Howdy, Stranger!

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





Jaguar X-Type

1414244464783

Comments

  • 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...
  • ...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..
  • ...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."
  • 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...
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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

  • I just brought my 99 XJ8L (with 41k miles) to the dealer because of a knock and vibration in the engine. After only a half day in the shop the svc mgr advised that there was something wrong in the "lower end" and they were ordering me a new engine. While I am greatful to be getting a new engine, I am still curious as to what was wrong. The dealer didn't explain the problem when I asked. He just said it would be more difficult to do a tear apart the existing engine so he was ordering a new one. Does anyone out there have any thoughts as to what could have caused an engine knock and why the dealer would be so willing to change out an engine. You gotta luv that Jag warranty. Like I said, I am very greatful. I'm just very curious as to what may have gone wrong. Thanks in advance for any responses. Bill
  • kiiwiikiiwii Posts: 302
    The prices that dealers charge Jag for warranty jobs are probably the same as dealers charge customers for out of warranty jobs. The dealers get more $$ from Jag when they work on more expensive warranty jobs. That's probably why they are happy to drop you a new engine.
  • scottc8scottc8 Posts: 617
    Often that policy comes from the manufacturer. Either they feel internal engine work is more than they want their dealers doing, or they want their own technical people to examine the failed engine without it having been worked on by someone else. Typical is the case of the Jaguar-based 3.9 liter V8 in the Lincoln LS. Failures of this engine have been extremely rare but, in those cases, the factory has sent a new engine without the dealer opening it up. On our owner's club site we've even heard of an engine being replaced for a ticking sound we suspect may have been a cracked exhaust manifold, a somewhat common problem with early models.
  • Well, the latest rumor is that Road & Track's issue for December 19th has an article in it entitled, "European Supercar Sneak
    Preview". R&T writes that an X-Type R with a supercharged 3.5
    litre engine will become available for purchase in the latter of half of 2003, most likely as a 2004 model.

    I read about the existance of this article on another board, and have yet to confirm that it is indeed a new article in the latest edition of R&T. I believe strongly that it is, but I will confirm it only when I see the article for myself. It sounds good though!

    (I told you a current X-type-based X-type R would arrive soon!)
  • Yeah. So interesting that when posted on the jagtalk board it caused some intense comments for and against. It got bad enough that the board administrator called a halt to the discussion. Personally, I wasn't involved in the bruhaha.
  • Thanks for the informative information everyone has posted here. Think I've concluded that I will own my first Jag. I'm looking at a leftover 2002 X-Type at a Jag dealership. It's a 2.5L Automatic, with the premium and cold weather packages, plus a single disc cd player. The car has not been placed in service, and has 200 miles on it from being test-driven. The MSRP is approx $36,400 and the dealer invoice is approx $32,500.

    Realizing that even though the car comes "new" with the full mfg. warranty, it is still a year old in my mind. I'm thinking I shouldn't pay more than $28,500 for this car. Does anyone have an opinion as to what is a fair price to pay for a "new" 2002 X-Type with the options I've outlined above? I've never purchased a car from a dealer before.

    Thanks in advance.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,723
    That car isn't a year old. There aren't any significant differences in the 2003 models (IIRC). The only thing going in your favor is that it's been on the lot for at least a couple of months. Unless Jag is offering rebates or dealer incentives on the 2002 I think invoice or just under invoice is reasonable. The dealer probably paid around $31K for the car so don't expect to get it for less than that unless it's been on the lot for another 3 or 4 months (not counting rebates or dealer incentives).
  • You might be able to get some kind of incentive on a 3.0 litre, but 2.5's are the hotcake sellers, so the lowest I would expect is invoice on one of them. Jaguar dealers are usually pretty receptive to lowering prices a bit at the bargaining table, but they aren't going to lower the price to the point of not making any profit, so I wouldn't push it too far (but you should still deal for the car of course). Good luck, I hope you get the car - you won't regret it for a second. I know I'm overly enthusiastic about the car, but at times I wish we had paid the dealer more for the X-type (it's that good, IMHO). Have fun, and let us know how it turns out!
  • akirby and jagboyxtype.

