RE: Jaguar X-Type: Spotted

[DJ_AS]

Turbobanana said:

DoctorX said:

Oval headlights - can't think of a car on which these look good. X-Type is the worst by far though.

I Googled "oval headlights" in an attempt to prove you wrong. I couldn't.

[leedsutd1]

hora said:

I'd buy the OP car, however more 3k.


Prob 3.5k max in the market.

there are a few on ebay for around £2800 at least one has a 3 month warranty

[DoctorX]

DJ_AS said:

Lovely. Not oval though IMO. Lets just say the 'eliptical' lights on the X-Type look utter wk.

[M4TT C]

I bought my X Type 2.5 solely as I was planning a trip to the Arctic Circle and wanted a cheap 4wd. Done almost 7,000 miles on that trip in a touch under 3 weeks, even slept in the back on an air bed some nights and including ragging it around a frozen lake for four days. Intended to sell it when I got back but having it 4 years later says it all really. Been a great all round bus, even better since I converted it to gas.

[url]

|http://thumbsnap.com/ogjXqUT2[/url]

[Shnozz]

DoctorX said:

Lovely. Not oval though IMO. Lets just say the 'eliptical' lights on the X-Type look utter wk.

In your opinion.

I remain of the view that the X-type is quite a handsome car. Especially in the company of it's German competition around the same era.

[DoctorX]

Naturally. Estate looks ok from most angles.

[jimfoz]

I had a 3.0 Sport Premium estate which looked the part. I never felt I was driving a rebadged Mondeo - OK there were a lot of bits shared but the important bits were breathed over by Jaguar and the interior could not have been different unlike the Lincoln interior of the early S-Types. It was fast but the 3.0 V6 was no less thirsty than the 4.2 XK8 I had afterwards. My problem with the car was reliability - I always had some electrical or mechanical issue. The most glaring was the driveline drone at 70mph which everyone with a 4WD X-Type had - it seemed to be a manufacturer error - it's no coincidence that Jaguar have not had 4WD since. The other issue was the auto gearbox - I read of quite a few that failed at 50,000 miles and I never felt that it was strong enough for the power and driveline. Mine did decided to chew its 5th gear at 50k - right after I had agreed trade in the sodding thing. Hasn't put me off Jaguars though - maybe the same as the loyal sorts who stuck to their Leyland XJ6's during the 70's.

Edited by jimfoz on Wednesday 24th September 18:04

Edited by jimfoz on Wednesday 24th September 18:05

[pycraft]

I may be wrong, but for fans of the X-type platform, I think I heard it forms the basis of the Evoque. Amazing what a bit of tarting up can do...

[dbdb]

I like the X-type. It's comfortable and it drives and rides well, with a smooth V6. It doesn't drive like an XJ, but then it was a much cheaper car. I like the styling too and don't see why it should be seen as any more 'try too hard' than a small BMW, Mercedes or Audi. They're all in the rep market as a modern day Cortina.

[pSyCoSiS]

No thanks.

If you want a proper Jag, get an XJ or a coupe.

I can see the appeal, as an XJ isn't the most practical daily driver due to their thirst... but they really aren't my cup of tea.

[fatboy69]

Well I like them.

Loved mine, hated it for breaking its engine however it was a great car to drive quickly, I had a 3.0 SE saloon, it was comfortable, handled really well around winding country roads, sounded great and loved petrol stations.

Oh yeah. My 8 year old son loved being seen in a Jaaaaaag.....


Would I have another one? Hell yes. Looking around for one as we speak!

[CMYKguru]

pycraft said:

I may be wrong, but for fans of the X-type platform, I think I heard it forms the basis of the Evoque. Amazing what a bit of tarting up can do...

Every manufacturer carries things over from previous platforms.

Then they all claim it has an 'all new'. or 'newly developed'

[mrpenks]

Turbobanana said:

I Googled "oval headlights" in an attempt to prove you wrong. I couldn't.

Porsche 959???