Welcome back! This week, I’m matching up cars that don’t go together by finding one metric they have in common, and today we’re looking at the number of valves in the engine. Both of these cars have 24 of them, despite one having twice as many cylinders as the other. I told you these were going to be arbitrary.
Yesterday we looked at two cars with the same rated horsepower, and I was pretty sure the sad old Pontiac wasn’t going to win. I sort of expected it to pull a few more votes than it did, though, based on the comments. Among those of you who did vote for it, a lot of you thought it would be more reliable long-term than the Fiat 500. But most of you preferred the Italian black beauty; it won by a factor of more than five-to-one.
I’d definitely choose the Fiat. I do like the old American cruisers, but I’d rather have something more special than a white Grand Prix if I’m going to put up with sluggish performance and a rattly interior. The Fiat may not be a Tercel when it comes to reliability, but it has to be better than a fifty-year-old British car. After dealing with that thing for nine years, my definition of “reliability” has shifted a bit. I’m sure this Fiat is just fine.

A sure-fire way to make an engine generate more power is to cram more air and fuel into the combustion chambers during each cycle. More air and fuel equals bigger boom, more force, more power and torque. Increase the size of the valves, and the manifolds leading to and from them, and you can move more air, but with round valves and round cylinders, there’s an upper limit to how big you can make each valve. You can have more than just one intake and one exhaust valve, however. Most engines these days have four (or more) valves per cylinder, but many older designs still use just two. Today, we’re looking at a car with an engine design from the 1970s, and one that was all-new for 1993. One has twelve cylinders and the other six, but they both have the same number of valves – and camshafts, come to think of it. Let’s take a look.
1989 Jaguar XJS Convertible – $6,800

Engine/drivetrain: 5.3-liter OHC V12, three-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Odometer reading: Ad says 109,000, but photo of odometer shows only 9,000
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Inexpensive used Jaguars, even more so than other luxury models, always feel like a trap. You just know that they’re not as good as they seem. But that sultry purr has seduced more than one intrepid owner into the jaws of a money-eating machine. Not you, though. You’re too smart to fall for that. Every time you see one for sale, though, you think maybe this one will be different. After all, it’s not all that cheap, and the ad says it runs great. How bad of an idea could it really be?

This particular XJS convertible has a discrepancy in the ad that could make it better or worse than it seems. The seller has the mileage listed as 109,000, but that’s clearly a six-digit odometer, and the first digit is a 0. Is there a chance that this thing is still really under ten thousand miles? If so, that’s a criminal waste of a convertible in sunny southern California. Mileage that low can also lead to its own problems; cars don’t like to sit around. Things get sticky and brittle and corroded. Or has the odometer been replaced for some reason? The seller says it runs and drives great, but I think you would be wise to drive straight home and spend a weekend or two checking everything out. I mean, that’s good advice for any used car, but it goes double for an old Jag.

The photos of the interior support the low mileage theory; it looks really nice inside. Many XJSs, especially ones with over 100,000 miles, look like hell inside. This one not only looks like it wasn’t driven much, but it looks like it was kept in a garage, away from the harsh sun. Any bets on whether you could still get service for that giant ’80s car phone?

The photos in this ad are not great; it looks like they took pictures of it from across the street. If you look at the originals in the ad, you’ll see I cropped out an awful lot of Orange County scenery in the background. But from what I can see, it’s as clean outside as it is inside. The paint is shiny, and the convertible top is in excellent shape. It may still be a trap, but if so, it’s a very pretty trap.
1994 Chrysler New Yorker – $1,800

Engine/drivetrain: 3.5-liter OHC V6, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Yonkers, NY
Odometer reading: 110,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
When Chrysler introduced the LH-platform cars in 1993, the message was clear: Forget about the K-cars. This is what we’re doing now. But not all of Chrysler’s traditional customers were ready for the swoopy, cab-forward vision of the future; they still wanted a more traditional look. Chrysler had them covered with this car, the new-for-1994 New Yorker, which featured a more traditional roofline and a more pronounced trunk than the Dodge Intrepid, Chrysler Concorde, and Eagle Vision variants.

The New Yorker also featured a column-mounted shifter for its Ultradrive automatic transmission, but the engine in front of it was anything but traditional for Chrysler: a 24-valve overhead cam V6, displacing 3.5 liters and putting out a stout 214 horsepower. It’s mounted longitudinally, even though it drives the front wheels, so no worries about getting to the “back” bank of spark plugs on this one. It runs and drives “excellent,” according to the seller. But they don’t elaborate.

It has a split bench seat in place of the bucket seats and center console of the other LH cars, and that seat sure does look comfy. It’s in good condition, too. As you would expect, it has power everything, but the seller doesn’t tell us whether or not it all works. Try it all out to make sure it works, but it’s an $1,800 car, so if a couple things are broken, it’s not the end of the world.

It’s clean and shiny outside, but since it’s a New York car, there’s a good chance it has seen some road salt. Take a peek underneath to make sure that gray plastic lower cladding isn’t hiding any nasty surprises. I don’t think the LH cars were particularly rust-prone, though. The whitewall tires look silly on it, but if they’re in good shape, I guess you could live with them until they wear out.
The more I look at these two, the more similarities I see: they’re the same color, they both have lots of chrome trim, they even have similarly styled wheels. But that’s not why I chose them. We’re looking at the most tenuous and arbitrary of connections between cars this week, and the connection between these two is twenty-four valves. Tomorrow’s cars will have something equally weird tying them together. But until then, your job is to choose which one of these you’d rather have, by whatever criteria you see fit.






