A £2000 unloved Jaguar apparently

[naredogg]

m.ebay.co.uk/itm/Jaguar-XJ-Sovereign-X300-/292037721706?nav=SEARCH

[penski]

Nice car, I wonder why it's priced a grand more than similar ones :/

*n

[SmokeEm]

I honestly almost bought that when I saw it posted up on here even though I don't need another car! It looks the nads BUT check out the MOT history. Seriously unloved its whole life. I wouldn't buy it at a grand less.

[naredogg]

It's nearly 22yrs old let's not forget.

[naredogg]

Mar 2, 2017 16:08:32 GMT SmokeEm said:

I honestly almost bought that when I saw it posted up on here even though I don't need another car! It looks the nads BUT check out the MOT history. Seriously unloved its whole life. I wouldn't buy it at a grand less.

Complete opposite really chap. The car is probably in better condition than most 5yr old cars I see day in day out. Not after the bitchin on the price it's priced at what I value the car at nothing more nothing less. And yeah... £1000 buys you a lot of cars sure... won't be buying you this one though sorry to say.

[SmokeEm]

Agreed but whoever had this in early life just drove it MOT to MOT. No maintenance or upkeep. The history tells the story well. Hey, just my opinion as a prospective buyer. Whatever, she still looks the part but as others have said, she comes at a premium.

[skkylinedave]

I would buy it for that price , it says it has had the exhaust clamp tightened , we all know how much of a curse word that costly job is .

[SmokeEm]

He can mock all he likes. I was just being honest. I am the one with the cash and that alone allows me to be up front. The MOT history tells a story. You Just have to see it to tell. I find it surprising that non users of this site, log in, advertise their cars, then get the hump when us long term users have a comment they don't like. Hey, its not like RR charges you to advertise! Deal with it!

[naredogg]

Have a word..

[naredogg]

Mar 2, 2017 21:18:02 GMT SmokeEm said:

He can mock all he likes. I was just being honest. I am the one with the cash and that alone allows me to be up front. The MOT history tells a story. You Just have to see it to tell. I find it surprising that non users of this site, log in, advertise their cars, then get the hump when us long term users have a comment they don't like. Hey, its not like RR charges you to advertise! Deal with it!

I also don't advertise it for someone to try and take the biscuit. Opinions good or bad I'm not interested. I want to sell my car not deal with the wannabe Mike Brewers. I'm the one with car and I can do as I please. Don't like it? Don't like the MOT history? The PRICE?? Oh well I don't like a lot of things on EBAY HERE and in fact many things throughout the world..gonna stick my size 10 in? Naa what's the point..leave people to it, far easier for everyone really

[naredogg]

Mar 2, 2017 20:59:59 GMT skkylinedave said:

I would buy it for that price , it says it has had the exhaust clamp tightened , we all know how much of a curse word that costly job is .

Be total shock horror if the thing fell off halfway down the road though wouldn't it?? Corr imagine that..especially considering the incredibly high premium of £2k you just payed for it..called being honest fella

[Rob M]

Christ on a bike, come on now!
Its a 2K Jag in, apparently, good condition.
The price is clearly negotiable and the car has actually failed ONE previous MOT in 2006.
The advisories are sod all, normal wear and tear on a big heavy car.
The 'corrosion' to the springs will almost certainly be surface corrosion that the MOT tester will feel duty bound to advise, the other stuff pertains to brakes, bushes and the like.
A couple of weekends and a couple of hundred quid would probably sort all of those things out.
It is what it is, a used 126,000 mile Jaguar in good condition but can be made better.
If you can buy a better one cheaper, buy one.
Personally, if I was in the market for one, id be interested, nothing in the advisories that tells me its about to fold in half due to corrosion or throw a rod on the M11.
Better to be advised of potential issues than to buy a car with NO advisories only to find out that its a complete bodged up shed.
It happens, right?

