Howdy, Stranger!

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

Entry Level Luxury Performance Sedans



  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    The X-TYPE's structure is 30% more rigid than the previous class leader, the BMW 3-Series.

    I think the Xtype still has a way to go as far as I go, before I ever would consider one to be a class leader.

    While you have a private debate going with riez - my two cents you buy what you buy for the reasons you buy, but the trades and mags of barometers. You have to read them, understand where they intersect with your beliefs and opinions and take it from there.

    In addition, a $40K 330i is almost loaded and a base 330i can be had for $32K at ED plus air-fare.
  • Here, I built a fully-loaded RWD 330i:

    Base Price: $33,990 + $645 destination charge.

    metallic paint: $475
    leather: $1,450
    wood: $500

    Sport Package: $1,200
    Weather Package: $1,000
    Premium Package: $2,900
    Reverse Sensors: $350
    Navigation Sys: $1,800
    Xenon Headlamps: $700
    Auto Tranny: $1,275
    Allow Wheels: $900
    MSRP fully loaded: $45,235

    This was done at the BMW U.S. website. It's a little higher than that $40K estimate of yours. My point is not to single out the 3 for high pricing, but to demonstrate that while a nicely equipped one can be had for around $40,000, like any other car in its class, it carries a high price when totally fully loaded. This is my point about the X-TYPE in the 11 car R&T comparison: a nicely equipped one (similarly equipped with that $40,000 3 in the test) can be had for around $40,000, but the editors instead chose to get a totally fully loaded one and then mark it down for a high price. It wasn't quite fair. Totally fully loaded, the Mercedes-Benz would have been the most expensive car in the test by quite a margin. Ever notice how the E-Class starts at around $50,000, but the S-TYPE and 5-Series start at around $42,000?

    As far as class leaders go, I believe that all of the cars in this class are very good, and that they target slightly different groups. X-TYPE and C-Class have more luxury than the others, G35 and 3-Series are a little more performance oriented, but all of them share many traits with slight variances in the degrees of those traits.

    It's nice to hear from you! We haven't talked for a while. Happy driving!
  • riezriez Posts: 2,361
    jagboyxtype... I merely pointed out how when the American automotive press has had a chance to test the X-type up against its main competitors, it falls flat. Pretty much every single American comparison test.

    Why do I bring up American tests? Because I cannot buy a Euro-spec X-type in America. And many of the European cars a Euro-spec X-type is compared against in these tests aren't even sold in America. Besides marques like Fiat, SEAT, Alfa, Lancia, etc. Heck I can't even spell the French marques that are no longer sold in USA: Renault and Peugueot. Been so long since since I've even seen an old French-marque car in my neighborhood.

    So ensuring all the cars are USA-spec is critical to a legitimate comparison.

    And I've always loved the pro-Brit bias in the English car magazines. They do whatever they can to say nice things about English cars. I leaf thru their mags at my local Borders and Barnes & Noble. The German press has raved about the underlying Ford Mondeo platform. Mondeo built in Germany.
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    I've been subscribing to AutoWeek for over 10 years and I don't recall that issue. If you know what issue that is in due tell. I have hard time believe they did a specific testing of each of these cars structures to determine that. The A4 is the one I felt was the most solid. As far as that test goes, I think it was basically set up to show up any weakness the C320 may have.I don't think a 1/2 second is stomping anything into the ground, and the Jag should have been faster considering it was a manual. Beating the C-Class at acceleration and braking is not really that hard since that isn't what the car focuses on primarily. I'd be more impressed with a "pumeling" by the X-Type of the 330i or IS300 in those areas.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't think the X-Type is a bad car, but that test had more than a twinge of bs to it.

  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    I don't know what car you speced out but it's not my car. I don't deem a Nav system a must on a fully loaded car. I am talking about leather, sport and most high end options. My 330i does not have sport, nav or xenon, but if I did it again, I might have gotten sport. To me it's fully loaded because there is nothing else I wanted and I belive the Navs are the biggest waste of money anyway. If you want to split hairs and say fully loaded is every available option, that's your call.

    People have different requirments for what they want in a car. We have to be careful between comparing the MSRP of fully optioned cars, because most people do not order them that way. The base 330i with leatherette can be had at ED for a mere $32,000.

