I agree with the article, and here is some of our reasoning:
As we know, some very vocal people who call themselves "purists" or "traditionalists" (and [jealous] owners of Jaguar's competitors) say that current/modern Jaguars from the X-type to the XK, S-type to the redesigned 2004 XJ, "are not real Jaguars". They believe that the "last real Jaguars" were cars like the Series 3, the MK 2, and the original Jaguar, the SS 100. They say that Jaguars today are simply nameplates, and the Ford killed Jaguar. They point out parts-sharing, saying that cars like the X-type are nothing more than "badge-engineered" Mondeos (or worse yet, Contours) that dilute the name, and they'll go so far in deriding the cars as to make up lies about them, saying that they share parts with Fords that they truly do not share, and will even call the cars "Forduars".
Well, here is reality: Modern Jaguars, such as the X-type, S-type, new and current XJ, and XK are truly more Jaguar than any of the cars that Jaguar has previously built. Even with the selective parts "sharing," modern Jaguars still have more genuine Jaguar-made parts, and they also exhibit more "Jaguar-ness," than 'old' Jaguars. In otherwords, modern Jaguars are more pure-bred than past Jaguars.
Our so-called "Mondeo-based" X-types actually only *share* six hardpoints on their floorplans with the chassis of the new European Mondeo - nothing is in common with the Contour/Mystique/Cougar. AutoWeek can confirm that these 6 floorplan hardpoints are truly the only shared parts between the X-type and the Mondeo (see their "Jaguar X-type: We Drive the X-type along the River Wye and do the math" test and review of the X-type http://www.autoweek.com ), and the rest of the floorplan, platform, and chassis are all authentic Jaguar parts. The JAGUAR World Monthly article also notes that only a "small portion of the Mondeo's floorplan pressings" - those hardpoints - are shared with the X-type.
-When the X-type first hit the scene, competitors and "purists" derided the highly anticipated car to the point of also saying that besides those 6 floorplan pressings (which they of course said was the entire X-type chassis - again, completely false) they also said that it *shares* the same suspension and engine with the Mondeo. Those statements are also false; the X-type has its own suspension and does not share its suspension with the Mondeo sedan or the compact suspension of the wagon. The AJ-V6 Jaguar engines use significantly ribbed and re-enforced variants of the aluminum Duratec engine BLOCK, and nothing more. Everything from heads to engine mounts are genuine Jaguar-made. Remember that the Aston Martin V12 also began as two Duratec blocks, and with the help of Cosworth (who does the engines for Jaguar's F1 cars, as well as much of the technology used in Jaguar's AJ-V6 and V8 engines) became what it is. The Jaguar engines are true Jaguar engines.
-Jaguar deriders then say that even though the only actually shared parts are six floorplan pressings, "real" Jaguars do not share any parts with any other cars, nor do they even use modified components. They say that Sir William Lyons only used parts that were made exclusively for Jaguars by Jaguar.
Oh yeah? Really? Sir William Lyons first cars in the 1920's were actually simply coachwork put onto other marques' chassis - the 1927 Austin Swallow (Lyons first company had been the Swallow Sidecar and Coachbuilding Co.) is a prime example. He used his own Austin Seven as the guinea pig, and then put his coachwork onto it, thus creating this "new" car and the first step towards Jaguar. The Austin Swallow was followed by the Morris-based Cowley Swallow, and this early version of the Jaguar company also built bodies on Alvis and Clyno chassis among others. In 1931, the SS1 - THE ancestor of Jaguar - appeared using a 16 horsepower engine and the entire chassis supplied by the Standard Motor Company. The smaller SS11 was launched at the same time, using 1052cc Standard Little Nine running gear. The SS90 sports car also used Standard-supplied parts, including its 20 hp, 2663cc engine, as did the SS100 "Jaguar" that appeared six months later.
When the Sunbeam Motor Car Co. went bankrupt, Lyons tried to buy it but was beaten to the deal by another company. Had he bought Sunbeam, the Jaguars of the time would have not been based on Austin, Alvis, Clyno, and a vast amount of Standard parts, but would have become sheetmetal on Sunbeam cars.
Sir William Lyons, along with Harry Weslake, redesigned the Standard engines into the Jaguar inline sixes and V12's with engineers Claude Baily and Walter Hassan (much like Jaguar has done with the AJ-V6).
Throughout the classis car period, all Jaguars but the low-volume XK120 and E-type had body shells built by outside suppliers. Every single Jaguar saloon/sedan’s body shell - the single largest component in any car – was built by other companies. Today, the X-type, S-type, and XJ have their body shells and chassis built in-house by Jaguar. Cars like the MK 2 and MK VII didn't. Right there, the modern cars are more pure Jaguar than their ancestors.
-Desperate to prove that modern Jaguars really aren't Jaguars, these deriders will then say that only real Jaguars come from Browns Lane, not Castle Bromwich or Halewood. They'll also say that all of the outsider engines and chassis that Jaguar used in the past were British, not foreign the way the new Jaguar engines are.
Hmm. Truly? In 1966 Lyons put his deputy managing director F.R.W. 'Lofty' England in charge of thinking up a replacement for the MK 2. The car they designed used a 1.5 to 2.0 litre V8 Climax GP engine, a British Motor Corporation (Jaguar Cars merged with BMC in July 1966, forming British Motor Holdings) or Alfa Romeo chassis, with a body that would have been built and painted at Castle Bromwich. The target was 50,000 cars per year sold (that’s like BMW 3/ Honda Civiv sales today – not exclusive at all. Even the X-type is still exclusive even as the best selling Jaguar). The car they actually built was based off an Alfa Romeo Guilia Sprint, and the stylist for the new "Jaguar" MK 2 replacement did more work for Lotus and TVR than he did for Jaguar. England said the car would "look like a Jaguar, go like a Jaguar, and be pri
-MPEG Version (Windows Media Play, et al) 352 x 288:
-RealVideo Version (Real Player) 320 x 240:
I only downloaded the MPEG version as it had a larger viewing area (352 x 288). It is surprisingly clear as a full screen picture (press Alt+Enter in Media Player to see full screen), especially for an MPEG video.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
And here's the "Quote of the Day" from the Town Hall:
"Well, I am beginning to like all these "entry-level" luxury cars. I have completly fallen in love with three of them lately, the Infiniti G35, the Lexus ES300, and the Jaguar X-type. All great cars, I really see no reason at all to bash them. Anyway, I have to sign off for this evening."
-NEWS&VIEWS: A luxury car for eveyrone, msg: 147
(This person had hated "entry-level" lux/sports cars until now; Merc C-Class, BMW 3, and Audi A4 have taken a beating in that discussion. Glad the X-type escaped with positive words!)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Well, I guess I'll wait for the rest of you to read through all of this before I post more. What's wrong, cat got your tongues?