PDA

View Full Version : Jaguar Dropping X-Type and Moving Further Up-market


Santeno
04-13-2005, 11:19 AM
This bit of news sounds like a wee bit of speculation on Autocar's part, but It's worth a mention anyway:<p><IMG SRC="http://www.autocarmagazine.co.uk/Car/Jaguar/XJSeries/64551235391.jpg" BORDER="0"><p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">JAGUAR'S US DILEMMA<p>Jaguar is to kill off the entry-level 2.5-litre X-type in America, and company bosses have hinted that the future of the makers cheaper models in the US is again under scrutiny. American reports suggest that Jaguar is trying to move its operation upmarket, a shift beginning with the introduction of the $115,000 (60,000) Super 8 XJ saloon.<p>Mike ODriscoll, Jaguars US chief, told an American newspaper that the XK and XJ are the kind of models you think of when you think of Jaguar.<p>ODriscoll wouldnt comment on the possibility of the X-type being phased out, other than that the company was considering its options.<p>Meanwhile, work continues apace on the vital S-type replacement. Spies say the innocuous-looking XJ above is actually a mule for the new mid-range car.</TD></TR></TABLE>

JBlair
04-13-2005, 11:38 AM
Thats funny because there was just a story on AutoWeek saying that the X-type will soldier on for 4 more years.

Santeno
04-13-2005, 11:41 AM
I think They are talking abot it's replacement. If replaced the new X-type will not be comming to North America. Not unlike what most German brands do with their lower end offerings.

bolita
04-13-2005, 12:52 PM
I really doubt that the X type wont be replaced ...

CalinG7
04-13-2005, 03:37 PM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Santeno</b> &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If replaced the new X-type will not be comming to North America. Not unlike what most German brands do with their lower end offerings.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>Except that the X-type is the Jaguar version of the 3-series, C-class, A4, Lexus IS, Infinity G35, etc. ................... and all those cars are sold and very popular here. It's the even lower offerings that aren't sold here, such as the 1-series and A-class, though the Audi A3 will be sold. If Jaguar drops the X-type, many auto makers, though not all, will have 2 classes of vehicles below Jaguar's entry level. I don't know if that'll work.

pcread
04-13-2005, 04:04 PM
That's the whole crux of the matter. That segment of the market is so competetive. From what I've read, the story is that Jag will not replace the X-Type when it finally runs out of steam in 4 years time.<br>Maybe the fact there was only the 4-door sedan with gasoline engines on offer for so long. Diesels and the sportswagon might be too little too late, although X-Type sales have been healthy in Europe.<p>There is also talk of a crossover to take its place. I'd far prefer an F-Type instead.

Roadster44
04-13-2005, 09:15 PM
I think X-Type will be replaced, but Jag has a bigger fish to fry. Smooth launch of new XK immensely important, S-Type replacement and its development and then the luxury crossover. I see X-Type as being a far distant project and rightly so, they will want to do it right this time. Right now it would be too much to handle.

Hornbag
04-14-2005, 12:21 AM
I agree Roadster. If there will be a replacement for the X-Type is wouldnt be in a high priority, or that in the same league as the S-Type or XK. I think it will be good image wise for Jag to do this, just mabey not sales wise.

pcread
04-14-2005, 02:49 AM
Jaguar spent a helluva lot of Ford's money trying to appeal to the masses. X-Type and diesels meant they couldn't/didn't develop the F-Type. <br>Only the fenomenal V6 biturbo diesel has made real economic sense.

CalinG7
04-14-2005, 03:43 PM
I think a 3-series rival is not too far downmarket to go. B-class, A-class and the rest, sure, but a 3-series equivalent is almost a necessity, especially in Europe. And a compact RWD platform for the X-type could be used to spawn an F-type, so I say they should definitely replace it.

