Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Jaguar X-Type

1232426282950

Comments

  • jagboyxtypejagboyxtype Member Posts: 241
    Zircon eh? I really like the Zircon color, I think it looks great on the X-TYPE. As for window-tinting, I don't really have an opinion as to which tint to choose, but I do know that if the tint used is composed of a material that includes certain metals, it can interfere with such equipment as the nav system or phone, or possibly even the remote for the car. Just make sure that you get a tint that is X-TYPE compatable, if you didn't already know this information already. Other than that, enjoy your X-TYPE and tell us how the tinting goes, and how it looks after you have it done.

    Cheers,
    jagboyxtype
  • jagboyxtypejagboyxtype Member Posts: 241
    Jaguar has a fantastic new look for their website. The pictures of the cars there are stunning and beautiful. The overall design of the site is also vastly superior to the old one. Go to:


                            http://www.jaguar.com


    The 2003 X-TYPE has new 17-inch "X-7" wheels standard on the 3.0 - I like them so much I may have my dealer install them on mine.

  • dl7265dl7265 Member Posts: 1,381
    How about have them install a 3.0 also ? :) sorry could'nt resist.

    DL
  • desertguydesertguy Member Posts: 730
    He already has a 3.0, but not the 17" wheels. I also have the 3.0 and 16" wheels.
  • dl7265dl7265 Member Posts: 1,381
    Ok i wear the dunce cap though he was in a 2.5. ok now im jelous of a teenage kid.sheesh

    DL
  • geecheewheelsgeecheewheels Member Posts: 18
    This may have been addressed before, but why doesn't the Euro version of Jaguar not have a leaper on the hood?
  • desertguydesertguy Member Posts: 730
    As I understand it, some countries consider it a leathal weapon as regards to pedestrians. I hear this is true in the UK. Of course they all wish they had it. One good thing about not having it is you don't have to worry about it being stolen. Very expensive to replace BTW.
  • jagboyxtypejagboyxtype Member Posts: 241
    "Jaguar X-TYPE voted best buy by consumers"


    http://www.newswire.ca/releases/October2002/04/c8176.html


    Isn't that nice.


    So far, the car just gets better every day. I'm starting to get a nasty speeding habit though. The car begs to be driven fast - really - it's not me, it's the car. I'll write later about how my X beat two 330i's on a curvy road race, and how I badly disproved my teenager friend's idea that his Passat could out-race my X-TYPE because he believed his car to be lighter than mine. It was a performance massacre for his car. Funny thing is, he won't believe me now when I tell him that the Jaguar doesn't have a V-12. This little race happened in front of most all the guys on my swim team, so they all think I have a V-12 now. They won't listen to me when I deny it (must have something to do with chlorine), so I just let them believe what they want to. Fine with me. Now that I'm really tapping into the beginnings of the car's performance, I've gained enthusiastic new feeling about the X-TYPE. It is just so perfect for driving fast!

  • cayennered1cayennered1 Member Posts: 193
    Was given a tentative quote of 480/mo. No money down, 15000 miles, 2.5 auto, no options, x plan.

    Is this high or about right?
  • geecheewheelsgeecheewheels Member Posts: 18
    desertguy stated that perhaps Euro Jags do not have the leaper for safety concerns. Hmmm, Bently has a humdinger on their hood.
  • desertguydesertguy Member Posts: 730
    I got this info from another board which has many European participants. Mostly UK, Germany and Italy. That was their statement that it was prohibited by the Gov. and they just had an emblem instead. Pictures of the new Bentley that is coming out show no bonnet ornament at all. Of course this regulation wouldn't apply to older cars.
  • geecheewheelsgeecheewheels Member Posts: 18
    Thanks for the follow-up. But, you me and the fence post, a hood ornament that can break away would be the last thing to worry about if you've been struck by a car.
  • kiiwiikiiwii Member Posts: 318
    there aren't "jaguars" on "Jaguars'" hoods in UK. I'm curious to know if the UK gov allows the "flying lady" on Rolls Royces?
  • pluskinpluskin Member Posts: 79
    The flying lady, also known as the "spirit of ecstasy", appears to be allowed in the UK. Perhaps they can get away with it due to their low volumes. Or maybe its just not as deadly as a leaper?
  • desertguydesertguy Member Posts: 730
    This must be a fairly new law. They don't make Rolls Royces anymore so that is moot but the law grandfathers any produced before the law became effective.
  • johnnylincjohnnylinc Member Posts: 308
    "They don't make Rolls Royces anymore..."

    That's gonna come as a big surprise to BMW. :) Perhaps I misunderstood.

    I think the reason that the RR "flying lady" is allowed is that it's not rigidly mounted. (No jokes, please.) It actually lowers majestically into a cavity in the radiator shell upon impact. It probably bends backward if struck directly.

    The "leaping cat", since it faces forward in a spear-like configuration, poses a potentially more invasive threat--manna for the personal-injury industry.