    BTW..Nice to to talk to you as well.
  • riezriez Posts: 2,361
    kshapiro... Can't believe you did not get Sport Package. That is almost heresy. :)

    Don't forget that BMW's current nav system stinks. Just now finally moving to DVD-based system instead of CD, but still most reviewers prefer systems used by other marques. (I think a Mark 1 eyeball and a good map beats a nav system about 99 percent of time. And the dash looks better without one, IMHO.)
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    They were interested in moving the car....and I really like that car, so I decided to take it. We'll see what the landscape looks like the next time around.
  • Merc1-

    Go to:

    They say, "This particular parts-sharing, it turns out, only gives the Jag its chassis 'hard points' and its engine blocks, but not much else. Jaguarites say the chassis itself shares only six small panels with its blue-oval counterpart, and that their version has been reinforced significantly for stiffness and quiet. In fact, they boast, by the time the leaper hood ornament goes on the car, its static rigidity is 30 percent better than that of the nearest luxury segment competitor. By another measure, body stiffness comes in at 22 kg/degree vs. the 21 kg/degree recorded by the BMW 3 Series, a mighty fine measuring stick to use." <--See, they measured it.</b>

    Other reviews have noted that it has the most rigid structure in its class, I can find them and post their URLs if you'd like, if this review is not proof enough.

    Also, if the link doesn't work because the site is a sign-in type, go to and use their search box, typing in "Jaguar X-type".

    BTW: I do think that X-TYPE v. C-Class review was also a little "BS"-ed, however, I believe all comparison reviews are either a little biased or include some BS, as you can read about in my long posts a few messages away. However...

    You say "Beating the C-Class at acceleration and braking is not really that hard since that isn't what the car focuses on primarily."

    Isn't the C-Class supposed to compete with the IS300, 330i, and X-TYPE? Why is it that when the X-TYPE does win, excuses can be made for the other car(s), with "they don't focus on those areas"? I'm willing to invalidate the transmissions in the this test as they were not totally evenly matched there, but the X-TYPE won out every other category of the test as well: Engine, brakes, ride... I could just as easily say that the X-TYPE doesn't focus on those areas either, but no one would back me and it really is a poor excuse. You also note that 1/2 second is not "stomping anything to the ground", yet in the Road&Track 11-car test, the X-TYPE was just 0.6 second slower than the fastest car in the test, and it was marked down for that. We can't suddenly make an exception for this test. I could say that the X-TYPE doesn't focus on acceleration in the R&T review, but again that is a poor excuse. If we choose to accept the R&T 11 car test, then we must, by principle, accept this test as well. In those regards, the X-TYPE v. C-Class comparison was quite valid.

    Take care!


    I think I'll terminate this discourse now that we have both had our say. It's just going to continue in a perpetual loop if we don't stop. But...

    I noticed that you still say the car falls flat, and in all of those comparisons, you have said yourself that price was a major factor in the car's losing points, as well as R&T, C&D, and others noting that. I'm just wondering if you read my really long message a ways back, as I outlined how the X-TYPE in all of those tests was outfitted much more heavily with options than any of the other cars and that its price would have been closer to the others had the X-TYPE been outfitted with the same options as the others in the test. Also, as merc1 notes, 1/2 second differences, etc. are not large gaps. Being 0.6 second off from the fastest car in the test, and 0.5 from the winning car is not "falling flat" by any means.

    You seem to fail to notice actual measurements and what the reviewers write about the cars, and instead only look at points and scores. Take note of the "luggage space" scores for the cars in the R&T 11 car test, for instance. The X-TYPE has a boot capacity of 16.0 cubic feet. For that, it received 7.8 out of 10 possible points in that category. Now look at the Cadillac CTS with a boot capacity of 12.8 cubic feet. Yet it received 8.4 points out of the 10, and it had a smaller boot. The Infiniti G35 has 14.8 cubic feet of boot space, yet even with less space than the X-TYPE, it received the same score of 7.8 out of 10. The 330i, with only 10.7 cubic feet of boot space received 7.6 points, only 0.2 less point than the X-TYPE with 5.3 more cubic feet than the 330i. These ratios aren't right, and I cannot help but feel that their other points and scores must also be affected by these kinds of discrepancies.