Verdegrrl
04-15-2005, 02:00 PM
My old review of a 2.5. <p>Later drove a 3.0 stick, which was certainly more powerful although the engine wasn't any more exiting to listen to than the 2.5. Clutch was fairly easy to use, but short of any feedback.<p>__________<p>So hubby and I thought we might try to catch the last of the snow up at Tahoe, before it all melted. In the end we found the snow too slushy, and decided to go driving around the Sierras ( try highway 70, for good scenery, light traffic, and plenty of sweepers ). Normally we rent a Subaru Legacy or something basic like going to the snow. Nice car, but as exciting as $12 sneakers at Wal-Mart. I made a few calls to my favourite rental spots and Enterprise in Sunnyvale hooked me up with an '03 Jaguar X Type 2.5 for a killer deal and unlimited miles ( they can get C class Mercedes, Saabs. and Volvos too ). Goody I thought, I can't see how it compares with the A4.<p>Keep in mind that I've worked at a shop where we repaired and restored Jaguars among other cars. I used to get plenty of seat time in all kinds of Jags.<p>The subject:<br>'03 Jaguar X Type 2.5. 5spd automatic, sunroof package w/parktronic, CD changer, and 17 inch wheels.<p>First of all, the appearance. Think muscular gymnast for the X Type, while the rest of family takes on the supermodel long and lanky look. You love it or miss it entirely. I don't think anyone can really object to the overall effect - which does hark back to the XJ series far better than the S Type does the MK series. The face is a little pinched and myopic looking, but not hideous. The paint is nice and glossy with minimal orange peel. No, the clearcoat does not extend around the inside trunk and hood, but both are finished with carpet and fire/noise suppression mats. The trunk can hold one medium-large sized travel bag, a snowboard ( w/one side of the split folding seat down ), boots, jackets, and computer case. The seat release is in the trunk, meaning you need to open the trunk if you want to lower the seats. They are also flimsy and easily knocked from their clips by a bag being shoved into place. The car we drove came with 17 inch wheels and Conti Sport Contacts. Under the hood we found lots of cheap black plastic cladding and even unraveling black electrical tape for that complete British car experience ! <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emwink.gif" BORDER="0"><p>The interior is an attempt to mimic Jaguars of old - but it fails dramatically. Once you get past expectations though, it's OK, if a little low rent for this class. All the little luxurious touches that distinguished Jaguars of old, are gone here. Chrome is minimal and most is plated plastic, not even pot metal. Things like switch gear, door bin trims, and dash, all lack those little jewel-like details that made old Jaguars so desirable despite their unreliability. The plastics are good quality and for the most part, line up with their neighbouring parts fairly closely. The wood is real, but lacks that coachwork effect of feeling like it was custom fitted to the car. There is no attempt to sweep the lines of the door into the dash. The dash and cowl are quite high with a large slab of wood running from side to side to try and break up the visual mass. The gauges are attractive but sparse with tach, speed, temp, and gas, the only items shown. No trip computer. Windows are one touch all the way around. The door handle is far forward and is not illuminated at night. The double pocket door cubbies are a nice touch, with a small cubby below the grab handle for things like sun glasses, and a slightly larger one in the space below, for maps and the like. Neither can hold anything large, nor are they lined in rubber - which means things in them rattle - more on that later. There is only one cup holder next to the hand brake. The ash tray/power plug is not lined either, so change would certainly rattle. It's also hard to get the plug out, as it is buried behind the shift lever when in Park. The grab handles are damped, but the glove-box in our example was not - I've heard mixed reports on that. The headliner is classic mouse fur. The leather covers seating surfaces ( sides are pleather ) and is acceptable and certainly a cut above the Japanese offers, but falls short of classic British leather or the best from Germany. The driver's seat is power, while the passenger gets a manual seat. No lumber adjustment. When you are a hair over 5ft and 100lbs, no seat really fits snugly. The bolsters where minimal though. Good for running errands around town when you need to climb in and out often. Not so good for tackling backroads;-) You have about a 2 hour window after which your tailbone starts to ache. ( The gas release is down on the floor next to the seat rails. You get grease on your hands when you grope for it ) The steering wheel is adjustable for reach and rake. The seat even fits shrimps like me, without cramming me up against the steering wheel just so I can reach the pedals. There is a slightly ripple in the windshield glass. The moonroof is controlled via a single button looking almost like an aftermarket kit from ASC. No one touch here. Wind noise got loud at around 30mph, and started internal cavitation around 45mph. Wind noise is otherwise well contained, but soundproofing is sadly lacking with many outside noises intruding into the cabin. The standard stereo is terrible with muddy sound and almost nonexistent reception. I'm not even a car audiophile ! Buttons are easy to read and use. Same for the basic climate control system. Very intuitive, although I would prefer the climate control under the stereo instead of the other way around - I fiddle more with the stereo than the temp controls.<p>So what is it like to drive ? Both good and bad. This car is heavy ! 3500+lbs with auto. You feel the mass, but it never really hampers you, so long as you don't take it canyon carving. The engine is very willing and linear. It has an odd throbby, almost diesel knocking sound faintly heard at low rpms and part throttle. You will hear this engine at all times. Not unpleasant, but it's always there. As the tach swings past 4000rpms, the sound takes on a harder more metallic note. Not a Jaguar sound, nor a sound like the old Contour SVT - even though both have dual stage intake runners. Interesting, but not exciting. Better than Japanese V6 engines though. A peak of 178ft lbs of torque is available at 3000rpms, which means although the throttle and gearbox are willing and make you feel like you are flying, it takes patience to gain meaningful speed. It took quite a while to reach 110, although there were plenty of revs left on the tach. We got a respectable 22 to 28 mpg even when flogging the car up the passes.<p>The gearbox is a nice 5spd auto run through the traditional Jaguar "J" gate. It downshifts in a snap when in Sport mode, making the best use of the power at hand. It also resists freewheeling when you back off the throttle, so you can use compression braking to good effect. The shift pattern is annoying though because you can't see if you are in 2nd, 3rd or 4th on the hook side of the "J" because the shift knob blocks your line of sight, and there is no visual confirmation on the dash. It you blip the gas a little as you downshift, you can get smooth shifts. In either upshifts or downshifts, we did catch the 'box napping though, and it would occasionally clunk a shift. You also can't manually engage 1st gear. We ended up in very heavy stop and go traffic at one point, and this would have been a nice feature to have.<p>Steering is sharp, fast, and has a tight radius. However, it tends to wander with grooves and the crown of the road. At extra legal speeds, it can be a bit nervous. Good feedback in normal driving, but a bit numb as cornering loads increase. You have to pay attention to the chassis, not the steering, for feedback in corners.<p>The suspension is by far the most confused. Crashing and causing the car to hop and quiver over sharp bumps and freeway expansion joints, it also keeps the car flat in almost any maneuver. Most unJaguarlike ! I could see from the corner of my eye, the dash, doors and seats move separately from each other of frequent occasions. The whole chassis thumps and twangs, but we noted only one tinny rattle from the passenger side B pillar. Overall course is retained no matter what, so long as you attend the steering wheel, but the car certainly likes it rough <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emwink.gif" BORDER="0"> Nothing like Jaguars of old that would lean over, hang on, and provide most of their feedback via the steering wheel and driver visuals.<p>The AWD uses a viscous coupling directing 60% of power to the rear, and 40% to the front under most conditions. I floored in it the mud, and the car did plenty of wiggling around while hunting for traction. ESP is optional. The rest of the time, it feels like a RWD that safely pushes in corners when pushed hard. No suprises.<p>

