|
Mine is a 56 plate 3.0 auto which is the facelifted model. Being a 51 plate the car in question is pre-facelift which is a car I've said on here before feels like it was rushed together and 'unfinished' compared to the later revision. The 3.0litre V6 in the 51 plate is the slightly rougher 210bhp version instead of the 240bhp engine in mine and the interior of the older one (specifically dashboard) is a bit different to the later one.
The pre-facelift car isn't perfect by any stretch but I think doom mongers on here are giving the idea an unfairly hard time. It's built on the same platform as the Lincoln LS and later S-Type, a platform which new Jaguar owners Tata still use for the XF by the way. It's got a Ford gearbox - the same gearbox which was in the Explorer, Ranger, Thunderbird and is still used in the Falcon today - the engine is a Jaguar tweeked version of Ford's duratec engines - which have been used in Volvo's and Mondeo's - and it's high mileage does at least suggest it's not spent all it's life in the workshop but rather out on the road.
There's problem points to look out for obviously but providing it drives ok, makes no offputting noises, has a full MOT and something vaguely resembling a service history then for a grand it's worth a punt. It's not as big a punt as old XJ's which were badly built by BL monkeys and shed more oil than the ExxonValdes. The boring Back Roomer will tell you to buy a Honda, well they can be mistreated and end up costing money as well, just like any used car.
We always spout 'condition means more than make or model' at this age and price point, yet when it's a Jag in question everybody is keen to renege on that and discourage its purchase based on its badge. I've had 15 year old Peugeot's which - if I listened to you lot and car reviewers - should by rights fall apart. They didn't.
|
