Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Jaguar X-Type

1272830323383

Comments

  • I got my car at Sportique Jaguar in Huntington, Long Island, New York. My salesman was Michael Sender. His telephone # is 1-800-244-8791.

    Steve
  • I have seen three very similar websites for wood dashes for the X-Type at around the same price. They are wooddash.com, woodtrim.com and exoticwooddash.com. Does anyone know which of these is the best?

    Steve
  • I bought a kit for my Lincoln LS from Exoticwoodash. I was very pleased with the fit and finish. It matched the factory "wood" almost perfectly. If you ordered online, they would pay the shipping and it was there in three days. Don't know if this is still true.
  • one2oneone2one Posts: 626
    I got a wood dash kit from wooddashfactory.com for my Oldsmobile Intrigue. I choose "real burlwood". The color is absolutely beautiful! Very rich, deep color that is downright gorgeous in sunlight!
  • I took the wife out to look at cars today. Until the baby-Jag came out, she never had an interest in test-driving cars. Anyway, I suggested she consider a VW Passat 4Motion GLS, but the truth is she really had her heart set on the Jag all along. We decided to try both and see which one we preferred. I ended up driving both cars. She doesn't much care how driveable they are, so long as they have the amenities she's looking for, and sufficient power to merge into traffic.

    Before I get to meat of this, I should tell you that I'm a fan of big cushy luxury cars (I own a 2000 Deville, which I still like very much). Other cars I have test-driven in the past and liked very much were the 2002 Q45 and an LS430. Since both of the cars I drove tonight are somewhat smaller and less powerful than I'm used too, I'm probably somewhat jaded as a reviewer.

    I was deeply disappointed with the Passat, especially given the rave reviews I've read in magazines as well as in message boards here at Edmunds. Even with the 3.0 V6, I found it to be sluggish off the line and sluggish in passing situations. Furthermore, it seemed that the engine was noisy and overly busy when pushed (which, due to the heft of the car, or perhaps some other factor, seemed to be most of the time). Could this be caused by the 4Motion system? A squeak could be heard coming from the right front suspension whenever we went over a large bump.

    I also found the leather seats to be quite hard -- this is not a car I would want to drive long distances in -- and the dash looked a bit dated. The car we drove did not have an in-dash CD -- another disappointment. The ride, however, was impressive for a car in this class, and handling was excellent, as I expected. Rear seat leg room was very good -- perhaps the best I've seen in this class.

    Overall, I thought the Passat was a competent car, but I certainly wouldn't rave about it. With that experience under our belt, we headed towards the Jaguar dealer.

    Long before we had even left the house this afternoon, I was prepared to be disappointed by the Jag. The reviews I've read here and elsewhere left me with the impression that this was an over-priced Taurus with a Leopard glued onto the hood. We decided to drive the demo car -- a 2.5 with the X1 package, xenon headlights, and ~100 miles on the odometer.

    The Jag's interior was everything the Passat's wasn't: Stylish, elegant and luxurious, with interesting looking climate and sound system displays (never got a chance to put the climate/sound controls to the test, however). The front seats were much more comfortable than the Passat's, but the Passat wins hands down in the rear seat category. The Jag's rear seat leg room makes coach-class on a 737 look down-right inviting. The trunk also looked smaller than the Passat's.

    The 2.5 engine's driveability surpassed my expectations. It wasn't sink-into-your-seat fast, but it was zippy. I like to think of it as the Jag that zigs. The engine seemed to rev freely and fairly smoothly. I thought it was much better matched to the car that the Passat's engine was.

    The Jag handled well, but the ride was not as smooth as the Passat's. The X-Type allowed more road noise into the cabin than did the Passat. The Passat was quiet enough in most respects that the engine noise really stood out. In contrast, the X-Type was uniformily noisy, so one factor did not really stand out. I did not hear any squeaks or rattles in the car, and initial build quality seemed quite good.

    The car was stunningly finished in a translucent shade of deep blue called "pacific blue." If you've spent any time in deep ocean water, then you would see the resemblance. We both thought it was one of the most beatifully finished cars we've seen. The styling is, of course, Jaguaresque, with all of the styling queues one would expect. It's just not quite as large as the other Jags.

    Overall, the X-Type was better than I thought it was going to be, and the Passat was disappointing. I wouldn't buy either car, however, as they both had enough flaws that I would not want either as a daily driver. Hard seats and stiff handling are great on the track, or on smooth winding country roads, but we spend almost all of our time in city traffic avoiding potholes and potheads.

