RE: Jaguar XE - full details

[AB]

Well doesn't that just look great!

Low CO2 on the entry level diesel means I expect this could become company car of choice.

[RobM77]

Zad said:

I see the Hitler point has been reached already; Top Gear has been mentioned. Game over. As ever, conveniently forgetting that people had opinions way, way before they were spouted on TV thus making them instantly void among PH cognoscenti.

To precis: "Well I've driven every car ever, and so have my friends and we all agree that Fords all handle like crap. And to prove my point, Top Gear say they are great."

Well there we are then, game over. All those reviews you ever read are totally wrong, as are all the opinions of PHers who have driven them. Strange that.

The fact that you're willing to accept the opinion of a bunch of random people on the web, who consistently prove themselves to know very little about cars (I can quote examples if you like!), over a selection of chassis engineers, racing drivers and race engineers, says it all really. To do this you need to reduce that group of learned people to 'my friends' (who on the contrary I would consider to be people I know well and talk to regularly, and they're a very different bunch of people, most of whom aren't interested in cars), so that speaks volumes as well I think - you have to twist my words to make them sound wrong. I would suggest that you leave your keyboard and drive Mondeo class cars from Ford, Peugeot, Vauxhall, BMW, Audi, Mercedes, Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Citroen, Alfa, Skoda and VW and then report back on what you think of the ride and handling, the damping, the steering, the responses etc. Then go round a selection of automotive experts and discuss what you've found and ask for their opinions and thoughts. I would suggest that you then consider your findings in higher regard than the opinions of certain (not all) television presenters and journalists.

[trashbat]

Does anyone really need to go and drive every shopping car in existence before you can acknowledge that the Parry-Jones era at Ford produced some good handling, well-respected cars?

[RobM77]

trashbat said:

Does anyone really need to go and drive every shopping car in existence before you can acknowledge that the Parry-Jones era at Ford produced some good handling, well-respected cars?

No, but I think it's necessary before someone criticises in the way that he did.

[tenpenceshort]

Just so long as they don't spend the next 10,400 posts criticising BMW's throttle-by-wire as if they were Senna himself.

[DonkeyApple]

I like BMWs. I am not a fan but I think that they are good cars. I've had two, a 540 and a 130. Both have been solid cars and nice to drive at sensible paces. I don't think the 130 is at all good when seriously pressing on, there is something fundamentally not right in the set up and the interior is no more special than many much cheaper cars. The 540 was a nice car but it felt confused inside. It was trying to be luxurious. It had what I would call leather which was an option above what BMW try and call leather but it had vile plastic painted to look like wood and stuck in weird places that wood just would never have been in a car. They were nice cars but to me nothing remotely special. Consumable, forgettable, disposable utilities. I have no passion at all for this spectrum or car. In fact, off the top of my head I don't think I have any actual passion for any modern German car. In my mind they are all just utility tools and so much so that owners are reduced to defining them by what their wheels look like.

In my mind, given a level playing field of costs/performance etc I can't even begin to fathom why a Merc or BMW would ever be an option ahead of a Jaguar. I've always seen Jaguars as a little bit more than just a utility product where owners argue over who has the largest or best wheel design. But I guess much of our logic stems from our childhood and I was surrounded by Jags and their like as a child and the odd Audi for commercial tasks but never BMW or Merc.

Taking this into account I am interested though as to the reasoning to why wouldn't someone opt for the Jaguar if all logical factors are even?

[cerb4.5lee]

DonkeyApple said:

Taking this into account I am interested though as to the reasoning to why wouldn't someone opt for the Jaguar if all logical factors are even?

For me rightly or wrongly its the perceived reliability and don't get me wrong all makes of cars break down but because Land Rover/Range Rover have such a poor reliability record it would make me think twice about buying a Jag because its the same firm.

From experience with owning a TVR buying British needs a big leap of faith as you are never sure whether you will get a good one or not and this perceived image is probably massively unfair but that is the reason why its unlikely I will ever own a Jag yet this new car impresses me very much and I really love the F-Type too.

[DonkeyApple]

cerb4.5lee said:

For me rightly or wrongly its the perceived reliability and don't get me wrong all makes of cars break down but because Land Rover/Range Rover have such a poor reliability record it would make me think twice about buying a Jag because its the same firm.

From experience with owning a TVR buying British needs a big leap of faith as you are never sure whether you will get a good one or not and this perceived image is probably massively unfair but that is the reason why its unlikely I will ever own a Jag yet this new car impresses me very much and I really love the F-Type too.

