You have saved this page | See all saved pages
Jaguar X-Type
2594 messages, Last post on May 04, 2013 at 1:02 PM
You are in the Jaguar X-Type Forum.What is this discussion about? Jaguar X-Type, Sedan
#1401 of 2594 "Real Jaguars" by jagboyxtype
Dec 30, 2002 (12:06 am)
JAGUAR World Monthly, the magazine dedicated to true Jaguar enthusiasts, ran a cover story titled, "The Real Deal," in its January 2003 edition. The article "explores the controversial topic of what makes a 'real' Jaguar". The conclusion the investigation reveals is that today's Jaguars are more true Jaguars than past cars, and ends saying, "Sir William [Lyons, Jaguar's founder,] would have regarded today's products as true Jaguars in every sense of the word."_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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.
PARTS SHARING
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.
LOCATION
-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
#1402 of 2594 "Real Jaguars" 2 by jagboyxtype
Dec 30, 2002 (12:07 am)
…priced like a Jaguar". This car, approved of by Jaguar founder Sir William Lyons and his famous design and engineering team, would not be powered by Jaguar, not be built on Jaguar parts, and would not be built at the only Jaguar factory at the time. The single reason the ready-for-production car was not built was because British Leyland Motor Corporation - who owned Jaguar at the time - thought it would compete too much with the Triumph and killed the project. Even though it used no Jaguar parts, Lyons and England both considered their MK 2 replacement a true Jaguar. Today’s Jaguars use few outside parts and are built by Jaguar – they most definitely are real Jags.OWNERSHIP OF JAGUAR CARS LTD.
-Jaguar deriders, now no longer able to argue the parts-sharing card or the location card - as 'old' Jaguars share more parts with other cars than any of the new Jaguars, and because all Jaguars are still built in England and an 'old' Jaguar was almost built by non-Jaguar people outside of a Jaguar factory - will point to the Ford ownership of Jaguar as the reason why today's Jaguars are not true to the marque.
Yet, Sir William Lyons had repeatedly admitted that Jaguar could not and would not be able to sustain itself as an independent company. He knew his small company did not have the funds to sustain itself, thus all of the merges with BMC, Daimler, and Leyland. In the 1980's, Jaguar head, Sir John Egan knew that Jaguar had to be connected with another larger company in order to survive, and went into discussions with General Motors - you know, behemoth GM - in order to save his failing Jaguar Cars Ltd.
GM would have probably sucked the life out of Jaguar and turned it into another Buick, Pontiac, Chevrolet, Cadillac had it been successful in buying Jaguar. Insiders from the time agree that Jaguar, had it been bought by GM, would have ended up being badge-engineered GM products. Ford, took note of the talks between Jaguar and GM, and was prompted to do a hostile takeover of Jaguar. Jaguar had been owned by several other companies that had severely limited what it could do, and Ford, who not only pumped billions back into a nearly dead Jaguar, but have also given it tremendous creative freedom, is criticized for owning the marque. Jaguar has stayed Jaguar through numerous merges and takeovers, it will continue to stay true under Ford's ownership - and it isn't owned by Ford North America, it is owned by Ford Great Britain, which is considered separated from American Ford - it's still British. And it’s certainly better off as a unique marque under Ford Great Britain than as another GM car "division". The JAGUAR World article also mentions that thanks to Ford, the new Jaguars have something the old ones will never possess: “a quality level undreamed of by the ‘old’ Jaguars”.
STYLING
Jaguar deriders finally will say that Jaguars are even starting to look like other Ford cars, notably the Mondeo or Lincolns from the rear (a truly weak argument). Some will say that Ford stylists are trying to create Jaguars, or that Jaguars share body panels with Ford cars - FALSE.