Horses for courses. If you need cheap wheels to get your life moving, the Chrysler looks astonishingly good (up top) for something priced at “any running and legal car” money.
If you’re better off to the point where a weekend toy to cruise and wrench on at leisure is a tempting possibility, Jag.
This is tougher than I expected. I prefer the XJS coupe, but I hear that they are tiny inside with terrible sight lines, and so the convertible is more pleasant to drive.
Yet the Chrysler is also in good shape, and much more useful. Definitely a better value, but the Jag might have better resale value.
I’ll take the Jag. Those LH cars never did it for me, especially the new yorker that looks like a smaller car got overinflated. The 3.5L is not a great engine, 24 valves and all.
The Jag looks excellent, and if there are mechanical issues, a LS fits in nicely.
According to Haggerty this Jag may actually be worth more??? However given the odo shenanigans… I am going to have to deduct major value, thus putting it at around $3,000. So given this, its New Yorker more me.
1976-1996 Jaguar XJS stats
Highest sale
$1,270,000
Lowest sale
$550
Most recent sale
$22,575
Sales
1887
https://www.hagerty.com/valuation-tools/jaguar/xjs/1991/1991-jaguar-xjs?id=aCn1I000000D4J2SAK&vbeSqlId=153351&catalog=yes
That outta be some sorta world record. How can a car model sell for both 7 digits and 3 digits?!
You wouldn’t abandon a pet, why would you abandon a pet? You MoNsTeR!
Try as I might, I just have never liked the look of the XJS and have zero desire to own one, if less of a pulse for a convertible one.
I’ll take the New Yorker and live out my Soprano cosplay until it breaks down at which point I’ll just abandon it.
NY vs CA??? Jag all the way!
With the snow falling right now, I can understand that feeling!
I’m going with the Jag, because it’s such a beautifully preserved car for one with 1,009,675 miles on it!
“Why do these keep coming out as nasty blob things?!”
– Strong Bad on the 1994 New Yorker
(and the ’97 Taurus)
Trogdor the Burnninator was involved.
*Checkin’ my emails checkin’ my emails*
I’ll start my downward spiral to bankruptcy with the Jag. At least I’ll have something beautiful and comfortable to sit in while my finances go to shit.
That New Yorker does look like a steal though if you just need “a car” in these troubled economic times. It could be a better move than using $1800 as a down payment for a used car with high interest rates if you can live with the compromises of a 30 year old car.
That ad for the Jag seems a bit scammy. Going Chrysler today.
Jaaaaaaaag: 😀
V12 jaaaaag: D:
The better cars on that platform were either straight sixes or V8s.
On the other hand, the LH is a quirky but sleek and cool platform that I’d even have the grandpa version over a Jag V12.
I like the Jag, but that New Yorker looks quite well for its age. I’ve driven the LH cars before and found them to be uninspiring, but otherwise perfectly cromulent. Given that it’s under two grand, this is gonna be a really classy throwaway car for someone.
Admiral Ackbar has reviewed the photos and details on the Jag and declared “It’s a trap!!!”
The last malaise-styled Chrysler, two decades after the Malaise Era was over. I guess it competed with the FWD Deville and Conti of that era, yup I’ll take that.
Other Jags might sway me, but not this one.
1800$ for that New Yorker? In that condition? Honestly, that’s the best deal I’ve seen on any particular listing in ages. It’s not quite classic indestructible Buick with a 3800 grandma car, but it’s also far more interesting.
Start spreading the news, you’re leaving today
I want to be a part of it New York, New York
(With apologies to Sinatra. Also, there’s snow where I live, so Jaaaag will sit for months being unused. Best it stays in sunny, warm California)
The Chrysler was my grandpa’s last car. It was a very nice machine and shockingly long. Like really really long.
I’ll take the Drop Top Beater today.
Well, the overnight snow has turned to rain, so give me the convertible! That Jaaaag looks so good inside and out. With the top up, I’m sure you could store several works of art in the trunk even if the car isn’t running that day. Seriously though, I’m not worried about the odometer – it’s not collectible and it’s 36 years old, so 9000 or 109000 (or maybe 1,009,000?!) is the same to me. It probably needs new seals and and hoses and belts either way. That said, it appears to have been well maintained, so maybe not. Also, that car phone is just awesome.
The Jag is indeed very 80’s, down to the photos being shot far away and what looks like an accidental gauze filter ala Joan Collins in the evening soap opera “Dynasty” of that era. That, along with the dodgy odometer and the fact that it’s a Jag tilts me toward the Mopar product today.
Chrysler screams winter beater at least for 3 seasons with a good set of tires. Jaguar will look good in my driveway like christmas decoration. Chrysler for me lol
Neither are desirable – the Chrysler is a running car for less than 3 months of the average new car payment today. ($749)
You speak wisdom. I’d speculate you could milk two or three years out of it without a major drivetrain fail.
absolutely, keep up with the oil changes, do an ATF drain and fill and inspect the timing belt and you’re all set
It’s not my money, it doesn’t have to live in my garage, so my wife doesn’t have to roll her eyes every time it has an engine fire, so I voted Jaaaaaaaag.
I voted for the Jag because West Coast car and Convertible.
But I find the Chrysler oddly compelling.
I remember when these first came out – They were a breath of fresh air coming after two-plus decades of ever-more-Baroque K-Car derivatives.
Despite the blackness – this might be a both day.
Chrysler today, cheaper parts and more waterproof roof. This is not an enthusiastic choice, just a choice.
Wow that vintage phone in the jag may predate cell towers so it may not be a “cellphone” (just making a joke)
Back in the day we called them “Mobile Phones”