    I also still disagree with you about European or other comparison tests not being valid. Included in these tests are cars such as the X-TYPE, C-Class, and A4, et al, that are sold in the U.S., as well as cars that are not available here. Just because a car is not U.S.-spec doesn't mean the test is totally invalid. In those other countries especially, those tests are very valid (as far as comparison tests go). It is not a question of whether or not the test is valid just to you, rather, it is a matter of how valid the test is as a fair test. That's where the problem is, you are choosing which tests you want to acknowledge and which you simply feel like leaving out. Besides, the difference between a U.S.-spec car and a non-U.S.-spec car is not going to come out in the test unless the car is crash tested or has an engine choice unavailable in the U.S., etc. You can get a general idea still, and to simply say that because it is not a test conducted by an American magazine is a bit ignorant. Especially as all of these cars are global cars.

    You also claim that English reviews have a bias towards British cars and that the Germans also are biased. However, I have found that those two groups especially are very picky about cars and will tear a car apart worse than any American reviewer would dare to. The British also have a thing for BMW's - a German car - and I've not found a review where they had a bias for Jaguar or any other British car, and if they were biased and I missed it, they certainly could not be any more biased than any American editors.

    Perhaps you have not noticed the bias that American reviewers have for German and Japanese cars? I believe Edmunds stated something about their "infatuation" with "everything German" in a Mercedes review, and the idea that Japanese cars are so much more reliable than any other cars is also overplayed to the point of now being a bias of American writers (and don't attempt to say that I'm saying that Japanese cars are not reliable now, because they are, I'm simply pointing out that there is an American bias of believing that they are tremendously more reliable than any other kind of car).
  • kdshapiro-

    You said "I don't know what car you speced out but it's not my car. I don't deem a Nav system a must on a fully loaded car. I am talking about leather, sport and most high end options. My 330i does not have sport, nav or xenon, but if I did it again, I might have gotten sport. To me it's fully loaded because there is nothing else I wanted and I belive the Navs are the biggest waste of money anyway. If you want to split hairs and say fully loaded is every available option, that's your call."

    That's exactly what I was trying to prove about the X-TYPE in its tests. Take, for instance, the Road&Track 11 car comparo. The X-TYPE had every option available including the unnecessary navigation system and other equipment that the majority of other cars did not have. It has been that way in almost every comparison test: the editors choose a fully loaded (as in every single available option) X-TYPE and then mark the car down for being expensive in comparison to competitors that are not fully loaded.

    You are totally correct, NO ONE ever totally and fully loads out their car with every available option, but the reviewers all do for the X-TYPE in its comparison tests. They don't for the other cars. Even that second-most-expensive-car in the test C320 Sport was still not fully loaded, it didn't even have a CD player, as I mentioned before in my other message. In the magazines, they depict the X-TYPE as costing $46,000 all of the time. A base X-TYPE 2.5 with standard Connoly leather, wood trim, and manual transmission can be had at $29,000. Make the car a 3.0 litre model, and you get everything in the base model plus standard indash CD player and other goodies, and your choice of manual or automatic transmission at no extra cost, for $35,000. Nicely equipped, a 2.5 is usually around $33,000. A nicely equipped 3.0 is around $38,000.

    In my other message, I wasn't trying to talk about your car. I was using the 3-Series as an example of how in the tests they'll get a nicely equipped one at $39,000 - $40,000, but that the car's fully loaded price is $45,000, just as they only showed the X-TYPE's fully loaded price of about $46,000, when one that is nicely equipped is between $38,000 - $40,000 just like the other cars.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Okay I missed the point that particular car left nothing out in the options category. Most people do not buy a car like that.
  • riezriez Posts: 2,361
    jagboyxtype... Maybe we'll have something to discourse about when Ford improves the future Mondeo X-type such that it can actually be competitive against cars in its class. As it stands, it just doesn't compete well as a serious all around sport sedan. Sure it has a big trunk, but it also has a cramped back seat. But I don't buy a serious all around sport sedan based on interior or trunk space. And sometimes a big trunk is offset by an odd shape and space-intruding hinges that limit useability over a smaller trunk that is nicely shaped with multi-link hinges. (Oops, think I meant to say when Jag improves the future X-type. :) )

    And I'll really, really start worrying about and paying attention to European magazine results when Euro-spec cars are sold here. But today I can NOT even buy them. Think you should keep in mind that they often have many differences with their American counterparts (e.g., safety equipment, engines--they love diesels, transmissions) and there are tons of marques in Europe that are absent in America (Alfa, Fiat, Lancia, SEAT, Renault, Peugeout, Skoda, etc.)
  • Riez-

    You missed the target again. The trunk space example was simply an example of how the points awarded to certain aspects of the cars in the tests do not tell the whole truth, as you misguidedly seem to believe. The fact of the matter is that the X-TYPE had more boot space than the other cars I mentioned, and it recieved less points than they did and in an unbalanced ratio, and that other scoring categories were similarly affected. You also failed to notice the phrases "For example" and "For instance" leading into what I was saying in many cases if you believe that boot space was all that I was speaking about.

