Howdy, Stranger!

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

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Entry Level Luxury Performance Sedans



  • riezriez Posts: 2,361
    xxoneputtxx... Only you will know what meets your needs within your budget. Do a ton of research. But then spend a lot of time test driving your primary choices. Don't let 'em give you the standard dog and pony test drive. That won't tell you anything. You really need to drive each car some distance on a variety of roads at a variety of speeds.
  • aszasz Posts: 2
    I am looking at purchasing the G as a family sedan. My 3 kids will easily fit in the rear seat. Is this too much of a sports car? I really like the G's lines. Thanks!
  • I can only speak for the choice between the 325 and the A4. Is you're into the hood badge and sound of the exhaust, then the Beemer is your car. If you want a quite similar ride, the equipment of a 330 at the price of a 325, then go for the A4 3.0.

    I drove several '02 325xi's and A4 3.0 Quattro's, and both had their +/-'s. The 325, though, lacks even the most fundamental standard options (no power seats on a $30k+ car!?!?) and has a way to go on the interior design (cheesy exposed cup holders that look like they belong in a Pontiac). Not to mention the 325 has 30% less power to spin those 4 wheels.

    The sad thing is that virtually all luxury sports sedan reviews compare a $40k+ loaded 330 with a $33k A4, and the 325 is declared the de facto winner as it rides on the tails of the 330. The whole "3-series" nomenclature is nonsense.

    Take an A4 3.0 out for a test drive...
  • I beleive the handling of the BMW is slightly better because of it's small size. I would like to see how it would handle if it were a midsize car (like the Infiniti G35 or Acura TL).

    The amount of 'points' that are giving to the BMW for it's handling should be removed for it's size. This is a sedan! It is not a sports car. When talking about sedans, sufficient room in the car should be seen as an important factor.

    I'm sure they could make the BMW even smaller and get even better handling and performance from it. If they did that, it would be hard to justify it even being in this category.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    rp - you are correct the 330i is a sedan, just like the G35, just like the Acura, just like the Audi and all of the cars that were compared in the latest Edmunds round-up. None of them are sports cars. Edmunds calls them Entry Level Luxury Sport Sedans. The fact is the 530i also gets very high marks in the performance department, except the 530i is a true Luxury Sport Sedan, again not a sports car.

    Now the 530i outclasses all of the above in terms of amenities, but it would be interesting to see from a strict performance viewpoint, how it compares to the above or even compares to the 330i.

    Although in the scheme of things size has little to do with performance - as another poster pointed out there are cars the same size as the 330i that are nowhere near it in terms of overall performance. Note the salient word is overall.

    Also the fact that it is a compact has nothing to do with it's interior room. The G does not have marginally much more room and if you read Edmunds round-up, it does state there is sufficient room in the car for 4 adults in the 330i. Unless you regularly transport 5 people and the two people in the back seat absolutely have to have the reclining seats, in my opinion the amount of extra space in the G doesn't make that much of a difference. It might to you, but then you get to vote with your dollars. If I regularly transported 5 people however, none of the cars in the Edmunds round-up would be on my list.

    It seems clear to me based on the reviews I've read over the last couple of years, when only talking about the sport of driving in this segment, the 330i is the benchmark.
  • Some Acuras are experiencing very serious problems with their automatic transmissions shifting from 5th to 2nd at high speeds for no aparent reason. This causes the cars to lose control and swerve off the road.

    "Mike Spencer, a spokesman for Acura, Honda's sport-luxury division, confirmed that there has been a 'higher than normal incidence' of problems with two Honda-built automatic transmissions. Although many involve high-performance models such as the 260-horsepower Acura Type-S, others afflict 200-horsepower V-6 Honda Accords and 240-horsepower Odyssey minivans not usually associated with racing and speeding abuses."

    "The two transmissions are the five-speed used in V-6-equipped Acuras since the 2000 model year and in Honda Odysseys since the 2002 model year; and the four-speed automatic used in V-6 Honda Accords since 2000 and in 2000 and 2001 Odysseys."

