 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Jaguar Cars / December 2007Could this be a nikasil problem?
While looking at a 1998 XK8, the car turned over just fine from cold but would not start. The salesman hooked the battery up to a jumper box, cranked the car again hooked up to the box, and it fired right up. He said they had just run the car a day before, so I don't think it had been sitting for long unstarted. I had read engines with nikasil problems failed to start from cold, so I was curious, but obviously a jumper box isn't going to restore compression but I just wanted to make sure. The car has 75000 miles, should I be scared to buy it in fear that it could develop a problem down the road? > While looking at a 1998 XK8, the car turned over just fine from cold but > would not start. The salesman hooked the battery up to a jumper box, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > car has 75000 miles, should I be scared to buy it in fear that it could > develop a problem down the road? I would think the battery power was just slightly under that required for starting. Most engines must attain a minimum RPM and the electrics require a minimum voltage for starting. What you saw may indicate a current problem with the battery or charging system but there is nothing to indicate future problems. A warranty should cover any existing problems, future problems are pretty unpredictable. Don Young If a 1998 engine nikasil has not been 'repaired' by Jaguar, then I would run a mile and forget about it. Also check if the timing chain tentioner has been replaced. These are a weak point and do a lot of damage when they fail > While looking at a 1998 XK8, the car turned over just fine from cold but > would not start. The salesman hooked the battery up to a jumper box, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > car has 75000 miles, should I be scared to buy it in fear that it could > develop a problem down the road? Well, run might be too strong. Get the dealer to have a blow-by test done at the Jaguar garage. If this is satisfactory on all cylinders, then you'll probably be OK, just don't do short journeys, change the oil every 3K and only use good gas (read no supermarket crud).... > If a 1998 engine nikasil has not been 'repaired' by Jaguar, then I would > run a mile and forget about it. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> car has 75000 miles, should I be scared to buy it in fear that it could >> develop a problem down the road? Kinda funny reading this group about chain tensioners and Nikasil- I had 2 '88 XJ 6's and still have an 89 XJS V12- The S still runs like new at 60,000 with only normal maintenence over the years. One of the XJ6's went 175,000 before an accident sent it to the junkyard- the other one went 250,000 before the paint and interior were too far gone for any practical repair. It was still running on the original motor when the local charity guys came and picked it up. After Ford took over, it was supposed to be better quality control, technology etc. but I never saw that happen. > Well, run might be too strong. Get the dealer to have a blow-by test done at > the Jaguar garage. If this is satisfactory on all cylinders, then you'll [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >> isn't going to restore compression but I just wanted to make sure. The > >> car has 75000 miles, should I be scared to buy it in fear that it could > >> develop a problem down the road? > After Ford took over, it was supposed to be better quality control, > technology etc. but I never saw that happen. I think on the whole it has. You've had some good experiences, but at one time Jaguar had tremendous problems with quality - very often with components bought it. The cam chain tensioner is actually a design fault, rather than what most people would think of as a quality problem. Of course, it is actually a problem with the quality of the design process. My biggest complaint is that Jaguar should shoulder the entire cost of this problem. Apparently the type 1 tensioners would start to fail after only 50,000 miles or so. The fact that Jaguar think an engine life of 50,000 miles is acceptable pisses me off no end. Mine's done 90,000, and I still think that is an unacceptably low mileage for an engine to fail. Obviously, random blow-ups occur, but this is different - it is a systematic fault which means that every early V8 out there is a potential time bomb. And Jaguar refuse to do anything about it. SteveT > I think on the whole it has. You've had some good experiences, but at > one time Jaguar had tremendous problems with quality - very often with > components bought it. The E-type was once described as the "fastest disappearing car in the world, and that was before you turned on the engine" in reference to the fact that the E-type could rust away whilst you were watching it. In Jaguar's defence, BMW's from the same period were little better. Only the Japanese had come to grips with the corrosion problems. My wife's S-type is around 7 years old, and no signs of rust. An early E-type would have needed welding by now, so definite progress there.  SignatureSteve Swift http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html http://www.ringers.org.uk Right you are! Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:27:44 +0000, Steve Swift <Steve.J.Swift@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think on the whole it has. You've had some good experiences, but at >> one time Jaguar had tremendous problems with quality - very often with [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >My wife's S-type is around 7 years old, and no signs of rust. An early >E-type would have needed welding by now, so definite progress there. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.