Verdegrrl
04-15-2005, 02:01 PM
In the end, I thought this was an exceptionally nice 25 to 28K car, not the 34K vehicle it really is. It's also not really a Jaguar in the traditional sense - even allowing for it's Mondeo sourced parts. If Jaguar hopes to invoke images of the past with it's new offerings, they might want to sweat some aesthetic details, since that has always been a large part of the Jaguar appeal. New owners or young shoppers might not notice, but the hard core Jag enthusiasts certainly will. Given sluggish sales ( Jaguar cutting production by 10,000 units this year ), it seems to be neither fish nor fowl. Too hard core a ride and plain interior will drive away traditionalists. Soft appearance and low performance figures will drive away sports sedan shoppers. How will it hold up ? Look to Contours here ( even though the older gen cars ). The firmness, some might say suspension harshness, may result in more squeaks and rattles in the future. For someone who finds the German offerings too logical, the Swedes too quirky, the Japanese too "me too", this is a good choice. Just stick with the 16 inch wheels if rough pavement is part of your driving routine;-)

mzoltarp
04-16-2005, 06:40 AM
I would be surprised if Jaguar does another X type sedan. The problem with the X type was it's Mondeo heritage priced at 35-40k. If it had been in the 25-30k range, people would have flocked to the dealers. These would be new conquests who want to drive a car with a cat on the hood. Jaguar is in a huge bind. The new XJ should have pushed the styling envelope more and it's conservative look has been its downfall. The S Type had trendy styling, but the updates have been too subtle. In this market segment, Jaguar should do a total restyle--NOT a freshening--every three years. Americans in particular would eat up some cutting edge looks. Let's hope the new XK is a home run style wise and then let's pray for a rapid succession of restyling on the S and the XJ. As for a Jaguar SUV I guess I don't get it. Ford owns Land Rover and all Jag dealers should sell Land Rovers.<p>Kind of makes you wonder if Ford has an IRS suspension up their sleeve for the Mustang and if an entry level (40k) coupe could be pulled off of the Mustang chassis?

nismo
04-16-2005, 11:41 AM
I don't know why Jaguar won't use the Mustang platform or a stretched RX8 platform for the X-type. It would probably do better being RWD based... and I agree about the styling Jaguar needs to try something fresh, but I've heard they're new styling director is the guy that deisgns the Austin Martins so we might be in for a treat in the near future.

pcread
04-16-2005, 01:36 PM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>nismo</b> &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I don't know why Jaguar won't use the Mustang platform or a stretched RX8 platform for the X-type. It would probably do better being RWD based... and I agree about the styling Jaguar needs to try something fresh, but I've heard they're new styling director is the guy that deisgns the Austin Martins so we might be in for a treat in the near future. </TD></TR></TABLE><p>If Jaguar build another car on an existing non-Jaguar platform, all you'll hear is "Rebadged Mustang or RX8" and it won't get the serious attention it deserves on its own merit. <p>And BTW, Ian Callum (of whom you speak) was appointed Director of Styling for Jaguar in August 1999. But your're right, his upcoming S-Type is supposed to be really beautiful.

