RE: Jaguar X-Type: Spotted
Discussion
I don't think £4,500 is particularly good value although, I do like the car.
I bought my 3.0 ST220 (the same engine that is in the 3.0 x-type) for £1,500 less, with less miles but a year older at time of purchase. Well specced, much rarer and arguably better looking - that's good value.
I'm not saying the jag is over priced, I wouldn't know, but I don't think it's great value either.
I bought my 3.0 ST220 (the same engine that is in the 3.0 x-type) for £1,500 less, with less miles but a year older at time of purchase. Well specced, much rarer and arguably better looking - that's good value.
I'm not saying the jag is over priced, I wouldn't know, but I don't think it's great value either.
It looks like a Jag but isnt really fooling anyone, not even on about the Ford connection, just the size and delusions of grandeur mini XJ alike, neither here nor there and has a strong whiff of advanced motorist/road captain about it, I bet it was on the Partridge shortlist when choosing a replacement for his Rover 800. I love XJ's but not this sawn off knockoff, glad Jaguar are now making something that doesn't try to look like something from the fifties or sixties now.
A select few can look ok in the right spec and colour but otherwise, zero interest value for me.
A select few can look ok in the right spec and colour but otherwise, zero interest value for me.
crostonian said:
Why you would want to give the government £500 a year for the 'pleasure' of using one of these is beyond me. Post March '06 2.5s and 3.0s becoming unsaleable as their value plummets.
I suppose if you buy one for peanuts and it doesnt otherwise cost much to run its a fairly pleasant way to travel but I can see why most wouldnt, may as well have a proper XJ, same tax, insirance, mot and anf fuel wotn be that much worse, maybe better on the aluminium ones.J4CKO said:
It looks like a Jag but isnt really fooling anyone, not even on about the Ford connection, just the size and delusions of grandeur mini XJ alike, neither here nor there and has a strong whiff of advanced motorist/road captain about it, I bet it was on the Partridge shortlist when choosing a replacement for his Rover 800. I love XJ's but not this sawn off knockoff, glad Jaguar are now making something that doesn't try to look like something from the fifties or sixties now.
A select few can look ok in the right spec and colour but otherwise, zero interest value for me.
Always been my principle dislike - the whiff of smug middle class self satisfied "mini XJ" pretence that lingers around the X Type. That and those headlights... WTF were they thinking? A select few can look ok in the right spec and colour but otherwise, zero interest value for me.
I bought a 2.5 sport back when I was in my late 20's as a daily s
tter. Paid about £5k and sold it for about £3k 18 months later, still with low miles. The example below therefore looks quite high in price, but then these seem to have stabilised from the give it away prices that happened 5 or 6 years ago.
I thought it was a great car. Far nicer interior than the comparable Mercs and Beemers, looks were subjective but black with black grills, black interior and the nicer alloys I thought it was quite a good looking beast. 4WD made it very self-assured irrespective of conditions and performance was adequate, albeit mpg (real world) was circa 25 which meant it was far more expensive to run the stter on a daily basis than the Elise that was the toy back then.
tter. Paid about £5k and sold it for about £3k 18 months later, still with low miles. The example below therefore looks quite high in price, but then these seem to have stabilised from the give it away prices that happened 5 or 6 years ago.I thought it was a great car. Far nicer interior than the comparable Mercs and Beemers, looks were subjective but black with black grills, black interior and the nicer alloys I thought it was quite a good looking beast. 4WD made it very self-assured irrespective of conditions and performance was adequate, albeit mpg (real world) was circa 25 which meant it was far more expensive to run the s
tter on a daily basis than the Elise that was the toy back then.I had one of these as a courtesy car from my local Jag indie while my XJR-s was in for work. It was a diesel estate with 240,000+ on the clock that had been neglected to the point the owner pretty much gave it away to the garage when it finally needed some money spent on it. They got it back on its feet as a run-around, and I have to say while totally rubbery and numb to drive, it was very comfy. It reminded me of that Clarkson phrase from the XF review, 'it's like sitting on a fat dog'. Plus with the estate it was really handy to have for that week, I was (almost) sorry to hand the keys back... I'd definitely consider one as a shed car, but it would have to be the estate.
TheBALDpuma said:
I don't think £4,500 is particularly good value although, I do like the car.
