Jaguar XK- pretty nice!

i had bought a V12 version of that car for $1k and the motor blew. well the pushrods (which i didnt know jag used) were $200+ each remember that times 12

then piston ring set was $1400.

rod bolts equalled out to be $84 each and thats times 24 (had to be oredered and were going to take 8 weeks because they had to be "manufactured" as the dealer told me)

anyways all together just the parts to rebuilt the engine was over $4k

so we put in a SBC 355 for about $400. and it was 4X as fast as before

then the rear went so i was thinking about a ford 9inch rear when i just realized it just wasnt worth all the trouble of it then getting a driveshaft ETC. so i sold the car for $4k so i did pretty good

 

Is it even possible to put a different rear end in that car?

 

The reason I quit fixing Jaguars (still do XK's and E types)

Jag V12 is overhead cam, no pushrods. The big problem (other than FIRE) is that overheating the motor, sometimes only once (cooling system by Walt Disney) results in loose/broken valve seats. This causes catastrophic damage to pistons and heads.

These motors cost a lot to rebuild and when you're done you have an underpowered aluminum 326 ci motor that weighs more than a cast iron big block.

 

Porsche can do it, due to the fact the motor is in the rear. That allows a large crush zone for the pedestrain regulations. BTW, those regs have a lot to due with all the ugly, bulbous, truck front ends on many of the european vehicles today . ie; Mercs, Audi, BMW ect......... Who thinks a 4ft high front end is stylish?




Darrell.

 

Darrell, thanks for the observation and please, no offense meant - but I still don't get it...points of scepticism being:

a) the Porsche would likely break your legs a little lower than the Jag, but how is that "safer"...they both have strong enough front bumpers to survive hitting a brick wall at over 5 miles per hour.

b) the Porsche has "crush space" because the engine is in the back? Maybe for hitting said brick wall, but cars are not going to crush back to the windshield from hitting a pedestrian.

c) maybe we are just going in a different direction from one another - but I think you are giving arguments from a "passenger safety" view rather than a "pedestrian safety" viewpoint.

I was in fact pretty sure that the styling comment specifically said "pedestrian safety" rather than driver-passenger issues.

 

I like your car, very nice colour for it too.

 

The primary "crush zone" in discussion is the front bonnet/hood to "engine" top distance. European standards have mandated a certain distance MUST exist between the top of the engine and the bottom of the bonnet in order to "cushion" pedestrians in inadvertently stuck and knocked into (onto?) the hood of the car.

To make this work on a front engine car, a large gap MUST exist between the top of the engine and the hood, thereby necessitating taller front ends. As Porsche Boxter/Cay/911s have a aft-mounted engines (relatively speaking, compared to front engined cars), the front hood can be lower as there is nothing below it.

Did that make sense?

 

Your explanation is excellent, AuraRaptor. And it does explain what went into the mandate, (I suppose). Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts & minds of an auto safety regulator.

However, I still submit that if you get hit by a car hard enough to knock you up on top of the hood, you have pretty much had your tail busted anyway.

2" or 3" free space between the hood and the intake manifold does not seem like anything (to me at least) enough to save somebody after the initial frontal impact. High hood or not, they are not exactly made of soft pillows.

Ok, so now I will drop the 911 argument and give you one closer to home: how did Corvette styling manage to cover themselves with the C6? They sell these in the old world, too.

Oh well, maybe it will go away in time...I notice that we somehow don't need to have those NTSA "third tail-lights" mounted up so high anymore - regular tail light level seems to be ok these days (after they found out the stupid things did not really reduce rear end collisions after all. Duh - rear end collisions are caused from following too close and not looking at the brake lights that were already there).

I still say that XK upper grill is too high, awkward, and ugly. Rant relieved only a little by AutoRaptor.

 

I agree with your logic. When it comes to policy makers, who know what they are thinking...