2004 Jaguar Xj8 Base Sedan 4-door 4.2l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Junkyard Gem: 1997 Jaguar XK8 Convertible

Jaguar sold the mighty XJS grand tourer from the 1976 through 1996 model years, and I've documented quite a few of them in their final parking spaces. For 1997, the replacement for that legendary car finally arrived, in the form of the oft-delayed XK8. Here's one of those first-year cars, found in a self-service yard in Denver, Colorado recently. Development of this car's platform and general shape goes back to 1980, when endless prototypes were built and forgotten. Once Ford took over Jaguar in 1990, the abaondoned XJ41 project was revived and became the 1994 Aston Martin DB7. Fast-forward three years and you get a Jaguar-badged cousin of that car. The 1997 XK8 could be purchased in coupe or convertible form. The top on this car has seen better days. How much, you ask? A cool $69,900, which would be around $130,165 in 2022 dollars. If you wanted the Aston Martin DB7 Volante convertible that year, the price tag was $135,000 ($251,395 now). As we've seen in this series, sophisticated European machinery requires fastidious maintenance on the dot, or you get hit with repair bills larger than the car's value once it hits age 10 or so. Once a car like this reaches its fourth or fifth owner, the Clock of Doom starts ticking very loudly if it was ever neglected prior to that. It appears that preparation for body and paint work took place but was never completed. The engine is a 4.0-liter Jaguar DOHC V8 rated at 290 horsepower, same as the one in the XJ8. In 1998, a 370-horse supercharged version known as the XKR became available. The Lincoln LS and 2002-2005 Ford Thunderbird got a de-bored 3.9-liter version of this engine. The transmission in 1997 was a mandatory five-speed ZF automatic, regardless of which side of the Atlantic you lived on. In fact, every street XK8 ever built had an automatic when it left the assembly line (though I'm sure some three-pedal swaps have been performed by now). These cars aren't exactly common in your local Ewe Pullet, but they are out there.  This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. As some 24 Hours of Lemons racers in Texas discovered, you can buy a DB7 shell cheap at auction and then bolt in everything you need to make it a runner by stripping an even cheaper XK8 donor car.  This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. A new breed of Jaguar. This content is hosted by a third party.

Jaguar F-Pace shows off its production pelt for first time

We're no strangers to the Jaguar F-Pace, having spotted the production mules for the aristocratic English brand's first crossover on a few different occasions. Today, though, we get not only our first time look at the car in production sheetmetal, but also confirmation that the production model won't stray far from the sexy C-X17 Concept. Riding atop the same aluminum platform that underpins the already acclaimed XE sedan, the F-Pace follows the example set by the Range Rover Evoque, offering up almost a chopped-top look, particularly near the rear, where the plunging roofline and high beltline meet. That said, similarities to products from sister company Land Rover look to be mere coincidences, as the sheetmetal being shown appears all Jag. There's a prominent, snout-like grille that's flanked by a pair of predatory, LED-accented headlights. In back, the small rear window crowns a pair of thin, wraparound taillights. Think XE, with small influences from the F-Type for these units. As for what hides underneath those muscular body panels, our spies are predicting the standard allotment of Jag goodness. That means a gas-powered 2.0-liter, turbocharged four-cylinder and a 3.0-liter, supercharged V6, both borrowed from the XE/XF to start, before diesel and hybrid powertrains roll out. Naturally, all-wheel drive will be offered, although the F-Pace should also arrive sporting rear-wheel drive. And while we've got little to go on to believe it's happening, we're still hoping for an F-Pace R, complete with blown 5.0-liter V8. We suspect we'll be waiting on that one for awhile, though. You, though, don't have to wait to check out our spy snaps of the newest Jag in the litter. Check out our photos of the F-Pace, available up top.

Jaguar F-Pace Luggage Test: How much fits in the cargo area?

The Jaguar F-Pace has been around for a while now, and perhaps it's just me, but it feels like it's been forgotten. That's a shame. This was the first time I've driven the F-Pace since the first drive event in Montenegro and therefore the first time I've really driven it in anything resembling normal conditions. And man, is it ever good, at least the R-Dynamic S you see here with the P400 engine. This is right up there with the Porsche Macan and Aston Martin DBX in terms of SUVs that are legitimately great to drive. The steering alone ... chef's kiss. But I'm here to talk about cargo capacity, so enough of that driving impressions stuff. The F-Pace is bigger than compact SUVs like the Mercedes GLC and BMW X3, but it's smaller than a GLE or X5. It's fairly similar to the Lexus RX in that way, which I just-so-happened to have luggage tested last week. Perfect timing, then! The specs say that it has 26.6 cubic-feet of space behind the back seat. I have a sneaking suspicion that volume represents a measurement from the floor to top of the seat back, or roughly the cargo cover. That's not just because what I found in the course of doing this test but because the F-Pace was reported to have 33.5 cubic-feet when it was launched back for 2017. That number seems more applicable to what you'll find in other SUVs. Either way, that's kinda why I do these tests to begin with! Here is the cargo area. It is quite deep and wide with an acceptable lift-over height. The F-Pace originally had a sliding rail system running the length of the cargo area along each side, but Jaguar has apparently replaced that with the fixed tie-down points you see here. There is a rigid cargo cover in place, which is probably good for NVH, but rubbish for cargo hauling. As a result, I will be testing with and without this cover in place. As with every Luggage Test, I use two midsize roller suitcases that would need to be checked in at the airport (26 inches long, 16 wide, 11 deep), two roll-aboard suitcases that just barely fit in the overhead (24L x 15W x 10D), and one smaller roll-aboard that fits easily (23L x 15W x 10D). I also include my wife's fancy overnight bag just to spruce things up a bit (21L x 12W x 12D). All of the bags fit underneath the cargo cover, so that pretty much confirms that whole thing about the current cargo volume representing floor to seat back. Now, the fancy bag is a wee bit squished, but it still totally fit.