    IIRC, when the "cat" reappeared on U.S. Jags, it was a $200 option. It was subsequently made standard equipment. I personally think it's a bit gaudy; Jags are very nice cars, but I prefer them unadorned. Guess I'll have to get a Type R!
  • desertguydesertguy Member Posts: 730
    Well, I knew when I posted no more RR that I'd be in trouble. I just searched the site that had a great article on the last day of RR as we know it. Couldn't find it or I would refer you. This guy was driving to work in the UK and saw workmen taking down the big RR sign from the building. Coming home from work he saw the Bentley sign in it's place. More Bentleys are sold by far than RRs so I assume BMW made a business decision. BTW, the Leaper is also detachable but it would take quite a tug to get it off!
  • johnnylincjohnnylinc Member Posts: 308
    Okay, now I get where you're coming from. Volkswagen owns Bentley, and BMW will soon assume complete ownership of Rolls-Royce Motorcars. As such, Rolls-Royce production will move to a BMW-owned plant; the last R-R built at the Crewe facility, that's been home to RR and Bentley production for many years, has "rolled" off the assembly line. Here's a link to an article on the official website:


    http://www.rollsroycemotorcars.co.uk/rolls-royce/index.html


    Although another article on this website says that the future of Rolls-Royce automobiles is "uncertain", BMW is most definitely going to continue to build them. All-new designs are now being finalized. It's the end of an era, since Bentley and Rolls-Royce are now German cars, but it's not the end of Rolls-Royce. I also question whether Bentley outsells R-R; that wasn't the case for the past several decades. It's not really pertinent here, though.


    And now, back to the X-type...

  • jay_xc90jay_xc90 Member Posts: 9
    I thought Jaguar didn't honor the x plan? I have an x plan pin a planned on using for a volvo xc-90 but am looking at the X type also. If there is an x plan, I'd love to know about it.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Last I heard they changed the X plan to be a $500 rebate for Jags (may vary by model). As opposed to actually setting the price of the vehicle.
  • jonty12jonty12 Member Posts: 101
    x-plan pins for jag qualify you for the "jaguar preferred" program. basically a cash back program. $500 for X and S, $1000 for XJ/XJ Sport, and $1500 for XK/VP/Super V8/XJR.
  • vader4vader4 Member Posts: 15
    Does anyone know why Edmunds does not yet have information on the 2003 x-type? I am thinking of buying one but want to know the difference between 2002 & 2003 prior to commiting.
  • vader4vader4 Member Posts: 15
    Does anyone know why Edmunds does not yet have information on the 2003 x-type? I am thinking of buying one but want to know the difference between 2002 & 2003 prior to committing.
  • jonty12jonty12 Member Posts: 101
    not sure why edmunds is so far behind in info, but if you would like 2003 info you can find it at the following:

    http://www.intellichoice.com
    http://www.advocar.com
    http://www.autosite.com
  • cayennered1cayennered1 Member Posts: 193
    I priced an x-tpe lease last week at a dealer in Novi, Michigan. 2.5 auto, metallic paint, no other options. Stickered between 32-33K. Quote for a 39 mo., no money down lease with 12000 mi. was $525 plus tax (with x-plan discount). Seems really high. I priced an S60 with a similar sticker price, 0 down and 15000 mi (x-plan) and was quoted $480 inc. tax. I don't get it. Ten years ago I leased a 92 XJ6 with a $45000 sticker 48 mo. 0 down $545 mo. tax inc. With interest rates practically at zero now how does a car that is 12 grand cheaper than that XJ lease for the same price.

    Does anyone have an idea of what a reasonable lease price on a basic X should be?
  • desertguydesertguy Member Posts: 730
    I can only tell you what my lease cost and I don't have an x-plan. Metallic 3.0, auto, X1, sunroof, prem sound with 6CD changer is $449(no tax) with $1000 down, 39 months through Jaguar Credit. There was a nice dealer incentive which was used to reduce the sticker of $41,000. I would guess that your dealer is keeping the incentive for himself and not passing any on. I would try a different dealer or use the web for quotes. Then see if he can match.
  • jay_xc90jay_xc90 Member Posts: 9
    I had the same experience at that dealership. In theory, with Jaguar you only get a $500 "preferred customer" discount on the x-plan. They told me x-plan was 4% over invoice, but they would do me a favor and take off the x-plan $500 discount from that price. As a side note, the discount was largely negated by a $300 tacked on dealership "advertising fee" which I have never heard of. End result was them saying that 4% over invoice is a deal and matches what the x-plan should be. I then went to the other dealership in our area, (you know, the one in Troy) and got a better deal and a lower money factor. Saved me a bundle. I wonder if the Novi store just has higher overhead because its so new. BTW, the Volvo is cheaper because (i) its lease residuals are about 10% higher than Jaguar, and (ii) there really is an x-plan price which dealers honor (I assume you went to the one in Commerce and they have been very honest with me).
  • vader4vader4 Member Posts: 15
    I have been researching a lease. check out leasecompare.com some very good info. you can negotiate the price of the car with the dealer and obtain your own lease, also lease specials . com has a good deal on a 2.5 with x1 and x0 package.
  • tomm14tomm14 Member Posts: 15
    How dependable are used Jaguar-Xs. I am considering a 2001 or 2002. I just dont know how well built they are....I know there was a dependability problem years ago....what about now?
  • geecheewheelsgeecheewheels Member Posts: 18
    The X was new for 2002, so it may be a little hard finding one. As for reliability, some of the concerns of fit and noises have yet to crop up and I have a 03 with 3000 miles. If there is a problem, the warranty should cover it, including oil changes!
  • jeffyjcjeffyjc Member Posts: 14
    aloha..about to buy one X-type 2.5 auto/sunroof/premium sound in Jaguar racing green
    does $33,995 sound fair? and anyone know of a good link for reviews of the car...or photos in the color....Mahalo from Hawaii
  • geecheewheelsgeecheewheels Member Posts: 18
    I bought an '03 for that price, also included, Alpine stereo, reverse alert. Most of the reviews are on the '02, though there are minore differences, mostly new standard items. Great machine! NO COMPLAINTS FROM ME, (other than having to explain 'it really wasn't that expensive).
  • kiiwiikiiwii Member Posts: 318
    I don't have a X-type. Saw several on the road in the past few months. My only reaction is WOW! This is really a BEAUTIFUL car! For those of you have bought the X-type... AWESOME choice, guys!!
  • jay_xc90jay_xc90 Member Posts: 9
    If you all got mad and went somewhere else, can someone please e-mail me and let me know where?
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Member Posts: 5,498
    has apparently found something else to do with his time. Had he done so sooner, this board would have gone dormant weeks, or months, earlier.
    '08 Acura TSX, '17 Subaru Forester
  • jagboyxtypejagboyxtype Member Posts: 241
    Article: http://www.theracesite.com/index.cfm?pagetype=2&form_article=4529


