right down almost to zero at hot idle. It is almost always the sender - genuine low oil pressure is close to unknown on the six cylinder AJ6 engine. I have yet to see one.

 

The transmission is the ZF4HP22 in the 2.9, 3.2 and 3.6, and the ZF4HP24 in the 4 litre. Both are very long lived and give little trouble. Like the rest of the mechanicals, they tolerate neglect.

 

The automatic transmissions are not quite so smooth as a modern unit, but should change smoothly on light throttle. Mine is nigh-on imperceptible. You feel the changes at full throttle though. Generally, an ATF and filter change is all they need.

 

Manual 2.9 and early 3.2 litre XJ40s used a Getrag 265 'box. Later 3.2 and all 4.0 litre cars used the Getrag 290 'box. Both give little trouble, but the clutch and shift are heavy. Manual XJ40s are rare. The gearbox is worth good money - often more than the car.

 

Differentials can get noisy. If they do, they howl for a long time before they fail though. Still, it spoils the effect.

 

Transmission clonks hint at a deteriorated Jurid coupling or worn universal joints in the driveline.

 

The XJ40 is a heavy car and suspension bushes can wear because of this. The car should drive straight with no wandering. It should have good body control and the suspension should be quiet. An odd feeling that the front of the car is somehow loose on the suspension at the front points to worn Vee mounts. A knocking noise from the front is generally worn front shock absorber bushes.

 

A feeling the car is steering from the rear can mean worn rear A Frame mounts. Rear shock top bushes can wear - these sound like golf balls bouncing round in the boot. Lower shock bushes sound like a little gnome tap-tap-tapping with a tiny hammer back there. Generally, other than the A Frame bushes, the rear suspension bushes do not wear anything like as badly as the front ones.

 

Check the ABS works - it is generally reliable, but can be expensive to fix.

 

The XJ40 has a reputation for electrical problems. The digital dash cars deserve this, but later cars (1990-1992MY) with the analogue dash do not - they are probably better than the average car for electrical faults. The very late 1993/1994 MY cars have less electrical problems still. The battery is in the boot of these cars - they are a hybrid of the XJ40 and X300 - with a lot od metal changes, particularly under the bonnet.

 

A lot of electrical problems on these cars are the consequence of rust - either causing the car to leak, or to corrode the earths. Either of these can cause myriad strange problems. Rust free XJ40s don't tend to suffer the problems, though some late cars can have badly soldered fuse boxes.

 

Check everything works! The A/C is almost never 'just a re-gas'. More work is generally needed - often the system has leaked at the O rings, or there is damage to the condenser. The compressor may not survive this, if you are unlucky.

 

Electric seats on Sovereign and Daimler cars rarely give trouble.

 

The interior will probably be leather - most were. It is hard wearing, but can show wear on the piping on the driver's seat bolster. This seems to affect later cars more than earlier cars, but then they have a slightly wider bolster.

 

A worn interior means big miles.  A very important thing to check for is damp. Is the interior dry? I will come to the XJ40's Achilles heel in a minute - it is RUST!!

 

Wet front carpets almost certainly mean there is rust in the bulkhead or plenum. You might get lucky and it is caused by a blocked plenum drain - but these days, with the passage of time - it is most likely rust. Check the front carpets!

 

The boot leaks for different reasons - mostly it is down to  badly sealed screws holding down rear trim between the lights, an ill fitting or torn fuel filler gaiter, a disconnected aerial drain or leaking rear lights. It generally isn't rust - unless the rear pillars are bad.

 

Rust.

 

This is the chief killer of XJ40s. They can rust badly.

 

Check the sill ends on both sides of the car - and the bottom of the wing where it meets the sill. Rust here will mean more behind - they generally rust together. Check the ends of the sill on the inside edge - they can rust here without rusting on the visible side.

 

Early cars can rust in the corners of the bonnet. Later bonnets don't rust - and fit the early cars without a problem.

 

Under the bonnet, check the tops of the inner wings, especially round the white square plastic lugs into which the wheel arch liners screw.

 

CAREFULLY check the bulkhead - this is especially important on late battery-in-boot cars. They can rust in the corners and along the weld all along the middle of the bulkhead. Check where the wings meet the plenum cover ar the rear - near the corner of the bonnet opening at the rubber seal. If there is any swelling, there will be rust under there.