    You said of the X-TYPE's large boot "And sometimes a big trunk is offset by an odd shape and space-intruding hinges that limit useability over a smaller trunk that is nicely shaped with multi-link hinges."

    From this I can tell that you never actually take the time to examine a car for yourself before passing judgement on it, but instead rely completely upon little comparison test articles and your own assumptions, as the X-TYPE does have multi-link boot hinges as opposed to the swan-neck hinges on such cars as the XJ8 and ES300, ect. that you assumed it had, and then stated it had as if it were a fact. But what can I expect from someone who finds himself clever at falsely mistaking a car for one with which it shares a few parts that cannot even be seen?

    And on that topic, in the global car world of today, every car shares parts with another or many others. *FOR EXAMPLE* (<--if you miss it this time, I don't know what to do), BMW uses General Motors-sourced automatic transmissions and parts are shared with Mini. Volkswagen and Audi, Seat, Skoda, Porsche, Bentley, Lamborghini, and Bugatti all share many <i>many parts. DaimlerChrysler and Mercedes-Benz share some parts now too, as well as sharing parts with Hyundai and Mitsubishi. Making fun of that seems, well, kind of pathetic - unless you have a weird sense of humor. They share parts; yeah - so what? It's not really relevant.

    And as I noted about reviews and comparisons from other countries, the cars do have some differences from U.S.-spec cars (as you and I had noted that engines can be different, etc.) but a general idea of the car can be had from those tests - as I had also said before in my other message. Quite often, those tests even use the versions of the cars equipped with engines that are sold with them in the U.S., as we generally have the larger versions of the engines available to us. If it's a diesel-engine test, they usually also have the whole test based upon that fact and will call it a "Diesel Showdown!" or something else to that same effect. Again (for now the second time), you cannot simply invalidate a test because it was not conducted in America. The cars we are disputing are not even built in America. And many times, the versions of the cars used in the tests are for the most part equivalent to their U.S.-spec versions. Alpha Romeos, Fiats, Renaults, and Vauxhalls are not sold in America, and thus I understand saying that for use in America, their tests would be for the most part inconcequential; but Audis, Jaguars, BMWs, and Mercedes are all sold in the U.S. as well as foreign countries, and those foreign versions of the cars have little difference from their U.S.-spec versions as far as any test categories can gauge. They never crash-test the cars in these comparisons, and as C. Van Tune pointed out in the ABC article about how reviewers are "fed and fueled" by certain car manufacturers, safety isn't an exciting enough category for these tests, so to those reviewers who write about them, it is irrelevant. Safety equipment is usually the primary difference between U.S.-spec and foreign versions of the same cars, but that's not going to show-up in one of these car comparisons because they are not comprehensive enough at all to measure such things. Yet it's not just foreign articles that you are saying are invalid, though. You are just choosing the ones that back your arguement to the slightest degree, which again just a display of your ignorance.

    As well as the boot-hinge thing that you got wrong (remember, X-TYPE has the multi-link hinges with auto-opening gas struts, not swan-neck hinges), you also said that it had a cramped rear seat in comparison to its competators. In comparison to a long-wheelbase Maybach, it is cramped, yes. However, it has one of the larger rear seats in its class. Not only is it larger than the BMW 3-Series' rear seat as well as the IS300's and A4's, but it is also larger than the midsize 5-Series' rear seat (but I'll admit not by that much compared to the 5). In posts in other sections of the Town Hall, you defend how large the 5-Series' rear seat is and how comfortable it is for adult passengers as far as roominess goes, why do you call the X-TYPE's rear seat - which is even larger than the 5's - "cramped". Is this yet ANOTHER ASSUMPTION that you made about the X-TYPE?

    By now I am sure that you have noticed that I have continually refered to things in this message that I have already spoken about in my other two posts addressed to you a few messages back. I'm wondering if you really even read them since your arguements are always the same, and now you're even making outright assumptions. No matter what I say and no matter how many facts I back my statements with, you seem to have your eyes closed to them and don't even take them into account. Not only that, but your statements are generally incorrect and your assumptions don't even touch on facts or reality.

