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.






Jagwire for me. I’m looking at these as a fun second car, and nobody buys a Chrysler New Yorker as a fun second car.
It’s a tough choice, but the New Yorker wins my vote. I like that Jag convertible, but I’m sure it’s a money pit. By comparison, the Chrysler is practically the cost of scrap.
A Jaguar V-12. I feel like doing something really dumb today…
Remember the old saying “The sun never sets on the British Empire”.
It is also proven that the sun never sets on a Jaguar in need of expensive repairs.
I voted Jag for the cellphone. It’s Cars and Coffee material.
The Chrysler will run until the Earth stops spinning, and to be completely honest, its cooler than the Jag. (I might have the mediocre car disease)
I’ve never liked the 1975 – 1996 XJS. The models before and after are much nicer to my eye.
I do like the XJ from that era but would never actually buy one.
first thing I’d is inspect the timing belt and look at the ATF
The whitewalls by themselves sell me on the Chrysler. Instant aura farming.
This might be a “both” day. Jaaaaaaaaaag for lovely weekends and tinkering, Chrysler for daily use until you can find a suitable replacement.
Jaguar – “For men who’d like hand jobs from beautiful women they hardly know” *
Chrysler – “Hop in my Chrysler, it’s as big as a whale and it’s about to set sail” **
*Crazy People (1990)
** B-52s – Love Shack (1989)
I’ll take the Jag, please.
I’ll take the Jag, if for nothing else, to pull parts off of it and decorate my space. Having a cleaned V12 coffee table, burlwood wall art, shitty mobile phone for Radwood. Saves me form that horrid Chrysler POS too.
Ok, I was curious about the Jag mileage so I did a CARFAX (it’s free, please don’t ask.) 12 records going back to 2003 where the mileage was 9,264. All records were for Smog checks, driven very little each year. Raises more questions than it answers. Was the 100k put on it between 1989 and 2003 and then the gauge replaced? Did someone roll back the odometer? Was it really only driven 9k miles? A look at the pedal rubber and steering wheel might help answer it…
I’m pretty sure the seller misread the odometer and it’s really only 9,600 miles. Seems like an awful waste, doesn’t it? It hasn’t really had a chance to properly strand anybody yet.
In this era 1800 bucks doesn’t buy hardly anything so that Chrysler looks like a pretty sweet deal.
Honestly, at today’s used car prices, $1800 for any running car that clean seems like a scam.
I like traditional things with a modern twist, always liked the LHS/NY so that’s how I voted.
I know its a terrible decision, but I just can’t resist the Jag. I’ve always loved the looks of the old XJS cars, moreso for the hardtop but the ragtop will work as well. Ok, actually it probably won’t work 90% of the time but its still a risk I’m willing to take.
Jaaaaaaaaag. It’s the original “60% of the time, it works every time!”
Jags are so bad that Chrysler is the better option 😛
I voted for the New Yorker. It’s also cheaper than the XJS.
One scam that GM and Chrysler pulled: their higher line full-size cars (New Yorker/LHS, Park Ave/98) don’t have a longer wheelbase than the lower ones (Intrepid/Concorde/Vision, Bonneville/LeSabre/88), even though they look like they might.
The XJS is good for an LS swap but not much else.
I’ll always stupidly vote for the Jag. The owner smartly didn’t include any under hood pics. That snarl of hoses always gives me second thoughts…
That’s a negative, those frequencies were reclaimed by the FCC decades ago, and that is purely a prop now; though it should fetch a few hundred on eBay, which you’ll need to fix whatever broke this week.
I voted for the New Yorker.
Was going to say the same about the old analog “AMPS” cell frequencies. Too bad, because the call quality was so much better than digital cell calls for years and years. In bad reception areas, you could still hear and understand the call even if static cut in, unlike digital calls which just cut out or sound like someone attempting to speak underwater.
I had a Motorola analog phone in my car in the 90s that converted into a portable “bag phone” — it was built like a tank. It also had a handsfree setup that worked quite well — better than some handsfree setups today. In the 90s, having a phone call in the car and just speaking into the open air and hearing the call on a speaker was like something out of Star Trek.
The Chrysler is the way to go, but what the hell, I have a reliable daily so I went expensive project Jag.
Same. I can’t resist the idea of telling my family we are going out tonight, and we’re taking the Jaaaaaaag.
*30 minutes later*
We’ll be taking the Accooooooord.
You’re doing it wrong if Accooooooord is longer than Jaaaaaaag. 9 letters vs 12, gotta add a few more a’s in there.
You’re right, it needs 12 letters. One for each non-firing cylinder.
Hey now, I can probably keep 4-5 firing at any given time
Cautious vote for the Jag. If the mileage really is that low, then I’d say it’s worth it. If there’s odometer shenanigans, I’d walk.
I was set to vote for the Chrysler, but being a New York car means rust, and I have seen too much of that on LH cars from my time in the upper Midwest to vote for it. Clean Jag it is.
My favorite LH cars were the New Yorker and LHS. That roofline is just perfect for that type of car.
For $1800, it’s a “why not” proposition. The Jag is definitely a nice car, but I just know it’s going to be a drag on the finances. Chrysler for me today.
UGH! This is a super neither day for me.
I guess the Chrysler would make a comfy winter beater, and it’s cheap, so I guess that one. But eww.
That Jag pulls at the heartstrings, but the price tag does not. Going cheap for this one despite this being my least favorite of the cab-forward Chryslers because those are some cool wheels
Oh how I want the Jag, but not the inevitable repair bills that will go with it. New York, New York for me.
My Grandpa loved his Brown 94 New Yorker. I hated it, but it did seem to stay running a good long time when it was handed down to my families black sheep after Gramps moved to an Avalon.
I would of course prefer the jag, it is just a more handsome thing, but I think I would rather it was a 5.3 LS versus the ticking time bomb that is a Jag V12. Since I don’t think I would ever take the time or set aside the money to make a proper 5.3 jag, I guess the new yorker for a winter beater.
I’ve said it before, and I will say it again: Replacing the V-12 with an SBC is the result of a knowledge gap. The internals of the V-12 are very stout; it’s the ignition and fuel delivery systems that cause the anguish. If one is knowledgeable on how these work and how they can be remedied, the car will be very serviceable. The duration of serviceability cannot be guaranteed, though.
90’s era OBD 1 Fuel injection systems can be problematic and hard to fix too, but if it is working fine now, it will more than likely outlast the overheating prone v12 system. and yes, especially with Youtube mechanics out there it seems like the Jag system is serviceable enough, it is just the little things like vacuum and unobtanium parts that really throw people when attempting to keep one of these running