 

The XJ40 can rust at the front of the foot wells on both sides - especially round the jacking points. Lifting the carpet will reveal this. Check the floor at the rear jacking points too. Rust is not do prevalent here, but if serious can compromise the strength of the floor where the A Frame brackets mount.

 

Carefully check all along the sill a the pinch weld where the sill joins the floor of the car. The XJ40 can rust all the way along this ON THE FLOOR SIDE - not the visible side.

 

The rear wheel arch can rust at the bottom where it meets the sill.

 

The rear deck can rust by the fuel filler flap, or in the corners where the deck panel meets the rear pillar.

 

The rear pillars can rust under the finisher trim at the bottom. Look for swelling here.

 

On early cars the boot lid can rust. Later cars don't suffer the problem and the boot lids are interchangeable.

 

They can rust round the front and rear screens, especially if they have been replaced in the past.

 

Early cars can have rusty door bottoms - late cars don't suffer the problem.

 

Early cars can suffer front subframe rust - which can be very serious. Later cars don't suffer the problem, but it is still worth checking anyway.

 

A loose looking or low slung radiator points to a corroded lower rad bracket.

 

The fuel pump should be quiet - it should not be obviously audible in the car when the engine is running, though you will hear a priming burst as you turn the ignition key on. It sounds like a 'Merrr' noise.

 

Early cars have an external fuel pump which is expensive, but cheap on labour. Later cars have an in tank pump which is cheaper to buy, but an expensive job to replace because of the labour.

[Partridge]

Should be enough info for him to be getting on with

[Junkman]

Do it!

[fred]

Had a 89 ' 3.6 loved it, yes computer was crap, forever coming up with odd shite.

and yeah, if anyone mentioned - rust - they like to do that

[Semi-C]

Cheers all and especially Magnificent Rustbucket, armed with your advice I shall feel a lot less like I'm attempting to decipher a Magic Eye picture with a blindfold on.

[purplebargeken]

They were good cars but likely banger fodder now. Spot on info as above. I had the 3.6 and a couple of 4.0 models. Great cars but not without rust issues, oil sender woe and digital dash stupidity on the 3.6. 

[Des]

They're a nice car but they emulate the P38 for running issues, and late Classic for structure. On the plus side there's no front diff or transfer box to go wrong which just tips them into the league of viable options.

[Cavcraft]

Rust, weep, electrics, repeat.

[Magnificent Rustbucket]

  On 30/05/2015 at 08:23, Des said:

They're a nice car but they emulate the P38 for running issues, and late Classic for structure. On the plus side there's no front diff or transfer box to go wrong which just tips them into the league of viable options.

 

I have never run a P38, but my perception of them is that they are quite a bit more troublesome to run than the XJ40. A decent XJ40 which isn't rusty and whose interior doesn't fill with water is generally pretty reliable.

 

The pages of xj40.com are not filled with tails of unreliability-horror - though they are certainly more than a few rust-woe stories on there. It must be said though, that the bad cars can be complexly awful.

 

They always say, "there's no such thing as a cheap Jag". It is certainly true of the XJ40 - the cheaper cars will cost you more than a decent one in repairs - though you can get lucky and find good cars for little money.

 

To put this into context, my own car has had almost no faults and has never broken down in all the time I have had it. It has needed extensive bodywork though. From other cars I know of, this isn't an uncommon picture especially with the late cars - which have similar reliability to the X300.

[forddeliveryboy]

Great knowledge imparted there - thanks! I've always regarded them as being bombproof in the same way a 124 Mercedes is (and better in just about every other way), just the rot on early ones was not uncommon.

 

Do the X300s drive much differently to the 40s?

[Guest xj40man]

Not much to add to the extensive replies already given apart from simply buy the best you can afford. Also try and buy as late a build car as possible as these will be more reliable. I have had mine for almost 9 years and I have only had one FTP.

[purplebargeken]

Droopy headlining sometimes too. 

 

X300 are nice cars but I think that subframe rot is a problem on them, although I could be wrong. 