[naredogg]

Mar 2, 2017 22:25:21 GMT Rob M said:

Christ on a bike, come on now!
Its a 2K Jag in, apparently, good condition.
The price is clearly negotiable and the car has actually failed ONE previous MOT in 2006.
The advisories are sod all, normal wear and tear on a big heavy car.
The 'corrosion' to the springs will almost certainly be surface corrosion that the MOT tester will feel duty bound to advise, the other stuff pertains to brakes, bushes and the like.
A couple of weekends and a couple of hundred quid would probably sort all of those things out.
It is what it is, a used 126,000 mile Jaguar in good condition but can be made better.
If you can buy a better one cheaper, buy one.
Personally, if I was in the market for one, id be interested, nothing in the advisories that tells me its about to fold in half due to corrosion or throw a rod on the M11.
Better to be advised of potential issues than to buy a car with NO advisories only to find out that its a complete bodged up shed.
It happens, right?

Praise the Lord!!! Springs are new since last Mot as are shocks. Pretty much fully stamped history last jaguar at 100k.

[Rich]

Mar 2, 2017 22:42:36 GMT naredogg said:

Praise the Lord!!! Springs are new since last Mot as are shocks. Pretty much fully stamped history last jaguar at 100k.

Rather than immediately getting the hump with people, pointing things out like this straight away in a calm and collected manner would be useful. Bear that in mind.
It's a lovely looking example of a Jag. I have no idea what it's 'worth' so I'm not chiming in with that, only it looks a lot of motor for you moolah. If some more of the MOT advisories have been rectified I'd say now is the time to add them.
GLWS.

[xbl]

In all fairness the MOT history should only serve as a mileage check, the amount of curse word testers put down as advisories is unreal - a lot of it not even relevant to the MOT! Mine work truck has had the spare wheel mentioned, previous cars have had the L plate mentioned from when I was teaching swmbo to drive ( it was in the top left corner of the screen causing zero issues), I've had yellow headlights mentioned before too. I had a VW Bora fail on yellow headlights and yellow sidelights, after arguing with the tester and proving him wrong he gave a pass.

[SmokeEm]

Mar 3, 2017 8:10:22 GMT xbl said:

In all fairness the MOT history should only serve as a mileage check, the amount of curse word testers put down as advisories is unreal - a lot of it not even relevant to the MOT! Mine work truck has had the spare wheel mentioned, previous cars have had the L plate mentioned from when I was teaching swmbo to drive ( it was in the top left corner of the screen causing zero issues), I've had yellow headlights mentioned before too. I had a VW Bora fail on yellow headlights and yellow sidelights, after arguing with the tester and proving him wrong he gave a pass.

I see your point but I see things a little differently. If the MOT history shows up the same issues year after year as advisories, it shows to me that the owner did nothing about it. Things like corroded brake lines year after year tells you owner does no maintenence unless it actually fails. To give you an idea, my Wifes car had 2 advisories this MOT - Front brake pads thin & front tyres getting low. Within 7 days of the pass, I purchased F & R pads and fitted them and had 2 new front tyres fitted. All receipts were attached to the MOT pass. This would tell any prospective buyer that we acttually take care of the car surely?

Agreed, yellow lights and an L plate are a bit stupid but most advisories are just that - advice.

[miaspa]

Mar 3, 2017 8:42:04 GMT SmokeEm said:

To give you an idea, my Wifes car had 2 advisories this MOT - Front brake pads thin & front tyres getting low. Within 7 days of the pass, I purchased F & R pads and fitted them and had 2 new front tyres fitted

[/p]

Had similar advisory for the brake pads on my daily front pads wearing thin, same advisory next two mots. They didn't need replacing, 33,000 miles between the 3 Mots proved the MOT tester was over cautious. I replaced them 36,000 miles after first being advised they were wearing thin.

[SmokeEm]

So why would you take it to the same tester if you thought he was over cautious? At the end of the day, you can all critique me all you like. The MOT history of a car tells ME a story and dictates whether or not I want to part with MY wedge. That is my choice, deal with it.

[xbl]

You must miss out on a lot of nice cars then.

[SmokeEm]

On the contrary, I've not had a bad one thankfully.

My current Merc is a bit crusty but I knew that when I bought it. I only really bought it for the wheels and when the car goes bang or rots out, I'll scrap it and keep the wheels.