philsford
Part of things
Posts: 733
Club RR Member Number: 100
|
Jaguar xj6 xj40 2.9 good/badphilsford
@philsford
Club Retro Rides Member 100
|
|
Has anyone got any experience of these xj40 2.9? I have had a 3.2 x300 a few years ago but prefer the look of the xj40 but the one that is winking at me is a 2.9 which Google suggests is best avoided as are all early ones. To be fair all what I can find was written years ago when they were probably all worth £500. Is a 2.9 really underpowered? Are the common early car problems that bad? At nearly 35 years old you would think the owners have ironed out the niggles. Picture included of said car and yes it has cloth seats.
|
|
Last Edit: Jun 4, 2021 16:31:35 GMT by philsford
|
|
lilbob
Part of things
Posts: 419
|
|
|
I agree I would have thought all the problem area's would have been looked at by now But it looks amazing so who care go for it and worry about the problems when they occur
|
|
|
|
adam73bgt
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 4,867
Club RR Member Number: 58
|
Jaguar xj6 xj40 2.9 good/badadam73bgt
@adam73bgt
Club Retro Rides Member 58
|
|
It's been a few years since I had an XJ40 so I can't really recall if there were any major issues with the 2.9, I think it tended to be they cost about the same as a bigger engined one so you might as well have had the bigger engine!
That said, I had a 4.0 and I don't recall it being hugely fast in a straight line but if you drive it as more of a cruiser then the 2.9 might not be as much of an issue.
If it's tidy in the bodywork then it could well be worth going for 😊 a 2.9 is probably one of the rarest variants of xj40 now!
|
|
Last Edit: Jun 5, 2021 14:45:06 GMT by adam73bgt
|
|
|
|
|
Wikipedia has this to say about the 2.9: "The 2.9 L (2,919 cc) used a SOHC head from the Jaguar V12 engine, and was prone to failure. The block is the same as the 3.6, with the crankshaft and pistons lowering the stroke to 74.8 mm (2.94 in). Only the 1986–1989 Jaguar XJ6 used the 2.9. It was used for the entry-level XJ6 in Britain and Europe but rarely, if ever, seen in models exported to the US. The SOHC 2.9, which was generally considered somewhat underpowered for such a large car, was discontinued in 1990 (Actually 3.2 starts with a J-plate, so late 90 2.9 is possible) and replaced with a DOHC 3.2 (essentially identical to the DOHC 4.0).
The 2.9 Engine was, as in earlier years the 2.8 XK-engine, sized to match road-tax regulations in some European Countries like Italy or France. In France cars with more than 3 litres of engine size had to pay a luxury tax."
A pal of mine had one back in the late 1990s, and didn't report any major problems, though he later went over to a 3.6 then a 4.0 XJ6.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I wasn't aware of any major issues with the engines themselves. The early cars had a different wiring setup which I understand was a bit more prone to gremlins, but really at this stage a clean body is worth much more than slightly improved wiring (they didn't exactly get it right with the 90-93 wiring either, only really getting there in 94 with the X300-like stuff). It's not a dealbreaker, and honestly learning to crimp and solder is a pretty useful skill.
If it does have a straight body, there's a couple of things you can do to keep it straight. Underneath the corners of the scuttle panel just by the bonnet catches there's a little grommet on each side. Taking this out gives a little bit of access to a box section that's filled with sound-deadening silicone foam. If you can excavate this and leave the grommet out it'll stop water getting trapped under there and rotting the underneath of the screen out (if the foam's orange then it's broken through, and could do with a clean, a thorough acid pickle and some new paint/waxoyl). Similarly there's silicone foam under and in the c-pillars, which is a good idea to remove (or at least excavate a channel through so condensation can drain). You can get access to these through little bolt-on closing panels in the corners of the boot that the looms thread through.
If the body's straight then it's just an engine and ECU swap away from being the full-fat version. I've also wondered whether the 2.9 might be an interesting engine to turbo. They're 12.6:1 compression which isn't ideal, but the HE heads on the V12 (which the 2.9 head is practically a copy of) could tolerate up to 15:1 compression during testing with a good ignition system so maybe it's not an issue for a low boost setup.
|
|
|
|