RE: Jaguar XE - full details

[jamieduff1981]

The Vambo said:

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....

Sorry, just didn't see that. Maybe it was overhyped - but the Puma (and it was relatively young too, so age/neglect can't even be blamed) was just nothing to write home about.

[F1GTRUeno]

fatboy b said:

The Vambo said:

fatboy b said:

The Mondeo platform they gave the X-Type was way too soggy,

Sure about that?

X- Type Saloon Torsional Rigidity 22,000 Nm/deg
BMW E46 Saloon Torsional Rigidity 18,000 Nm/deg
BMW E90 Saloon Torsional Rigidity 22,500 Nm/deg

Are you just making up facts to support your argument?

Soggy as in soft springs. Your figures, though probably true, will mean nothing to 99% of drivers. It's the springs and dampers they care about.

Nope.

They care about if it had a load of kit and if it looks good.

99% of the people on the road have no issues whatsoever with any car drive-wise and wouldn't notice difference to formulate a choice on their new car.

[RobM77]

The Vambo said:

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....

We have this nonsense on PH over and over again. Who buys a car and even who it's intended for don't instantly set how good it is. The original mini was intended as a shopping car, but it handled really well and won the Monte Carlo rally! The 118d gets slated on her constantly as a dreary hatchback, but it has exactly the same ride, handling and steering as the 130i! In fact with smaller wheels and tyres (and a lighter engine?) I reckon it's better. Same for the 318d cf 335i. The mk2 Micra was an extremely well engineered car - The steering, ride and even handling were more than up to the job. Yes, for pure handling smiles I preferred the Ka, but the mk2 Micra was a decent car and way better than the Ka in terms of engine tech (the first Kas had Kent engines!!), mpg, interior space, build quality, NVH (especially NVH!) etc etc. My first girlfriend still has her '99 Micra 13 years after I helped her buy it, and it's never needed more than basic servicing and tyres - find me a Ka with that history at that age with well over 100k miles - my wife's old one had a clutch fall to pieces last year and we eventually scrapped it. Yes, I loved driving it, but in terms of fitness for purpose the Micra was in a different league.

[aeropilot]

RobM77 said:

The 118d gets slated on her constantly as a dreary hatchback, but it has exactly the same ride, handling and steering as the 130i! In fact with smaller wheels and tyres (and a lighter engine?) I reckon it's better.

You obviously don't realise that the 4 cyl N47 engine in that 118d is actually 1kg HEAVIER than the 6 cyl N52 engine in the 130i

[kambites]

The 130i is a dreary hatchback with a particularly good engine.

[cerb4.5lee]

RobM77 said:

The 118d gets slated on her constantly as a dreary hatchback, but it has exactly the same ride, handling and steering as the 130i!

The 4 pot diesel engine is what makes it dreary though because I have experienced the 4 pot diesel engine in my old 520d and its pretty much the worst engine I have ever experienced by a very large margin and the engine in my 330i is one of the best I have experienced so in that regard they are certainly poles apart.

[RobM77]

aeropilot said:

RobM77 said:

The 118d gets slated on her constantly as a dreary hatchback, but it has exactly the same ride, handling and steering as the 130i! In fact with smaller wheels and tyres (and a lighter engine?) I reckon it's better.

You obviously don't realise that the 4 cyl N47 engine in that 118d is actually 1kg HEAVIER than the 6 cyl N52 engine in the 130i

You obviously don't realise what a question mark means ;-)

By the way, the 120d engine is 149kg and the 130i engine is 161kg...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_N47

http://www.kneb.net/bmw/E90/04_N52%20Engine.pdf

Edited by RobM77 on Friday 12th September 10:00

[RobM77]

cerb4.5lee said:

RobM77 said:

The 118d gets slated on her constantly as a dreary hatchback, but it has exactly the same ride, handling and steering as the 130i!

The 4 pot diesel engine is what makes it dreary though because I have experienced the 4 pot diesel engine in my old 520d and its pretty much the worst engine I have ever experienced by a very large margin and the engine in my 330i is one of the best I have experienced so in that regard they are certainly poles apart.

I agree; if we ignore the initial throttle response, the 3.0 petrol is a far nicer engine (I've owned two). However, engines apart they're the same car, and yet the 130i is constantly praised on PH and the 118d often slated, and not just with regard to the engine. Either PHers only care about engines, or they know nothing about cars. There's nothing wrong with either, but I find the superior position most take to be extremely arrogant.

[RobM77]

Anyway - this new Jag looks great!

[ORD]

Throttle response again! Really? I think you actually might need help on this one. Imagine the first meeting with the psychiatrist "Dr, I really really cant stand the poor throttle response on pretty much every car, which is why I love small capacity turbo diesels".

You'd be sectioned in minutes.

[RobM77]

ORD said:

Throttle response again! Really? I think you actually might need help on this one. Imagine the first meeting with the psychiatrist "Dr, I really really cant stand the poor throttle response on pretty much every car, which is why I love small capacity turbo diesels".

You'd be sectioned in minutes.

We've been through this before, and I even posted video evidence - it's an obvious effect and very easy to see. I'm not alone in complaining about it (even my wife finds it winds her up having gone straight from a cable throttle Ka to a FWB CTR FN2) and yes, most modern cars do it to some degree. The truth is that most people just use cars purely as a means of transport and are completely unaware of using the throttle and brake to balance a car in a corner, so put a lag on the throttle and they won't care. Even most car enthusiasts, as just discussed, are only really interested in straight line performance.

Most people who love cornering though, like me, find it impossible to enjoy a car with such a lag. Half a second doesn't sound like much, but if a typical bend is taken at 45mph and is about 20 metres long, half a second is half the corner! You'll have turned in and coasted all the way up to the apex before the throttle jerks in right at the apex.

Edited by RobM77 on Friday 12th September 11:03

[stumpage]

RobM77 said:

Anyway - this new Jag looks great!

Yep.

Good exterior styling, Nice long bonnet, and no stupid stick on after thought of an infotainment screen (BMW and Merc take note). I hope that they are in full production by April as the company C Class has to change and compared to the 3 Germans it's, in my eyes, a visual winner. As long as it goes down motorways with aplomb I can't think what else I would like.

[anonymous-user]

RobM77 said:

and yet the 130i is constantly praised on PH and the 118d often slated,

The problem is that people are comparing the 118d with the 130i. Which is a ridiculous comparison. if you want the 3litre NA gasoline engine, buy the 130i!

What you need to compare the 118d to, is say a 1.8d focus, kia, audi or whatever, i.e. a car in the same category. When you do that, the 118d suddenly doesn't look so bad, and i think you'll find that's why they've sold thousands of them!!


I mean, i could complain that i can't get a grand piano into my 3 series tourer, yet i can in my T5 LWB panel van, but that would be similarly missing the point!

[cerb4.5lee]

RobM77 said:

Anyway - this new Jag looks great!

I like it too and I hope it does well...lets just hope they do a better job with the 4 pot diesel engine in that than beemer do though!!

I seem to have a serious problem accepting BMW`s 2.0d as a decent engine for some reason but as stated in a previous post I must be the only one who doesn't like it much as they sell millions of them, I heard a X3 2.0d from outside this morning and it only backed up why I don't like them as it sounded absolutely lousy but as an engine to get from A to B cost effectively I can see why it does a job.

[ZesPak]

cerb4.5lee said:

I like it too and I hope it does well...lets just hope they do a better job with the 4 pot diesel engine in that than beemer do though!!

I seem to have a serious problem accepting BMW`s 2.0d as a decent engine for some reason but as stated in a previous post I must be the only one who doesn't like it much as they sell millions of them, I heard a X3 2.0d from outside this morning and it only backed up why I don't like them as it sounded absolutely lousy but as an engine to get from A to B cost effectively I can see why it does a job.

