RE: Jaguar C-X17 full details
Discussion
john_r said:
Glad it's not just me then... slightly squarer 'BMW' front with a Jag grill and a bigger roof lip spoiler on a Mazda CX-7.
I could not replace my 2.3 petrol CX-7 when I came to change. They had stopped building it. I now have a very nice but slow Freelander SD4. I wish they'd been selling this Jag back at Christmas. It would suit my needs and wants perfectly.How much of this is based on Land Rover technology?
(The CX-7 is still in the family, just not mine any more. I miss it.)
Ah yes, isn't it funny how most SUV concepts look great? It's because that photo could be of a mini clubman sized car. What are these wheels? 22"? Imagine it with small 18" wheels and smaller wheel arches and you get close to what the actual car might be.
Handsome enough if it looked like this, but it could be so much better - DAKAR RALLY CARS PEOPLE!! Big wheel arches on the XF, then raise it 12" and fit big tyres. Or do a LM002! Please someone!
Handsome enough if it looked like this, but it could be so much better - DAKAR RALLY CARS PEOPLE!! Big wheel arches on the XF, then raise it 12" and fit big tyres. Or do a LM002! Please someone!
RacerMike said:
don logan said:
Sorry to disappoint, but that's just one of the remaining camo'd 'SportsHated SUVs, 'til I drove an X5
Its airy cabin was relaxing and comfortable, the raised seat height/eye line was useful for seeing ahead in town traffic and over hedges, etc, on B-roads. And, dare I say it, I also liked its sense of security.
Its handling was a revelation and the AWD useful in snow/rain/floods or for softcore off-roading - eg, crossing a wet Glasto' field - and its inability to match a Rangie or Disco off-road was inconsequential, as I'm not a farmer or a huntin'/shootin'/fishin' type.
But I'm also not an urban coke dealer/pimp-type and I dislike the X5's 'get out of my way little man!' vibe, which Jag seems to have neatly side-stepped.
Canny Jag, very canny
Its airy cabin was relaxing and comfortable, the raised seat height/eye line was useful for seeing ahead in town traffic and over hedges, etc, on B-roads. And, dare I say it, I also liked its sense of security.
Its handling was a revelation and the AWD useful in snow/rain/floods or for softcore off-roading - eg, crossing a wet Glasto' field - and its inability to match a Rangie or Disco off-road was inconsequential, as I'm not a farmer or a huntin'/shootin'/fishin' type.
But I'm also not an urban coke dealer/pimp-type and I dislike the X5's 'get out of my way little man!' vibe, which Jag seems to have neatly side-stepped.
Canny Jag, very canny
Edited by NGK210 on Monday 9th September 23:13
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24018350
Looks like a Volvo to me
Is it using Lotus Versatile Vehicle Architecure chassis concept?
At least car manufacturing is moving forward given decent management
I don't mind it to be honest, but I still can't see the point in it from a buyer's point of view.
I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong but I have hobbies that involve fairly big stuff, buy a lot of big stuff and have a wife and 2 children yet have never felt hampered on the practicality front by owning 2 saloons and sports cars. I just don't appreciate the advantage that "practicality" brings. I can see that this is bigger inside than mine is, of course, but the extra space isn't anywhere I could put something in. I suppose if I had a really big hat it would be handy, but I just don't see the point.
I don't find SUV proportions attractive in any way. I could see myself buying a beat-up V8 RR or Disco with chunky tyres for proper winter use and I've been meaning to do so but have always managed just fine up in Scotland with RWD and a crap AWD car. I just don't need a 4x4. When I move to the country next year and my road doesn't get plowed, it's an old RR or Disco I'll need with chunky tyres and not a cross-over SUV which will get just as stuck as my current cars would.
As far as fat-bird proportions go, the CX-17 is about as nice a job as anyone could expect, but as an individual I still can't see me actually handing over money for this because I honestly, genuinely cannot see what benefit this brings that I don't get from my current car shaped cars.
If you like chunky tonka toys then fine, but I still don't get it.
I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong but I have hobbies that involve fairly big stuff, buy a lot of big stuff and have a wife and 2 children yet have never felt hampered on the practicality front by owning 2 saloons and sports cars. I just don't appreciate the advantage that "practicality" brings. I can see that this is bigger inside than mine is, of course, but the extra space isn't anywhere I could put something in. I suppose if I had a really big hat it would be handy, but I just don't see the point.
I don't find SUV proportions attractive in any way. I could see myself buying a beat-up V8 RR or Disco with chunky tyres for proper winter use and I've been meaning to do so but have always managed just fine up in Scotland with RWD and a crap AWD car. I just don't need a 4x4. When I move to the country next year and my road doesn't get plowed, it's an old RR or Disco I'll need with chunky tyres and not a cross-over SUV which will get just as stuck as my current cars would.
As far as fat-bird proportions go, the CX-17 is about as nice a job as anyone could expect, but as an individual I still can't see me actually handing over money for this because I honestly, genuinely cannot see what benefit this brings that I don't get from my current car shaped cars.
If you like chunky tonka toys then fine, but I still don't get it.
RacerMike said:
don logan said:
Sorry to disappoint, but that's just one of the remaining camo'd 'SportsGassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff