Advertising Last completed movie pages
1986 Jaguar Sovereign [Series III] 
Ep. 7.05Class: Cars, Sedan — Model origin: 
![1986 Jaguar Sovereign [Series III]](i858247.jpg)
![[*]](/res/star.png){kind=small}
Vehicle used by a character or in a car chase
Comments about this vehicle| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
◊ 2015-10-28 21:41 |
XJ series III... |
|
◊ 2015-10-28 22:34 |
https://youtu.be/EchGQGPIkfw?t=14m26s (rear can be seen after a few seconds) It seems to have name plaques on the back. Sandie or dsl will know what year range that makes this. -- Last edit: 2015-10-28 22:51:49 |
|
◊ 2015-10-28 23:20 |
That started in 1986. |
|
◊ 2015-10-28 23:32 |
Pepperpot wheels so XJ12??? |
|
◊ 2015-10-28 23:44 |
Think they were optional on the XJ6, standard on the Sovereign and Sovereign V12 but that needs confirmation. |
|
◊ 2015-10-29 19:48 |
By this point I believe the XJ12 was called the Sovereign V12 and they had V12 badges under the Sovereign name plaque on the right of the numberplate, which this doesn't have. Dsl, you seem a bit too eager to name Jags as XJ12 based on just one or two details (which could be had as an option on a cheaper model). It was the most expensive and thirstiest model, so I doubt they were ever that common. -- Last edit: 2015-10-29 19:53:39 |
|
◊ 2015-10-29 20:09 |
Trying to do something constructive with all your vague and incomplete identities for XJ40s/Series III is too much hassle. I give up. |
|
◊ 2015-10-29 20:19 |
I don't think cars should be entered as top of the range models if it's not fairly certain. I don't think there's anything wrong with just having "Jaguar XJ", especially when it's a background car and there's not much to go on. You complain just having "Daimler" is too vague but it's not because Daimler is really just a luxury model of Jag, but having "Jaguar Daimler" isn't the right nomenclature. We have lots Cadillacs that are just listed with just the year and 'Cadillac'. It's not a "failure" on our part, it's just not enough is visible to see the very subtle differences that separated the different models. Or we could just list them as XJ6 by default? I'd rather that than labelling XJ12 based on just tints and foglamps etc. -- Last edit: 2015-10-29 20:23:40 |
|
◊ 2015-10-29 21:11 |
Defaulting as a policy to XJ6 gives a more useful outcome than current stand-offs. In this case we could agree Sovereign without specifying engine?? |
|
◊ 2015-10-29 21:27 |
I strongly disagree with defaulting to XJ6. It's not useful at all. I actually prefer leaving blanks or using a catch all name like XJ. Doing loads of defaults like that just opens us up to people asking 'why's this an XJ6?' unless there's loads of comments explaining each and every one. What's the use of adding an extra number to what we'd usually say as a default (XJ) in that case? Especially when there's a 10% or more chance we guessed the number of cylinders wrong and an even greater chance we guessed the trim line wrong? Where there's a convenient catch all ID that can be used we should stick to that and a default should only be used when the alternative is unknown. Later on even Jaguar started to use XJ as the name for the range (on the current one they're all called XJ unless it's the R and this was done to an extent on the X350 too). I think there's a gap with these S3s and we're much better with earlier and later models. I think a plain XJ6 can be easily caught IMO. They tend to have plain steel wheels, seats without rear headrests and even cloth interiors. This one has alloys and rear headrests so I'd not be too unhappy with it being called a Sovereign (but not be specific with the engine), not sure to what extent these options were available on the XJ6 (probably options but maybe so expensive it was cheaper to buy the Sovereign?) -- Last edit: 2015-10-29 21:28:39 |
|
◊ 2015-10-29 21:33 |
I agree with you, Sandie. And with this one, I'd put my money on it being a Sovereign, if you watch the video, the right rear name plaque to me looks more like a wider 'Sovereign' than an 'XJ6'. |
|
◊ 2015-10-29 21:45 |
I'm only speculating here but the Jaguar XJ was a luxury saloon rather than a sporty car (until the XJR versions came along), most buyers probably weren't wanting something to drive particularly fast in, so I'm guessing the big thirsty 5.3 litre V12 (or the 6 litre V12 in the XJ40 & X300 era) was more for those who wanted to push the boat out. I remember reading the new car database pages in magazines and for each range they'd have a "Our pick" which with the luxury saloons tended not to be the most expensive, largest engined model like a Mercedes S600/600SEL because it probably seemed a bit more than was really necessary, and you'd only lose more money in depreciation. -- Last edit: 2015-10-29 21:47:31 |
|
◊ 2015-10-29 22:07 |
When Jag launched the V12 in early 70s and put it in a saloon as first XJ12, it was a unique combination and caught Merc and BMW unprepared for a good few years until they could catch up. Then Audi had to join the gang to stop being laughed at in the playground. V12 prestige mattered to Germany. I don't know the figures, but guess that XJ6 did not offer anything special to German buyers against equivalent Mercs and BMWs in 70s/80s (plus all the quality problems etc), but the XJ12 did. The 1981 HE upgrade brought real improvements - maybe long overdue - for consumption and costs, so my hunch is that XJ12 is actually the default for German XJs. |
|
◊ 2015-10-29 23:55 |
If money was no object for German Jaguar buyers. |
|
◊ 2016-04-16 14:26 |
![[Image: 05-wertlosesalibi1331.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/11562/05-wertlosesalibi1331.jpg) ![[Image: 05-wertlosesalibi1475.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/11562/05-wertlosesalibi1475.jpg) ![[Image: 05-wertlosesalibi2104.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/11562/05-wertlosesalibi2104.jpg) ![[Image: 05-wertlosesalibi2128.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/11562/05-wertlosesalibi2128.jpg) |
Add a comment Advertising Advertising