    That's my opinion. My wife's is somewhat different. She really covets that graceful feline hood ornament, and is willing to overlook all of the cars flaws to get it. What is it about Jaguars that appeals to women so?
  • riezriez Posts: 2,361
    markhampton... Lots of German cars have been initially chided by potential buyers for having "hard" seats. They may appear that way during a short test drive, but wait till you have to drive the car all day. Then they often get rave reviews for their comfort. I prefer a harder seat. Have found that seats which are initially soft and comfy turn very uncomfortable on longer trips. And you get used to and appreciate the initial hard feeling.

    While I would tend to agree with many of your observations on the interiors, I think you might be a bit hard on the Passat's. My wife and I spent a lot of time looking at both the X-type and Passat. We loved the look of both interiors. The Jag's was more "warm" but the Passat's looked "sharper". I thought both were quite tasteful.

    If you had wanted to save some money and get more interior space and a lot more trunk room, go with the loaded FWD Passat V-6. The 4Motion really eats into Passat's trunk space. And it adds weight which reduces acceleration and fuel economy.

    Noticed you didn't mention the MSRPs of the respective cars. What were they? Guessing the Passat might've been around $32-33,000 and the Jag around $34-37,000.
  • Riez, you could be right about the seats. Some day I may get a chance to drive one for an extended period, and then be able to judge it from that perspective. I'm starting to wonder if the Passat demo I drove had some problem causing it to be so sluggish. I may try a different one to test that theory.

    Even with the space eaten up by the 4Motion, I thought the Passat's trunk was rather large -- certainly larger than the X-Type's.

    The MSRP of the Passat GLS demo I drove was ~$31,000. I was aiming for a GLS with the leather, cold-weather, homelink and monsoon packages, which would have been more like more like $29,900. The demo had most of that plus the luxury (sunroof) package.

    The X-Type 2.5's MSRP was ~$36,000. I believe it included the X1, X3, xenon and automatic transmission options. Those Jaguar options add up fast don't they?

    My wife started looking through the Jaguar brochure first thing this morning. She really did like the car. Anyone know what the current money factor and residual are for an X-Type equipped like the one I just described (36 months, 12k/year)?
  • jonty12jonty12 Posts: 101
    i'm confused by your statement about the trunk sizes, "I thought the Passat's trunk was rather large -- certainly larger than the X-Type's". according to the numbers, the jag trunk is larger 16 cubic feet vs 15 cubic feet. perhaps it's the way the space is used?
  • Well, jonty12, I can't argue with you there. The specs say I was wrong about the trunk.

    My perception was that Passat's trunk was larger, but it must have been an subtle optical illusion. It seemed the Passat's trunk was a few inches deeper, but it may not have gone back as far as the Jag's. Looking at the specs for both cars, it also appears the Jag is two inches wider. That in itself could account for the missing cubic foot.

    Regardless, I appologize to all of you Jaguar fans for what I said about the trunk. It has a nice trunk ;).
  • jonty12jonty12 Posts: 101
    no problem, no offense taken ;)

    it just reminded me of magazine reviews that take points off the jag for things like rear seat leg room, when in reality it has more than most of its competition. they just don't hold it against the competition.

    the cars aren't perfect, let's just not create problems when they aren't there, jaguar creates enough real problems for itself ;)
  • You make a good point. Some dimensions of the X-Type (width, weight, and rear seat leg room) are almost the same as the BMW 5-Series, but the more expensive 5-Series gets raves where the X-Type gets demerits.

    Lack of rear-seat leg room is the one thing that will kill my interest in a car. It is the reason I have never even bothered to test-driven a 5-Series, and it is one of the factors that initially put the Passat high on my list. The Passat, in fact, has more headroom, rear seat leg room and trunk space than the 5-Series.

    Noise is another factor that kills my interest in a car, and the Passat scored well there (except for engine noise). The Jag seemed a bit noisier.
  • mvargo1mvargo1 Posts: 298
    Such nonsense is not even worth trying to refute. The only reason US X-Type sales were off was we had too many 3.0's and everyone was ordering 2.5's that were not delivered until this year
  • riezriez Posts: 2,361
    markhampton... If rear seat room is a major priority or the single most important priority, sport sedans are probably not the way to go. Minivans, full size cars like Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Town Car, various large FWD cars like Buick LeSabre or Cadillac DeVille, etc. would be more appropriate.