    And I'd say the best selling Jaguar in history is competative when it makes up 56.7% of Jaguar's U.S. sales and holds an astonishing 66% of the entry-level to mid luxury segment in Europe, as well as over 70% of Jaguar's sales in its third largest market, Italy. Was your statement about being competative just another assumption on your part?

    Maybe we'll actually have a discussion when you start taking note of what's actually going on with the car and stop making assumptions and false remarks. Good day.
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Ok, I read all that. So I'm supposed to believe Jaguar's claim over what every other brand claims right? Until I see an independent test of all of the cars in this class structural rigidity, I'll go by what feels the most solid, and it isn't the Jaguar X-Type. So we disagree there.
    Secondly, everyone knows full well that the C-Class is not on the same plane with the 330i and IS300 when it comes to being "sporty". To impress me you'd have to beat those cars at all the track tests. Beating a C320 at the track isn't hard, the IS300 and 330i rule there. That acceleration test will never count in my book because of the trans difference.

    I'm not saying the comparison as a whole was not valid, but I still maintain that they picked the areas in which the X-Type would winout. And Lastly the X-Type has been ranked below the C in every OTHER comparo done. If it were such a slaughter I'd think it would win some test over here too.

  • riezriez Posts: 2,361
    jagboyxtype... You should have more carefully read my post. Did I specifically mention the X-type trunk (boot)? No, I was discussing trunks in general. And did you notice how I was careful to say that neither trunk space nor rear-seat space should have much, if any bearing, when it comes to comparing serious all around sport sedans? Do you harp on such little things regarding the X-type becasue it does so poorly in the performance realm when tested against its competitors? When you get creamed on the track and street, talk about the trunk?

    I don't care about sales figures. What do they prove? If we used that we'd all be driving a Camry or Accord 4-cyl sedan!

    As for Euro-land market, keep in mind two huge facts. Currently about 40 percent of the cars sold there are diesels. The "hottest" BMW is the 330id. Can I buy that in USA? NO! And that over 80 percent of the cars sold there are manual transmission. How many manual transmission diesel sedans, coupes, convertibles, etc. are sold in USA? Be willing to bet the figure is about zero. Ford Europe and Jag are rushing to get diesels into their Euro-products.
  • Riez-

    Again my point was that the boot space example was an example of how the points awarded in such comparison tests do not give real data. Points and scores are skewed - or whatever adjective you would use to describe awarding more space with less points in a category that is all about having more space.

    "And did you notice how I was careful to say that neither trunk space nor rear-seat space should have much, if any bearing, when it comes to comparing serious all around sport sedans?"

    Yes, I did catch that phrase the first time I read it. However, your argument against the X-TYPE in you message before the last was that it had a cramped rear seat and had swan-neck boot-lid hinges - both statements that were false. And now your latest statement that you did not name the X-TYPE directly when speaking of such things as boot-space and rear-seat room really is a weak cover-up.

    You stated: "Maybe we'll have something to discourse about when Ford improves the future Mondeo X-type such that it can actually be competitive against cars in its class. As it stands, it just doesn't compete well as a serious all around sport sedan. Sure it has a big trunk, but it also has a cramped back seat. But I don't buy a serious all around sport sedan based on interior or trunk space. And sometimes a big trunk is offset by an odd shape and space-intruding hinges that limit usability over a smaller trunk that is nicely shaped with multilink hinges. (Oops, think I meant to say when Jag improves the future X-type."

    Your argument was that you do not consider rear-seat room or trunk space when it comes to sport-sedans because those are two areas in which the X-TYPE excels. If it had a small boot and a cramped back seat, then you would be attacking the car for those two points! Then, to further attempt to deride the X-TYPE, you state that large boots, such as the X-TYPE has, often have space-intruding swan-neck hinges and odd opening shapes. Of course you did not have to "name" the X-TYPE when making such statements - you implied it and did indeed name the car with the word, "it". Why even mention space-intruding hinges if the X-TYPE does not have them? Also, paragraphically, your topic was about the X-TYPE, and as those areas were spoken about there, they are directly linked to the X-TYPE. However, your arguments were wrong, and to counter my catching of them being wrong, you are now stating that you were not speaking of the X-TYPE - a weak argument.

    "I don't care about sales figures. What do they prove?"