[HillmanImp]

You can get confused for a pub landlord.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

The problem with the XJ40 is that the much prettier and nicer X300 and X308 are for buttons as well. XJ40's just have horrible detailing and the dashboard is a disgrace - the way the switch panel groans and moves as you operate the Maestro switches is a long way from the equivalent 7 Series or S Class. Or Lexus. Or Mondeo. Great idea, piss poor execution. Even John Egan wanted to kill it at birth (true).

 

They're not all bad (great engines) but there's too much that's eighties BL style crap. I look at my 1989 300'000 mile 7 Series where it's unrusty, never welded and where everything still works and the doors shut with that lovely soft thud. XJ40? No ta.

 

Also one rust area that's not yet (?) been mentioned; there is an earth on the bulkhead behind the sound deadening panel - it's not unknown for this to be as rotten as a carrot and the earth not earthing.

 

For £800 or so........why the fuck would anyone want a festering old '40?

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/R-REG-JAGUAR-XJ8-Series-4-0-LWB-AUTO-SOVEREIGN-ONLY-78K-PX-SWAPS-WELCOME-/321754821488?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item4aea14f370

 

Or if you are V8 chickenshit.......

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Jaguar-XJ-Executive-3-2-Automatic-/111681066994?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item1a00b5d7f2

[Magnificent Rustbucket]

You prefer the X300 and dislike the XJ40. I prefer the XJ40, though I also like the X300. Either way,  a battery in boot XJ40 and an X300 are basically the same car, with the most of the same problems and abilities. The X300 was not a new model - just a facelift.

 

 

A bad and rusty E32 is just as bad and just as rusty as a bad and rusty XJ40. Surely you can't be suggesting that 1980s BMWs never rust? Or never go wrong? I know from personal experience that neither is correct.

 

Nor are they mechanically more robust. The E32 is mechanically strong: so is the XJ40. A decent example of both is going to be reliable. A bad example of either is going to be a horror. There are plenty of XJ40s which have covered more than 300,000 miles - just as there are BMWs which have too.

 

All cars have their good points and their bad points. For what it is worth, I actually like the E32. They are good at what they do. They have areas of strength in which they definitely have the edge over the XJ40 - the build facilities at BMW were much more modern and this shows in superior fit and finish. They are however not better quality - they are better assembled. There is a difference.

 

The XJ40 has areas of ability too. They have a better ride and I prefer the handling. The BMW is sportier, but the XJ40 has greater fluidity and shines on poor road surfaces. I prefer the interior of the XJ40. The BMW lacks something present in the Jaguar. It feels like a luxury car; the 7 Series is like a big 3 Series with more toys. Some people prefer that - maybe they like the familiarity of it? 

 

The XJ40 also has a significantly better passenger safety record in an accident than the E32 - as does the Mercedes S class. Indeed, recorded passenger safety outcome statistics in an accident on the E32 are fairly poor in comparison to the Jaguar and Mercedes.

 

 

The bulkhead terminal will be show rust on the engine side in the centre of the bulkhead down the weld seam long before it is terminally (!!) rusty on the inside.

 

Why would John Egan want to kill the only new product his company had developed? - He wanted to delay it, and did so. To kill it entirely would have been very poor business.

 

This decision was vindicated - the XJ40 outsold any of the Series Jaguars and remains the best selling XJ model the company has made.

[Semi-C]

Well.

The XJ40 viewing failed to happen, rescheduling t.b.c...

I could've dodged a bullet potentially, extracted a little more info from the vendor, it is a 1989, Casio* dashed, 2.9 model.

 

Soooo....

 

Given the wisdom that has been imparted hereabouts, I could possibly source a more promising start point to a Browns Lane affair.

[Magnificent Rustbucket]

  On 30/05/2015 at 19:10, Semi-C said:

Well.

The XJ40 viewing failed to happen, rescheduling t.b.c...

I could've dodged a bullet potentially, extracted a little more info from the vendor, it is a 1989, Casio* dashed, 2.9 model.

 

Soooo....

 

Given the wisdom that has been imparted hereabouts, I could possibly source a more promising start point to a Browns Lane affair.

 

 

Definitely!!!