    How much time will you spend in back? How much time will other full-size adults spend in back? Children? Will the time per trip be short or long? One can always have a 2nd car, with more rear seat room or just move front seat up a bit when you have an adult in back. My wife and two kids find our 323iA and 540iM more than roomy, and they both have great trunks.
  • jonty12jonty12 Posts: 101
    mark, you make my point better than i could have by saying the x dimensions are on par with the 5-series. the x competes with the 3-series not the 5 (s-type competes with the 5), and yet in all the comparisons with the 3-series, a4, c-class, etc., they bring up the lack or rear leg room in the x, but let it slip by in the other cars which have less. a little frustrating to read, but if that means that they're holding the x-type to a higher standard, it might be a compliment to jaguar.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,689
    Anybody see the X-type superbowl ad? Shows a big snowplow following in the tracks of the X-type on a snow-covered road. I thought it was a great ad.
  • Riez, I'm sure your children find the 540 to be quite roomy. Indeed, my ten-year old would probably find it to be quite roomy. My clients would not, however, and there's the rub. I try out the back seat of every car I test-drive. Yes, I'm six-feet, and I know that designing a rear seat that's comfortable for a six-footer is a pretty high standard, but it's a standard that works well for me.

    Like I said in the beginning, I own a Deville, and I'm very happy with it. It has gobs of torque, isolates me from our poorly maintained roads, keeps the noise out so that I can hear other people talk, and is very roomy in every respect. I haven't had any trouble with it, the dealer's service department treats me like gold, and it costs less to maintain than many other cars in its class. I would buy another one in a heartbeat (although I would opt for a DTS if I had it to do over again). It is the standard I use when I rate other cars, which I also said at the very beginning (so as not to mislead).

    My wife's needs are a little different from mine. She likes the Deville as much as I do, but she wants something a little more personal. For whatever reason, BMWs don't appeal to her the way Jaguars do. Certainly one factor is that she can't drive a stick so she'll never truly appreciate a driver's car, and another factor is that she doesn't care the least bit how well they handle. Where cars are concerned, styling is everything to her. In this, the X-Type may be just the thing.

    As for trunks, I suppose it only becomes a bit of an issue when you can't fit your luggage into your favorite car for that three-day weekend getaway to Yellowstone with the kids. Take the mini van, you say, but I hate driving the mini van. I'm sure the BMW's trunk is very nice -- it's just not very big:

    BMW 5-Series - 11 cubic feet
    Passat - 15 cubic feet
    X-Type - 16 cubic feet
    Deville - 19 cubic feet

    Enjoy your BMW. It's a fine car, and I'm glad that it serves your needs well.
  • I agree with you, jonty, the X-Ttype should be compared with the 3-Series. Finding out that in some respects the X-Type had larger dimensions than a 5-Series was a surprise to me. If Jaguar had just stretched the car out an inch or two more and added a little more soundproofing, I would have been sold. But then I suppose the car would have been too competitive with the S-Type. That's really too bad because there's a lot to like about the X-Type.
  • dhanleydhanley Posts: 1,531
    Some dimensions of the X-Type (width, weight, and rear seat leg room) are almost the same as the BMW 5-Series, but the more expensive 5-Series gets raves where the X-Type gets demerits.

    Well, this moves to some level of subjectivity, but i definitely felt headroom was lacking in the X-type and backseat entrance and egress was difficult. I fit in my e36 3-series a lot better, and a 5-series is larger yet.

    I don't think the official measurements means much, it's how you really fit. For example do the exterior measurements account for the back door only opening about 45 degrees and the high floor sill? No.

    Backseat does matter at least some, after all, it's a sedan, not a coupe or a roadster, right?

    I came in wanting to love the car, i think it's beautiful, so please don't just say "he hates jags, is biased." Some things were really nice about it.

    dave
  • riezriez Posts: 2,361
    markhampton... Since I'm not a fan of FWD in serious all around sport sedans, can't say as I'd ever consider a DeVille or SeVille, no matter what model. Don't consider either to be serious sport sedans. But, if as you say, you'd take another DeVille in a heartbeat, then you might be wasting time looking for a roomy modern AWD or RWD serious sport sedan. A FWD platform will likely get you a lot more interior room and trunk space. The driveshaft tunnel of a RWD or AWD model normally makes the middle backseat an undesireable place for any adult if you have to carry 3 across. Maybe a loaded Infiniti I35 Sport or loaded Acura 3.2TL Type S might be sporty, stylish, and pretty decent performing?

    As for quoted trunk space numbers, I could care less. Only two things that count are USEABLE space and shape. Subtract about 3-5 quoted cubic feet if your car has the space intruding gooseneck trunk hinges. And subtract more, too, if you have an odd shape (e.g., as in the supposedly commodious Town Car). Also, beware premium sound systems that eat up trunk space. The 3 & 5 Series trunks are nicely shaped and every cubic millimeter of it can be put to full use!
  • You hit the nail on the head, riez. Our needs are different, and consequently the cars we choose are different.

