X Jaguar [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : X Jaguar


Generalcarry
07-06-2005, 05:08
The wife's lease is up and she's talking about getting the small Jag (X I think) before she retires in 2 years. Didn't Ford buy into them in the 80"s? I'd like to see her get a larger car for trips, but it's her call. Is there anything you can tell me about them be it good or bad?
I We live in the Detroit metro area and cars are usually cheap around here, and her drive in the winter is an easy 10-15 minute ride. Even if it were to get really bad, she could take my Jeep.
Curious as to what you think about them? I think the Small Jag is just a prestige wannabe.

45acp4me
07-06-2005, 07:21
An AWD Jag will do just as well in the snow if not better than a Jeep. The AWD system is more advanced, the center of gravity is lower, the brakes are better, etc.

For the amount of snow we get here, AWD or 4WD is not really needed anyhow. Just keep good tires on a FWD or RWD vehicle and it will make it through the winter no problem. I actually prefer FWD in all but the deepest snow.

Regards,
Glen

fnfalman
07-06-2005, 12:44
FYI, the X-Type is not a real Jag. It's a Ford Mondeo dressed up in a pretty outfit just in case you wonder why a Jag would be so cheap to buy.

BadLight
09-25-2005, 17:56
Mr. fnfalman you know not what you speak of. If I may enlighten you...


While the X-type chassis may be derived from that of the Mondeo, to say the cars share a chassis is incorrect because the X-type chassis would not fit under a Mondeo and a Mondeo chassis would not
fit under an X-type. They share only six floorpan hardpoints, and every other part of the platforms is pretty different. The cars have different dimensions in every direction (height, width,
length, and wheelbase). Also, the X-type's chassis employs much of the same ultra-high-strength steel that is used in the Volvo SUV's
roof and pillars, making it almost crush-proof in rollover accidents, etc., and at least 30% more rigid than anything else competing in its class.

The Mondeo chassis was FWD, and hence the derived X-type chassis is more suited to FWD when not AWD, but AWD is more efficient when created from original FWD platforms than anything else. Jaguar
tried to follow Audi, who created their AWD Quattro cars from FWD VW platforms and ended up with a really good AWD system. In the Audi and Jaguar AWD systems, the engine directly drives the front driveshaft and wheels and is then geared via the rear driveshaft to the rear wheels - a more efficient method than BMW and Mercedes systems which are based on RWD.

Despite the X-type not having a perfect 50/50 *static* weight distribution, it has a RWD-biased *dynamic* weight distribution as well as a RWD-biased power distribution, which is why it outhandles almost any other saloon on the road including Quattro Audis. On a Quattro Audi, the static weight distribution is around 60/40 and it
divides its power 50/50 front and rear, giving the car more FWD handling than the truly balanced AWD of the Jaguar.

The X-Type brakes and some of the suspension are Ford - which is fine, because it keeps the cost of replacement brake parts down. The V6 petrol engine is based on the excellent Ford Duratec block but the block is strengthened and the engine has Jaguar internals, including variable valve timing. The diesel engine is mainly Ford
but with some Jaguar reworking.

The interior of the car is unmistakably Jaguar, although there are a few switches that look like Ford bits. Overall the Jaguar and Mondeo are completely different animals.

Cheers -- BadLight

grecco
09-25-2005, 18:02
[QUOTE]Originally posted by fnfalman
FYI, the X-Type is not a real Jag. It's a Ford Mondeo dressed up in a pretty outfit just in case you wonder why a Jag would be so cheap to buy. [/QUOT

+1
i had one as a company car for a few months
i was not impressed, for the money you can do better...

when you drive it and push it,,,the mondeo/contour comes out.
you can check out reviews and resale values(resale says alot about a car)at the following sites

www.kbb.com
www.nada.com

BadLight
09-25-2005, 18:19
company car for a few months (-2... no clue)

drove it for a few months??? we are an authority on the model aren't we? I've owned Jags since 1962 (yes the good ones and the bad ones.) I would gladly take a X-type over anything you might offer as an alternative. In all weather conditions it is a very good value for the money.