    The Big Picture: http://www.theracesite.com/pics/wallpaper/73l.jpg


    There, I hope you're happy - there's my bit for Queen and country. :-) Have I mentioned that I still love my car? (Look, I even kept this message short! And it doesn't flame/attack/smash/point-out-the-stupidity-of/slam/ruin-the-reputation-of anyone!)

    ____________________________________


    2003 CHANGES

    Oh yes, and the car magazines are wrong. For 2003, there have been many changes to the X-type including a new slightly metallic higher quality facia for the center console that was black in the 2002 models (the single complaint point that people have had about the X-type and new S-type's interiors is fixed - no more black plastic). The wood steering wheel is also gorgeous and really adds to the car's interior. I saw all of this at a recent auto show so I can speak for all of the little changes from personally examining an '03. Also, noticed that Jaguar does not share any interior fittings in any of its models with any Ford models - even the S-type's highly criticized window switches happen to be the same ones as the XJ8's. The X-type's climate control buttons are shared with the Aston Martin Vanquish though, and it has the same sun visors as the XK8. Speaking of the XK8 and Vanquish, the new James Bond movie added to my Jaguar-patriotism. There seems to be a Jag in every scene of the film, and the villain even rows through his J-gate! I was so proud... :-)

  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Would you be just as proud if someone told you that both the Aston and the Jag in the frozen lake chase scene had Ford V8s with 4wd explorer chassis?

    GREAT movie BTW!
  • jagboyxtypejagboyxtype Member Posts: 241
    Yup, I already knew about the chassis and engines they used in the movie cars. They didn't want to lose too many of the real cars on the ice, so they shortened Explorer chassis to allow the cars to handle the ice better - or something like that. I heard that all but one or two of the Astons and Jags survived filming (they had around 6 of each car is what I've been told). What shocked me was the paint they used on the XKR - Jaguar mixed their regular green paint with pure gold at a cost of over $2,500 per litre to coat the car (and again there were 6 or so of them). No wonder the bumpers weren't painted, and I wonder if Jag went through with its 12 layer paint finish for the movie cars, seeing as paint cost enough to bankrupt small countries. On top of that, around $1.7 million was spent on the Explorer chassis modifications for the XKR and Vanquish. Now where to find a machine gun to mount on the back of the X...
  • SylviaSylvia Member Posts: 1,636
    A journalist with a major newspaper wants to talk with consumers who've bought entry-lux cars (e.g. BMW 3, Mercedes c-coupe, Jag X-type, Audi a4, etc) in the last year, ideally buyers who were new to the luxury brands, to talk about how they like their cars and why they bought them. Please respond asap by Wednesday, December 4 to jfallon@edmunds.com with the type of vehicle and approximate amount you paid for it. Thanks!
  • jay_xc90jay_xc90 Member Posts: 9
    Like most reviews, IMHO, Edmunds (like MT, C&D, R&T) just doesn't get it. Not everybody wants what they tend to emphasize in their reviews. If I wanted a manual transmission, high-revving, high-horsepower engine with a stiff as a board ride, I'd go buy something else. And if all I wanted was to validate my existence by looking like everyone else, I'd go buy a BMW.

    However... what I want, and I think the X-type provides, is a nice blend of performance and comfort with an unsurpassed level of beauty. Where I live, 8 inch deep potholes are a fact of life and I commute 35 miles each way on sh*t roads to and from work. A non-sport X-Type 3.0 is a reasonable mix for me. I don't need tremendous linear acceleration in rush hour traffic and I don't need police-pursuit handling. What I need is a classy style and image for clients, decent performance and above-average creature comfort to pamper my fat *ss. If I want a performance/sports car, I'll buy one for weekend use and it won't be an X-Type.