    If we chose the X-Type, it wouldn't be because of the AWD system, although my wife does feel more "secure" in our mini van because of its AWD system. She liked the X-Type because of its styling, name, panache, snob appeal, pretty blue paint job, whatever. I suspect that if the X-Type had been built on the front-drive Ford Focus platform she still would have liked it. It's probably a great subject for a psychology major's doctoral thesis.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,689
    I'm sure your wife didn't like the X-type just because of the "pretty blue paint job".

    It was probably the "pretty blue paint job" AND the "pretty round headlights".

    Mine likes the S-type, Porsche 911 and Mercedes CLK. When I asked her what she liked about them she told me: the round headlights. When I first got my Lincoln LS I let her drive and directed her to some nice twisty backroads. She almost got sick, and she wasn't even pushing it hard.

    Let me guess: she would rather watch a DVD on a 20 inch TV than on the widescreen home theater with dolby digital 5.1 sound. I don't get it either. Must be a genetic thing.
  • The Alfa 164 is one of the very few serious FWD sports sedans on American roads today. RWD and AWD have more choices. The X-type appears to be a genuine sports sedan, even in its FWD version (sold in Europe). The whole car, from the suspension to the steering, was developed with sports in mind. The Cadillacs riez mentioned are big, powerful and no doubt comfy cars, but of course no way are they sports sedans! Not because they're FWD (although that is a factor), but mainly because they were designed with comfort as top priority. Actually, are those Caddys really FWD? I thought they are RWD.

    Anyway, the X-type is beautiful, powerful and handles well (I believe in this very strongly although I haven't ever test-driven it!). AWD or FWD, it's definitely a sports sedan. I simply must try one soon.

    Leo

    ps. anyone owns one in Upstate NY who'd like to show me his X? :-)
  • Yes, leogenghis, all current Cadillacs (except the brand new CTS) are FWD, and have been since, what, 1995? The Fleetwood was the last RWD Caddy, but it was thankfully put to death a few years ago. No, the Caddy is no back-road racer, but what it lacks in sportiness, it makes up for in comfort. Cadillac has done a decent job of hiding the fact their 300hp Northstars are driving the front wheels, but they will never be as agile or balanced as a RWD or AWD car.
  • Hi all,

    This is my first post, and I wanted to say thanks to everybody who has handed out their knowledge and opinions on this message board. I've been studying it feverishly.

    I have been looking at buying an X-type, but recently had a setback. I called my insurance company (geico) and asked for rough estimates on what it would cost insure the 3 or 4 different cars that I was considering. The X-type was the most expensive vehicle by about 10%, but was more than 50% more expensive to insure than the next closest. Wow, $140+ per month--and I asked for a quote on the 2.5 liter model.

    Its true that I am a relatively young, single guy (32), but come on, that is absurd--and a likely deal killer.

    Has anybody else out there found this situation? Is there a reason for it? Or, am I simply getting bent over due to the brandname?

    Geez,

    Jon
  • jonty12jonty12 Posts: 101
    i had a completely different insurance experience. i replaced a '97 eclipse gsx ($26.5K msrp) with my '02 x-type ($46.5K msrp) and my insurance is basically identical. less than a $20 difference.

    as for age, i'm 28 and single.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,689
    Check other insurance companies. I have Geico because I haven't been able to find lower prices but they can be very quirky. They were almost double the cost of State Farm for homeowner's insurance (same coverage levels) even though I got the discount for having homeowner's and vehicle coverage. Some of their rates are great, some are not so great. Check around before you give up.
  • jonty12jonty12 Posts: 101
    anybody else switch languages just for variety? today my car was swedish. i like swedish.
  • mkcomkco Posts: 65
    Wow, this board seems dead. As does the car. I don't get it. This car got great previews, it looks great (to my eye), it has AWD, which is great for us in the snow belt (I worry about what a 3-series, LS, CTS would do when the going gets tough). Yet this car seems dead in the water and I don't know why.

    Perhaps one reason is the pricing...$40K+ is just too much for the 3.0, and apparently that's pretty much all that showed up at dealerships early. Car companies (dealer?) do get greedy, don't they?

    Any other thoughts?
  • riezriez Posts: 2,361
    They rated it last in comparison to ES300, A4 3.0 Quattro, 3.2TL Type-S, and I35. They pointed out how expensive it was, its limited interior space (esp. in back), average performance, and fact it just didn't seem to be luxurious enough for the make. Guessing they also have reliability concerns based on history.

    Interestingly, of these 5 cars, CR recommended loaded Camry V-6 and Passat over any of them. CR pointed out how each is derived from or based on a lower-priced platform (they mentioned the Ford of Europe Mondeo). None really offer much more over what you can get in the other platform.
Sign In or Register to comment.