Yup. Certainly Tivs because they were built using cheap electrics and unclever wiring etc develop real issues if they live outside. As you know, I've had them for 20+ years now but because they are always in a dry garage I've never had any of the issues many owners have. I've certainly been stranded more often by immaculately maintained and known history BMW than I have Tivs but I am more than happy to concede that a sample of one is ultimately irrelevant and that the majority of evidence points clearly to the contrary. Although I would say that I would walk across several miles of sodden field in the dark, in winter to get help for a TVR, whereas with a BMW I wouldn't just not be arsed to get my feet muddy but I'd have serious contemplation to burning it to keep warm until someone stopped to give me a lift.

In London I don't recall seeing any issues with Jags but strangely the most common car to see stationary at the first few junctions of a motorway leaving town seem to be Land Rovers. Whether I just notice them more than others may be debatable but I don't think so. London is clearly full of Land Rovers that just potter about on short journeys and then when asked to open up to head out of town have some kind of freak out. An AA chap I met a couple of years ago while having a car recovered from Fleet Services (note, a BMW. I wanted to take the Tiv but oh no, the boss told me to take the BMW and then she bhed about being stuck at Fleet Services while I learned all about the criminally insane world of the runflat tyre ) told me that their ECU shuts the car down if the emissions aren't acceptable or some such exciting event that is easy to reset but not by the roadside.

[cerb4.5lee]

DonkeyApple said:

cerb4.5lee said:

For me rightly or wrongly its the perceived reliability and don't get me wrong all makes of cars break down but because Land Rover/Range Rover have such a poor reliability record it would make me think twice about buying a Jag because its the same firm.

From experience with owning a TVR buying British needs a big leap of faith as you are never sure whether you will get a good one or not and this perceived image is probably massively unfair but that is the reason why its unlikely I will ever own a Jag yet this new car impresses me very much and I really love the F-Type too.

Yup. Certainly Tivs because they were built using cheap electrics and unclever wiring etc develop real issues if they live outside. As you know, I've had them for 20+ years now but because they are always in a dry garage I've never had any of the issues many owners have. I've certainly been stranded more often by immaculately maintained and known history BMW than I have Tivs but I am more than happy to concede that a sample of one is ultimately irrelevant and that the majority of evidence points clearly to the contrary. Although I would say that I would walk across several miles of sodden field in the dark, in winter to get help for a TVR, whereas with a BMW I wouldn't just not be arsed to get my feet muddy but I'd have serious contemplation to burning it to keep warm until someone stopped to give me a lift.

In London I don't recall seeing any issues with Jags but strangely the most common car to see stationary at the first few junctions of a motorway leaving town seem to be Land Rovers. Whether I just notice them more than others may be debatable but I don't think so. London is clearly full of Land Rovers that just potter about on short journeys and then when asked to open up to head out of town have some kind of freak out. An AA chap I met a couple of years ago while having a car recovered from Fleet Services (note, a BMW. I wanted to take the Tiv but oh no, the boss told me to take the BMW and then she bhed about being stuck at Fleet Services while I learned all about the criminally insane world of the runflat tyre ) told me that their ECU shuts the car down if the emissions aren't acceptable or some such exciting event that is easy to reset but not by the roadside.

It is massively unfair for me to think of Jags/Land rovers in this way because I obviously haven't experienced them for myself but clearly it would make me think twice about buying one purely from perception, as for a TVR I will get another in the future for a fact because I think they are awesome warts and all!

I think I have been very lucky with the six bmw`s I have owned as(touch wood)nothing has gone wrong with any of them but you read plenty of horror stories about them for sure and I just think with buying any make of car you either get lucky or you don't its as simple as that I reckon.

[ORD]

My dad has driven Jags ever since I was a kid. Every single one has gone dramatically wrong at some point and cost thousands to repair.

It wouldn't put me off, because the new cars are just that, but they have not been reliable cars for the last 20 years or so, and that kind of image is hard to shake.

I expect that the XE will be no less reliable than any BMW or VAG car, but it might take a while for the general public to notice the change in reliability.

I have a slight preference for Jags over BMWs (purely subjective) so would, all things being equal, take the XE over a 3 series. All things aren't equal, though, as the XE would have to try pretty hard not to be better to drive than its competition.

My prediction - the XE will be reviewed by the motoring press as being about the same dynamically as a 3 series (because they have this nuts idea that the 3 is any good in that respect) and being slightly worse than the Audi and the C-class as regards its interior. It will be given 1st or 2nd spot overall in the Autocar, Top Gear etc rankings, and the 4 cyl diesel will sell very well.

[gherkins]

Several months ago I was chatting to a guy who works for a turbo company, which collaborates with many of the "luxury" car companies. He stated unequivocally that Jaguar was the most impressive company he'd had dealing with - the investment in the future, the dynamism and motivation of the staff and the importance placed on engineering. He said that BMW particularly were very disappointing - that they were slow, arrogant and seemed committee driven.

He was not British and he said all this before he knew I had a Jaguar.

[Overhaul]

I'd give that garage space next to the Ferrari !
Mind you, I'll wait for the V8 one first

[andyps]

cerb4.5lee said:

For me rightly or wrongly its the perceived reliability and don't get me wrong all makes of cars break down but because Land Rover/Range Rover have such a poor reliability record it would make me think twice about buying a Jag because its the same firm.

From experience with owning a TVR buying British needs a big leap of faith as you are never sure whether you will get a good one or not and this perceived image is probably massively unfair but that is the reason why its unlikely I will ever own a Jag yet this new car impresses me very much and I really love the F-Type too.

I think the word perceived is really important in your first sentence. I find it really interesting how there is a perception that British cars are unreliable but German ones are not. When I was buying my XK8 everything I read said about the nikasil problems with the early V8 engines, despite this being a problem which occurred may years earlier and any cars which didn't get a replacement engine would be perfectly OK now. If you look at buying guides for BMW they rarely mention Nikasil but suffered the same issue as Jaguar. How often is the E46 3 series boot flor/subfrane cracking problem raised when people discuss how great they are? Yet this is a major issue (probably sorted on many cars now, but there are still some around which are suffering from it) which seriously affects the car. Similarly, my brother when looking at early Porsche 997s recently finally managed to unearth the fact that they are very likely to suffer engine issues which cost substantial sums to fix.

Trouble is, a bad reputation is hard to shake off, but they don't need to be perpetuated without wider facts to compare them with other makes.

[cerb4.5lee]

andyps said:

cerb4.5lee said:

For me rightly or wrongly its the perceived reliability and don't get me wrong all makes of cars break down but because Land Rover/Range Rover have such a poor reliability record it would make me think twice about buying a Jag because its the same firm.

From experience with owning a TVR buying British needs a big leap of faith as you are never sure whether you will get a good one or not and this perceived image is probably massively unfair but that is the reason why its unlikely I will ever own a Jag yet this new car impresses me very much and I really love the F-Type too.

I think the word perceived is really important in your first sentence. I find it really interesting how there is a perception that British cars are unreliable but German ones are not. When I was buying my XK8 everything I read said about the nikasil problems with the early V8 engines, despite this being a problem which occurred may years earlier and any cars which didn't get a replacement engine would be perfectly OK now. If you look at buying guides for BMW they rarely mention Nikasil but suffered the same issue as Jaguar. How often is the E46 3 series boot flor/subfrane cracking problem raised when people discuss how great they are? Yet this is a major issue (probably sorted on many cars now, but there are still some around which are suffering from it) which seriously affects the car. Similarly, my brother when looking at early Porsche 997s recently finally managed to unearth the fact that they are very likely to suffer engine issues which cost substantial sums to fix.

Trouble is, a bad reputation is hard to shake off, but they don't need to be perpetuated without wider facts to compare them with other makes.

You make a very good point and basically all manufacturers have faults and even before I purchased a TVR pretty much everyone told me not to buy one but I wanted one anyway and TVR will never shake off a bad reputation but I have heard the phrase "perception is reality" and in many ways surely there is some truth in that.

I have said its unfair of me to judge Jaguar without experiencing one but you do have to take your hat off to the German marques I think because whether or not in reality they are actually reliable the majority think they are so they have already won the battle.

You also make a decent point regards Porsche because I only ever tend to read about faults with them and them being epically expensive to repair when they go wrong but I suppose the same goes for any manufacturer you only read about when they go wrong and not what a great marque they are.

[hackjo]

In an ideal world I would prefer Jaguar to stay away from the mid market. It would be great for them to carry on concentrating on producing high-end and luxury vehicles for discerning clients. However, I accept that the reality is they need to compete In the fleet market in order for them to survive into the future.

What troubles me is the fact that they have chosen to do that with a product that aesthetically, doesn't stand out sufficiently from the competition. I believe it was entirely possible for Jaguar to produce something as original and beautiful as the XJ, XK and F-Type. They could do this without being overly radical, thus making the car attractive to a large customer base. But it could still stand out from the competition as the most attractive and aspirational car in the class.