    Reviewers should stop evaluating cars for what the reviewers want them to be and start evaluating them for how cars meet what the target market for that car is likely to expect or desire. Me, I'll just plod along drinking my coffee and letting the J-gate auto shift for me while I heat my butt and listen to a decent CD.

    Thus originates the one complaint about the X-Type which I would feel is fair game in *any* review: Cupholders.
  • jagboyxtypejagboyxtype Member Posts: 241
    Although Edmunds.com's latest glowing review of the X-type found the car to be "phenomenal" and "a very capable vehicle with a sense of style and charm that can elevate its driver's mood, even under the most mundane circumstances", many of the "facts" they give about the X-type can only be described as completely incorrect and false to the highest degree.

    Initially, they touch on Jaguar's current financial situation of being "$500 million in the red", stating that "build quality faux pas", "glitches in the production line", and "last-minute changes to deal with the problems" are all major contributors to Jaguar's financial loss this year, as well as "overly aggressive marketing" of the car. However, the $500 million loss that Jaguar has this year is all just on paper - they didn't lose that amount physically, but rather accumulated that loss through realizing that they could have made such an amount in their projections. Sure, the initial problems that Jaguar had with the very first few X-types to come off the production line - and having to fix them - must have cost the company an amount of money. However, the primary culprit for Jaguar's "loss" is the delayed launch of the new, now-2004 XJ-Series. Jaguar calculates that it could have made a certain amount on each of those cars, but as the new XJ is unavailable because of its set-back launch date, they calculated how much money they "lost" by not introducing the car earlier. Development costs are also to be considered, though they are secondary to the "loss" the new XJ has caused. This year, the new 2003 S-type line was developed and launched, with new technology such as its 6-speed automatic transmission, a new 4.2-litre engine, and the supercharged R-version of the car. The XK-Series was also revamped with many of the new features of the new S-type. The new XJ is still being fine-tuned, and diesel engines for the European market - much needed by Jaguar - are still being developed as the things are still a bit too thirsty according to Jaguar. The nicely priced 2.1-litre V6 X-type was also was launched to claw-up the 4-cylinder BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Audi in Europe. All of this costs something, but initial problems with the X-type's launch did not "put Jaguar in the red", nor is the company in such a dire financial situation as the media would like to portray. Ford also still feels that Jaguar is still paying-off its "debt" for being bought and then revamped back in 1989. And again, most of the so called "loss" was simply Jaguar's accountants looking at what money the company could have made if the new XJ had been launched on time.

    Back on the topic of the X-type's review, the Edmunds.com editors say that the car - because of the number of leasers versus buyers - is losing its value. However, resale values for Jaguars have been steadily rising because of the very fact that there are now more of them on the roads today (strange, I know, but it works out that way). More consumers now notice JAGUAR partly because they see them on the roads and include them on their lists of cars to check out when shopping. Sales being up 61% in the U.S. right now simply reflects that. Just a few years ago, Jaguar sold only a fraction of the number of cars it sells today, but the residual values on the cars were worth less than the residual values on Jaguars today as a consciousness of the company among consumers is greater, as well as Jaguar having the top-rated pre-owned program among luxury marques. And what is the ratio of leasers versus buyers for any cars in this class? The X-type is not leased more than any of its competitors versus the number of people who actually purchase the car in one hit. Yes, its residual value will be slightly lower than some of its competitors' because of the fact that Jaguar's residual values used to be so much lower than other marques' - but they are rising now. "Since its introduction, residual values on leased Jaguars are rising while those of several German rivals are staying flat or declining," reports The Detroit News' Auto Insider.

    It is nice that the Edmunds editors "tipped their hats" to the J-gate shift pattern for being "the original "automanual," but of course, they made it clear that they preferred more of a Tiptronic-type setup. But would not replacing the Jaguar J-gate that has been around since the 50's (though today's version is more modernized and much more advanced) - part of a Jaguar's character - be diluting the essence of Jaguar? Ford told Jaguar to design a new shift gate when they bought the marque back in 1989, but Jaguar - refusing to compromise part of its very being - virtually told Ford to go to Hell (Jag has had considerable freedom as a part of PAG). And the J-gate - a nice bit of Jaguar "je ne sais quoi" (which the editors covet so much in this very article) - lives today. The fact that the editors say a different shift-gate is needed is because they want every car to be a BMW with a BMW shift-gate; they are not truly into what a Jaguar is.