nismo
04-16-2005, 05:44 PM
The X-type isn't getting bashed only for being based on the Mondeo, it isn't a competitive product period...<p>Styling is drab... its not one of the most luxurious or one of the most powerful, its just there. Hopefully Jag will do something with their line that creates some buzz.

stewacide
04-16-2005, 10:01 PM
IMHO the #1 problem with the X-type from the beginning is that it didn't have a "look". The XJ, XK, and S- are all beautiful, unique designs unto themselves: the X- needed to be a standout in its own right as well, but ended up being a bland remix of existing Jag' styling.<p>If a new X- is paired with a revived F-type roadster the F- is a surefire hit again because it has drop-dead styling of its own, and isn't just a shrunken XK. Whether they can nail a new X- however is an open question...

mzoltarp
04-17-2005, 06:28 AM
pcread, <br>The Jaguar S Type, Lincoln LS, Ford Thunderbird all share the same basic chassis. The Mustang is a derivative of that chassis.<p>The fact that Jaguar did not do its own version of the T Bird surprised me. They could have built it alongside the T Bird and had a volume car. For Jaguar, the volume car need not be a sedan. A 35-45k coupe pair, perhaps a luxo-notchback and a sport-fastback could easily outsell the X-Type as well and lend some sporting credibility back to Jaguar which is becoming increasingly staid and conventional.

pcread
04-17-2005, 07:16 AM
But that's the whole point. Do you want a Jaguar (brand) that's upmarket and exclusive or broad and inclusive? The X-Type is said to have hurt XJ sales, because the core customer of old now perceive the brand as devalued by an all-man's car. That wouldn't have been too bad if the X-Type had brought the huge increase in sales Ford/Jaguar expected.<br>Dispite what some of you are saying about drab styling etc. its perceived common heritage was a major factor in its lack of sales. Why buy an entry X-Type, if for the same money, you can get a fully specced Mondeo, if they're on the platform? Same with the S-Type; "it's a Lincoln!"<br>Jaguar are now looking at Porsche's business model. Fewer vehicles, more profit per unit. More exclusivity. <br>I'd love to be able to afford a (relatively) new Jaguar. An X-Type coupe or, even better, an F-Type on the same underpinnings would make my motoring day. But this costly experiment with mass motoring may have scuppered that possibility. Fingers burnt, Jag may retreat upmarket.<p>It may sound like I'm contradicting myself a bit; I really want(ed) the X-Type to work, but not if it means devaluing the marque. I do think that diesels are a good idea, but I also think (and I now I'm not alone) that the F-Type should have been given the go-ahead. I honestly don't think a DEW98 based sports car would have been a good thing. The current aluminium route is by far the best solution, for technological and marketing reasons. Jag should be Jag and not Thunderbirds rebadged.<BR><BR>
<i>Modified by pcread at 7:27 AM 4/17/2005</i>

mzoltarp
04-17-2005, 01:35 PM
If the X type hurt Jaguar it is because it was so obviously a Forduar. I wonder why they didn't do a Y Type Forduar based on the Focus? The S Type chassis underpins the Lincoln and the T Bird but that is just smart business. People do not tend to say the S Type is compromised because it has DNA sharing with Ford products, but they do say that about the X type.<p>You gloriously miss my point. Let's say Jaguar wishes to go upmarket, then they have to have a quality reputation to go there. They don't. They are still overcoming the sad sad days before Ford came along.<p>An R Type coupe and convertible built off the T-Bird chassis or a Mustang IRS chassis would be the kind of sales home run that Jaguar needs to get people to drive Jags. Assuming that they can make it a quality product, that would take more tarnish off the image. The ground swell popularity could then be plowed into drawing people upward into the marque.<p>Lexus hopes ES buyers will move up to the GS next time and possibly after that to the LS someday. Does anyone doubt Lexus is moving upmarket? Jaguar has to catch a ground swell of people, become talked about and desired, and then live up to lofty quality goals if they want to inhabit the thin air of mega luxury.

