Stupid things non petrolheads say....
Discussion
scarble said:
2 more hp than the ST220 then and a whole lot more walnut and leather to pull around and if you go by the interview with some chap from Jag in some newspaper what I read once, they deliberately made it more wafty at the expense of front end bite, so really the Mondeo is the faster car 
I would also be quick to point out that modern Lambos do share Audi engines and AWD systems and have dismal understeer for it.
I can only speak for the 2 litre diesels, but I did a direct comparison between the X-Type (insurance courtesy car) and it's Mondeo contemporary, which was my boss's 'Incident Commander' response car. I can say for sure that when you lifted the bonnet of the X-Type, it was stuffed to the gunwales with 'Ford' parts, pumps, motors, drive belts, fluid reservoirs, and even the engine block were all stamped with 'Ford'. I can also state with confidence that the Mondeo (a VERY high mileage example, as befitted it's role) was a far quicker car, which accelerated with more urgency/immediacy and which handled far more predictably and steered more accurately than the Jag. I was chuffed to bits when the Jaguar arrived (sorry sir, no cars left in your 'class', here's an upgrade) and my Vectra was taken away (never to return, 'A' pillar damage and low value saw to that), but I was almost glad to see the back of the 'X-Type' when my two weeks entitlement was up.I would also be quick to point out that modern Lambos do share Audi engines and AWD systems and have dismal understeer for it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it was a 'bad' car, but it certainly didn't make me want to buy into the brand, and the Mondeo was, IMHO, a better car, from stem to stern. I found the Ford was instantly driveable when getting in it after time in other vehicles, and it was easy to push it to do more. I had a full two weeks with the Jaguar, and never really felt I could exploit the capabilities of the engine because it's soft ride and less precise steering response never allowed me to feel confident in the car.
The Mondeo I borrowed was more fun to drive, and felt faster, but my X type climbed rev's and speed faster. It also felt like it kind of gave up on the fun side of 100mph whereas the Mondeo didn't. I think the X type had 2 more BHP and the S Type 12. Down to intake IIRC.
Either way my Jag s
t itself and chewed the crankshaft, so needed a new engine. I think this was also a problem in the Ford.
If I was to have either it would be the Mondeo. It looks and drives better.
Either way my Jag s
t itself and chewed the crankshaft, so needed a new engine. I think this was also a problem in the Ford.If I was to have either it would be the Mondeo. It looks and drives better.
Oh, and here's a couple of stupid non petrol head sayings I've heard in the last couple of weeks.
1.) A guy commenting on his Polo GT TDI:
"That french thing has no chance of catching a VW! It doesn't even have back seats!"
He was referring (without prompt from me) to my thoroughly track ready 306 Rallye.
2.) A guy talking about his Honda Hornet 600:
"If you wanted to go fast on a racetrack you should have got something naked with much less weight like mine, it flies!"
He said this in all seriousness whilst having a sit on my K4 Suzuki GSXR 1000...
1.) A guy commenting on his Polo GT TDI:
"That french thing has no chance of catching a VW! It doesn't even have back seats!"
He was referring (without prompt from me) to my thoroughly track ready 306 Rallye.
2.) A guy talking about his Honda Hornet 600:
"If you wanted to go fast on a racetrack you should have got something naked with much less weight like mine, it flies!"
He said this in all seriousness whilst having a sit on my K4 Suzuki GSXR 1000...
Edited by Pebbles167 on Monday 11th August 12:19
xRIEx said:
Pebbles167 said:
The Mondeo I borrowed was more fun to drive, and felt faster, but my X type climbed rev's and speed faster. It also felt like it kind of gave up on the fun side of 100mph whereas the Mondeo didn't.
Different gear/final drive ratios?t interior. Not just tacky, but all the bits seemed too big and out of place. The Mondeo's may have been a bit drab, but it was pretty functional and not bad.Cupramax said:
It really pisses me off when people insist on adding a few hp to what it dame out of the factory with, yours has 228 (230ps), where did you find the extra 12?
Do you holiday in Elevenerife?
Oops apologies read the spec from the S-type, my mistake Do you holiday in Elevenerife?
The early ones had 231 HP but later ones were then detuned (no doubt to increase longevity).
The fact that the Mondeo is different proves my point surely?
Much prefer the interior in the X-type although is not as nice a cockpit as the XJ, but then that is a more expensive model.
As my priority is getting from A-B as comforable and safely as possible the Jaguars ride and handling appeals to me better than the Mondeo, the Sport suspension does firm the car up but it is a bit too hard for my preference. Hourses for courses.