Then there is the concern over the long-term erosion of the brand's values. What do people know Jaguar for right now? It's mostly distinctiveness, beautiful styling, individuality, unique driving experience, luxury and performance. If you say Jaaag, a lot of people get what you mean straight away. There is nothing quite like a Jaguar. It's these attributes that build the reputation of a brand and keep people coming back to it for more in later years. If you start to erode some of these things away, you slowly undermine your unique selling points. The long-term effect of this is that you no longer stand out in the market. Customers are unable to identify with what your product offers over the competition.

A great example of this was Rover. Up to the early 70s, Rover were known for producing luxurious, distinctive, sporty and prestigious cars that were often technically, a cut above their competition. They were also known for fantastic build quality. Then, under BL, they started going downmarket. They began to cut corners on the build quality to save cost. We all know what happened with that. Then in later years, they started producing front wheel drive cars that were based on Hondas. They also applied the brand to cars in lower segments which resulted in vehicles such as the Rover Metro. Eventually, nobody really knew what the brand stood for. What's more, if you are buying a top of the range Rover 800 Coupe for £30,000, then you could feel slightly aggrieved that the same badge on your steering wheel can also be seen on the front of some old ladies £7000 shopping trolley. Out goes any semblance of premium values.

Another example is Saab. Then there's MG, of course. And arguably right now, BMW. It's not really hit them as of yet but rest assured, their relentless range expansion and dumbing down of the driving experience will eventually come to bite them on the arse.

You have to look at these things from a long-term point of view. The Jaguar XE may well be an excellent car from a technical standpoint. But if it starts a gradual erosion of the unique qualities that have always made Jaguar special, then it will be a serious mistake. With the rather bland and generic exterior and interior styling we've seen so far, I am seriously concerned that will be the case.

The other concern I have is that Jaguar seem to be extremely touchy about referencing their traditional styling cues in new vehicles. There is a perception that the cars that came before the XF were styled for "old men". While it's true that cars such as the S-Type in their earlier incarnations were extremely fussy, conservative in terms of colour choices and trim materials and somewhat dowdy in appearance as a result, later versions that have benefited from facelifts and styling tweaks such as the use of aluminium on the interiors, aggressive body kits and blacked out chrome were actually extremely attractive and aggressive looking cars. Think Bentley Continental. No one ever says that the Bentley is a car for old men. In fact it is the preserve mostly of young footballers and rich Arabs. This is because it is extremely distinctive, has retro styling features that people can relate to but presented in a package that is thoroughly modern. Had Jaguar presented older models such as the S type in a more modern way and marketed them with more finesse, things may have been very different.

Cars like the F-Type prove that Jaguar can incorporate retro styling features in a thoroughly modern package. They need to do more of this in order to keep their distinctiveness.

However, it seems that they are obsessed with fitting in with the generic competition and are afraid to express their heritage in new vehicles. While I'm not advocating returning to the days of overly fussy retro styling and conservative marketing. I think Jaguar would do well to be true to their brand, else they will regret it in years to come.

Edited by hackjo on Thursday 11th September 13:09

[monamimate]

Tempting fate here, I know…

We have a Freelander II, 6 years old, with around 150,000km on it.

So far, we have not had any major problems. Rear wiper engine had to be replaced, we now need a new key, and we had one headlight stop working…

It gets used everyday, short and long trips, all weathers.

So far, it has been one of the most reliable vehicles we have had.


Note: for the headlight, the dealer wanted of course to replace the whole unit. Our local independent LR specialist took it apart, repaired the loose wire, and wasn't even going to charge us for the work!! Worked fine ever since.

[Johnnytheboy]

My father is planning to buy one of these. He's after a higher-output diesel version, let's hope they drop the 3 litre V6 diesel into it.

[KTF]

Johnnytheboy said:

My father is planning to buy one of these.

Just the sort of target audience they were hoping to avoid then

[ORD]

hackjo said:

In an ideal world I would prefer Jaguar to stay away from the mid market. It would be great for them to carry on concentrating on producing high-end and luxury vehicles for discerning clients. However, I accept that the reality is they need to compete In the fleet market in order for them to survive into the future.

What troubles me is the fact that they have chosen to do that with a product that aesthetically, doesn't stand out sufficiently from the competition. I believe it was entirely possible for Jaguar to produce something as original and beautiful as the XJ, XK and F-Type. They could do this without being overly radical, thus making the car attractive to a large customer base. But it could still stand out from the competition as the most attractive and aspirational car in the class.