MitzXJ220
04-18-2005, 06:30 AM
What's with the Jaguar bashing?<p>I've been reading similar posts for the past few months! I can't sit and watch anymore!<p>Jaguar has problems. But it seems to me as if nobody really knows what Jaguar should do to solve them.<p>Here's what I think Jaguar should do:<br>1. Drop the X-Type when the next gen Freelander goes into production at Halewood - never been a fan (styling), too many common folk drive FWD 2.0 and diesels.<br>2. Restyle the XJ - make it look radical please i.e XJR should look different to the whole range not just mesh grille, why can't there be a fastback XJ and a saloon thats LWB only, so private customers would go for the fastback for practicality and corporate customers would go for the LWB ('cause their fat cats) ?<br>3. Drop the 2.5 litre V6- Jag's shouldn't be less than 3.0, and should be a straight six<br>4. The S-Type should be a CLS rival, Jaguar can't compete with the 5-Series<br>5. There should be an F-Type- as a halo car that would appeal to younger buyers, and to get school boys pressing their snotty little noses against showroom windows.<br>6. There should not be a crossover, Jaguar should concentrate on hybrid technology and hydrogen powered cars.<br>7. Jaguar's should be built in Britian (and we Brits should be proud of it)! I know that 50% goes to North America, but itsn't that the appeal for American buyers? Mr Blair where is this stable economy that you speak of when people loose their jobs in manufacturing, not everyone wants a hairdresser, shop assistant or work in a call centre (oops they work in India now). Also why wasn't Jaguar given a loan (I doubt that they would have taken it) to develop the Brown's Lane site, to try to save local jobs?<br>8. There should be a Daimler to rival the Bentley MSB, 90-120K price bracket. Leaving Lagonda to do something wild and challenge Rolls and Maybach 250K+.<p><br>What does everybody else think?<p>Mitesh<BR><BR>
<i>Modified by MitzXJ220 at 6:38 AM 4/18/2005</i>

pcread
04-18-2005, 07:30 AM
Welcome Mitesh!<p>You won't hear any bashing from me.<br>Interesting points you raise there, some I agree with, some I don't.<br>From the top. I like the X-TYpe. I like the idea that I could afford drive a new Jag (a friend of mine has the opp. to get one on lease, fool chose a Peugeot 407SW). The X drives well, looks OK, expecially in the estate version and, by most standards, isn't a bad car. <br>Like mzoltarp says, Lexus have an entry level executive car, so do BMW, so do Merc etc. So why can't Jaguar? The idea that you start your exec career in a 3-series and end up in a 7 (in the Bavarian scenario) is a sound principle, so why hasn't the X managed to pull this off?<br>I'm split. I do want there to be a successor, but not if it harms the brand as a whole.<br>The XJ will be restyled. I expect there to be some kind of image change at the first facelift, maybe bringing it into line with the new S-Type's design language. We'll see.<br>I have nothing against the 2.5 V6, but not in the S or XJ.<br>The next S-Type has the potential to rival any car in its class. The current V6 2.7 diesel is one of the best cars in its class. Boot's a bit small. Competing with the 5 shouldn't be out of bounds.<br>There should definately, 100%, please please please be an F-Type. ASAP. yes.<br>If, by crossover you mean AWD, slightly higher, slightly bigger S-Type estate, then I disagree with you. If you mean XC90, then you're correct. Hydrogen is the future, Jaguar should (and I hope they are) researching alternative fuels vigourously.<br>No Jags built outside Britain. Absolutely. Even Liverpool's a bit far away. Really. There should have been a railhead at Browns Lane. It's not very far from the mainline to Brum. that would have safeguarded its future.<br>I've never been mad about Daimler. That crinkley grille never did it for me. The buyout of Daimler changed Jaguar forever, moving it upmarket, away from the sporting heritage. <p>My 50p's worth.<br>

Santeno
04-18-2005, 07:47 AM
I think that most people agree that in principle an entry level jaguar (such as the X-Type) makes great sense for a modern luxury vehicle maker like Jaguar. I mean, Name one volume luxury manufacturer that doesn't have one? The problem jaguar had with the X-type was nothing more than execution. While a very nice car, I would argue that consumers have found it difficult to justify the price due to it's obvious Ford heritage; especially when the competition has models in the same class that run entirely on their own mechanicals, or do a far more convincing job of hiding the shared parts. I mean, If ford can use the LS platform to make a Mustnag that sells for $19.5K-$26.5K, why can't they use the same platform and drivetrains to develop a powerful RWD sedan and coupe for Jaguar? Heck they might even save money, since it would probably share quite a bit of tooling with the S-Type. Jaguar is one of my favorite brands of all time, so don't take my comments as bashing. It's just pretty obvious to me that despite all the clever marketing and all the obvious Jaguar styling cues dumped on the X-Type, when compared to the competition and it's donor car, the little Jag just suffers from lack of credibility. As I read in a magazine once: "Your last name might be Jaguar, but your daddy's still a Ford".