Pebbles167 said:
Oh, and here's a couple of stupid non petrol head sayings I've heard in the last couple of weeks.
1.) A guy commenting on his Polo GT TDI:
"That french thing has no chance of catching a VW! It doesn't even have back seats!"
He was referring (without prompt from me) to my thoroughly track ready 306 Rallye.
Well we all know you fold the backseats down to reduce weight.1.) A guy commenting on his Polo GT TDI:
"That french thing has no chance of catching a VW! It doesn't even have back seats!"
He was referring (without prompt from me) to my thoroughly track ready 306 Rallye.
JagXJR said:
havoc said:
JagXJR said:
scarble said:
..........shared 15-20% of Ford parts
The X-Type 3.0 V6 was essentially the same engine as the ST-220 Mondeo, just with a different engine map and IIRC slightly different breathing. Very little difference...If anything it was more like a Lincoln as that was the chassis it was actually using.
Someone who worked at Jaguar told me the parts were bought in and a new engine built from them (I'm quite inclined to believe a company man than someone I have never met off the Internet). Parts like the plastic water pump propellers that broke and caused overheating. Ford are therefore probably at blame for most of the reliability issues in the earlier models. That and building the cars to a price so the drive-trains (for example) had little redundancy left over. The drive-train is very near the top of the power it can take in standard form.
About time this Urban Myth was put to bed.
ETA I believe the diesel models shared more in common with the Mondeo from what I have heard and read
Edited by JagXJR on Sunday 10th August 13:03
And anyway, who cares if it does share Mondeo parts? The A4 and Passat once shared a platform, and I don't remember anyone caring.
The Mondeo/X-Type thing exemplifies a few stupid ideas that people have about cars:-
(1) It is not remotely surprising and unusual for cars to have shared (or partly shared) chassis elements and other bits. Would we really prefer that manufacturers all duplicate the same processes and charge us accordingly? A Leon would be a lot more expensive if VAG didn't pool R&D and manufacturing across the Golf, Leon and (I think) A3.
(2) There is nothing wrong (and a lot right) with Ford chassis development. A Jag taking a Ford chassis would typically improve the Jag, rather than give cause for complaint! It's not like Jag specialise (or specialised back then) in lightweight, sporty chassis development, let alone for an exec.
(3) The Mondeo is, anyway, typically a very good car. Slagging off a Jag for sharing parts with one is a bit embarrassing and suggests a fair bit of badge snobbery.
(1) It is not remotely surprising and unusual for cars to have shared (or partly shared) chassis elements and other bits. Would we really prefer that manufacturers all duplicate the same processes and charge us accordingly? A Leon would be a lot more expensive if VAG didn't pool R&D and manufacturing across the Golf, Leon and (I think) A3.
(2) There is nothing wrong (and a lot right) with Ford chassis development. A Jag taking a Ford chassis would typically improve the Jag, rather than give cause for complaint! It's not like Jag specialise (or specialised back then) in lightweight, sporty chassis development, let alone for an exec.
(3) The Mondeo is, anyway, typically a very good car. Slagging off a Jag for sharing parts with one is a bit embarrassing and suggests a fair bit of badge snobbery.
Triumph Man said:
JagXJR said:
havoc said:
JagXJR said:
scarble said:
..........shared 15-20% of Ford parts
The X-Type 3.0 V6 was essentially the same engine as the ST-220 Mondeo, just with a different engine map and IIRC slightly different breathing. Very little difference...If anything it was more like a Lincoln as that was the chassis it was actually using.
Someone who worked at Jaguar told me the parts were bought in and a new engine built from them (I'm quite inclined to believe a company man than someone I have never met off the Internet). Parts like the plastic water pump propellers that broke and caused overheating. Ford are therefore probably at blame for most of the reliability issues in the earlier models. That and building the cars to a price so the drive-trains (for example) had little redundancy left over. The drive-train is very near the top of the power it can take in standard form.
About time this Urban Myth was put to bed.
ETA I believe the diesel models shared more in common with the Mondeo from what I have heard and read
Edited by JagXJR on Sunday 10th August 13:03
And anyway, who cares if it does share Mondeo parts? The A4 and Passat once shared a platform, and I don't remember anyone caring.
The original 1999-2001 model S-Type was Lincoln LS based. This was the X200 S-Type. It drove like chod and was completely re-engineered as the X202 S-Type for 2002 release, also ditching the Ford 5-speed gearbox and the 4.0litre V8 engine. The suspension components designed for the X202 were the same ones used for the X350 XJ released in 2003 and also the X150 XK released in 2006.
X200 S-Type is fairly closely related to the Lincoln LS.
X202 S-Type is so far developed from the Lincoln LS that it's functionally and mechanically nothing like it.
X400 X-Types then. Ignoring the diesels which came later, the petrol X-Types at launch only shared the front strut tower sections in common with the Mondeo shell. Everything else was modified to a greater or lesser extent.
The AJ-V6 engine was either based on the Duratec 25 or Duratec 30 block but with ancillaries moved around all over the place depending on longitudinal or transverse application. As with the Fords, the only change was the bore size. The Jaguar and Mazda versions of the engine used different cylinder head castings to the Ford ones, which improved the valve port geometry a fair bit. The Jaguar versions had 2-position variable valve timing on the inlet cams for the original S-Type application. Due to the tight packaging necessary fit the Mondeo's transverse friendly engine bay the inlet manifold (again Jaguar specific and nothing like the Mondeo one) got some tighter angles and the exhaust manifolds were compromised quite a bit. To claw back some of the lost power the X-Type version of the AJ-25 and AJ-30 gained continuously variable inlet cam timing. This was carried over to the 3.0 NA XFs.
The inlet manifold itself was another departure from the Ford engine. The original Ford Duratec 25 and 30 as found in the USA and Mk1&2 Mondeos and Cougar used individual inlet tracts to each inlet valve. One out of every two inlet ports per cylinder had a butterfly valve in it to blank off that port. These secondary throttles were originally vacuum controlled but were later electronic controlled. By blocking the port to one valve the velocity through the other valve was increased, improving low end torque a fair bit. This provided 2 states of tune.
The Mk3 Mondeo/Mazda/Jaguar heads all used siamese inlet ports per cylinder albeit on different castings. The inlet manifold was changed too. The Jag one at least used 3 valves and 2 chambers which could be opened in varying combinations to provide 3 states of tune. The X-Type engine was quite a bit more refined and had a much more wholesome torque curve than the Duratec ST in the ST220, but this was offset a bit by the extra weight of the AWD system.
Actually VW, Audi and Seat, if they were separate entities each developing their respective C segment cars in isolation, would still charge us the going rate for an equivalent car from any other manufacturer, they couldn't charge significantly more or they'd never sell any.
Now, as for the f**ked up quote above, I never said that 15-20% thing buut.. it's true that the S-Type shares a platform with the Lincoln LS, though I think it's as much the Lincoln using Jag bits as the Jag using Lincoln bits (could be wrong, wild guess, iirc the rear suspension is very much proper Jag rear suspension).
Now, as for the f**ked up quote above, I never said that 15-20% thing buut.. it's true that the S-Type shares a platform with the Lincoln LS, though I think it's as much the Lincoln using Jag bits as the Jag using Lincoln bits (could be wrong, wild guess, iirc the rear suspension is very much proper Jag rear suspension).
jamieduff1981 said:
Triumph Man said:
JagXJR said:
havoc said:
JagXJR said:
shared 15-20% of Ford parts
The X-Type 3.0 V6 was essentially the same engine as the ST-220 Mondeo, just with a different engine map and IIRC slightly different breathing. Very little difference...If anything it was more like a Lincoln as that was the chassis it was actually using.
Someone who worked at Jaguar told me the parts were bought in and a new engine built from them (I'm quite inclined to believe a company man than someone I have never met off the Internet). Parts like the plastic water pump propellers that broke and caused overheating. Ford are therefore probably at blame for most of the reliability issues in the earlier models. That and building the cars to a price so the drive-trains (for example) had little redundancy left over. The drive-train is very near the top of the power it can take in standard form.
About time this Urban Myth was put to bed.
ETA I believe the diesel models shared more in common with the Mondeo from what I have heard and read
Edited by JagXJR on Sunday 10th August 13:03
And anyway, who cares if it does share Mondeo parts? The A4 and Passat once shared a platform, and I don't remember anyone caring.
The original 1999-2001 model S-Type was Lincoln LS based. This was the X200 S-Type. It drove like chod and was completely re-engineered as the X202 S-Type for 2002 release, also ditching the Ford 5-speed gearbox and the 4.0litre V8 engine. The suspension components designed for the X202 were the same ones used for the X350 XJ released in 2003 and also the X150 XK released in 2006.
X200 S-Type is fairly closely related to the Lincoln LS.
X202 S-Type is so far developed from the Lincoln LS that it's functionally and mechanically nothing like it.
X400 X-Types then. Ignoring the diesels which came later, the petrol X-Types at launch only shared the front strut tower sections in common with the Mondeo shell. Everything else was modified to a greater or lesser extent.
The AJ-V6 engine was either based on the Duratec 25 or Duratec 30 block but with ancillaries moved around all over the place depending on longitudinal or transverse application. As with the Fords, the only change was the bore size. The Jaguar and Mazda versions of the engine used different cylinder head castings to the Ford ones, which improved the valve port geometry a fair bit. The Jaguar versions had 2-position variable valve timing on the inlet cams for the original S-Type application. Due to the tight packaging necessary fit the Mondeo's transverse friendly engine bay the inlet manifold (again Jaguar specific and nothing like the Mondeo one) got some tighter angles and the exhaust manifolds were compromised quite a bit. To claw back some of the lost power the X-Type version of the AJ-25 and AJ-30 gained continuously variable inlet cam timing. This was carried over to the 3.0 NA XFs.
The inlet manifold itself was another departure from the Ford engine. The original Ford Duratec 25 and 30 as found in the USA and Mk1&2 Mondeos and Cougar used individual inlet tracts to each inlet valve. One out of every two inlet ports per cylinder had a butterfly valve in it to blank off that port. These secondary throttles were originally vacuum controlled but were later electronic controlled. By blocking the port to one valve the velocity through the other valve was increased, improving low end torque a fair bit. This provided 2 states of tune.
The Mk3 Mondeo/Mazda/Jaguar heads all used siamese inlet ports per cylinder albeit on different castings. The inlet manifold was changed too. The Jag one at least used 3 valves and 2 chambers which could be opened in varying combinations to provide 3 states of tune. The X-Type engine was quite a bit more refined and had a much more wholesome torque curve than the Duratec ST in the ST220, but this was offset a bit by the extra weight of the AWD system.
scarble said:
Actually VW, Audi and Seat, if they were separate entities each developing their respective C segment cars in isolation, would still charge us the going rate for an equivalent car from any other manufacturer, they couldn't charge significantly more or they'd never sell any.
Not sure about that. I expect that, in fact, Seat wouldn't exist if it couldn't share costs with Golf and Audi. Audi and Golf already both charge far more than the competition and get away with it, so I expect the result would just be that a Golf and an A3 would simply cost a couple of grand more (figure used for illustration - I have no idea what the difference would be). VW don't make by way of profits even as it is.ORD said:
VW don't make much by way of profits even as it is.
Yeah - what's nine billion of euros between friends? Chump change in the ORD household apparently! Down the back of the sofa...(That's the Auto division operating profit for 2013, excludes the finance division and trucks. VW brand standalone was nearly 3 billion and Audi over 5 billion.)
You are right that SEAT wouldn't exist outside of VAG, but if VW/Audi could charge more for the Golf/A3 and not see a drop in volumes I am pretty sure they would do it!
walm said:
ORD said:
VW don't make much by way of profits even as it is.
Yeah - what's nine billion of euros between friends? Chump change in the ORD household apparently! Down the back of the sofa...(That's the Auto division operating profit for 2013, excludes the finance division and trucks. VW brand standalone was nearly 3 billion and Audi over 5 billion.)
You are right that SEAT wouldn't exist outside of VAG, but if VW/Audi could charge more for the Golf/A3 and not see a drop in volumes I am pretty sure they would do it!
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-13/vo...
ORD said:
Piss all for the number of cars produced. Nobody sane would want VW on its own. It makes almost no money per car and only makes sense because of sharing costs and driving volume and market share for VAG as a whole:-
You would think that - but then people keep buying Peugeot/Citroen and Renault shares and they are almost exactly similar to VW without Audi!In fairness somewhat recently, for Renault, if you stripped out their Nissan shareholding you were effectively getting the French car company for free! (Ironically would have been a very good time to buy.)
irocfan said:
Triumph Man said:
And anyway, who cares if it does share Mondeo parts? The A4 and Passat once shared a platform, and I don't remember anyone caring.
badge snobbery pure and simple - something that we Brits seem to do exceedingly well at the moment walm said:
You would think that - but then people keep buying Peugeot/Citroen and Renault shares and they are almost exactly similar to VW without Audi!
In fairness somewhat recently, for Renault, if you stripped out their Nissan shareholding you were effectively getting the French car company for free! (Ironically would have been a very good time to buy.)
Also PSA have ties with Ford and also with Toyota who also have ties with BMW. Probably there are more I can't think of off the top of my head.In fairness somewhat recently, for Renault, if you stripped out their Nissan shareholding you were effectively getting the French car company for free! (Ironically would have been a very good time to buy.)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff