Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I have been looking around, but haven;t yet found a CD that will work with the factory deck unless you want FM emulation. Problem is that the CD uses a custom fiber optic cable to tie into the head unit. An adapter may come out if volume warrants, but that is unlikely for a year or so.
You should also know that the stereo system is apparently a 1 ohm system, rather than the US 'standard' (de facto, at least) of 4 ohms. So, in order to replace speakers, etc, you have top either add resisters (haven't found an adapter for that either) or replace the whole works.
I saw a post on another board that talked about getting around this problem, but haven't been able to verufy yet.
Brent
1. Engine isn't that smooth on acceleration.
2. Wind noise is surprisingly noticeable for a near-lux car. Where is the sound insulation???
3. Where's the in-dash CD???
4. Trip computer buttons didn't work. Hit A/B and RESET several times and it did nothing.
5. Why does the A/C button light up when climate control is on AUTO??? Temp was set high, but A/C light still on. Weird, considering it was cold outside.
I don't need someone to answer these questions, but just want to point things someone unfamiliar with the X-Type would ask. I like the front seat design a lot. Overall nice car, but NOT for what Jaguar wants folks to pay for it.
3) Now available.
4) You have to hold in the RESET for a few seconds. The A/B Just flips you from trip computers A and B
5) The AC light is on, thats because Jaguar's climate control systems also use the AC system to regulate humidity levels in the cabin. No noticeable effect on compressor wear either. My own 95 Vanden Plas (System works the same way) is on its original compressor after 134K miles.
Bill
The 4 stage process refers to a 4 layer/4 bake process, typically Electrocoat, Primer 1, Primer 2 and Color. In Ford's eyes this is the process at Jaguar. Technically, 5 layers of paint are applied to the vehicle as after Color a Clear coat layer is applied. Ford plants run a 3 or 4 stage process with a 3 stage being without the Primer 2 coat.
The 10 stage process refers to the pre-treatment process and the various stations used to condition the metal prior to any paint application e.g. cleaner dip, rinse 1, rinse 2, conditioner, phosphate, rinse 3..... etc. In truth at Jaguar an 11 stage pre-treatment process is used, but again in Ford's eyes it is only 10.
The two statements refer to very different parts of the paint and paint preparation processes.
Thanks.
how could jaguar have done something so idiotic?! then again, how could edmunds not have noticed the mileage on this "new" car? (i'm guessing a 13 month old demo had some high mileage on it).
Compare this review to the idiotic Edmund's review done to this car.
- also wanted the board back on the top of the list ;-)
Steve
fyi, the car is a 3.0 manual, x1, x2, x3, xenon, premium sound, navigation, metallic paint.
Thanks
Steve
Steve
Before I get to meat of this, I should tell you that I'm a fan of big cushy luxury cars (I own a 2000 Deville, which I still like very much). Other cars I have test-driven in the past and liked very much were the 2002 Q45 and an LS430. Since both of the cars I drove tonight are somewhat smaller and less powerful than I'm used too, I'm probably somewhat jaded as a reviewer.
I was deeply disappointed with the Passat, especially given the rave reviews I've read in magazines as well as in message boards here at Edmunds. Even with the 3.0 V6, I found it to be sluggish off the line and sluggish in passing situations. Furthermore, it seemed that the engine was noisy and overly busy when pushed (which, due to the heft of the car, or perhaps some other factor, seemed to be most of the time). Could this be caused by the 4Motion system? A squeak could be heard coming from the right front suspension whenever we went over a large bump.
I also found the leather seats to be quite hard -- this is not a car I would want to drive long distances in -- and the dash looked a bit dated. The car we drove did not have an in-dash CD -- another disappointment. The ride, however, was impressive for a car in this class, and handling was excellent, as I expected. Rear seat leg room was very good -- perhaps the best I've seen in this class.
Overall, I thought the Passat was a competent car, but I certainly wouldn't rave about it. With that experience under our belt, we headed towards the Jaguar dealer.
Long before we had even left the house this afternoon, I was prepared to be disappointed by the Jag. The reviews I've read here and elsewhere left me with the impression that this was an over-priced Taurus with a Leopard glued onto the hood. We decided to drive the demo car -- a 2.5 with the X1 package, xenon headlights, and ~100 miles on the odometer.
The Jag's interior was everything the Passat's wasn't: Stylish, elegant and luxurious, with interesting looking climate and sound system displays (never got a chance to put the climate/sound controls to the test, however). The front seats were much more comfortable than the Passat's, but the Passat wins hands down in the rear seat category. The Jag's rear seat leg room makes coach-class on a 737 look down-right inviting. The trunk also looked smaller than the Passat's.
The 2.5 engine's driveability surpassed my expectations. It wasn't sink-into-your-seat fast, but it was zippy. I like to think of it as the Jag that zigs. The engine seemed to rev freely and fairly smoothly. I thought it was much better matched to the car that the Passat's engine was.
The Jag handled well, but the ride was not as smooth as the Passat's. The X-Type allowed more road noise into the cabin than did the Passat. The Passat was quiet enough in most respects that the engine noise really stood out. In contrast, the X-Type was uniformily noisy, so one factor did not really stand out. I did not hear any squeaks or rattles in the car, and initial build quality seemed quite good.
The car was stunningly finished in a translucent shade of deep blue called "pacific blue." If you've spent any time in deep ocean water, then you would see the resemblance. We both thought it was one of the most beatifully finished cars we've seen. The styling is, of course, Jaguaresque, with all of the styling queues one would expect. It's just not quite as large as the other Jags.
Overall, the X-Type was better than I thought it was going to be, and the Passat was disappointing. I wouldn't buy either car, however, as they both had enough flaws that I would not want either as a daily driver. Hard seats and stiff handling are great on the track, or on smooth winding country roads, but we spend almost all of our time in city traffic avoiding potholes and potheads.
That's my opinion. My wife's is somewhat different. She really covets that graceful feline hood ornament, and is willing to overlook all of the cars flaws to get it. What is it about Jaguars that appeals to women so?
While I would tend to agree with many of your observations on the interiors, I think you might be a bit hard on the Passat's. My wife and I spent a lot of time looking at both the X-type and Passat. We loved the look of both interiors. The Jag's was more "warm" but the Passat's looked "sharper". I thought both were quite tasteful.
If you had wanted to save some money and get more interior space and a lot more trunk room, go with the loaded FWD Passat V-6. The 4Motion really eats into Passat's trunk space. And it adds weight which reduces acceleration and fuel economy.
Noticed you didn't mention the MSRPs of the respective cars. What were they? Guessing the Passat might've been around $32-33,000 and the Jag around $34-37,000.
Even with the space eaten up by the 4Motion, I thought the Passat's trunk was rather large -- certainly larger than the X-Type's.
The MSRP of the Passat GLS demo I drove was ~$31,000. I was aiming for a GLS with the leather, cold-weather, homelink and monsoon packages, which would have been more like more like $29,900. The demo had most of that plus the luxury (sunroof) package.
The X-Type 2.5's MSRP was ~$36,000. I believe it included the X1, X3, xenon and automatic transmission options. Those Jaguar options add up fast don't they?
My wife started looking through the Jaguar brochure first thing this morning. She really did like the car. Anyone know what the current money factor and residual are for an X-Type equipped like the one I just described (36 months, 12k/year)?
My perception was that Passat's trunk was larger, but it must have been an subtle optical illusion. It seemed the Passat's trunk was a few inches deeper, but it may not have gone back as far as the Jag's. Looking at the specs for both cars, it also appears the Jag is two inches wider. That in itself could account for the missing cubic foot.
Regardless, I appologize to all of you Jaguar fans for what I said about the trunk. It has a nice trunk .
it just reminded me of magazine reviews that take points off the jag for things like rear seat leg room, when in reality it has more than most of its competition. they just don't hold it against the competition.
the cars aren't perfect, let's just not create problems when they aren't there, jaguar creates enough real problems for itself
Lack of rear-seat leg room is the one thing that will kill my interest in a car. It is the reason I have never even bothered to test-driven a 5-Series, and it is one of the factors that initially put the Passat high on my list. The Passat, in fact, has more headroom, rear seat leg room and trunk space than the 5-Series.
Noise is another factor that kills my interest in a car, and the Passat scored well there (except for engine noise). The Jag seemed a bit noisier.
How much time will you spend in back? How much time will other full-size adults spend in back? Children? Will the time per trip be short or long? One can always have a 2nd car, with more rear seat room or just move front seat up a bit when you have an adult in back. My wife and two kids find our 323iA and 540iM more than roomy, and they both have great trunks.