pcread
04-18-2005, 08:06 AM
Santeno, while eloquent and concise, you have, I'm afraid, contradicted yourself. To paraphrase Mr Mackey "Sharing platforms is bad, m'kay". It hurt the X-Type, as you pointed out. It also didn't do the S-Type any favours and that <I>is</I> the DEW98 platform of which you speak.<p>Jaguar are now going down the Aluminium route and, if you exclude the X-Type, all three new models will be on the same (modified) platform. The press seem to revel in slating Jaguar, emphasizing the Fordness. I'd rather they didn't have any ammunition.<BR><BR>
<i>Modified by pcread at 8:13 AM 4/18/2005</i>

MitzXJ220
04-18-2005, 08:21 AM
Hello Paul,<p>By bashing I meant people having a go at Jaguar, either beacuse they think it's inferior (breaks down) or because they don't like the marque (lovers of all things Teutonic- but VW/Audi/Porsche are OK).<p>I actually used to live a stones throw away from Browns Lane! My parents used to run a newsagents, when the government allowed the company to be sold to Ford and axed jobs their business took a hit- thats why I sympathise with the workers at MG Rover and other local businesses in the Longbridge area.<p>About the X-Type, I was 16 when it was launched with fan fare. We were invited to lauch parties at two local dealers. I don't want to sound elitest, but there were too many people with Ford Mondeos/Honda Accords/Vauxhall Vectras pulling up outside the dealerships- I thought that there would be at least some people with BMWs (I shall now refer to them as SCUM for what they did to Rover) and Mercs interested in the baby Jag. <p><br>My dad test drove an X-Type 3.0 SE, but didn't like it much compared to our Sovereign (due for replacement now). I now that they're different cars but he didn't like it- even then in 2001 he didn't like the fact that there was a 'cheap' Jag, and it showed at the time of the launch as there were models with cloth (OMG) interiors and without A/C, cheap plastics- the dealer wouldn't even negoiate a discount. The estate is better though, maybe they should drop the saloon. <p>My dad is typical of the core Jaguar customer, disillusioned by the company's image - he doesn't even want another Jaguar, unless its an XK. There is no doubt that the X-Type isn't a good car, it's just not a Jaguar afordable or not- if you really want a Jaguar I'd say it's better to buy a good used one. But in the next few years I will graduate from Uni, if I were offered the choice between an X-Type and a 3 Series I would take the X-Type because I'm a fan and I want to support British manufacturing- I doubt that anybody else I know would make the same choice.<p>I like the fact that in an Autocar special they wrote that the X-Type was a car for people that shop at Ikea- it is a pain trying to put things into the XJ's shallow boot!<p>It doesn't help if you have an 50K XJ and some 'sales-rep' down the road buys an X-Type for 19K that looks exactly the same- which is why I detest SCUM and Merc for their 'one car in different sizes' approach.<p>The 2.7 V6 diesel is awesome- we tried it in a Discovery 3. Couldn't even hear it most of the time and the torque was good considering the weight if the Disco. I don't have anything against this engine it's the 4 cylinder 2.1, can't wait until they bring out the V8 diesel- though it will be in the Range Rover first.<p>I also notice that you picked up on the fact that there are no rail links to Brown's Lane. What I was thinking is that they could have used State aid to re-open the "Limo Shop" to make Daimlers or even an exclusive Jaguar, the R-Coupe being an example as it was loosely based around an S-Type or something similar i.e in the vain of the XJ220.<p>Also by crossover I mean anything like the Merc R-Class GST thingy. I don't think Jaguar should sell it's soul like the Germans. Jaguars are meant to be exclusive cars of beauty not fat overgrown estates! But if there's a man that can pull it off it's Ian Callum- but Ian sort out the lights on the new XK!<p>Hope thats clarified a few things!<p>Mitesh

Santeno
04-18-2005, 08:39 AM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>pcread</b> &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Santeno, while eloquent and concise, you have, I'm afraid, contradicted yourself. To paraphrase Mr Mackey "Sharing platforms is bad, m'kay". It hurt the X-Type, as you pointed out. It also didn't do the S-Type any favours and that <I>is</I> the DEW98 platform of which you speak.</i></TD></TR></TABLE><br>I don't know. I have heard the criticisms of the S-type (especially the original ones before the cabin was redesigned) and I understand why people also claimed that that vehicle had a few too many obviously ford parts. However, IMHO, that was largely remedied with the new dasboard and interior acrutements. IMO, the S-type suffers more from being a bit long on the tooth (from a styling POV), than for not measuring up to Jaguar standards. I think that it's platform and powertrain are more than adequate for the class in which it comeptes. It could however do with some sportier suspension tuning in the non-R models.

pcread
04-18-2005, 10:57 AM
My uncle lives just down the road from Browns Lane, in Coundon and I've spent quite e bit of time there myself. Still haven't been to the Jaguar museum though. Have been to the Coventry Car museum, but not since the refurb. Maybe next visit, I'll do both.<p>The core issue is where does Jaguar think it's going. Ford thought it could go mass market and emulate BMW with a broader range. Maybe they went about it the wrong way, maybe it was a bad idea in the first place, but the X-Type failed to deliver. Although it did double production, like the S-Type did when it came out.<br>The three models that are now certain to figure in Jaguar's 2009 lineup are the XJ, the XK and the new S-Type. None of which will be on a shared Ford platform. By then the XJ will have had it's first facelift and the Callum stamp should be visible on all the models.<br>On the financial front, the dollar may well be on the climb again, Britain might be in the euro. Any number of factors could make Jaguars more affordable in their main market.<br>

Verdegrrl
04-19-2005, 01:52 PM
The Contour/Mondeo was a good car, but a baby Jaguar it is not. The X Type is not Jaguar enough for the people who remember the old Jags, and not sporty enough to compete with the best in class for those who don't. That's sad because I used to have the Contour SVT, and that showed what could be done with the chassis dynamically even in fwd guise, and the Cosworth tuned engine was leagues more inspiring than the Jaguar modified lumps they ended up with. <p>I've always been a fan of the marque, but felt the X Type was neither fish nor fowl.

CalinG7
04-19-2005, 02:19 PM
Nissan 350Z to Infinity G35 = success<br>Toyota Camry to Lexus ES = success<br>Volkswagen Passat to Audi A4 = success<br>Volkswagen Passat to Audi A6 = success<br>Volkswaten Golf to Audi A3 = success<br>Ford Focus to Volvo S40 = success<br>Honda Accord to Acura TL = success<br>Honda Accord to Acura TSX = success<p>Point is, platform sharing can be done, and it can be done very, very well, with both brands having great success. X-type was a great idea, and only the execution doomed it to failure. Cheap interior plastics, lack of equipment (no CD player?), and uninspired styling have nothing to do with platform sharing, and everything to do with overzealous bean counters.<p>It can also be argued that Ford should have probably waited to find or develop a suitable RWD platform to use for the X-type, such as the Mustang or RX8 platforms as was mentioned, or they could have developed a new one. Instead they rushed an X-type to market on a FWD chassis, which, to my mind, is a greater sin than the fact that the platform was shared with the Mondeo.

Verdegrrl
04-19-2005, 07:49 PM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>CalinG7</b> &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><br>Volkswagen Passat to Audi A4 = success<br>Volkswagen Passat to Audi A6 = success<br></TD></TR></TABLE><p>One small quibble <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/suave.gif" BORDER="0"> <p>The B5 A4 came out in '95/96. The Passat in '97/98. The A6 also came out in '98, but is so substantially different from either of the other two, that although some portions of the structure may be shared, it may be a stretch to relate the C5 A6 to the A4 or Passat. Except in the case of the A3/TT, they have usually used top down engineering, designing Audis first, and then adapting them to VW models.<p>See pic below for an example:<p> <IMG SRC="http://homepage.mac.com/verdegrrl/.Pictures/suspension.jpg" BORDER="0">

stewacide
04-20-2005, 07:48 AM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Verdegrrl</b> &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">One small quibble <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/suave.gif" BORDER="0"> <p>The B5 A4 came out in '95/96. The Passat in '97/98. The A6 also came out in '98, but is so substantially different from either of the other two, that although some portions of the structure may be shared, it may be a stretch to relate the C5 A6 to the A4 or Passat. Except in the case of the A3/TT, they have usually used top down engineering, designing Audis first, and then adapting them to VW models.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>...this seems to be Ford's plan anymore as well (e.g. borrowing from Volvo, Mazda, etc.) If a next-gen X-type shared with the next-gen Mondeo or S60 or whatever (I think it would have to) they'll be smart enough to launch the X-type first...<p>Ford is even making a point of showing off the Lincoln variants of their North American platforms long before the Fords (e.g. Zephyr and Aviator), and launching them slightly ahead as well...

pcread
04-20-2005, 08:29 AM
Autoexpress has something about a Jaguar SUV in this week's mag. Nothing online though. Anyone?

CalinG7
04-20-2005, 10:34 AM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Verdegrrl</b> &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><br>The B5 A4 came out in '95/96. The Passat in '97/98. The A6 also came out in '98, but is so substantially different from either of the other two, that although some portions of the structure may be shared, it may be a stretch to relate the C5 A6 to the A4 or Passat. Except in the case of the A3/TT, they have usually used top down engineering, designing Audis first, and then adapting them to VW models.<br></TD></TR></TABLE><p>Well, I'm glad you got my basic point and didn't get lost in the details. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/bangin.gif" BORDER="0"> <p>As a rule, industrywide, it would seem that companies tend to engineer from the bottom up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been informed that it's a much easier and cost-effective exercise to engineer up from a basic platform, making it a better performer or more luxurious, than it is to take an expenssive, luxury platform and try to build an inexpenssive car on it, and still try to make a profit.

Verdegrrl
04-20-2005, 04:17 PM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>CalinG7</b> &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">As a rule, industrywide, it would seem that companies tend to engineer from the bottom up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been informed that it's a much easier and cost-effective exercise to engineer up from a basic platform, making it a better performer or more luxurious, than it is to take an expenssive, luxury platform and try to build an inexpenssive car on it, and still try to make a profit. </TD></TR></TABLE><p>Yes, it's easier and more cost effective to engineer up - to a point. If you have to modify the car so much that you're almost re-engineering it all over again within the economy car architecture, it doesn't make sense. <p>You can see this with the X Type. Solutions that work for an economy family car don't always work convincingly as a luxury or sports sedan. In that case it's easier to dumb down the luxury car if possible, and make it an economy car. Much of the cost comes from designing and building the production line (the other portion the floor pan, firewall, and door openings). If you can specify robots and processes that very similar, you can realize huge savings, even though the end result is a vastly different car. For example, the process of installing an engine: If the delivery mechanism is the same, the attachement devices the same, the fastening processes and devices the same, then you've saved a bundle in design, building, training, and maintaining the system, even if engines and and model of car are different. For this to work, you must of course design a cost effective luxury car from the standpoint of production.

pcread
04-21-2005, 03:22 PM
X-Type production being cut:<p><A HREF="http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=15426607%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26headline=jaguar%2ds%2dhalewood%2dproduction%2dsl ashed-name_page.html" TARGET="_blank">http://icliverpool.icnetwork.c....html</A>

pcread
04-25-2005, 04:12 AM
I don't get it: from AutoExpress<br><A HREF="http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/55996/jaguar_offroader.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/n....html</A><br><I>Jaguar Off-roader<br> <p>With the XK's development nearing its conclusion, engineers are now turning their attention to a raft of exciting new models, including the next-generation S-Type and a hi-tech SUV.<p>First revealed by Auto Express in issue 827, this model will break new ground for Jaguar, showcasing the firm's new petrol/electric hybrid technology which will eventuallyspread across the range. Likely to be based on the platform of the all-new X-Type, the soft-roader will get a sleek yet muscular bodyshell and a raised ride height, as well as an all-wheel-drive system based on that of the next-generation Freelander. Land Rover's SUV is due next year, but a Jaguar soft-roader is unlikely before 2009.</I><p>OK, there was talk last year about both Halewood models to share the platform, but more recently the X-Type's future was in question. And what about the 7-seater crossover? I'm officially confused now.<p> <br>

stewacide
04-25-2005, 12:45 PM
Well the rumours I remember were that if a new X-type was coming it would be based on some evolution of C1, as is the new Freelander, so that all seems to fit... except the 7-seat part: that sounds too big to be comfortably done with C1...

mzoltarp
04-27-2005, 05:43 AM
A Jaguar SUV makes no sense when Ford could place Land Rovers in Jaguar dealerships.

stewacide
04-27-2005, 11:55 AM
I believe they mostly are sold together, at least here in North America. Volvo as well.<p>However Land Rover sells top-range BoF SUVs. Volvo sells crossovers, but they don't have the permium Jag' and Land Rover have. A Jaguar crossover would fill a niche for Ford.

pcread
04-30-2005, 03:40 AM
<A HREF="http://www.AutoExpress.co.uk" TARGET="_blank">http://www.AutoExpress.co.uk</A> <br><I> Auto Express can reveal it will be based on Ford's next-generation Mondeo platform, not that of the latest Focus as previously thought.</I><p>So...if there is a new X-Type and if it shares platforms with the Freelander, it will be on the Mondeo again. <p>Oh, woopee. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/bonk.gif" BORDER="0"> <p><BR><BR>
<i>Modified by pcread at 5:03 AM 4/30/2005</i>

Hornbag
04-30-2005, 04:47 AM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>stewacide</b> &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><p>...this seems to be Ford's plan anymore as well (e.g. borrowing from Volvo, Mazda, etc.) If a next-gen X-type shared with the next-gen Mondeo or S60 or whatever (I think it would have to) they'll be smart enough to launch the X-type first...<p>Ford is even making a point of showing off the Lincoln variants of their North American platforms long before the Fords (e.g. Zephyr and Aviator), and launching them slightly ahead as well...</TD></TR></TABLE><p>Thanks for pointing that out, i hadnt notised that!<p>I personally think an MPV would be better for Jag. I have said it before, but SUV's are a Landrover thing, so keep Jag as premium sedans coups and mabey MPV's.