    On performance, the Edmunds editors continue, saying "Other six-cylinder engines, such as those found in the BMW 3 Series, Mercedes-Benz C320 or the Audi A4, make slightly less horsepower but are able to outpace the X-Type, while the Japanese duo, the Acura TL Type-S and Infiniti G35 sedan, boast 260 horses that can gallop at full speed without breaking a sweat". They do not, however, mention that the X-type's ratio of power-to-weight is less than that of its rivals. The X-type 3.0-litre has approximately 143 bhp per ton, where as a similar Mercedes-Benz C320 has approximately 148 bhp per ton, and it has overall only 221 bhp, versus the X-type's 231. For its weight, the C-Class (and 3-Series, and certainly the TL-S and G35) actually has more power than the X-type. But the X-type does not show that in its actual performance numbers, which is really quite amazing. Car and Driver records the X-type's 0-60 mph time as a short 6.3 seconds. Road and Track records 6.5 seconds for the X's 0-60 mph test in its review of the car, and they state in the text: "In acceleration, the 3.0 X-type is among the quickest. Accompanied by a nice-but-distant exhaust note, the Jag goes 0-60 mph in 6.5 seconds, undercutting the boy-racer Lexus IS 300's and Audi A4's 7.1, the Mercedes C320's 6.8 sec. and matching the BMW 330i's time." Indeed, even in R&T's "11 Super Sedans" comparison, the X-type (not its best day no doubt, but still strong) records a 6.7 second 0-60 mph sprint. In that test, it again undercuts the Audi A4 3.0's 7.1 seconds, the Cadillac CTS's 7.3 seconds, the Lexus IS300's 7.0 seconds, the Lincoln LS's 7.8 seconds, the Mercedes-Benz C320 Sport's 6.9 seconds, and the Volvo S60 T5's 7.0 seconds. It matches the Saab 9-5 Aero's 6.7 seconds, and is a miniscule 0.6 second behind the fastest car in the test. In the Warrender 0-100-0 test, the X-type is put up...
  • jagboyxtypejagboyxtype Member Posts: 241
    ...against a C320; the X-type absolutely slaughters the C320 in every category of the test. They report that "in the off-the-line challenge the X-type rams any advantage the Merc has firmly down its throat," referring to the horsepower/weight advantage the C320 has on the X-type. The X-type outpaces most of its competition, and keeps right up there with even the fastest of them. Even Edmunds admitted that "the top-of-the-line X-Type 3.0 more than keeps up with its German rivals… the X-Type 3.0 with a manual transmission gets to 60 miles per hour in only 6.6 seconds (7.1 for the automatic). Mercedes says the rear-wheel-drive C320 sedan requires 6.9 seconds and BMW claims that a row-'em-yourself BMW 330xi all-wheel-drive sedan takes the same amount of time (7.5 with the optional slushbox)" in their First Drive of the car. R&T's long-term update of the X-type they have for the review was called "surprisingly powerful" with "Great freeway passing power!" It received "universal praise" for its engine and performance from the editors. It most definitely is not outpaced, but sets the pace for many of its rivals and is close on the heels of the very fastest of them all.

    "Power is evenly split to the front and rear wheels to ensure the maximum amount of traction," the Edmunds editors write of the X-type's Traction 4 all-wheel-drive system. Perhaps they missed all of Jaguar's press releases about the X-type and never took note of anything actually written about the car? The AWD system of the X-type is well-known as splitting torque 60% to the rear wheels, and 40% to the front - not 50/50 or "evenly" as they said here. It counteracts the car's frontal weight bias and gives it a perfectly balanced dynamic distribution of power and weight for accelerating and braking. Remember how this was done so the car would still have the handling capability of a RWD car, but have the added benefit of more traction than any of its competitors? Did the Edmunds editors forget they previously wrote in another X-type article that: "Traction 4 transfers 40 percent of the power to the front wheels with the remaining 60 percent propelling the rear. It proves an ideal combination. The rear-biased torque split reinforces the sporting nature of the new Jag. In fact, in most situations, it feels just like a rear-driver. The steering is light and precise." The X-type splits power 60% to the rear, 40% to the front when all wheels have traction, not 50/50.

    Edmunds in this latest review said, "One aspect that hinders the X-Type is its rather slow steering". Yet taking only 2.5 turns lock-to-lock, the X-type in fact has the fastest steering of all the cars in its class. Acura's TL-S takes 2.9 turns, the Audi A4 takes 2.9, the BMW 3-Series takes 3.4, the Cadillac CTS also takes 3.4, the Infiniti G35 takes 2.7, the Lexus IS300 takes 3.2, the Lincoln LS takes 2.8, the Mercedes-Benz C-Class takes 3.0, the Saab 9-5 Aero takes 2.9, and the Volvo S60 T5 takes 2.8 turns lock-to-lock. If the X-type had faster steering, it would be too sensitive and lack the stability, linearity, and composure that it has. It is also not artificially weighted like the CTS's steering in a ploy to make the car feel more athletic. Jaguar worked painstakingly to get the steering of the X-type to its current levels of precision and feel. MotorTrend touted the X-type's steering as being one of the car's "best systems". MT said, "it matches the previously unrivaled precision served up by BMW 3 Series. Car placement feels laser-guided precise, with excellent feedback and road feel. With complete confidence and comfort, we drove at most times with just our fingertips - even at 120 mph on the track. The only all-wheel-drive car we've ever driven offering similar levels of steering communication is the Nissan Skyline GT-R, a pretty racy piece".

    "A passenger sensor notes when the right front seat is occupied and will not deploy unless needed, but the airbag warning light above the dash tended to unnervingly illuminate at random intervals, as in other Jaguars we've experienced," complained the Edmunds.com editors. They may have had a faulty sensor - but to have a faulty one in their X-type as well as in "other Jaguars" they've experienced seems highly unlikely. Every Jaguar owner knows that the light illuminates as the car is started and as the passenger in the seat gets into the seat and out of the seat. It only illuminates if the passenger gets in or out of the seat while the car is running, and from my experience with the X-type and "other Jaguars", the sensors have been very accurate and precise. They have not once faulted. I know this is just nit picking here, but phrasing the sentence as they did, and the diction they utilize, such as "unnervingly" and "random intervals" gives the impression that there is something seriously wrong with the safety monitors in Jaguars (when in fact the systems are working properly), especially to unknowing readers - at least that's my opinion on that subject. They also must be sure that the passenger in that seat weighs more than 40 pounds, or else the system deactivates the airbag so it cannot harm the small person or baby. Baby seats will automatically deactivate the system anyway. Maybe they just need to read the Owner's Manual?

    Speaking of the Sport Package's firmer ride, the Edmunds editors state, "like an Audi A4, it tends to be harsh on rough pavement, emitting too much vibration into the cabin". But the last time they drove a Sport Package-equipped X-type, they said "The X-Type gripped the pavement as well as any Audi, treating the puddles of water as if they weren't even there. Where the X-Type outshone the German product was in its suspension control". I would expect the Sport Package-equipped cars to have a firmer and even harsher ride on "rough pavement" - it is the performance equipment for the car after all. Yet even the X-type's Sport Package suspension is softer then the suspensions of its competitors. Road and Track noted of the X-type's Sport Suspension, "Given its soft ride, the X-type delivered surprisingly good handling". Being just slightly shy of having perfect performance was what the Edmunds editors complained about in this review, but the ride is too sport-oriented for them now? MotorTrend said of the Sport Package-equipped X-type they raced around in: "everything the winter-battered English roads pitched at us was nicely handled, including hungry potholes".

    "So far, we've determined that the X-Type falls a little short of its competition when it comes to its sporting characteristics." See the paragraph four or five paragraphs above this one. Yes, it "falls short" in its 0-60 mph time by a whole 0.2 seconds (note the sarcasm). But then again, it's at the front of the pack with the fastest cars in the crowd. Road and Track felt that the X-type's engine easily handled "keeping it in..
  • jagboyxtypejagboyxtype Member Posts: 241
    ...this fast company with no particular effort" during their "The Best of All Worlds Bunch" 11-car comparison.

    "The navigation system is DVD-based, which means that you don't have to buy a whole set of CDs for different regions of the U.S., but it lacked useful functions like voice recognition or restaurant categories." It lacked voice recognition because voice recognition is a no-cost option included with the X1 Premium Package (which their car had) that must be activated by an authorized Jaguar dealer. It also does include restaurants on the DVD; heck, when you run low on fuel it lights up all of the "petrol" stations on the map.

    "However, when it comes to coddling, indulgent luxury, it has yet to match the refinement levels of the Lexus ES 300 or even the Volkswagen Passat W8. While the wood and leather were handsome, since we've already gone on at length in our road test about the quality of other materials such as the plastics around the dash, suffice it to say that it could use some improvement to avoid unseemly comparisons to its European Ford chassis-mate (the Mondeo)." Edmunds.com editors complain about the quality of some of the synthetic interior materials of the X-type, but praise those of the Lexus ES 300 and Volkswagen Passat W8. They praise the interior materials of almost all Audis (Volkswagen's upscale cousin) as well. However, any man-made interior material in the Jaguars is snubbed. The editors are either full of it, or simply stupid in this area, as they totally missed that the same interior materials supplier for the X-type also supplies materials for the Audi A6 and Audi's flagship, the A8. Benoac, a subsidiary of the ContiTech company, uses the very same "slush machines" to manufacture the synthetic materials for the X-type as they do for the A6 and A8. They are the exclusive suppliers for the dashboard materials, as well as center consoles, etc. for these cars - and it is all the same material between these cars. (For future reference, Benoac/ContiTech also manufactures the synthetic interior materials for the Rover 75; Fiat Brava, Bravo and Marea; and Volkswagen Sharan, but they use a different material for those cars, a "powder-sinter process", which is different from the X-type/A6/A8's materials.) Of course, the "M"-word came up in this review. I've driven a new Mondeo while in France. It doesn't share any interior pieces with the X-type, nor does it drive like one, so comparisons are pretty much null and void. It feels larger, but it simply is not a Jag - it's not even close to an X-type (but this is not to say it's a bad car - its just not a Jaguar). Since the Edmunds.com editors felt it necessary to somehow link the X-type to the Mondeo without actually discussing what few parts the cars share, I'll clarify for those who do not know. First, the X-type uses a highly modified and upgraded version of the platform that the new Mondeo (no relation to Contour, Cougar, or Mystique) uses. However, the only pieces of the platform the Jag shares with the Mondeo are 6 (yes, just six) hardpoints on the chassis. The rest of the platform is actually different (for instance, the X-type even has a shorter wheelbase than the Mondeo. Also, the X-type's overall structure is very different from the Mondeo's, as the European crash tests indicate.). The X-type also "shares" its aluminum engine block (and only the block) with the Duratec engine. However, Jaguar's version of the block has been heavily ribbed, and then on top of that, re-enforced, so that it can be a higher performance engine. Every other part of the engine is exclusive to Jaguar (even engine mounts) and is derived from the Jaguar AJ-V8 and its technology. There isn't much else between the cars. One would think that the Camry/ES300 twins would be mentioned together, or the Volkswagens and their corresponding Audis, or Acuras and their Honda brethren. Saab's new 9-3 has more in common with the next Vectra and Malibu than even the most luxurious and sporty Ford will ever have with even the lowest of Jaguars - so what's the big deal? And back to the interiors, the ES300's interior panel gaps rival even those of the C-Class, so as far as interior refinement goes, it isn't any better than a Jaguar or a Volkswagen/Audi. It has more plastic on its dash than an X-type does, and they didn't look or feel more luxurious than Jaguar's plastics when I inspected them at the recent autoshow. They felt like the plastic Sony uses for its remote controls for its boom boxes (and I'm not saying that's good or bad). Not to deride any of these cars, but really, none have anything over the X-type. Edmunds editors said the X-type's interior does "tend to impress", but their complaints about some of the plastics and synthetic materials seems to overshadow that at times. Also, when they compare the materials to those in Passat W8 or Audi, it really seems irrelevant as they are the very same materials.