    You two were pretty astute as to what price for the 2002 2.5L.

    I ended-up walking out without making the purchase. Over the phone, the price I could get the car for without negotiation was $32,400 (plus tax & license fees). After some in-person negotiation at the dealership, I was offerred the car for $30,400 (plus tax and license fees). Obviously, there must be a Jag to Dealer incentive on the car.

    To me, the final offer from dealer still seems high...so I didn't purchase. My concern is that when I inquire to lease this 2002 car on a 4-year lease, the residual is based on a 5-year old car with 60,000 miles (I will drive it for 4 years at 15,000 miles per year). The residual 4 years from now is $13,500...which is a 5-year old X-type with the options I mentioned above and 60,000 miles. Based on that scenario, I still feel I am negotiating for a 1-year old X-type with 200 miles on it that has a 4/50 warranty and should pay accordingly.

    Oh well...I think it's a great car...I test-drove a sport and a non-sport...I liked the non-sport best for me, but it doesn't look like I'll be a proud new Jag owner.

    I won't be leasing the car, but I may only keep it 4 or so years...so the difference between what I pay now and its value 4 years from now is a yardstick for me. Maybe I'd be better off looking at a 2003 and seeing what the best deal is there.

    Thanks again for your input...much appreciated.
  • There may still be some good news in the 2003's for you (I'm not trying to get your hopes up, it may or may not be of any help, but I'll just mention this): prices on 2003 models are streamlined in comparison with 2002's. Options are divided up into smaller bundles or into individually purchaseable categories that make the overall price of a 2003 slightly less than that of a similar 2002, plus 2003's come with a bit more standard equipment. That might just be enough to lower the price to a manageable area, and your car would be a brand-spanking-new 2003 versus a 2002. If something ever sparks within you and you decide to take a look once again in the future, this just might give you the upper hand. It's not much, but it does make the deal for you a little better. Good luck with whatever you decide to purchase, and I'm glad I was able to help out no matter how slight the degree of my aid may have been (usually I'll mess something up, so it's nice to know that I had some useful information to give). Thanks for the kind words, and again good luck and have fun.
  • This X-type was rolled (pic is worth seeing although it is quite large):

    http://www.nauticom.net/www/rhricik/rolled.JPG

    Thankfully, the owner is quite alright.


    Here is part of what happened as described by the driver of the car during the accident:


    "Coming home from work on Monday, some 'less intelligent person' in an old Honda

    CRX decided to be in my lane - the same time as I was. Unfortunately, he/she/it

    did not use their rear view or side mirrors before they quickly cut. I had to

    swerve to avoid a collision, got into the gravel in the left hand side of the

    Interstate (I-79), almost pulled it back but a road construction sign caught my

    tail. I did a 180, slid across 3 lanes of traffic (missed everyone, somehow),

    went airborne about 10 feet and landed on the driver side rims. The car did a

    partial roll and ended up on its roof resting against the embankment.


    Somebody was watching out for me, because after unlatching the seatbelt that was

    holding me upside down, I crawled out of the car with nothing more than a

    skinned shin.


    Some things stick in your mind at a time like this, and this stuck in mine:

    When I reached over to the passenger door, to open it for the people helping me

    out, I released it with my little finger, and the door swung open. When I got

    out, I nudged the car door, and it quietly latched. This while setting on its

    roof! The windows did not crack or shatter or pop out on the roll, or when it

    settled on its roof...

    ...Yep, I will get another one. After seeing what it does in an accident, I'm

    convinced."


    The rest is here:

    http://www.jagtalk.com/forums/1/message.html?46280


    I'm so glad that the owner was not hurt. That's all that really matters. The bonus is that we know through a serious demonstration that the X-type is safe and sturdy. He said he thinks the "leaper" is back in the embankment (as you can see from the picture that it is missing), only 1.7 miles from his home. Just glad he came out of that the way he did.