Like I said in the beginning, I own a Deville, and I'm very happy with it. It has gobs of torque, isolates me from our poorly maintained roads, keeps the noise out so that I can hear other people talk, and is very roomy in every respect. I haven't had any trouble with it, the dealer's service department treats me like gold, and it costs less to maintain than many other cars in its class. I would buy another one in a heartbeat (although I would opt for a DTS if I had it to do over again). It is the standard I use when I rate other cars, which I also said at the very beginning (so as not to mislead).
My wife's needs are a little different from mine. She likes the Deville as much as I do, but she wants something a little more personal. For whatever reason, BMWs don't appeal to her the way Jaguars do. Certainly one factor is that she can't drive a stick so she'll never truly appreciate a driver's car, and another factor is that she doesn't care the least bit how well they handle. Where cars are concerned, styling is everything to her. In this, the X-Type may be just the thing.
As for trunks, I suppose it only becomes a bit of an issue when you can't fit your luggage into your favorite car for that three-day weekend getaway to Yellowstone with the kids. Take the mini van, you say, but I hate driving the mini van. I'm sure the BMW's trunk is very nice -- it's just not very big:
BMW 5-Series - 11 cubic feet
Passat - 15 cubic feet
X-Type - 16 cubic feet
Deville - 19 cubic feet
Enjoy your BMW. It's a fine car, and I'm glad that it serves your needs well.
Well, this moves to some level of subjectivity, but i definitely felt headroom was lacking in the X-type and backseat entrance and egress was difficult. I fit in my e36 3-series a lot better, and a 5-series is larger yet.
I don't think the official measurements means much, it's how you really fit. For example do the exterior measurements account for the back door only opening about 45 degrees and the high floor sill? No.
Backseat does matter at least some, after all, it's a sedan, not a coupe or a roadster, right?
I came in wanting to love the car, i think it's beautiful, so please don't just say "he hates jags, is biased." Some things were really nice about it.
dave
As for quoted trunk space numbers, I could care less. Only two things that count are USEABLE space and shape. Subtract about 3-5 quoted cubic feet if your car has the space intruding gooseneck trunk hinges. And subtract more, too, if you have an odd shape (e.g., as in the supposedly commodious Town Car). Also, beware premium sound systems that eat up trunk space. The 3 & 5 Series trunks are nicely shaped and every cubic millimeter of it can be put to full use!
If we chose the X-Type, it wouldn't be because of the AWD system, although my wife does feel more "secure" in our mini van because of its AWD system. She liked the X-Type because of its styling, name, panache, snob appeal, pretty blue paint job, whatever. I suspect that if the X-Type had been built on the front-drive Ford Focus platform she still would have liked it. It's probably a great subject for a psychology major's doctoral thesis.
It was probably the "pretty blue paint job" AND the "pretty round headlights".
Mine likes the S-type, Porsche 911 and Mercedes CLK. When I asked her what she liked about them she told me: the round headlights. When I first got my Lincoln LS I let her drive and directed her to some nice twisty backroads. She almost got sick, and she wasn't even pushing it hard.
Let me guess: she would rather watch a DVD on a 20 inch TV than on the widescreen home theater with dolby digital 5.1 sound. I don't get it either. Must be a genetic thing.
Anyway, the X-type is beautiful, powerful and handles well (I believe in this very strongly although I haven't ever test-driven it!). AWD or FWD, it's definitely a sports sedan. I simply must try one soon.
Leo
ps. anyone owns one in Upstate NY who'd like to show me his X? :-)
This is my first post, and I wanted to say thanks to everybody who has handed out their knowledge and opinions on this message board. I've been studying it feverishly.
I have been looking at buying an X-type, but recently had a setback. I called my insurance company (geico) and asked for rough estimates on what it would cost insure the 3 or 4 different cars that I was considering. The X-type was the most expensive vehicle by about 10%, but was more than 50% more expensive to insure than the next closest. Wow, $140+ per month--and I asked for a quote on the 2.5 liter model.
Its true that I am a relatively young, single guy (32), but come on, that is absurd--and a likely deal killer.
Has anybody else out there found this situation? Is there a reason for it? Or, am I simply getting bent over due to the brandname?
Geez,
Jon
as for age, i'm 28 and single.
Perhaps one reason is the pricing...$40K+ is just too much for the 3.0, and apparently that's pretty much all that showed up at dealerships early. Car companies (dealer?) do get greedy, don't they?
Any other thoughts?
Interestingly, of these 5 cars, CR recommended loaded Camry V-6 and Passat over any of them. CR pointed out how each is derived from or based on a lower-priced platform (they mentioned the Ford of Europe Mondeo). None really offer much more over what you can get in the other platform.