Then there is the concern over the long-term erosion of the brand's values. What do people know Jaguar for right now? It's mostly distinctiveness, beautiful styling, individuality, unique driving experience, luxury and performance. If you say Jaaag, a lot of people get what you mean straight away. There is nothing quite like a Jaguar. It's these attributes that build the reputation of a brand and keep people coming back to it for more in later years. If you start to erode some of these things away, you slowly undermine your unique selling points. The long-term effect of this is that you no longer stand out in the market. Customers are unable to identify with what your product offers over the competition.

A great example of this was Rover. Up to the early 70s, Rover were known for producing luxurious, distinctive, sporty and prestigious cars that were often technically, a cut above their competition. They were also known for fantastic build quality. Then, under BL, they started going downmarket. They began to cut corners on the build quality to save cost. We all know what happened with that. Then in later years, they started producing front wheel drive cars that were based on Hondas. They also applied the brand to cars in lower segments which resulted in vehicles such as the Rover Metro. Eventually, nobody really knew what the brand stood for. What's more, if you are buying a top of the range Rover 800 Coupe for £30,000, then you could feel slightly aggrieved that the same badge on your steering wheel can also be seen on the front of some old ladies £7000 shopping trolley. Out goes any semblance of premium values.

Another example is Saab. Then there's MG, of course. And arguably right now, BMW. It's not really hit them as of yet but rest assured, their relentless range expansion and dumbing down of the driving experience will eventually come to bite them on the arse.

You have to look at these things from a long-term point of view. The Jaguar XE may well be an excellent car from a technical standpoint. But if it starts a gradual erosion of the unique qualities that have always made Jaguar special, then it will be a serious mistake. With the rather bland and generic exterior and interior styling we've seen so far, I am seriously concerned that will be the case.

The other concern I have is that Jaguar seem to be extremely touchy about referencing their traditional styling cues in new vehicles. There is a perception that the cars that came before the XF were styled for "old men". While it's true that cars such as the S-Type in their earlier incarnations were extremely fussy, conservative in terms of colour choices and trim materials and somewhat dowdy in appearance as a result, later versions that have benefited from facelifts and styling tweaks such as the use of aluminium on the interiors, aggressive body kits and blacked out chrome were actually extremely attractive and aggressive looking cars. Think Bentley Continental. No one ever says that the Bentley is a car for old men. In fact it is the preserve mostly of young footballers and rich Arabs. This is because it is extremely distinctive, has retro styling features that people can relate to but presented in a package that is thoroughly modern. Had Jaguar presented older models such as the S type in a more modern way and marketed them with more finesse, things may have been very different.

Cars like the F-Type prove that Jaguar can incorporate retro styling features in a thoroughly modern package. They need to do more of this in order to keep their distinctiveness.

However, it seems that they are obsessed with fitting in with the generic competition and are afraid to express their heritage in new vehicles. While I'm not advocating returning to the days of overly fussy retro styling and conservative marketing. I think Jaguar would do well to be true to their brand, else they will regret it in years to come.

Edited by hackjo on Thursday 11th September 13:09

The "thoroughly modern" F-Type is a repackaged XK!

I think you are roughly 1 million miles off what Jaguar's image is, or at least was until very recently. The brand has been for years associated with expensive, slightly unreliable cars for fairly elderly men. The British have cut Jaguar a lot of slack over the years, to be honest, and it has survived despite producing some pretty average cars for quite a while. It has upped its game in the last few years, and I believe and hope that it will make a real success of the XE.

I don't think Bentley is a worthwhile comparator. Bentleys are bizarre. Buying one is an absurd act of conspicuous consumption, as they are manifestly ugly cars!

[The Vambo]

jamieduff1981 said:

I didn't like the Puma or first gen Ka either, by the way. I thought both felt cheap compared to the contemporary Nissans I had access to. Pretty, sure, but they drove like cheap cars, bouncing and rattling along compared to the smoother riding, predictable and all-round engineered until finished feeling the K11 Micra and Almeras gave.

Have another



The Ford puma, IMHO, is one of the few cars that if you don't like the ride/handling then it is definitely you, not the car at fault.
It is perfect and while not a better car it had better resolved ride and handling than my old 205 GTi, ph1 172 and 200 cup. (maybe just better ride than the cup)

As for comparing it to a shopping trolly Micra....