From the time that late head stylists Geoff Lawson joined Jaguar in 1984 to now with Ian Callum, Jaguar's styling departments have had no influence from any outside force, including Ford. In fact, Lawson joined Jaguar while many of the original stylists from Lyons's time were working, and he and those same teams styled the 1998 - 2003 XJ-Series, the S-type, the XK-Series, and the much of the X-type. After Lawson's death, Ian Callum came in from Aston Martin (DB7 stylist) and finished the X-type's and new 2004 XJ's styling (which may be why they resemble each other but are still distinctly different in all of the important ways). The stylists for the current Jaguars made it a priority to preserve what they call the "Jaguar DNA". The rounded rooflines of the X- and S-types, and now the new XJ, are to evoke a modern interpretation of the old Jaguar sports sedans - MK 2, '60's S-type, etc. - while the tails preserve "Jaguar triangularity" with their angled lights, etc. Even Edmunds.com blames Jaguar for the angled lights trend that is around now, which is also used by Mercedes-Benz and some of Dodge's cars (both owned by DaimlerChrysler BTW). Edmunds.com notes that Mercedes only changed to the Jaguaresque lights after Jaguar had them. Who did Hyundai also copy with their taillights? -Jaguar, because as always, Jaguar is still a style leader. What car do Infiniti J30 drivers say their car's trunk/boot was modeled after? -The sloping tails of Jaguars. Whose roofline did Infiniti G35 drivers compare their car's roofline to? -The curved rooflines of classic and today's Jaguars.
So you see, today’s Jaguars use more genuine Jaguar parts than old/classic/”real” Jaguars even though they do share a few unseen, selected and modified parts with other cars. In fact, since every ‘real’ [old] Jaguar ever created uses parts from another car from chassis to engine to outside built shells/structures, it is almost a Jaguar tradition in itself to use some outside parts. The only tradition that today’s Jaguars break is using less outside parts than the old Jaguars. When Sir William Lyons first introduced his Standard and Austin-based Jaguars to the public, he asked them how much they believed the cars cost. With their stunning looks, they naturally evoked responses from the public that were hundreds and thousands of pounds more than what they actually cost (affordability and undercutting competitors’ prices was also a Jaguar tradition for a while - X-type is restoring that too). Today’s Jaguars do the same, as even the Edmunds.com reviews of preproduction X-types evoked prices between $50,000 and $75,000 when they asked bystanders how much they believed the X-type cost. My friends think I’m driving an $80,000 Jaguar and even asked me why I didn’t go for a Mercedes SL 500 instead (they don’t listen when you tell them it didn’t cost nearly that much) - so the cars still have their stunning looks. They also have some of the best rides available from any marque, while also being performance-oriented enough to compete with the fastest of competitors - more pure “Jaguar-ness”. Today’s Jaguars are real Jaguars in every sense of the meaning behind the marque - even more so than their ancestors - and anyone who questions them truly knows nothing about Jaguar and any attempts at deriding the cars are an act of futility. These are the real Jaguars.
#1403 of 2594 X-type Video by jagboyxtype
Dec 30, 2002 (1:37 am)
The 30 second X-type advertisement where the X-type clears the way for a huge snowplow that is followed by the rest of the traffic on a snow-covered road can be downloaded here:
-MPEG Version (Windows Media Play, et al) 352 x 288:
http://www.jag-lovers.org/brochures/video/xtypead.mpg
-RealVideo Version (Real Player) 320 x 240:
http://www.jag-lovers.org/brochures/video/xtypead.rm
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?
#1404 of 2594 '03 Premium Pkg by geecheewheels
Dec 30, 2002 (10:43 pm)
It sort of rankles me that Jaguar has decided after already starting the delivery of a few months of the '03, to change the steering wheel to the leather/wood combination. Though the look is very classy, the $500+ price for the swap out is rather steep. Has anyone heard anything about this?#1405 of 2594 new wooden steering wheel by jagboyxtype
Dec 31, 2002 (12:01 am)
It's expensive because they have to also install new a new airbag and sensors, etc. when they replace the steering wheel for safety purposes. I thought it would have cost at least $1,000 to replace the wheel, so the $500 - though still steep - is better than what I had expected. My birthday's in February, maybe I'll get one then._________________________
RESALE (again):
I just checked Kelly Blue Book pricing on 2002 X-types (go to http://autos.msn.com and click on X-type, then Used Pricing). The prices are between $31,000 and $37,000 - that's holding its value pretty well, especially considering that the new 2002 cars started at $29,350 or something - they're getting more valuable with time!
A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU ALL! I should have also wished you all a Merry X-mas a while back too, but I missed my chance, so I'll have to wait until next year.
P.S. - It's raining heavily here, but the X's AWD has been fantastic. I shouldn't be, but I am doing 70 mph in several inches of rain around town, and am easily passing sliding Lexuses and slipping Bimmers (they're quite slow in the rain, you know). I even saw an Audi slip around - didn't see if it had Quattro or not though. I love driving in the rain with the X! Hitting massive puddles and causing huge splashes with the car - and not slipping - one bit is awesome. Makes me appreciate the car even more, and this is in California, which doesn't really get "bad" weather. Oh yeah, you should all really try the radio thing I posted about - even next to power lines, the radio doesn't cut-out anymore!
#1406 of 2594 Resale - jagboyxtype by desertguy
Dec 31, 2002 (6:55 am)
Well, depends what you are looking at with the Kelly Blue Book. I just went to Kelly and looked up trade-in value which is what most would be interested in and it shows $27,000. This is for a 3.0 with the Alpine, X1 which stickered $41,5000 and has 10k on it. Not a particularly great value. As for hitting those puddles at 70mph, be careful as AWD is of no help if you hydroplane.
#1407 of 2594 by rea98d
Dec 31, 2002 (12:58 pm)
Jagboyxtype, just a couple more details on what you posted regarding "real" Jaguars...First, Jag has been buying transmissions from Borg-Warner and General Motors, and outside vendors such as Bosch (German) and Lucas (Yup, British) have also contributed parts over the years, so outsourcing is nothing new.Now, and a minor nitpicking point, the styling for the 1998-2003 XJ's was introduced in model year 1995. 1998 saw a new & improved engine and better interior, but save for a few minor details, styling was unchanged from the 1995-1997 models.
Also, after Jag took over the Damlier company, Jaguar's MkII sedan was offered under the Damlier name with Damlier's 2.5 liter V-8 engine developed for the Dart (about the only thing good Jag got out of that takeover, IMO), so a V-8 Jaguar is nothing new for those of youthinking a XJ8 is no better than a Series III XJ6 with a 350 chevy under the hood. Nor is the V-6 new. Remember the XJ220 supercar from the early '90's? Turbocharged V-6's motivated those kitties. Just goes to show there's nothing new under the sun, although even if I had the money for a new XJ8, I'd probably still prefer a pristing Series III just on looks alone.
#1408 of 2594 rea98d by jagboyxtype
Dec 31, 2002 (2:13 pm)
Thanks for the extra info - I hadn't seen much of it before. Also, the thing with Location, Jaguar's Browns Lane factory was a Daimler factory before Jaguar moved into it between 1950 and '52, so even the factory had to become truly Jaguar.On the styling of the 98-03 XJ versus the 95 (and perhaps its just me), but I can tell the cars apart from 100 feet away. The grilles (to me) are noticeably different in overall shape, and the 98-03 XJ looks much more rounded off than the 95, although both cars are still quite similar in overall appearance. The 98-03 also looks "heavier" to me.
And thanks for the V8 and V6 engine info - I've even had the XKR attacked for having a V8 and not a 'real' Jaguar engine like an I6 or V12. It's rediculous! Happy new year!
__________________
Desertguy-
Thanks for your hydroplaning concern. I always keep one wheel dry though
Happy New Year.
#1409 of 2594 Talking about quietness of 2.5 vs. 3.0 by marchie
Dec 31, 2002 (3:36 pm)
Hi everybody. I read your enthusiastic posts but could not find any specifically indicating size of engine. After buying a little house on a Pennsylvania hilltop I was looking around for a AWD. Not being extremely convinced to buy an SUV after tens of years of Firebirds (oh, no!RIP) and on my way to a Subaru dealer, I stopped by at a Jaguar instead and 2 hours later I found myself signing and making a deposit on a x-type 2.5. As I had not done any research on the x-type Jag (and Jaguar in general) before stopping by there, I did not know the difference in the engine noise between the 2.5 and 3.0. Therefore even if noticing that after 50 mph acceleration the engine sounds like kind of cheap sound, I fell in love with design, maneuvrability, braking, awd and, why not, the lumbar support automatic stuff and decided that well, one cannot have everything when having something (that that's the way x-type is). I did not even inquire about 3.0 thus did not drive it and said yes to the 2.5 As they did not have the (white) car in stock I was supposed to have it come from another state in a couple of days.After getting home I did a post-deal research and found that indeed "under full throttle, the 2.5 engine sounds ragged but the 3.0 growls nicely." What should I do? Try the 3.0 and after that switch if sound is pleasant for a muscle car oriented ear, or you think that the 2.5 will accomodate me (or rather I will accomodate to it) in a certain amount of time. Additionally I have a slight tinnitus (ringing in the ear) which the high pitch "ragged" sound of the 2.5 over 50 mph could aggravate. Oh, what sorry I am that I did not try the both before deciding on the 2.5 (as not knowing this noise difference)! Please those of you who have a 2.5 tell me if sound does not become bothersome in time if it scratched my ear in the first day. Or those of you who posted before me so enthusiastically, please indicate if your enthusiasm stayed even if having a 2.5. If you have a 3.0 please state so. I am very bothered by this problem that I have before finalizing the closing. Any verified advice will be greatly appreciated. Have a very Happy New Year!
#1410 of 2594 Engine Sounds by jagboyxtype
Dec 31, 2002 (9:19 pm)
Hey marchie! Happy New Year!I have a 3.0 litre X-type and the car does have a nice deep growl under moderate to hard acceleration. The sound is not "ragged" at all (at least to my ear), though it more pronounced in comparison to my S-type - it sounds like the performance car it is.
I've driven 2.5 litre X-types, though not enough to really pay attention to the sound of the engine. 2.5's do sound slightly different (if memory serves), but not a bad different - maybe slightly less throaty or something. When I got my X-type 3.0, I initially noted that the engine was quite loud [in comparison to my S-type, whose "spooling-up" engine sound I had gotten used to], but now I enjoy the X-type's engine sound a lot as well as the sound of the S-type.
The X-type with either engine has been critically acclaimed for the sounds of its engines. One review in particular writes:
"Something must be said about the sound of the V6 engines. The English are an essentially auditory people; you can be ranked socially merely by how you sound (think Eliza Doolittle), so perhaps it is no surprise that much attention has been given to making the X-Type engines sound right. They do. A driver might actually search for some stonewalls to motor between, touch the instant-down on the window and smile at the reverberation... When you try one on be sure to search out some plate glass windows to mirror your passing. And reflect the sound of that engine."
Really, it all comes down to you. You haven't bought the car yet if it still has to arrive (I assume), so you are free to test out other X-types as well before truly making your purchasing choice. I'd recommend going and test driving a 2.5 until you remember how it sounds pretty well (you might even get to like it in that time) and then go test drive a 3.0 litre. Get the one that fits you the best. The only drawback is that the 3.0 costs a little more than the 2.5 - both are great cars though, and I think you'd become acustomed to, and even begin to enjoy, the sound of the 2.5 litre. Happy shopping, and have a wonderful 2003!
To POST a message, please
Sign In.
Advertisement
Most Popular in Forums
Search Forums
Enter Keyword(s):
Learn More, Do More
Edmunds Community
Advertisement