    You constantly say that the X-TYPE does not compete well against its competators. Sales figures and how much of the car's manufacturer's sales the car makes are a direct indication of how well the car competes. If the car did not compete well, then it would in turn have low sales figures and most probably not make up much of its manufacturer's sales. The Camry and Accord 4-cylinder are not in the entry-level sport sedan class. However, in their own class, it is generally accepted that they are very good cars. Also, the ratio of new buyers of a new addition to an established market segment is an indication of how well the car competes, and over 90% of X-TYPE buyers are new customers to Jaguar. That means that it is taking sales from competators that compete in that market segment - thus it is competing very well.

    If you have not gotten the fact that there are European comparison tests of cars that are sold here in slightly different forms but with the same engines as U.S.-spec versions, then it is just a show of your unwillingness to be reasonable to any degree. I have stated that those cars are not exact doubles of their U.S. versions, but the ones outfitted with gasoline engines that are available in the U.S. and other such options are so much like their American versions that a comparison test is not going to be able to differentiate the two. If there are differences measurable by the tests, then you can take them into account. However, to invalidate the entire test is ignorant and unreasonable.

    "Do you harp on such little things regarding the X-type becasue it does so poorly in the performance realm when tested against its competitors?"

    No, I "harp" on such little things because YOU bring them up by making FALSE assumptions which you present as if they were facts. Again, I used those "little" subjects as examples to prove my points because facts are a necessity in presenting the truth. YOU are the one who decided to "harp" on my examples.

    Also, as I have stated and continue to have to remind you, the X-TYPE does not get beaten in the performance realm against competators. EXAMPLES: the X-TYPE completely won an all-out performance test against the competing model from Mercedes-Benz, the C320 Sport. It is a competing car. Then, your so-very-important Road&Track even states: "In acceleration, the 3.0 X-TYPE is among the quickest. Accompanied by a nice-but-distance exhaust note, the Jag goes from 0-60 mph in 6.5 seconds, undercutting the boy-racer Lexus IS 300's and Audi A4's 7.1, Mercedes-Benz C320's 6.8 sec. and matching the BWM 330i's time. And remember the X-TYPE, like the Quattro, loses a tick off the line, because of a no-wheel spin launch with all-wheel-drive". According to your precious magazines, it also out brakes the Porsche 911 GT2 from 80 mph and stops just 2 feet shorter than the 911 GT2 from 60 mph. That is real performance and if you try to argue that down, I believe I could safely say that it is a sign of a delusional mind.

    Perhaps you should stop simply reading my posts, but should actually begin synthesising the data as well. I'm having a hard time responding to much of the outrageously false statements you've made thus far.

    You did get one thing right though. Jaguar is getting diesel engines ready for the European market as they do make up for much of a manufacturer's sales there. That was a weak point for the X-TYPE: it had no diesels to compete against the 330d etc. with the high gasoline prices in Europe. Rest assured that when the engines are available, the X-TYPE will compete even better than it already does so well. And when I'm on the track, I'll remember to mention my car's boot to the Porsche that I out-brake and to the IS 300, A4, C320 that I out accelerate and the BMW driver that I'm dead-locked with. Even Road&Track took note of that.
  • Merc1-

    Other marques are not claiming that they have more rigid structures than the X-TYPE has because they do not. You say that you'll go by what you feel feels more solid, however, I could just say that the X-TYPE feels more solid to me and say that the discussion is over. Either way, we cannot do that. AutoWeek had the measurements for structure rigidity in their article, and I even quoted them a little way back. They also noted that the X-TYPE's structure is 30% more rigid than the previous class leader's. That means that the previous class leader no longer has the class-leading structure in rigidity because the X-TYPE, now the class leader in structural rigidity, beats it by 30%. You are just choosing not to accept a fact.

    As for the X v. C article, you say that they chose to test in areas where the X-TYPE would win, but then wouldn't other car media groups just be choosing areas in which the 330i wins? The same can be said about any comparison. Look at what is said in these articles, point-wise, the C-Class may win, however, in actual measurements, the X-TYPE beats it. Take for instance what Road&Track said about acceleration, which I quoted above in my message to riez.

    Oh well, we don't agree on this one. At least you have an open mind enough to at least read the articles, etc. Whether you choose to believe what is said is you choice. Have a nice day.
  • ccotenjccotenj Posts: 610
    THIRTY PERCENT more rigid????? ummmmmmm....

