Had to spread the good news - seems Jaguar have a winner on their hands. I've heard there were some problems with early cars, but I've had absolutely no problems and I'm delighted with it.
I got my 2003 spec 2.5 Sport in September and it just gets better and better. Handling in the wet is phenomenal and the engine is loosening up nicely.
On the downside, the mpg could be better, but thats about it!
Nice to be able to praise a 'british' product.
|
I like the new advert for the Jaguar XKR, really neat with the rockets and chain guns. I wish I could buy one it would certainly sort out the JCBs and the tractors holding up the rush hour traffic! It's good to see the producers of the Bond movies using Jags and Astons again instead of boring old BMW's.
Seriously I would really like a Jag but at the moment I need an estate, but when the kids leave home, well....
|
|
I have heard that there is an x type estate isn the pipeline. Due in about a year.
|
|
|
|
Great cars no doubt...provided you never need to open the glove box...sorry, boot. I run a saloon now, but simply couldn't have a Jag, X or S no matter how good a 3.0 man with 4WD might be to drive. The kids just wanna take too clobber, whether its just to the park (bikes) or the coast in the summer.
|
|
|
|
Simon,
Couldn't agree more...had my 2.5 SE Auto for a year and it does get better and better.
Few minor niggles fixed promptly by dealer such as leaking washer nozzles - see X-Type website for the X community..mainly Americans with good taste...no kidding!
Regards,
Matt35.
|
|
|
Had a walk around the main dealers showroom in Luton last week, they had pre registered about a dozen or so.
Seems they didn't reach targets last month & were offering a saving of around 15%ish on list.
Lots of colour/spec choice, didn't get the cheque book out, though!
Mark
|
The 2.5 4wd doesn't have traction control unless you mean the optional DSC?
Its always worth driving before you buy - and not just around the block.
I tried the 2.1 V6 and didn't like it. It was far too 'ordinary', and in base trim seemed a bit cheap inside.
But I also tried the A4 (boring to drive), S60 (turbo lag of epic proportions), 3 series (nothing special), X5 (nice, but slow as a diesel) and C class (nasty interior) before deciding on the 2.5 X Type Sport.
My tips on the X Type - stick to 2.5 or 3.0 - Sport spec has by far the best seats - choose interior colour carefully, as the black dash looks best (therefore black, red or tan seats)- choose options carefully as it can get very expensive.
|
Tried all the same - different conclusion.
The X type drove and felt like a Mondeo (which is fine, the Mondeo drives well). Just a bit ordinary.
The 3 series was the best drive but not very comfortable and everyone and his wife has one.
The A4 was ditch dull in all respects but built well.
Don't remember the S60 having too much turbo lag, certainly not the 2.4T which was the best all round package of the bunch (IMHO).
|
Interesting thread to read, as I am also after a car in this market sector.
My findings were:
X-Type - The 2.5 Sport I drove did nothing for me. Cumbersome gear change with all that four wheel drive gubbins spinning away, and was suprisingly sluggish: Nailing the throttle at medium revs picked up speed, sure, but didn't thrust the car down the road with the same effortless grunt that my current Vectra GSi Estate, with similar power, similar weight, but a much fatter torque curve, does.
MG ZT - Much better than the X-Type, and more rewarding to drive. Beautiful steering feeback, nothing rattled, Serene cruising, and more instant grunt than the X-Type. My only worry would be residual value, as this will be my car.
Audi A4 - Booooring. More common than Posh.
3 Series - See A4, and also, too small.
Merc C - Too small, and I don't want the baggage that comes with the badge.
Volvo S60 - The T5 does indeed suffer chronic turbo lag, followed by warp drive accelaration. I was amazed at the contrast between the two. The 2.4T however, as recommended to me by HJ as being the better of the two, has already built up colossal torque by the time it reaches 1800 RPM, and which it holds to the red line. A wonderful car, effortlessly fast, wonderful to cruise in, and what I am about to buy.
/Steve
|
Steve,
Couldn't agree more about the 2.4T engine. I had a V70 (new shape) 2.4T for a couple of years, as recommended by HJ and it was a tremendous engine but a bit thirsty if driven hard. I now have a V70 D5 not as quick up to 60mph but, with more torgue than the T5 I think the in gear acceleration is just as good as the 2.4T, and a lot cheaper to run e,g, averaged 42-44 mpg cruising at up to 100mph in France this year, with 4 up and luggage stacked up to the roof.
Enjoy your new S60 2.4T it's a fabulous drive.
|
|
|
I guess its different strokes for different folks.
The S60 2.OT had chronic turbo lag so I didn't try any others. The dealer seemed very surprised at my comments and didn't offer the 2.4T as the solution.
I thought the S60's suspension was too soft, the gear change was ponderous (my X Type box is much better), rear seat room was poor (especially headroom) and the leather seats seemed poor quality as they were more like plastic than leather. On the plus side the stereo was the best I've ever heard and the equipment levels were very generous.
Guess we should be glad were not all the same!
Simon
|
Just shows what happens when dealers don't take much interest!
My guess is that a 2.4T with the sports suspension set up would have given you an altogether different experience.
I wouldn't have bothered with the 2.0T and would agree that it's underpowered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
