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.






The Jag will have the chance of a lot of issue. The Chrysler WILL have a transmission failure. They all failed. My late father’s Intrepid did . A class is case of Chrysler leading in design but failing in quality at the time. The 3.5L 24 valve was a decent engine though.
Are you kidding? Big soft ride, $5000 cheaper, the answer is clearly the Jag. As for the odometer are we sure the far right isn’t tenths of a mile? Don’t most odometers have tenths? Sure usually they are a different color but always? Ask a Jagoff who owns one.
Sitting on the side of the road
Waiting for AAA to take me away
Sitting on the side of the road
Watching my money roll away
Sitting on the side of the road
Wasting my time.
I got 6 miles away from my home
Just to make this Jag my home.
My wife won’t give me the time
To make this Jag run fine
I ain’t got nothing to live for
As this Jag makes me poor.
Sitting on the side of the road
The smell of burnt fluids
Won’t leave me alone.
I could have bought Chrysler
But it was car mom lost her virginity in
Wasting my time on this Jag.
Wasting time cause my wife is a hag.
Nopeing out on this one. Nej tak, iie kudasai, no gracias, bu xie, I do not desire this particular luxury thank you.
I wanted a “both” option here but I went with the Chrysler on price
I went for the Jag. Like you say,it can’t be that bad.
I really like those Jags, and that one looks really nice… I know I shouldn’t, but I’d def pick it over the chrysler.
Jaguar V12? What could possibly go wrong? Everything Everywhere All at once. I can’t understand why I voted Chysler…Fear of the known/unkonwn from the British?
I will obvoiusly regret the choice, but I love the Jag. I’m sure it will leave me worse than it found me, and I”ll be asking why I didn’t take a safer and far less expensive route with the New Yorker…but what fun would that have been?
I miss that mid 90s era of Chrysler.
Hard for many to believe these days, but Chrysler (and its various divisions) were absolutely the top of the heap in terms of design. Their quality wasn’t the best – but it was improving fast – but their styling was the envy of the industry.
Then everything went to shit when the “merger of equals” happened and Mercedes gutted Chrysler’s rainy day fund, used Jeep’s designs to start it’s foray into the world of SUVs, and stopped any work on high-end/luxury Chryslers which might threaten the Germans.
Don’t really want either, but if pressed to write a check, I think I’d actually take the Chrylser, despite never having owned a single Chrysler/Stellantis product for obvious reasons. I remember the big fuss about the LH cars when they came out, and of course the cab-forward cars too. Some were actually pretty decent looking for what they were/who they came from, but of course, none really inspired desire (in me). This one looks like it’d be fine to drive around in though.
By the way, hate to reply to my own post but this is too rich not to share and it’s Jag V12 related. I had my XJ6 in to replace the master cylinder and my mechanic offered me a V12 Series 3 XJ for free that a customer had abandoned (non-running with a minimum $5k in repair work needed, though). I still thought the price was too high, and I’d really like to own a V12 someday; in fact it was my offhand comment to that effect that triggered the offer.
I am the happy and proud owner of an ’88 Jag XJ6, and I don’t really find my Jag to be noticeably more unreliable than any other vehicle from that era. The Jag is very fairly priced and looks great. If you’re looking to get into a V12-powered car this is a fine way to do it.
But… I can’t shake that Chrysler. I love the big LH series platform with that roomy cab-forward design (remember the advertising?). Big, comfy, and smooth in the unique American road barge way. Assuming no significant tinwork problems the price can’t be beat either. So here’s a vote for the Chrysler rather than a vote against the Jag.
Since it’s fake Internet money and lots of junk yards around where I could source 350 V8 should it come to that, Jag please. I’ve always loved the look of the XJS, and bonus points for being a convertible.
I will save $5k today and take the Chrysler. That Jag doesn’t do much for me and I would never put the work into it to keep it reliable, the same goes for Chrysler but at least its cheaper to buy.
V12 Jag vs. those whitewalls has me going back and forth.
Ooh that Chrysler looks sweet!
Sold to that gentleman 😎
Anything but a 1989 version of a 1976 car, that’s just bad taste and poor judgement.
I voted for the Jag, but clearly the Chrysler is the correct choice. I love the front end of the XJS. My heart wants that English money pit!
My grandma had that year New Yorker and it was a very soft and comfortable car, but it’s just too boring against the competition for me.
Chrysler for me. Not only is it cheaper to buy, will be cheaper to operate and more pleasant to live with.
On top of that, it’s also probably as fast or faster in the 0-60 run than that old Jag because in spite of the larger engine with more HP, it’s bogged down with more weight and an old GM 3 speed slushbox with tall gearing (I recall reading you can do 70mph in 1st gear in these).
And those pre-Ford Jags had absolutely terrible quality. The basic engine and transmission, from what I hear, is solid. But it’s everything else that’s the problem.
Cali Jaaaaaag! Come to think of it my ’82 XJ6 and my ’00 XK8 are both originally from California so this would fit in quite nicely. I’m guessing the odometer/speedometer went out around 100,000 (I’ve had to change that out twice in my XJ6) as the reason for the discrepancy. Not that I care – overall condition means much more to me than whatever’s on the odometer when it comes to car that old and esoteric.
That big ‘ol FWD Chrysler isn’t bad for the money and I did really like that LH platform when it first come out, but enthusiasm for those cars has waned a bit over the years.
I’ll throw caution to the wind (in a convertible) and irrationally pick the Jaaaaaaaaaaaag. Besides, if the milage really is that low, the poor thing hasn’t been allowed to really mark its territory by leaking everywhere yet.
Neither of these appeal to me, but my guess is that the Chrysler would cause me less grief. I was never a fan of the XJS’s styling, and the New Yorker is not really any much less pretty.
I’d totally roll the dice on the Jag, assuming nothing catastrophic appears during a test drive. Owning a V12, even a fragile one, is waaaaay more interesting than being bored to tears by that New Yorker
I think those are both great looking cars. I’ve always liked those LH Chryslers ( but I’ve never owned one )
I can personally attest to the fact that the back seat of an LH is large enough to have just the right amount of fun with a lady I had just met at a bar on my birthday…but I voted for the Jag, because I’ve always wanted a 12 cylinder car, and I like British cars.
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?
Or it could be 209,000 miles! Or. Yeah. No. Impossible.
Maybe it’s 1,009,000 miles!