It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This is the X-TYPE section of the car crash test above:
Take note that this is the "Jaguar X-Type 2.0 LHD" marked under the "Make, model and hand of drive" portion of the chart at the bottom of the page. The X-TYPE 2.0 is the low-end Europe-only version of the car that lacks the extra driveshaft that the 2.5 and 3.0 litre models have that are sold globally (as well as the driveshaft that is found in the 3-Series and C-Class). Thus, its crash tests produce weaker results than the 2.5 and 3.0 versions, and 3-Series and C-Class, because 2.0 is a FWD car with no longitudal driveshaft that is found in AWD (X-TYPE) and RWD (C-Class, 3-Series) cars.
Check out this site:
It notes that the X-TYPE underwent structural changes after December 2001 but does not say if that was a version-specific change (which I discovered it was). A letter to Consumer Reports aided research, and their reply was as follows:
"We spoke with JNA (Jaguar North America) on this question and they explained that the Jaguar X-Type was originally introduced in Europe as a 2.0 litre FWD (Front Wheel Drive) model. The only models sold in the U.S. are 2.5 and 3.0 liter AWD versions.... that achieve better frontal crash test results than the FWD European model due to a prop shaft that runs the length of the car from front to rear. The prop to the rear supplies power to the rear wheels as well as the front, which accounts for the AWD traction... The modifications made and referred to in IIHS's report on X-Types (made) after December 2001 were actually modifications made to FWD European models and are not applicable to the U.S. AWD models."(Thanks "JagDude" and Consumer Reports for this information).
Also note that the reason why the C-Class recieved a 5-star rating in the European test over the 4-star rating that all of the others in this class recieved was because it was the only car that had a flashing light that lit-up a sign reading the equivalent of "fasten your seatbelt" on its dash, which is to become a standard feature in Europe in the future(?). It would have recieved that same 4-star rating had it not had the light. This is straight off the site:
"Extra points awarded for the way that the C-class reminds its passengers to buckle their seat belts have now made it the second car ever to gain a five-star crash protection rating. Results for the C-class were published last year and it achieved four stars. But Euro NCAP has since changed its scoring system to encourage car makers to fit seat-belt warnings."
All in all, I'd feel very safe in any one of the cars in this class, and I do feel safe being in one of them. Stay safe everyone.
The warning system in the Mercedes C-Class in that test was a different light from the ones we have in our cars here. Notice that the C-Class had scored a 4-star rating in the test just as all of the other cars in that class did, but because of the addition of another light that said "put on your seatbelt", the car's score was later changed to a 5 to promote more lights that say "put on your seatbelt" to be used in other cars. I'm not saying that the C does not deserve a high rating in crash tests, but its additional star over the other cars in its class is simply because it has an additional light that tells passengers to wear their seatbelts on top of the light on the dash that says to wear your seatbelt. It is not necessarily safer than the other cars because of that light, and so I do not believe that it should have gotten an entire extra star for a light.
You are also wrong about the 3.0 Jaguar engine "pushing" into the cabin in a crash before the 2.5 and 2.0 because they are the same engine blocks but the 3.0 has been drilled-out more to be larger. Also, the engines do not enter the cabins at any time in a crash because the X-TYPE is designed to "drop" its engine when it is in a severe frontal crash. Most modern cars do this. X-TYPE's engines are also mounted horizonatally, so they are not taking up a terrible amount of longitudal space in the engine bay, thus the chances of them penetrating the passenger cabin is slim in comparison to longitudally oriented engines. Again, however, the X-TYPE drops its engine when it has a severe frontal crash, so it never enters the passenger compartment no matter what engine size is used. The argument that a 2.0 FWD X-TYPE would be safer than an AWD larger displacement version is null and void, because the engine does not enter the cabin at any time during any impact.
You really should read the bottom chart of the EuroNCAP page for the X-TYPE:
It specifically states that the car is: "Jaguar X-Type 2.0 LHD. Only the FWD X-TYPE is built with the 2.0-litre engine, which again is the same engine block as the 2.5 and 3.0, but not drilled-out as much. All other X-TYPEs are built in AWD configuration. The AWD driveshaft of the AWD X-TYPEs aid in collisions v. the FWD version that is sold alongside them in Europe against 318 and C180.
Mercedes-Benz decided to changed to a V6 from an I6 because they lowered the bonnet of the E-Class between those configurations and could not fit the I-6 under the lowered bonnet, as well as because it may have cost less to produce and it could be used in more vahicles as it had better packaging. That is also the reason for the discontinuation of the E300 diesel, as the diesel engine could not fit under the lowered bonnet that was used when the V6 was introduced (that and because the E300 did not sell well here). The E-Class should have been designed to drop its engine in a crash as well. I've not heard of a modern car being designed so that its engine penetrates the passenger compartment in a collision.
Help | About Us | Contact Us | Careers | Affiliate Program | Dealer Center | Privacy Statement | Visitor Agreement | Membership Agreement
Your Ad Choices | Site Map | Glossary | Mobile | Developers
© Edmunds.com, Inc.