  • I am having the hardest time choosing a replacement for my 3 year old (leased) Saab 9-3SE. I've narrowed it down to the BMW 325i, Mercedes C240, and VW Passat GLX. They all excel, but in different ways. I've driven all 3 several times and still cannot decide. Here are my thoughts, and I'd appreciate comments from others:

    325i pros
    fun to drive and handles well
    like the sound of the inline 6-cyl. engine
    holds its value well
    nice safety features
    good reliability record

    325i cons
    many on the road
    styling not that exciting any more

    Mercedes C240 pros
    styling (in my opinion)
    solid as a vault
    nice ride and handling
    safety features

    C240 Cons
    slightly underpowered
    quality concerns (at least from early models)

    Passat GLX pros
    great looks
    cheaper than BMW or Mercedes
    decent power and handling

    Passat GLX cons
    dealer service (from what I've heard)
    seats not the best (in my opinion)
    soft ride (i.e. not a "sports sedan")
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Add the following cons to the Mercedes and VW:

    - in my area there are many on the road, diminishing the value.

    Seriously - I think you have to focus on what's important to you. Is fun to drive, hold's value and good safety features important? Or is styling important and the fact there are many on the road an important criteria because you want a unique vehicle.

    Just as a suggestion, if you phrased the question differently rather than giving your opinion about the importantance of certain car attributes you might get some very meaningful responses.

    For me important questions might be:

    1. Has anybody had any reliability issues with any of these cars? How did the dealers respond?
    2. What do others think about the seating in the vehicles?
    3. How much did people pay?

    Good luck with your decision.
  • kdshapiro - thanks for your post.

    I'm finding that it's very hard to judge reliability from the internet message boards. I've read horror stories on the internet for all three cars. People with problems are more likely to post a message than those without problems. Consumer Reports recommends all three cars. I personnally know one person with a C240 and one with a C320 wagon. Both love their cars, but haven't had them too long.

    I made a mistake with my current car and am determined not to do it again. I want to get something I don't mind paying for, want to keep for many years, and want to keep shiny. The problem is all three of these are great cars.
  • These are three pretty different cars, so it really comes down to what you value. The Passat is a real bargain with the nicest and largest interior as well as elegant exterior styling. I looked hard at a GLX and W8 when I was shopping. The handling is pretty wallowing, and the power is just adequate (I'm a leadfoot ).

    The 325i is fun and rewarding to drive, really nice handling and ergonomics. Its pretty small and the price goes up fast as you add options, and its also underpowered for my taste.

    I've never driven the C240. The C320 I drove was nice, but not terribly sporty and I was disappointed in the quality of some of the interior pieces (they need to see where VW gets their switches).

    All three a very good cars, I could be happy with any of them based on my needs.
  • Does anyone find that the TL has extrememly boring styling. I've only seen white TL's and they don't look exciting but I haven't seen a darker colored TL. Do the darker colored TL's look better? Also anyone who owns a TL type S how fast does it go from 0-60? I'm curious because I'm crosshopping with the G35. If the Tl Type S can at least compete with G35's performance that I would be happy
  • The TL-S does have boring styling and white is its worst color. It fairs better in darker colors. The overall performance is similar to the G35, though it gets edged out in most categories. The biggest difference is FWD vs. RWD. I spent quite a bit of time in a TL-S when shopping recently. I chose a G35, but if you are a Honda fan or prefer FWD the TL-S is a great choice. It will also run you a little less than a comparably equipped G35, and you can probably get a deeper discount to boot. There have been concerns about the TL-S having tranny failures, but Acuras tend to be very reliable.

    For direct comparisons of the G35 and TL-S look at the recent Edmunds entry sport lux sedan comparo, the C/D currently on news stands (I have to admit its not very credible to me) and the July 2002 R/T. Good luck with your shopping.
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
  • Wow...that guy in the news clip really does look like the stereotypical computer engineer, doesnt he?:)
  • As an avid reader of Consumer Reports I find it hard to believe that their research didn't uncover any problems with the transmissions in the TL.. If you read their auto issue they give the TL their highest rating for reliability including the transmission. Is their something wrong here?
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    I read Consumers as well. My theory is that the percentage is higher than zero, which took Honda by surprise. Isolated incidents over tens and thousands of vehicles sold, make it a small statistical probability. This doesn't mean there isn't a design flaw somewhere. For every mass produced car has some flaw, no matter how inexpensive or expensive. However at this point there is a lot of hubris over it. Should I be purchasing an Acura, this would not be a factor.
  • riezriez Posts: 2,361
    Check out their November 2002 issue. Page 82. Their long-term testing. As they put it, it is "good" but not "great" and not worth the price. And it "does have its good points, but, unfortunately, it doesn't have enough of them." Or, it "doesn't live up to its nameplate or its pricetag."