    Well, there's my rant. Those were the issues I had with the review, but overall, I cannot say that it was a bad one. It was simply misinformed in certain areas, but as it is meant to educate about a car, misinformation is not acceptable.

    "The Jaguar has its own appeal, however; namely its taut, muscular form, with an excellent front fascia that exudes modern sensibilities even while retaining traditional, unmistakable Jag quad lamps. Like other Jaguars, it has little equal when it comes to looks. We found that the Anthracite paint was the most flattering of all the X-Types we've had, lending it a dignified yet imposing air. We've also found that Jaguars have a certain "je ne sais quoi" even among the affluent Southern California populace used to the ubiquity of German and Japanese luxury sedans.

    Sometimes, it's those little things that matter, the intangibles in life that make all the difference. This point struck home as we sat in interminable traffic one evening. The Jaguar X-Type is a very capable vehicle with a sense of style and charm that can elevate its driver's mood, even under the most mundane circumstances."


    Well, they got the ending right.
    ________________________________________

    And on the subject of the single front cupholder, James R. Healy, the car reviewer for USA Today, wrote in his review of the X-type: "The lowly cup holder, merely a hole in the console, is highlighted by two chrome brows on the rim. And the holder is a rubberized material that's inviting to touch. It's nice enough that you forget how aggravated you are that there's only one." Besides, you don't want to be eating and drinking in your JAG-U-AR. The European ones don't even come with a front cupholder - they get a trinket tray! :-) The last words of his review are that "X is in: a real Jag - and a lot of fun to drive."
  • jagboyxtypejagboyxtype Member Posts: 241
    Alright, I know I've already said way too much here - get over it.

    Anyway, here's the news: The current 2002 Jaguar X-types came with Version 16 of their engine/transmission computer-control software. A new "flash" (also called a "reflash") has come about from Jaguar, which replaces the old Version 16 software with Version 20. Communicating with other X-type owners, the 2.5-litre owners raved about how their cars felt as fast as 3.0-litre versions (seriously!), and 3.0-litre owners felt like their cars also had a "noticeable" boost in horsepower (I'm not saying the flash physically adds hp, but it controls the engine and transmission surprisingly more efficiently than the current Version 16 software that we have, or so owners with the upgrade have said). Both 3.0 and 2.5 owners with automatic transmissions also felt that the cars no longer had "strange" or inconvenient shift points, and that the transmissions were no longer lethargic, but much smoother and even "eager" to shift.

    I'm overjoyed with how well my X-type drives and performs and am perfectly content (well, more than content - satisfied beyond description is more like it) with it as it is, but the new "flash" sounds like it works miracles on the cars. The owners who had the upgrade truly are raving about how much faster and smoother their cars are - it is actually noticeable! I've heard of some owners (before this upgrade came out) saying that their automatic transmissions shifted at odd points and that its engagement seemed slow, as if it didn't know where to go. This Version 20 upgrade really seems to fix that though. Best of all, it is free, and it can easily be done at a free scheduled maintenance point, or if you schedule an appointment with your dealer (you may have to ask them about it as some dealers seem unaware of what this "flash" is exactly).

    So if you feel your X-type could be a bit faster, smoother, and that its automatic transmission could be more eager to shift and quicker, get your X-type "reflashed" to Version 20!

    (I believe most 2003's have Version 20 of the software, at least the later-produced ones. From what I've found, this upgrade only came out a few weeks ago at most. If it makes 2.5's as- or almost as quick as 3.0's, and 3.0's even faster than they are now, then I can't wait for Edmunds' next review of the X-type [with the upgrade, of course]. The computer engine management is supposed to be far superior to what version 16 gives us. That will get us past that 0.2 second gap between an X-type and a G35 to 60 mph, and we'll still have that "je ne sais quoi" that other cars just don't have!) :-)
    ___________________________________

    Rumors and News (take it for what you will):

    BTW, G35 owners are speculating that like the Lincoln LS, the earlier produced models used for reviews and testing had different gearing ratios than the ones in the cars actually sold to consumers. The G's latest 0-60 mph time was 7.1 seconds. The "canceled" (indefinitely delayed is more like it) F-type is rumored to be back in for 2006 or so. X-type sport wagons - "shooting brakes" - also got the green light and will appear midway through 2003 or in 2004 (but most likely mid-2003). Diesels for Europe should be coming up soon as well, since the program was pushed to nearly the top on the priorities list - they're about a year ahead of original schedule, but last I heard they were still trying to make them less "thirsty". The SEMA Racing X-type concept (whose picture and an article I posted links for back a ways [before my loooong rant]) may have convinced Jaguar to enter into American racing, and at the very least has gotten a line of performance parts for the X-type.

    And as I spent some time experiencing the back seat of the X-type (just to see what it was like back there), I noticed that the front seats are designed to be elevated above the floor of the car so that rear passengers can place their feet under the rears of the front seats. It actually creates much rear leg room. The space under the seats stays quite large for the rear seat passengers' feet even when fully lowered to the floor. The car continues to surprise and delight...
  • johnnylincjohnnylinc Member Posts: 308
    You said: "like the Lincoln LS, the earlier produced models used for reviews and testing had different gearing ratios than the ones in the cars actually sold to consumers."

    I don't know where you're getting your information, but this is NOT correct where the Lincoln LS is concerned. The rear-end ratio on the V8-equipped LS was changed midway through the 2000 model year after Ford discovered that it had a potential problem with CAFE figures, but LOTS of 2000-model LSs were sold to the public with the original rear gear.

    I appreciate your enthusiasm for the X-Type, but you should really be more careful with your "rumors" about other marques. Repeating incorrect/unfounded junk like this doesn't enhance your credibility.
  • jagboyxtypejagboyxtype Member Posts: 241
    First, you are attacking information that I explicitely stated was under "Rumors and News (take it for what you will)". The information listed there was obviously not 100% clear, so I posted it with the clear warning of "take it for what you will".

    Second, my original quote was "G35 owners are speculating that like the Lincoln LS, the earlier produced models used for reviews and testing had different gearing ratios than the ones in the cars actually sold to consumers." That is true, as you even say that "The rear-end ratio on the V8-equipped LS was changed midway through the 2000 model year". Perhaps I should have said that a *majority* of consumers had the changed gear ratios and not the ones used in the reviews, but the point was that reviews of the car that were conducted around the time that it was introduced had different gear ratios than the *majority* of the cars sold to consumers. I NEVER said that Lincoln gave reviewers "fixed" cars, but I can see where you may have believed that I had implied that - and as that was not my purpose or intention, I appologize that it appeared that way to you.

    Also, you ask where I received that information. It is quite noticeably posted in various messages in the LS board, and in more recent postings in the G35 board. As many owners of the LS had spoken about how "reviewers didn't notice the change, but enthusiasts sure did" (and other such like-quotes), I felt that the information was solid enough to be a "take it for what you will" piece of information. You may want to inform the LS and to a lesser extent, the G35 board, of the reason you found for the ratio change, as many of them believe that Lincoln "fixed" or "tuned-up" the LS's used in reviews. I hope this clarifies everything, and sorry for the misunderstanging.
  • jagskierjagskier Member Posts: 2
    Does anyone out there (besides me) have a Jaguar-made ski rack for their X-type??? When I drive the car with mine, it makes a high-pitched noise around 16, 32, and 64 mph. Dealer is mystified since apparently mine is the only ski rack he ever sold. Seems odd for that to be true in a 4WD drive; however, this is southern California.

    Anyone with a ski rack please tell me if it makes any such noises and if you have found a fix. Thanks.
  • jagskierjagskier Member Posts: 2
    Will the "Flash 20" software upgrade improve gas mileage? If so, it's definitely worth getting. My 2.5 X-type mileage is pretty poor (around 22 on the road) and I wonder what others have experienced.

    I guess I expected that kind of mileage because of the V6 and the 4WD, but I was hoping for better.
  • desertguydesertguy Member Posts: 730
    I don't know about the flash 20 but my 3.0 gets 24 to 25 mpg without trying to get good mileage. I do not have my car set in sport mode for shift points. If you do, that could make a difference.
  • jagboyxtypejagboyxtype Member Posts: 241
    A short excerpt from their write-up:


    "The new X-Type is our class valedictorian by virtue of its impressive ride and handling qualities, as well as its ability to provide safety through a new all-wheel drive system. With two engine choices, a spacious interior, standard luxury features like power windows, cruise control, and remote keyless entry, it's easy to see why this vehicle is setting sales records... Our judges chose the X-Type over other deserving entries like the BMW 745i and Ford Thunderbird by virtue of its ability to reach the masses, while proving that hard work results in exceptional rewards."


    Of their Top 10 cars, the X-type is #1.


    Click on the following link for further details:

    http://www.roadandtravel.com/awards/2002/awardsbg.htm

Sign In or Register to comment.