  • kssodkssod Posts: 37
    My adriatic blue 3.0 sport with x1,x2,x3,alpine, xenons and manual is an early product with 15k miles, and I've had several small problems. So I thought I would trade for a 2003 like model to take advantage of the new refinements etc. What a joke !!.....2 Jag dealers offered 25k for a 1 yr old car that stickered for $43.5k. That's about the same drop in value as a Hyundai. Not a premium luxury marque.
  • scottc8scottc8 Posts: 617
    Resale stinks, seems to be the case on virtually every car these days. It's a constant complaint among the Lincoln LS owners I hang around with. It's nobody's fault; the used market is glutted with low-mileage lease returns, and there are tremendous incentives to buy new. Little wonder leasing is so popular.

    Some people hold up BMW as an shining example of high resale value. But you pay that money up front, unless you're of the opinion that BMWs are worth the money. I'm guessing most people on this board don't believe that.

    If you prefer to buy new, or drive so many miles that leasing doesn't work, better keep the car a long time. Or be prepared to take your lumps at trade-in time.
  • My residual lease value is $22,465 after 39 months through Jaguar Credit. Obviously, the dealers you talked to just don't want your car or Jaguar was way off when they calculated the residual. This is for a 3.0, $41,500 car. That said, trying to trade a one year old car is just about impossible without a lot of buy-down money from you.
  • That's why I'm not willing to offer more than $28.5 - $29K for a leftover "new" 2002 2.5L that stickers for $36,400. I've found other similiarly equipped 2002 2.5L and 3.0L X-types with under 15,000 miles on the web with dealer asking prices of $28,000 - $29,900. That's with no negotiation. But they are all at a minimum 300 hundred miles away. There are several with under 10,000 miles on them listed under $30,000, but again they are out-of-state. I'd prefer to buy within 60 miles of my home.

    Given that they'll give $25K for a 2002 3.0L with 15K miles that stickered for $43.5, they'll probably ask $29,900 for it at retail. That's a $7K more of a car (sticker) than the one I've looked at, but with 15K miles. Based on such, don't you feel that I shouldn't pay more than $28.5K - $29K for a "new" 2002 2.5L that stickers for $36.4K?

    A year from now and 15K miles later, the car I'm looking at will probably only bring $21K - $22.5K. Why should I be willing to eat more than approx. $7K in depreciation after one year of ownership on a car that will be considered two years old a year from now?
  • May I ask when your lease started? I'm thinking residuals for all cars have come down in the past year or so.
  • My lease started in Jan. 2002 so I have just made my 12th payment. Twenty seven to go if I don't opt out early. Have you checked a lease recently. I'm sure they will tell you the residual value. But watch it 'cause they can really play with those numbers as you probably know.
  • Yes, I did check the residuals. On the 2002 2.5L that I looked at, the residual four years out with 60K miles is $13.5K. Again, 4 years from now, the "new" 2002 that I'm looking at will be considered 5 years old.

    On a similiarly equipped 2003 2.5L, the residual four years out with 60K miles is $16.5K. Both the 2002 and 2003 sticker for around $36.3K.

    I'd really like to only have a $15K difference between my cost and the four year residual. That's one reason why I offerred the dealer $28.5K for the "new" 2002...the other reason being that I feel that's all that 2002 model is worth here at the end of 2002.
  • Okay, with all of this talk, I went and asked my dealer about the resale of my car. Price was around $39,500 when purchased in March. There are 3740 miles on it to date. Price now: about $32,000 - $36,000. Am I the only one who got a relatively good price on the car? Does it have to do with location? I'm in Northern California, but am visiting family in the South for the holidays. I'll check price at the dealership here too and get back to "youall" later - wait, I'm in southern California, so I'll get back to all you dudes and dudetts later. I can't believe I just said that...
Sign In or Register to comment.