    They pan the engine (noise & power), weight, stereo sound, lack of in-dash CD player, clutch, handling, etc.

    This article follows an earlier one (09/02 issue) in which they pointed out the X-type's many flaws and few virtues.
  • riezriez Posts: 2,361
    jagboyxtype... If you want most other marque's models, you have to order vanilla. Maybe a chocolate or strawberry. Your X-type offers choice of automatic or manual and 2.5L or 3.0L engines. IS300 offers SportCross. But only the 3 Series offers so much more. Sedan, coupe, convertible, wagon, and ultra-high performance models. AWD and RWD. Automatic and manual. Choice of engines. Is it BMW's fault they are so wise to spread their costs across so many variants and give buyers so many choices? I say you could also add Z3 sales to the mix, too!
  • Oh, that's too bad. It's also too bad that they failed to notice that:

    -The X-TYPE does have an indash CD-player, which is standard on 3.0 litre models.

    -Out of the group of European sport sedans (e.g. BMW 3, Mercedes-Benz C, Audi A4) the Jaguar X has the most powerful engines.

    -The Jaguar Alpine sound system is rated very highly. The auto's section of my newspaper rated the Jaguar Alpine system the top system out of premium European cars in a big comparison test of car stereos. Lexus won the Japanese premium car sound system category with its ML system.

    -The car is a wonderful handler; for example, it outperformed the C-320 Sport in that deleted post comparison, and although it does not have the class-leading acceleration times, it is only about 0.2 second behind the 3-Series and is in the top end of its class when it comes to performance (0-60 in 6.3 seconds - Car&Driver; 0-60 in 6.5 seconds - Road&Track). With its AWD, it can corner like no other car.

    -Braking performance from 60mph is just two feet longer than the Porsche 911 GT2 (116 feet), at 118 feet. Thus, it stops in the same distance as a smaller BMW M-Roadster (118 ft.). Brakes are from the larger S-TYPE.

    -Connoly leather and wood are all standard in the Jag, and leather and wood are only optional (if available) in competor's models.

    -It has the most rigid structure in its class, over 30% higher than the previous class leader.

    -Synthetic interior materials (e.g. plastics and not-leather soft-touch areas) are made by the same company from the same materials from the same machines that manufacture synthetic materials for Audi's A6 and new A8, which are "industry leading" according to many.

    -The X-TYPE does weigh a little more than a RWD car as it carries an extra differential and drive shaft for its AWD, but that doesn't seem to hurt its performance. It actually helps it in many ways. Also, for instance, it weighs less than an Audi A4, Cadillac CTS, and Lincoln LS.

    -There is some engine noise entering the cabin, but even wispers are still audible from passengers. Plus, it's a sports-sedan, so the engine is supposed to have a nice little note to it. Many reviewers have enjoyed the sound the X-TYPE's engine makes. There is also almost no wind noise as exterior mirrors, etc. were sculpted from windtunnel tests at Pininfarina and high-speed tests on the Nardo bowl in Italy as well as the Nurburgring in Germany.

    -Clutch: yes, some people dislike its feel, yet others like it because it is not difficult to use. I believe that it was MotorWeek that stated it felt like a BMW clutch.

    -Pricing: you can get a base X-TYPE for around $29,000 - $30,000 with leather and wood, manual transmission, metallic paint, etc. Option packages have been re-organized to allow more individual options to be ordered. Competators like the MB C-Class sedan start at around $31,000 without leather and wood, but vinyl and plastic.

    About the only virtue the X-TYPE doesn't have are memory seats. Beyond those, it's one hellofa car. I doubt it would still be making up 56.7% of Jaguar's sales and dominating an unheard-of 66% of its market in Europe (especially Italy) if it weren't a great car.

    On the Acura transmission problems, only 16,000 cars have been afficted with the problem over the past two years, according to the posted article. Accura sells a lot of cars, so it does not seem to be a massive or wide-spread problem. Hopefully they'll fix it, but I wouldn't worry about it too much.
  • riezriez Posts: 2,361
    jagboyxtype... Have you been reading what European Car has been writing? I'd encourage you to read their articles. They have a web site. I didn't write them. Please don't shoot me. I just passed along what an interesting source said. I happen to agree with many of their comments. Not all. And I hope Jaguar works aggressively to improve the X-type.
  • "Please don't shoot me."

    I wasn't trying to shoot you. You are just being paranoid. I never even mentioned you in my whole response except for in the title where I was directing my message to what had been said that you passed along. I said "they" as in the editors of European Car, but if you are now using the "royal we" and took what I said as directed towards you, now you know that is not how it was meant. I will shoot some words at you about improving the X-TYPE, however, as I don't feel the car needs any improving at all except in a very few minor areas, such as memory seats (not that they are really needed, but it would be a nice touch). Everything that makes a Jag is there in the X-TYPE, and it is a great car on its own. Naturally, Jaguar will improve the X-TYPE just as it improves all of its cars. As for your fear of being shot at with words on this board, perhaps you shouldn't say things that would cause you to get shot at if that is a fear of yours.

    BTW, every month, over 3,000 people just in the U.S. disagree with you and with European Car about the X-TYPE. Sorry buddy, but you're in the minority on this one. However, European Car's own final words on their X-TYPE test were:

    "Pushed to the limit and the X-Type will gently push until you ease off the throttle. Muscled around the track however, and its possible to slide the sedan until the tires melt. Great fun!

    I came away from the X-Type totally surprised. I expected to find a meek and mild sedan but instead found a serious contender in the sport-sedan market. These first two offerings are great!...I can't wait to see what those rouges at Jag's R division have in store for the X-Type."
  • affyaffy Posts: 19
    Why isn't Audi considering shipping the A3, S3 here, i belive there's a lot of market potential here in our shore. It make perfect sense to have a A3 to battle against the Benz C-230 coupe and the BMW 320i. I saw picture of the A3 and it look ok, right now i'm considering to purchase an A4 3.0, i want to comapre the A4 3.0 and the S3. Audi should ship the lux-golf here!
  • riezriez Posts: 2,361
    jagboyxtype... Ya gotta stay calm. Did you notice in your most recent post you did write "over 3,000 people just in the US disagree with YOU and with European Car about the X-type."

    Have you even taken the time to read what European Car has written? Or what MT and C&D have previously written? The X-type has gotten mixed reviews at best in America. Don't believe it has "won" a single comparison test. See R&T's recent 11-car sport sedan comparison. Think that says a ton when X-type falls short badly in comparison tests.

    Can you steer me to an American comparison test in which the X-type won?

    And what do sales have to do with how truly good a sport sedan is? I see a lot of people driving Malibu, Taurus, I30, ES300, etc. To many (most!) people a car is either an appliance or a status symbol. But it is only the rare few who are truly interested in all around performance. Some people might argue that low sales are a better indicator. Most people want cushy ride on interstate, not 0-60 times or slalom results. The IS300 crowd might wear their low sales as a badge of honor.
  • riezriez Posts: 2,361
    jagboyxtype... Do you read MT or R&T?

    Check out the November 2001 issue of Motor Trend. MT pans the X-type 3.0 AUTOMATIC in their 5-car comparison. In 10 areas of their "Report Card", the Jag wins just one, styling. Has last place or 2nd to last place rating in powertrain, ride, interior design, seat comfort/support, rear-cabin space, trunk useability, and value. Track results mediocre. Fourth place 0-60 mph time. 2nd slowest slalom time. Worst braking result. They tested a moderately loaded $43,695 one.

    Check out the July 2002 issue of Road & Track. R&T pans the X-type 3.0 MANUAL in their 11-car comparison. X-type comes in 10th overall, 9th in just subjective ratings, and 10th in just performance ratings. They tested a loaded $46,510 one.

    Does that mean you disagree with me, European Car, R&T, and MT? Wonder if you and the other 3,000 people are reading what is out there? And test driving the X-type against its competitors?
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Isn't that comparo a little bit much? I mean how does a "almost a 1/2 second" = "throat raming" or "pummelling" ? I would expect the Jaguar to be faster with a stick and the Benz with an auto. I have nothing against the X-Type, but that test is a little thick in my opinion.

    One other thing: Who says the X-Type has the most rigid structure in this class? I've read that the C320 Sport, 330i and especially the A4 all have very stout structures. This has also been my experience in driving all three of them.

  • riezriez Posts: 2,361
    jagboyxtype... Check out the February 2002 issue of Car and Driver. 7 car comparison. X-type 3.0 MANUAL came in 5th place. Woes included lack of overall performance, poor ride quality, poor brakes, and poor skidpad. X-type was tied for 2nd slowest 0-60 mph time (7.2 seconds), longest braking distance, 2nd worst skidpad result, but did have the 2nd best emergency-lane-change maneuver mph. C&D's X-type was pretty basic, with only a $39,170 MSRP.

    Notice the trend, all the tested X-type's had stickers of $39,000 and up, and most publications harp that the Jag fails to deliver the goods for so many dollars.

    Pushing $40,000 does NOT seem to be entry-level to me. The X-type 2.5 is more the entry-level Jaguar.
  • How about the fact that it look like a Ford Contour? Yikes...
  • Merc1-

    The X-TYPE's structure is 30% more rigid than the previous class leader, the BMW 3-Series. You may check out AutoWeek's review of the car for that information, as well as a review on the site and reviews conducted by Autocar including their "Autocar Book" all about the X-TYPE. I never said that any of those cars you mentioned didn't have very solid and rigid structures nor did I try to imply that, but at the moment, the Jaguar has the most rigid structure in its class.

    Also, as riez would say, "I did not write the article". The reviewers were the ones who said all of those quotes about the X-TYPE beating the C-Class in every part of that test, and not just acceleration times. Take braking ("top drawer" for the X-TYPE), or how they said the cars felt when being driven.


    I pity you, because you only believe what car magazines tell you, and you allow them to choose for you what is best instead of collecting your own information and actually checking things out for yourself. Listen to what you've been sayin: "Car & Driver said this, and MotorTrend said this, and Road & Track said this". Granted, I have used their quotes and stats many times to back my own opinions as well (which I even do here), but you've taken it to an extreme.

    "Do you read MT or R&T?" you ask me.
    Sometimes I do, but only for entertainment purposes. Why? Because I do not trust them, do not believe everything they say, and only take what they have to say as their own human opinions. And I am not the only one who feels that way. ABC News, for instance, did an investigation on the subject of car magazines being biased and omitting facts to suit their own interests. They use the Ford Focus and Car&Driver and MotorTrend's opinions of the car as an example:

    "For example, in January, Car and Driver listed the Ford Focus among its '10 Best Cars of the Year.' It never mentioned that Ford had recalled the Focus eight times for various problems when that review was written [one such recall was because the wheels would fall off of the car!]. Also, just this month, when Motor Trend's review came out — no mention of the recalls or the fact that the government has five ongoing safety-related investigations of the Focus. (It currently has six ongoing investigations, but only five that Motor Trend could have known of when it went to press.)"

    Hmmm. Six government safety investigations, eight major recalls in its few years of production, and the Focus is a favorite among car magazines like Car&Driver and MotorTrend. Well, they can have it, and I'm sure you think it's a wonderful little car since everything they say suddenly becomes law for you.

    ABC also mentions how certain car manufacturers that give all-expense paid trips to reviewers get higher scores and better reviews when the reviewers handle their cars. Even an auto reviewer interviewed in the article said "there are other subtle ways that automakers try to woo the press". MotorTrend's own C. Van Tune admitted to utilizing these perks from certain auto makers although his magazine has the resources to pay for these trips, etc. on its own.

    The warning at the end of the article reads: "So far, the big magazines don't seem to have changed their policies. So, be aware: When you read and see reviews of this year's models, some of those reviews were written by reporters who've been fed and fueled by the car companies."

    It can be expected that comparison tests would be especially succeptible to the effects of biases and perks from some automakers. This is why you cannot believe and trust car magazines for anything more than entertainment and a very few facts.

    "Have you even taken the time to read what European Car has written? Or what MT and C&D have previously written?" you also ask me. Yes, I have. European Car's own review of the X-TYPE is nothing short of pure flattery towards the car. Road&Track's review of the X-TYPE is also very complementary. Car&Driver tested the X-TYPE's 0 - 60 time as just 6.3 seconds and raved about "enthusiast goods" of the car. MotorTrend enjoyed the car very much, and bought their own long-term tester, of which they say "This new X is one shaggy Jaggy" and "I'm anxious to try out the upcoming R version of the X-TYPE, because this is a very good sport sedan". AutoWeek liked the car and decided that "X" was definitely an addition to the "A", "C", and "3" in the sport sedan equation. Forbes wrote a very fine review of the car. A vast majority of other reviews, such as those at carpoint and autobytel are also complementary to the X-TYPE. And again, Autocar was so inspired that they created a minibook about the "Most Important Jaguar Ever" and said that between it and a 330i, they don't know which one they would choose - "it's that close".

    You mention "American" tests in your posts. I must also ask you, however, why you believe that any reviews or comparison tests about the X-TYPE from any other parts of the world are suddenly invalid? They are all reviews, how come only the ones you choose count? There are people from all over the world here at Edmunds, are their views and opinions also invalid to you because they do not live in the same country as you do?

    On the matter of that Road&Track 11 car comparison, the reviewers say:
    "So how, you ask, did a car as nice as the Jaguar X-TYPE end up second to last in this great big comparison test? That's easy: Price."
    Notice that they happened to also have loaded their X-TYPE with every option available on the car including such expensive items as the navigation system, weather package, and premium sound system, etc. Yet, other cars in their test were not fully loaded as the Jaguar was. The BMW, for instance, was lacking its navigation system and other items, the Mercedes-Benz (the second most expensive car in the group at $44,949) also without its navigation system and lacking its premium sound system (and in fact left without a CD player that no one seems to complain about not having in this car for this price, where as the Jaguar can take heat for having just a single-disc indash unit when not equipped with the 6-disc changer). A test with price included is not valid unless all cars are optioned out with the same equipment. The X-TYPE had much more than any of the other cars in the test did. A better comparison for price would have been to compare base prices of the cars or prices of options, or get this: equip the cars similarly. Take note that both the Saab and the Mercedes-Benz have higher starting prices than the Jaguar, and that the Jag's starting price is about $1,500-$2,000 above most of the other cars in the test, and that it comes standard with wood and leather which costs about $1,500-$2,000 to equip on the other cars. AWD is also standard on the Jag, and extra-cost options on the cars that can have it equipped. La
  • <continued>Later in that same R&T issue, they happen to have purchased, out of all those cars, a long-term X-TYPE.

    Also, on price, let's not complain about the X-TYPE when Road&Track's $39,804 (and I count that as near $40,000, wouldn't you?) BMW 330i does not even come with power seats in another comparo (page 74 of their "Road Test Annual 2002").

    So what else did R&T say about the X-TYPE in that 11 car test? How about "Whether the chassis is redolent of Jaguar tradition or not, no one complained that it didn't work. It feels like a modern, well-balanced sports sedan with excellent highway ride and good balance in the corners. Every time we got into a long stretch of fast, curving mountain road, whoever was in the Jag inevitably got on the walkie-talkies we all carry and said, 'This thing is really good in the curves.' It's a confidence-inspiring car, with good grip, linear steering, and precise turn-in. The engine is not bad either...our test car's optional 3.0-litre 4-cam V-6 put out a respectable 231 bhp, keeping it in this fast company with no particular effort...Overall, the X-TYPE is a comfortable, pleasent and useful car with a well-developed chassis...It's a good all-rounder with, probably just as much British charm as most modern drivers really want. Independent of price, it scored in about the middle of our group in performance and subjective ratings." As a side note, they also say, "The Jag's interior is a rich assemblage of shapes and textures, done up with nice details like the silver-rimmed green-faced gauges. Given its soft ride, the X-TYPE delivered surprisingly good handling".

    And most of its other reviews have said pretty much the same things about the car as stated above: good handling, nice styling, comfortable interior. Yeah, there are some bad reviews, but there are many many more good ones, and it doesnt't get "panned" as you have continually been repeating.

    Let's also not overlook the TOP GEAR 2002 Motoring Survey, in which "over 37,000 motorists" were spoken to about 120 car models and 33 manufacturers. The rankings for the entry-level cars were:

    1.) Lexus IS 200

    2.) Jaguar X-TYPE

    3.) BMW 3-Series

    4.) Mercedes-Benz C-Class

    5.) Audi A4 and A4 Avant (wagon)

    6.) Saab 9-3

    7.) Volvo S40 and V40 (wagon)

    8.) Alfa Romeo 156

    They had little quotes by some of the cars. The X-TYPE's read: "Just past its first anniversary and the X-Type enters the survey three places ahead of the BMW 3-Series [out of the total 120 cars]. Great dealer service, few problems and good dynamics see to that."

    Let's not argue here though riez. We both have opinions, and I simply don't agree with yours. Hostilities aside, have a great day! :-)



    The whole Jaguar/Ford thing died a long time ago. X-TYPE shares 6 points on its platform with the Mondeo - not even its entire platform, and it shares no body panels with any other car. Anyone could just as easily say that your A4 is just a Jetta with four rings on its grille.



    Sorry, I thought that you had already deleted the post as it had not appeared on my page until I clicked on "scroll up". I had just assumed that you had taken care of it when I didn't see it load on the page I was at.

Sign In or Register to comment.