Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jjrodger
I looked at the XK8 but price and condition of the used examples I considered put me right off. The build quality is not there compared to the R129. My father's friend owned a XKR convertible for a year from new (UKP60k from new) and it was a shed. Some days it wouldn't start, some days the hood would go down but not up, other days the windows would go up and down of their own accord. He had no faith in the vehicle and ended up in his 530d most days before eventually sending the Jag back.
|
Thanks, interesting.
Actually I've just been taking a look at the XK8 forum at
http://forums1.roadfly.org/jaguar/forums/xk8/ and it's not encouraging. The nikasil engine problem seems to be prevalent for pre-2000 cars, and there are a lot of niggles along the lines of your friend's father.
There are a few scattered posts from owners about getting a good run, but overall not that many.
However, this may not be indicative of all XKs... perhaps there are many owners without problems who don't visit the forum, and are out and about enjoying their purchase.
I've often wondered about using forums to evaluate in this way. It would seem that many people visit to solve problems, thus giving a biased lean to the reliability of any vehicle. After all, there's only a limited number of times you can post and praise the reliability of any car you own, but there's always something to gripe about with any model.
On the plus side, the XK is a sexy beast when compared to the blocky lines of the 129. And in a way the Jag is a little more anonymous on the road too, lacking our over-large grill star identifier.
Ken Silver
--------------
~1993 SL500, glistening triple black, xenons:
http://www.kensilver.com/SL
~1999 SLK 230 Kompressor, silver/black leather, CD, immaculate (my wife's)
~1999 Suzuki Grand Vitara. black & silver
~1991 Daimler, shiny grey/grey leather, best in country!
~ex 350SL, 230E, 280E, MX5 and a lot of other makes not nearly as nice.