To be fair, as much as this BMW talk nearly put me to sleep, show me a 2.0D engine (or maybe even just a diesel engine) that actually sounds good.

[ORD]

cerb4.5lee said:

RobM77 said:

Anyway - this new Jag looks great!

I like it too and I hope it does well...lets just hope they do a better job with the 4 pot diesel engine in that than beemer do though!!

I seem to have a serious problem accepting BMW`s 2.0d as a decent engine for some reason but as stated in a previous post I must be the only one who doesn't like it much as they sell millions of them, I heard a X3 2.0d from outside this morning and it only backed up why I don't like them as it sounded absolutely lousy but as an engine to get from A to B cost effectively I can see why it does a job.

I can see both the good and bad in the BMW 2.0 diesel engine.

Good: extremely impressive compromise between performance and efficiency; responsive and flexible compared to most diesel engines; good torque and power
Bad: extremely agricultural sound; unpleasant shudder at idle; generally not very refined for a BMW engine.

I think that they are particularly unpleasant sounding engine. As I understand it, thought, there is a pretty clear trade off between efficiency and refinement in that a nice sounding diesel engine isn't extracting as much of the available energy from the fuel.

To be honest, there is very little (as regards performance) to like more about a small turbo petrol engine than a small turbo diesel. Better pick up at very low revs, I guess, and maybe a little more top end. But the performance is otherwise pretty similar - various degrees of wait-whoosh-all done, depending on the quality of the engine and the mapping.

[cerb4.5lee]

ZesPak said:

To be fair, as much as this BMW talk nearly put me to sleep, show me a 2.0D engine (or maybe even just a diesel engine) that actually sounds good.

Sorry for going on about BMW`s!

I agree all the 2.0d engines do sound the same to be fair and they just cant seem to hide the crudeness of them but there are quite a few manufacturers now that have mastered getting the 3.0d to sound fairly good even from outside I think.

[cerb4.5lee]

ORD said:

I can see both the good and bad in the BMW 2.0 diesel engine.

Good: extremely impressive compromise between performance and efficiency; responsive and flexible compared to most diesel engines; good torque and power
Bad: extremely agricultural sound; unpleasant shudder at idle; generally not very refined for a BMW engine.

I think that they are particularly unpleasant sounding engine. As I understand it, thought, there is a pretty clear trade off between efficiency and refinement in that a nice sounding diesel engine isn't extracting as much of the available energy from the fuel.

To be honest, there is very little (as regards performance) to like more about a small turbo petrol engine than a small turbo diesel. Better pick up at very low revs, I guess, and maybe a little more top end. But the performance is otherwise pretty similar - various degrees of wait-whoosh-all done, depending on the quality of the engine and the mapping.

Agree it just seems that either a 4 pot petrol or diesel in many ways is a compromise as neither sound that inspiring and you don't get the same smoothness or refinement of a larger capacity bigger cylinder engine, its the refinement of a 4 pot diesel that frustrates me the most though but some 4 pot petrol engines can feel pretty refined in my experience.

[aeropilot]

RobM77 said:

aeropilot said:

RobM77 said:

The 118d gets slated on her constantly as a dreary hatchback, but it has exactly the same ride, handling and steering as the 130i! In fact with smaller wheels and tyres (and a lighter engine?) I reckon it's better.

You obviously don't realise that the 4 cyl N47 engine in that 118d is actually 1kg HEAVIER than the 6 cyl N52 engine in the 130i

You obviously don't realise what a question mark means ;-)

By the way, the 120d engine is 149kg and the 130i engine is 161kg...

Other sources quote N52 weight as being 148kg.

[TIGA84]

jamieduff1981 said:

Sorry, just didn't see that. Maybe it was overhyped - but the Puma (and it was relatively young too, so age/neglect can't even be blamed) was just nothing to write home about.

Probably the most ridiculous thing I've read for some time on here. Obviously every single motoring journalist/magazine were wrong then - and before I get called an armchair reviewer, I had 3, and early R plate with no aircon, a T plate and a Racing.