Jaguar X-Type Estate - Questioning HJs review

Honest John Back Room » Motoring discussion
View Threaded
Fri 13 Jan 2012 19:47
Jaguar X-Type Estate - Questioning HJs review - guygamps

I may be in the market soon for an Estate, me being me, I want something a little exclusive, me being me I like my leather and luxury, and as readers may know, I like my Jags I always remember Top Gear (JC) reviewing a X type estate very favourably, it beat a Volvo Estate (don't remember which one) in a group test. I liked the improved front end treatment after final facelift. I like the interior as it also improved in the later years, and was thinking of going to see this at the weekend. Before doing so, I wanted to se what HJ says about it, and was rather shocked at this statement om the car by car analysis. "Late X-Types on 08/09/10 reg best avoided as quality went down because a lot of the work force were working notice and because a lot of the cars sat in compounds for extended periods before being sold." On my part I would like as near to new as possible, meaning an 09 car, and conventional wisdom is that later cars are better as problems get ironed out during lifespan, yet this rather sweeping statement seems to wipe out the last 3 years of production as not being worth looking at, and in turn means HJ is suggesting looking only at examples which might be 5 years old or more. I have no aversion to driving older cars, but really want to sanity check that analysis. What is the detail behind that statement above? can any users of later Xtype estates comment? Thanks

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 14 Jan 2012 00:35
Jaguar X-Type Estate - Questioning HJs review - rtj70

If you want a Mondeo then get one. Or wait a bit and get an XF estate, X-types are old hat.

X-Type = Mondeo

P.S. Sentences and paragraphs help postings.

Edited by rtj70 on 14/01/2012 at 00:37

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 14 Jan 2012 09:07
Jaguar X-Type Estate - Questioning HJs review - daveyjp
You dont say which engine you are looking at.

I had a 2.2 SE diesel auto 58 reg and it is without doubt a very comfortable long distance cruiser. Being one of the last it had just about every extra. Auto was the same as fitted to BMWs, very smooth changes.

I can also tell you that it was streets ahead in terms of performance, refinement, comfort, noise supression than the Mondeo 2.0 tdci auto I had as a courtesy car whilst I owned the Jag.

Cabin space was probably tighter than modern cars, especially headroom, but the boot was plenty large enough.

Mine had a DPF and IMHO the system was a bodge to a fine engine, it regenerated a lot and this reduces oil change intervals. The 2.2 manual never had one and has more grunt, the auto version is detuned to protect the gearbox.

Mine also ate front tyres. Worst was 8,000 miles, best was 16,000.

If I had another it would be a 3.0 petrol Sovereign version. An 09 with 27,000 miles is less than 15k from a Jag dealer.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 14 Jan 2012 09:12
Jaguar X-Type Estate - Questioning HJs review - RT
Auto was the same as fitted to BMWs,

When did BMW start using transverse engines?

The reality is that it's an Aisin autobox, division of Toyota, used by Toyota, Opel/Vauxhall, Saab, Volvo, LR Freelander, recent Fords, recent Peugeot/Citroens

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 14 Jan 2012 10:15
Jaguar X-Type Estate - Questioning HJs review - guygamps

Thanki you for your responses,

I don't want a Mondeo, the current model is too large for my comfort, the X Type "just right". Also as I said in my opening statement, I like cars that are a little bit exclusive.

Budget won't stretch to an XF or XF Estate, so I am not tempted to wait for that.

There is lot about a late X Type Estate that appeals and yes, I do know it is a Mondeo underneath, and I am not deterred by that, Mondeo may not have the exclusivity I want, it may be a bit big, but I am not in any doubt it is a good car, good chassis, good engines.

I would love to see an answer from HJ to my question regarding his apparent writing off ot the last 3 years production, that was the reason for the posting

The observations made about the Diesel Auto are very interesting, the vehicle I am looking at is an 09 2.2 Diesel Manual, so according to the forum, that means without DPF, but maybe the better for it? (compared with an auto)

Thanks

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 14 Jan 2012 10:57
Jaguar X-Type Estate - Questioning HJs review - injection doc

I have owned both 2.0d & 2.2d jaguars. As already stated the 2 engines are as different as chalk & cheeses. The 2.0 ltr is very good but the 2.2 is just so smooth & quiet & the grunt for a diesel is quite astonishing.

In fact the guy who bought my 2.2, on test drive had a grin from ear to ear & said how much more tourque it had compared with his 3.0AWD jag. His biggest complaint about his petrol one was MPG & engine noise, he said as soon as he gave it a squirt the engine really growled.

The 2.2 auto has a reduced engine power output, & I guess the reson was to preserve the autobox. Manual 160 bhp & 400NM@1900rpm The Auto was 150BHP but 320NM @1900rpm.

I can assure you as I used mine for towing a lot, massive difference between 320 & 400nm !

The manual 2.2 used to make me grin on acceleration, it was so effortless especially up hill & on motorway inclines, if you got a BMW rep-mobile sitting on your tail on an incline just ease down on the gas & it just pulled away like a train, didnt even need to drop it out of 6th. Great car & still miss my 2.2 today. It may be old hack by now but I would still have another & never enjoyed any car so much in 35 years of motoring other than a Carlton GSi 24V & still miss that one big time.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 14 Jan 2012 11:59
Jaguar X-Type Estate - Questioning HJs review - guygamps

Thank you for that very positive endorsement of the 2.2 diesel manual, its interesting you mention up hill on motorways, only yesterday I was talking to a VW sales rep (about the new Passat 1.6tdi estate) and asked if would accelerate well with 5 people and luggage and he alsmost sneered at me for wanting a sports car... no I said... it is not about wanting a sports car, it is about needing to pick up speed on a slip road where you are on an incline or quickly gettingt up to speed having joined a busy motoroway with HGVs breathing down your neck, or having to pass something safely and quickly. Around my neck of the woods there are plenty of examples of major intersections to major roads where the traffic is very busy, where you join on an incline and where over the years I have felt vulnerably if the power hasn't been there to pick up the speed necessary.

From the 2.2 manual you had... what MPG (real world as opposed to book figure) did you typically get.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 14 Jan 2012 12:14
Jaguar X-Type Estate - Questioning HJs review - injection doc

My daily commute was 244 miles, 122 each way , 90 of which was motorway.

In a hurry I used to return 38mpg mostly 93mph indicated as it crusied best at this speed. if I sat at 75 it would return 44 and if I crusied for economey 65 ish it would break the 50mpg barrier.

Mine were saloons, fuel consumption was brilliant, only my Passat Highline DSG could improve on it but didnt have the sheer tourque of the Jag.

I belive that the 2.2 was stopped in production due to emmissions but has now been re-instated in the XF.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 14 Jan 2012 12:56
Jaguar X-Type Estate - Questioning HJs review - daveyjp
The X type 2.2 is a Ford unit, the XF is from PSA.

Mine had a blocked EGR after less than 20,000 and is a common problem. Blanking them off is common practice, plenty on the net about what you need to do. My auto did about 40 on a run, but 50 was possible when I was sensible, manual is better.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link