Bottom line. Let her drive it and see what she thinks. End of story!

Generalcarry
09-26-2005, 04:04
Funny you brought the Audi up because that was the direction I was trying to steer her. I brought one home (on a test drive) but she wasn't home. I was ready to sign though.
Back in 63 I would stop by Fauvey Mtrs. on Woodward Ave. outside of Detroit and sit in and check out the XKE. They had a BRG with tan interior. I came "so close" to buying it but never did. THAT, is one of the biggest regrets of my life. I do have the car on a T-Shirt though....*&%%*((%@#^&& like that helps!

grecco
09-26-2005, 05:21
Originally posted by BadLight
(-2... no clue)

drove it for a few months??? we are an authority on the model aren't we? I've owned Jags since 1962 (yes the good ones and the bad ones.) I would gladly take a X-type over anything you might offer as an alternative. In all weather conditions it is a very good value for the money.

Bottom line. Let her drive it and see what she thinks. End of story!


no, i am not a expert,but like you i am entitled to my opinion,
and in my opinion,i was not impresssed with the x type,
not mocking the jag line up,just that model.

BadLight
09-26-2005, 05:26
The Audi's are excellent vehicles. I came very close to buying one myself....until I drove the current X-type that I have. The Audi was a bit bleak on the inside and the seat was uncomfortable to me (that's just personal prefference). I have 40K on my X-type and the only thing I disliked was the way the rear end was sprung (is that a word?). I replaced the Jag springs and shocks with a Eibach Pro suspension kit and have been delighted with the handling and ride of the vehicle.

I have a 2.5 and I would suggest that you opt for the 3.0, the extra 40 HP does make a difference when not in sport mode. Definately get the sport package if you see yourself driving the car. I doubt that the Misses will notice the difference (but she might have a lead foot so she'll enjoy the engine/transmission response in sport). You might also prepare for the stares your going to get with the X-type. Truely classic Jag appearance.

BadLight
09-26-2005, 05:42
no, i am not a expert,but like you i am entitled to my opinion,
and in my opinion,i was not impresssed with the x type,
not mocking the jag line up,just that model.

I was simply putting your opinion in perspective. Your "few month's" evaluation is like me going to the range with a 1911 (which I have never shot), shooting horribly, and then condemmining the 1911 as the worst gun ever built.

Since the gentleman that asked for opinions was looking to hear from people that have experience with the model, I answered as an experienced model owner.

I have no beef with you nor your opinion. But I don't belive the gentleman was looking for 10 minute evaluations.

BadLight
09-26-2005, 05:47
Current Jag

BadLight
09-26-2005, 05:49
The other one:

arrowdriver
09-26-2005, 11:45
After seeing how often my friend's XK and now XKR spends in the shop, I don't think I could ever buy one. Or recommend it to anyone. Yes, a small sample, but listening to Jag owners in general it doesn't seem unique either.

BadLight
09-26-2005, 12:43
After seeing how often my friend's XK and now XKR spends in the shop, I don't think I could ever buy one. Or recommend it to anyone. Yes, a small sample, but listening to Jag owners in general it doesn't seem unique either.

XKR.... well ghee that's like complaining about your Indy racer having to pit every 30 laps for tyres and fuel

Hey Jags require maintenance. If you can't tell the difference between a box wrench and a socket wrench you probablly don't want a Jag. But if you do know the difference it will be a very satisfying driving experience.

If you want pure economical reliability buy a Toyota Corolla. I still have my 1972 (paid $1200 for it new). I just had to replace the timming chain after 300,000 miles. That's about all I've replaced. Fine vehicle.. but I don't want to drive it much anymore. I have a Jag now!

grecco
09-26-2005, 15:03
Originally posted by BadLight
I was simply putting your opinion in perspective. Your "few month's" evaluation is like me going to the range with a 1911 (which I have never shot), shooting horribly, and then condemmining the 1911 as the worst gun ever built.