 

For me, any 2.9 would have to be very cheap. The engine isn't up to it - and the earlier cars did suffer some quality issues. Later cars  are much better - I think the digital dash cars generally are best left to enthusiasts. I see the appeal of them, but I'm not sure I'd recommend one. If I did buy a digidash car, it would definitely be a 3.6.

[Bren]

An early 2.9 povo spec car is autoshite gold.

 

The whole point of the exercise is that it is shite....

[Partridge]

With tweed seats and no headrests and the cheaper grade of wood....

[fred]

Noooooo 3.6 or 4.0 ! - 2.9 will be like shagging  someone with asthma very slow and gaspy

[purplebargeken]

Digidash is easy to replace, I had it down to 15 mins by the end of my ownership. Mind you, getting a fully operational one might be interesting nowadays, although I guess they would be refurb fodder now.

 

2.9, could be worse but stick out for the 3.6/4.0 in all honesty. 

[colino]

My early Jags were sweepers from the auction, going as far down the chain to green 2.9s, with wool seats and plastic wheel covers.  They are all good fun. 

NEVER a Spanish gearbox through, that would be like a diesel Rolls.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

  On 30/05/2015 at 19:07, Magnificent Rustbucket said:

You prefer the X300 and dislike the XJ40. I prefer the XJ40, though I also like the X300. Either way,  a battery in boot XJ40 and an X300 are basically the same car, with the most of the same problems and abilities. The X300 was not a new model - just a facelift.

 

 

A bad and rusty E32 is just as bad and just as rusty as a bad and rusty XJ40. Surely you can't be suggesting that 1980s BMWs never rust? Or never go wrong? I know from personal experience that neither is correct.

 

Nor are they mechanically more robust. The E32 is mechanically strong: so is the XJ40. A decent example of both is going to be reliable. A bad example of either is going to be a horror. There are plenty of XJ40s which have covered more than 300,000 miles - just as there are BMWs which have too.

 

All cars have their good points and their bad points. For what it is worth, I actually like the E32. They are good at what they do. They have areas of strength in which they definitely have the edge over the XJ40 - the build facilities at BMW were much more modern and this shows in superior fit and finish. They are however not better quality - they are better assembled. There is a difference.

 

The XJ40 has areas of ability too. They have a better ride and I prefer the handling. The BMW is sportier, but the XJ40 has greater fluidity and shines on poor road surfaces. I prefer the interior of the XJ40. The BMW lacks something present in the Jaguar. It feels like a luxury car; the 7 Series is like a big 3 Series with more toys. Some people prefer that - maybe they like the familiarity of it? 

 

The XJ40 also has a significantly better passenger safety record in an accident than the E32 - as does the Mercedes S class. Indeed, recorded passenger safety outcome statistics in an accident on the E32 are fairly poor in comparison to the Jaguar and Mercedes.

 

 

The bulkhead terminal will be show rust on the engine side in the centre of the bulkhead down the weld seam long before it is terminally (!!) rusty on the inside.

 

Why would John Egan want to kill the only new product his company had developed? - He wanted to delay it, and did so. To kill it entirely would have been very poor business.

 

This decision was vindicated - the XJ40 outsold any of the Series Jaguars and remains the best selling XJ model the company has made.

 

 

 

I used to take my XJS to a main dealer for repairs, Hartwells in Oxford around 1989 -1990 ish as they are relatively cheap on labour and there were no decent specialists. The mechanics there - to a man - said the XJ40 was a poor effort. A non stop litany of electrical problems, water leaks and differential problems that admittedly Jaguar eventually cured. I've seen these things up close - the rubbish switchgear and the Leyland way in which it was made in one of the worst, most outdated car factories of that period. Sorry, BMW and Mercedes were miles ahead. The XJ40 warranty claims are what essentially forced Jaguar into Ford's open arms.

 

Jaguar were very good with coming up with great ideas and solutions (their engines were very good) but they were stuck in the sixties and seventies, held to ransom by the likes of Lucas.

 

As for John Egan - during an interview in Classic and Sportscar he stated that he wanted to kill the XJ40 and start again. It was actually Bill Lyons who convinced him to carry on with it.

 

But, it's a bit of Jag history and nice ones want saving now.