  • considering most manufacturers make improvements in rigidity on the scale of 50 to 100 percent, when they do a platform update, 30% sounds at least a little reasonable. Lets get pluskin in here, he should know, and if not, he should be able to find out. I would trust him more than any hear-say in this forum.
  • jlanjlan Posts: 81
    Betcha can't get a Jag, BMW or Audi with a thong holder! ;-)
  • ccotenjccotenj Posts: 610
    i haven't heard from pluskin in awhile...

    they DOUBLE their rigidity with EVERY platform update... since it's you telling me, i believe you, but that kinda boggles the mind... one would think there's a point where you can't go beyond?

  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286 guys actually read through all that...
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    How ironic the one car they couldn't have known about yet was the A4, it came out after the Jag by a few months. If the BMW 330i was the class leader don't you think the new A4 surpassed it too, landing it squarely at the Jag's level or beyond?

    "As for the X v. C article, you say that they chose to test in areas where the X-TYPE would win, but then wouldn't other car media groups just be choosing areas in which the 330i wins?"

    I agree there, we've had this conversation before. Car and Driver is most guilty of this. Agreed. Their last comparo was seemingly decided on how the 330i handled mountain roads, something most people don't drive on. In my opinion Road and Track conducts about the fairest comparos.

    I always willing to read and listen hence our actual debating and not outright arguing.

    That said, it's been another fun one.

  • I know that the A4 is 40% more rigid than the previous A4, but I don't know what its actual measurements are. It being more rigid than the X-TYPE has not been mentioned in any reviews that I have seen as of yet, so I cannot say that the car is more rigid than the X's structure. In many reviews, the editors have stated that the X-TYPE's structure is the class leader in measured rigidity, and as many reviews have concluded this, I accept the fact. If the measurements of the A4's rigidity came out and proved to be higher than the X-TYPE's, then I would accept that, however, at this moment, the X-TYPE is known as the most rigid car in its class.

    This is not to say that the A4 has not surpassed the 3-Series in rigidity or possibly the X-TYPE, or to say that the car or any of the cars in this class are lacking in structural rigidity; it is simply to say that with the information available, all current measurements have proven the X-TYPE to be the most rigid to this day.

    "I always willing to read and listen hence our actual debating and not outright arguing."

    Yes, thank you for being that way. It makes discussion so much more pleasant when two people can actually debate without losing total respect for each other and resorting to primitive argumentative states. You always review the information presented and can thus make valid statements. As you said, it's been another fun one. Keeping open minds makes life so much more enjoyable.

    BTW - Have you read about the recall on the G35?
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Well until either of us run across the A4's chassis figures I guess neither of us can say anything either way huh? I'm a gambler and I'm betting the A4 is stiffer, plus that that was only review of the X-Type's structure I don't recall reading that it has the stiffest structure by any publications on this side of the pond, other than Autoweek.

    I haven't read anything about the G35, I simply don't like the car.

  • ccotenjccotenj Posts: 610
    lol... yea, i was bored... :)

  • Well, in any case, we don't know the exact figures for any of the cars in quantitative terms so we cannot make a complete judgement. However, what I can judge with relative certainty are the crash test results for the X type, 3 series, C class and various other models which is related to structural stiffness and design. From these results


    I am pretty certain that the C class has the best designed structure in it's class with the Jag being behind the 3 series and the A4. The C class was one of only 2 cars in the EuroNCAP test to get a full 5 star rating and the C class is the highest rated midsize luxury car according the Insurance Institute. The intrusion and deformation ratings are as follows...

    Anyway, if I had a choice on any of these cars, I'd save up my money and get an E class, but that's my personal opinion...
  • Actually, stiffness mainly determines how much a cars twists during quick handling maneuvers.
    Whereas, occupant protection arises from engineering to divert kinetic energy from the crash into crumple zones and away from the main passenger cabin. The challenge is actually to get the stiff but crushable compromise correct.

    So stiffness equals good handling more than occupant protection.
  • Actually, this isn't the X-TYPE we have here in the U.S.

    This is the X-TYPE section of the car crash test above:

    Take note that this is the "Jaguar X-Type 2.0 LHD" marked under the "Make, model and hand of drive" portion of the chart at the bottom of the page. The X-TYPE 2.0 is the low-end Europe-only version of the car that lacks the extra driveshaft that the 2.5 and 3.0 litre models have that are sold globally (as well as the driveshaft that is found in the 3-Series and C-Class). Thus, its crash tests produce weaker results than the 2.5 and 3.0 versions, and 3-Series and C-Class, because 2.0 is a FWD car with no longitudal driveshaft that is found in AWD (X-TYPE) and RWD (C-Class, 3-Series) cars.

    Check out this site:

    It notes that the X-TYPE underwent structural changes after December 2001 but does not say if that was a version-specific change (which I discovered it was). A letter to Consumer Reports aided research, and their reply was as follows:

    "We spoke with JNA (Jaguar North America) on this question and they explained that the Jaguar X-Type was originally introduced in Europe as a 2.0 litre FWD (Front Wheel Drive) model. The only models sold in the U.S. are 2.5 and 3.0 liter AWD versions.... that achieve better frontal crash test results than the FWD European model due to a prop shaft that runs the length of the car from front to rear. The prop to the rear supplies power to the rear wheels as well as the front, which accounts for the AWD traction... The modifications made and referred to in IIHS's report on X-Types (made) after December 2001 were actually modifications made to FWD European models and are not applicable to the U.S. AWD models."

    (Thanks "JagDude" and Consumer Reports for this information).

    Also note that the reason why the C-Class recieved a 5-star rating in the European test over the 4-star rating that all of the others in this class recieved was because it was the only car that had a flashing light that lit-up a sign reading the equivalent of "fasten your seatbelt" on its dash, which is to become a standard feature in Europe in the future(?). It would have recieved that same 4-star rating had it not had the light. This is straight off the site:

    "Extra points awarded for the way that the C-class reminds its passengers to buckle their seat belts have now made it the second car ever to gain a five-star crash protection rating. Results for the C-class were published last year and it achieved four stars. But Euro NCAP has since changed its scoring system to encourage car makers to fit seat-belt warnings."

    All in all, I'd feel very safe in any one of the cars in this class, and I do feel safe being in one of them. Stay safe everyone.

  • I honestly cannot remember a car I've been in that HASN'T had a seatbelt warning light. Our 87 Mercedes 420 SEL had it and my 99 Honda Prelude has it. Maybe this is due to European influence as the Focus (originally introduced and designed in Europe) has an obnoxious system that beeps and chimes if the driver does not fasten within an allotted amount of time and other cars I've been in have "sensed" the weight of a passenger and have flashed the seatbelt light as well (I believe the LandCruiser does this). However, as the seatbelt usage stats are dropping in the US, maybe this is a good idea after all. I can personally attest my safety and my mother's life to seatbelts.

    BTW JagBoy, the EuroNCAP X-Type was a 2002 and it stated that the FWD 2.0 was released March of that year which is supported by both CAR and Top Gear Magazines (British publications). In addition, I am relatively certain that the X-Type was introduced as an AWD model to differentiate it from the Mondeo and to keep it from alienating Jag owners who may have cringed at the thought of a FWD Jag (this is from a CAR article soon before the X-Type itself was introduced in May of 2001). However, as the base 2.5 is an already relatively expensive car and does not fare well against a C180 or 318i in terms of value, Jag decided to introduce the FWD 2.0 with a stick as standard.

    From what I understand, the driveshaft does assist in distributing the crash impact rearward, however, the larger engine block of the 3.0 tends to push rearward earlier in an accident than the smaller block of the 2.0 with it's fewer driveline components (obviously as it is FWD) so the crumple zones of the 2.0 have more room to crumple. I believe this is the reason why Mercedes decided to replace the 3.2 inline 6 of the E class with the smaller block of the 3.2 V6 in 99 and the difference in crash test scores between a 97 and a 00 are pretty significant although I'm not sure if Mercedes conducted any significant changes to the structure since they lowered the hood by an inch.
  • "they DOUBLE their rigidity with EVERY platform update... since it's you telling me, i believe you, but that kinda boggles the mind... one would think there's a point where you can't go beyond?"

    Well...yes theoretically speaking, there is a point where you cant go beyond...but nothin on the face of this earth that has a perfect structural rigidity.

    We are talking about a large structure, on the scale of 100s of centimeters, which carries payloads of about 1000 pounds, and is subject to stresses incurred by hard braking and acceleration and cornering. Not to mention the constraints that mass production places on structural rigidity.

    There is still a lot of flex in even the most rigid of automobiles. Even full out race cars have problems from structural rigidity...I believe the initial Audi R8 had multiple problems with body of the body would pinch and snap hoses and electrical lines.

    So, yes, there is tons of room for improvement in all cars in the area of rigidity.
Sign In or Register to comment.