Since the gentleman that asked for opinions was looking to hear from people that have experience with the model, I answered as an experienced model owner.

I have no beef with you nor your opinion. But I don't belive the gentleman was looking for 10 minute evaluations.



ok,but let me explain myself,
forunately my previous job,gave me the luxury of driveing new cars almost on a weekly to monthly basis,all over the country
all types of roads and weather.
depending on assignment.
so i get to compare cars(short term)more than most people do,

also i would like to point out that most car magazines only get loaners for a week or 2 to do evaluations.....i am no expert,
but i know what i like........

when you buy a jag,your are buying heritage,pedigree and status(all good things)
and i hope you are happy with your's.
best of luck with it.

BadLight
09-26-2005, 15:17
Well said grecco... Thank you for your input. It was insightful and valuable ^c Hopefully our exchange will have given another Glocker direction and a decision. Isn't "verbal" exchange nice?

Best Regards

fnfalman
09-26-2005, 16:59
I must admit that I am no Jaguar expert, I suppose that all of the car magazines, US, UK, etc., even Edmunds.com are all wrong when they said that the X-types are based on the Ford Mondeo chassis...;)

But hey, whatever floats people's boat. I personally wouldn't mind an XK120 myself.

grecco
09-26-2005, 18:51
Originally posted by BadLight
Well said grecco... Thank you for your input. It was insightful and valuable ^c Hopefully our exchange will have given another Glocker direction and a decision. Isn't "verbal" exchange nice?

Best Regards :) ;f :)

BadLight
09-27-2005, 16:46
fnfalman, let me explain the X-type chassis, is based on the Mondeo's chassis geometry, just as the Audi is basded on the VW's chassis geometry. But both car companies have modified the chassis to be particular to their vehicle. The Jag is no more a Mondeo than the Audi is a VW. Both companies have also made electrical, engine and braking modifications to fit in with their statement of "what a vehicle should be". Both companies are simply reaping the benifit of their parent company's research. Nothing wrong with that.

As for the XK-120, it belonged to my Uncle Harry. When I was a kid I would go every Saturday and wash and wax it and clean it until you could "eat off any part of it". When he passed, he left it to me. Needless to say I was shocked! (he also left me his shotgun collection ~`c)

method
09-27-2005, 22:34
Not that there's anything wrong with the Mondeo platform.

BadLight
09-28-2005, 09:15
Didn't mean to imply that there was something wrong with the Mondeo. The discussion started because someone said that a X-type was a Mondeo with a fancy interior. I thought I would correct that impression. My comments were in no way meant to demean the Mondeo. In fact I think it would have sold really well in the US. It certainly has a strong following in the UK! And some of the Mondeo's I have seen are the balls! :)

fnfalman
09-28-2005, 11:02
Call me a snob but I do have problems with upper scale marques using parts from lower scale marques. Jaguar and Ford, Saab and Subaru, VW/Audi/Lamborghini/Bentley. Yeah, I do find it distasteful for an Aston Martin Vanquish to have various minor parts and pieces that come from a Lincoln. Or a Jag (a fine marque) sharing a chassis with a Ford. Or a Bentley with a VW engine. Or a Subaru rebadged as a Saab. Or a Porsche with a VW chassis (Cayenne/Toureg). Or an outdated Mercedes rebadged as a Chrysler (SLK/Crossfire).

Imagine a Ferrari is sharing the same platform with a Fiat.

Although sometimes they aren't always bad things. Cadillac CTS-V would not be possible without Opel's chassis. Chevy could do worse with using something else other than the Monaro for the GTO. Or the BMW V12 to replace the 1940s technology V8 in Rolls Royce.

BadLight
09-28-2005, 15:44
fnfalman,

No getting around it now-a-days. When the gubment got involved (crash tests, "you gotta get this kind of mileage", "NO MORE POLLUTANTS than what we allow), the auto industry, just like the airline industry, was doomed... get the gubment out and you'll see the "pure breed" come back. Untill then sit on your hands. Vote Hillary in 2008!;g