1997 jag xk8 vs sl ?
 

Not trying to be controversial
Can buy a 97 xk8 Jag for under $15K
looks cool and modern
seems to be a lot more reliable and less costly to maintain than the 1990+
SL--although not as cool looking as the SL
anybody owned both?

???
 

Believe it or not the XK8 maintaince is just as much as SL's.
Not to talk about up's and doun's...

I've been told from people in the trade that the build quality is far less in the Jag. The hood mechanism was explained to me as being virtually all plastic as compared to the instant quality you feel for the SL's stainless construction.

Same source also told me that for a simple fluid replacement for their XK8 was charged at over 600GBP (1000USD) so I suspect the maintenance costs are roughly the same.

High performance prestige (sports) cars are simply expensive if serviced/repaired at the dealer! You need to either take this on board yourself or find your local trustworthy garage.

Or of course you have pots of money and don't really care, but I suspect that raising the question in the first instance says that you are at least considering costs upfront.

Either way they're both great cars, but of course we are probably slightly biased here and so I suspect you will receive the same although opposite view in the XK8 forum you have posted in ;)

Lea

The XK8 4.0l DHC was compared to the SL320 (I6) upon the launch of the former by Car magazine. The conclusion was they were about equal, notwithstanding the Jag's 8 year design advantage. Quality of the Merc was rated far higher than the Jag. The SL500 was not compared because of the price difference, however it was noted that the 500 would pulverise the Jag.

An associate of my father owned a XKR DHC for two years. It was extremely unreliable. In particular, the windows went up and down of their own accord, often refusing to go up; the hood regularly failed to go up or down; and the car wouldn't start. Not starting is pretty terrible these days: imagine your Merc simply refusing to start! (Now there's a hostage to fortune!)

The availability of a hardtop is an obvious advantage to the Merc, especially if your climate isn't Californian!

Remember, on the forum we tend to maintain our cars to an obsessive degree, going to great lengths to eliminate niggles that other owners wouldn't even notice.

I agree,
The Jag is really a pretty car, but the SL is built so much better. My neighbor has a real nice red one, but no hard top, and when the soft top goes down it looks sloppy, it seems to me a lot smaller inside too, I also heard that the wood in them is plastic veneer now, but I am not too sure about that. My SL320 will blow his Jag, we went to an autocross and it kept up pretty well, but from a stop the Merc just took off like mad when I floored it. (I had never done this before and it was soooo much Fun!! Put a smile on my face!) I kind of felt bad for him since my used SL was only 18k and he paid a lot more for his. I had my share of losses though, the SL500 and 600 would cook my lunch easily, I only got my car up to 130 that day, but I understand it will go 150, the 500 and 600 will go 155, but they have more horsepower, all are electronically limited. Get the Merc! And you can be part of the Club! Happy Benzing!
Brian

SL all the way, Jag's are Lincoln's with real wood.

I have both an XK8 coupe and a 600sl sport. The Jag is a great car, it is more like wearing a fine glove, very smooth and silky. My wife loves it more than the Benz. The Benz is a supercharged brick, very solid and fast. My favorite. The Jag has been every bit as reliable as the 600sl, and in some ways more relaible. Certainly it is a lot less fussy. I personally would recommend the Jag for the price, BUT ONE CAVEAT do not get a Jag with the 1997 or early 1998 engine. They used a NIKISIL coating similar to BMW's and it can be degraded by high sulfer gas, and can lead to a totla engine failure. They fixed the problem mid '98 I believe.