Good morning! Today we’re looking at two fancy-pants convertibles – only they’re not quite what you might be expecting. One doesn’t have enough cylinders, and the other doesn’t have enough pedals.
It sounds like yesterday’s bad ideas were a little traumatizing for a lot of you, casting votes under duress for a Land Rover with a terrible reputation. But hey, sometimes there just aren’t any good choices, and you have to choose the lesser of two evils. And I agree: a straight, running, drivable car with the potential for trouble down the road is a better option than a wreck that may or may not be repairable.
And actually, I like that Freelander. It’s like an upscale Geo Tracker. It’s too bad we didn’t get the four-cylinder/manual combination here in the US; apparently that was the one to get.
Speaking of powertrain options: I’m afraid today’s cars might disappoint. Did you ever go see a band that you love, and you wait all evening for them to play that one song, the one that was never a hit, but it spoke to you and helped you through a really rough time, but they never play it? Or have you ever waited ages for a reservation at a fancy restaurant known for one signature dish, and on the night of your reservation, something happens and it’s not on the menu? I mean, it’s still a good meal, or a good show, it’s just that it could have been so much better, if only that one thing were different. Yeah. These are kind of like that.
1995 Jaguar XJS Convertible – $4,999
Engine/drivetrain: 4.0 liter dual overhead cam inline 6, four-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Conway, SC
Odometer reading: 155,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Jaguar’s E-Type was a tough act to follow. Love it or hate it, you couldn’t ignore it. And while it went on too long and lost the plot towards the end, its successor was bound to be a bit of a letdown by comparison. The XJS, like the last few years of the E-Type, hit the streets with a 5.3 liter V12. A few years later, Jaguar offered a six-cylinder version as well, but it was an also-ran; the XJS had a V12. Everyone knew that.
We didn’t get the six-cylinder version here in the US until the second series, and we never did get the five-speed manual version. Jaguar’s AJ inline six is a damn fine engine, no doubt – but it’s not a V12. It runs and drives just fine, the seller says, and it “handles beautifully.”
A hundred and fifty thousand miles is a lot for a Jaguar, but this one wears them well. The paint is nice and shiny, and the interior looks decent as well. The seller says it needs a new top, but looking at the photos, it looks fine to me – unless these are old photos. The car has California license plates in the photos, and some of the scenery looks very California-like too. Add to that the paragraph copied and pasted from Wikipedia, and I think this seller’s got some ‘splainin to do.
If it all checks out, it looks like a halfway decent car. It’s just sort of a bummer it doesn’t have the V12. It feels sort of incomplete with the six. Could be worse, I suppose – it could have a Chevy V8.
2001 Porsche Boxster – $5,000
Engine/drivetrain: 2.7 liter dual overhead cam flat 6, five-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Galena, IL
Odometer reading: 112,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Quick – what’s the fastest way to ruin a small sporty convertible? If you’re thinking “install an automatic transmission,” then we’re on the same page. Miatas, MGBs, Fiats, and even Alfa Romeos have, at various times, been subjected to this indignity. Add to that list the Porsche Boxster, which has offered an automatic from the start.
The Boxster’s automatic is a five-speeder, with Porsche’s “Tiptronic” manual shifting capability, basically the Autotune of vehicular transmissions. It looks like you’re doing it yourself, but really, the car is doing it for you. Apparently this car pre-dates the flappy paddles behind the steering wheel; gears are changed via little up-down buttons on the steering wheel spokes. You can also pretend to shift by moving the lever side-to-side if you’d rather.
It runs and drives well, and has new tires, so there’s that. Cosmetically, it looks all right, but it does have the seat-cover mystery: What’s under there? The covers could be there because the seats are trashed, or they could be like the plastic on your grandma’s couch when you were a kid. I’d hope for the latter, but the crap on the floor makes me suspect the former.
A more important mystery that needs to be answered is the condition of the notorious intermediate shaft bearing, Porsche’s old nemesis. There is an upgrade kit available, and if this one hasn’t had it installed, it it probably should be done right away. Use it as a negotiating tool, along with the missing third pedal.
Really, there’s nothing wrong with how either of these cars are spec’d. I’m sure they’re both lovely to drive; they’re just not what you’d expect in either case. But really, Jaguar’s V12 was never much more than bragging rights, and the Porsche-with-an-automatic ship sailed long ago, back in the 924 and 928 days. What we’re really talking about here are two pretty cool $5,000 convertibles, regardless of drivetrain options. Which is the one for you?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
Boxster for me. It’s more of a drivers car and has way better handling.
I had an 89 XJS. Great conversation starter, fascinating to work on and fun to drive when I wasn’t having to work on it which was far more often than I drove it. I’d take the 6 and more time I’m the seat.
They did in fact offer the XJS in Coupe and Convertible forms with the 6 cylinder with the 5 speed manual gearbox, starting in 1992 about 50 of them a year were brought in…..I worked for a Jaguar Dealership and had a 92 coupe for a demo with the 5 speed manual. It was as quick as the V-12 but got way better fuel mileage.