I bought my 3.0 ST220 (the same engine that is in the 3.0 x-type) for £1,500 less, with less miles but a year older at time of purchase. Well specced, much rarer and arguably better looking - that's good value.
I'm not saying the jag is over priced, I wouldn't know, but I don't think it's great value either.
Same block maybe but not the same engine. Plus the X-Type has more power and a faster 0-60mph time of just 6.58s for the 3.0 manual. I bought my 3.0 ST220 (the same engine that is in the 3.0 x-type) for £1,500 less, with less miles but a year older at time of purchase. Well specced, much rarer and arguably better looking - that's good value.
I'm not saying the jag is over priced, I wouldn't know, but I don't think it's great value either.
I LOVED my 3.0 SE manual and it was the car I had owned the longest (about 5.5 years). Permanent AWD was great in the snow and it was very composed and capable.
I wouldn't touch the auto 2.1 (badged "2.0") or 2.5 versions though as you don't get the performance to match the fuel use!
Not keen on this, although the estate is far better than the saloon. It tries too hard to be something that it's not, horrible proportions and has always looked to me like a cheap Chinese copy of a Jag, rather than something that had rolled out of Halewood. Perhaps if they had given it a proper Q car edition it would have made it?
J4CKO said:
crostonian said:
Why you would want to give the government £500 a year for the 'pleasure' of using one of these is beyond me. Post March '06 2.5s and 3.0s becoming unsaleable as their value plummets.
I suppose if you buy one for peanuts and it doesnt otherwise cost much to run its a fairly pleasant way to travel but I can see why most wouldnt, may as well have a proper XJ, same tax, insirance, mot and anf fuel wotn be that much worse, maybe better on the aluminium ones.
schmalex said:
The car in the advert is over-priced by about £3k.
X Types are utterly hateful things with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I owned a 2.5 auto for a year or so back in 2003 and it was simply horrible. In no particular order, it was:
I drove my neighbour's for a couple of days earlier this year (a 2.5 manual) and everything came flooding back to me. They really are awful
Bought my 2.5 V6 AWD Estate with 52k miles on it, in February to replace a trusty old Volvo 940X Types are utterly hateful things with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I owned a 2.5 auto for a year or so back in 2003 and it was simply horrible. In no particular order, it was:
- Slow. Very slow, in fact. When kicking down to overtake, the engine went "RAAAAARRRRR", but speed didn't increase noticeably.
- Hugely thirsty for the performance on offer
- Supremely uncomfortable to drive. There was just no support in the seats at all
- Poorly built. There were rattles all through the car
- Badly designed at the front end. In winter time, the headlights would grime over quicker than any other car I have owned
I drove my neighbour's for a couple of days earlier this year (a 2.5 manual) and everything came flooding back to me. They really are awful
It's no Volvo Estate with a load capacity about half the Volvo and that is a problem to me.
Plus I agree the seats are poor, look good but give me serious back ache
But it looks ok in estate form, just different, not another BM etc
Quick enough as a family hack, dog still gets in the back just very restricted for anything else then.
MPG slightly poorer than the 940, tax a little higher but its a 2005 so a lower band. The handling is ok but not brilliant, I reckon I could hustle the Volvo with 200k miles on it faster round the lanes. Steering feels a little dead.
But, the wife likes it so not all is lost. If I'm on my own I take the TVR.
Went in convoy to Le Mans a while ago with one of these. It kept on holding us up with its frequent fuel stops.
I drove the same car a few years later and was very underwhelmed. They were also quite expensive to lease IIRC which knackered a fair part of that sector.
As has been mentioned earlier I can't see how any post 06 cars will survive other than novelty value.
I drove the same car a few years later and was very underwhelmed. They were also quite expensive to lease IIRC which knackered a fair part of that sector.
As has been mentioned earlier I can't see how any post 06 cars will survive other than novelty value.
Same as a mk3 Mondeo, so presumably same diesel engines with Delphi fuel systems? All I can say to those saying they're not unreliable is it's not the V6 people buy. Those diesels carry MASSIVE bork potential.
I'd rather have the Mondeo. They look better, interior's nicer and they don't look like you're trying really hard to be posh!
I'd rather have the Mondeo. They look better, interior's nicer and they don't look like you're trying really hard to be posh!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff