RE: Jaguar XF TDV6 S: Driven
Discussion
Ares said:
RoverP6B said:
E39s are all dot-matrix too, those were in production to 2003/4. The S-type wasn't that far behind.
True, but the S-Type was 12-dot. Think 1980 
It really depends what you're looking for in a car.
jamieduff1981 said:
Ares said:
RoverP6B said:
E39s are all dot-matrix too, those were in production to 2003/4. The S-type wasn't that far behind.
True, but the S-Type was 12-dot. Think 1980 It really depends what you're looking for in a car.
Ares said:
jamieduff1981 said:
Ares said:
RoverP6B said:
E39s are all dot-matrix too, those were in production to 2003/4. The S-type wasn't that far behind.
True, but the S-Type was 12-dot. Think 1980 It really depends what you're looking for in a car.
They should ideally have changed the bodyshell to differentiate it because it was functionally a different car but money didn't allow. The 1999 car was effectively a Jaguar styled Lincoln LS, as a Rover 600 was a restyled Honda Accord. The 2002 car was a recognition by Jaguar that the Lincoln LS just wasn't good enough a platform for the market it was in.
The same suspension components (various control arms, bushes, tie-rods etc) were used in virtually all the noughties Jags including the X350 alloy bodied XJ, the X150 alloy bodied XK and XKR. The XF was mechanically still a 2002> S-Type with some minor suspension tuning and improvements. The only S-Type suspension bits Jaguar got rid of for the X150 XKR-S and X250 XFR-S were the front uprights which were beefed up for improved stiffness and bigger wheel bearings.
I don't mind the S-Type's looks, but in my humble opinion the lack of budget or desire to restyle the X202 S-Type for the 2002 changes was it's weakness - the 1999 model was pants and once people drive a car and decide it's pants, it needs something that looks completely different for those people to give the new car a go. It's a bit like a serial killer insisting they're a changed person. Folk will be suspicious. It needs a fresh face to lose the baggage...
George111 said:
BeirutTaxi said:
What do you mean by 'more torque' and how do you think it translates into better acceleration?
Who want a chat about area under the curve and how torque doesn't mean speed ?
Thought you were one of these Torque = Speed brigade who obviously didn't pay attention to their physics classes. I've bought a late model just last year, the numbers added up due to huge discounts and equally equipped it was between a C-class (!) and an XF estate.
Compared to the E-class imho, the Jag didn't stand much of a chance (maybe just in the looks department), but compared to anything else for what I wanted from a car, it won hands down.
The infotainment was the biggest "issue" for someone who spends much time in his car. But it did what I wanted, it reads MP3's from a usb stick and connects with bluetooth audio from my phone, and those were the only two I needed. Yes, entering an address will not be as smooth an experience as in mercedes' command or MMI or iDrive, but it works even if it feels dated.
The new system looks better but in terms of responsiveness it's not up there with Command/MMI/iDrive, which is a bit of a shame but I won't let that get in my way. 7 months and 20k miles later I'm still very, very happy with my decisions.
In the end it's what you want from a car, if you want one with the latest and greatest in tech, look elsewhere. If you want a good looking big car that can be hurled into corners but can also be a comfortable wafter, you won't be disappointed.
Compared to the E-class imho, the Jag didn't stand much of a chance (maybe just in the looks department), but compared to anything else for what I wanted from a car, it won hands down.
The infotainment was the biggest "issue" for someone who spends much time in his car. But it did what I wanted, it reads MP3's from a usb stick and connects with bluetooth audio from my phone, and those were the only two I needed. Yes, entering an address will not be as smooth an experience as in mercedes' command or MMI or iDrive, but it works even if it feels dated.
The new system looks better but in terms of responsiveness it's not up there with Command/MMI/iDrive, which is a bit of a shame but I won't let that get in my way. 7 months and 20k miles later I'm still very, very happy with my decisions.
In the end it's what you want from a car, if you want one with the latest and greatest in tech, look elsewhere. If you want a good looking big car that can be hurled into corners but can also be a comfortable wafter, you won't be disappointed.
jamieduff1981 said:
The 1999 and 2002 S-Types had very little in common. Same body shell from 1999 to 2004 when they did eventually change it, but from 2002 it had a totally different interior, all new electrics, ditched the Ford gearboxes for ZF gearboxes, and they re-engineered the subframes and virtually all suspension components for better performance in every respect and it got a new ZF steering rack.
They should ideally have changed the bodyshell to differentiate it because it was functionally a different car but money didn't allow. The 1999 car was effectively a Jaguar styled Lincoln LS, as a Rover 600 was a restyled Honda Accord. The 2002 car was a recognition by Jaguar that the Lincoln LS just wasn't good enough a platform for the market it was in.
The same suspension components (various control arms, bushes, tie-rods etc) were used in virtually all the noughties Jags including the X350 alloy bodied XJ, the X150 alloy bodied XK and XKR. The XF was mechanically still a 2002> S-Type with some minor suspension tuning and improvements. The only S-Type suspension bits Jaguar got rid of for the X150 XKR-S and X250 XFR-S were the front uprights which were beefed up for improved stiffness and bigger wheel bearings.
I don't mind the S-Type's looks, but in my humble opinion the lack of budget or desire to restyle the X202 S-Type for the 2002 changes was it's weakness - the 1999 model was pants and once people drive a car and decide it's pants, it needs something that looks completely different for those people to give the new car a go. It's a bit like a serial killer insisting they're a changed person. Folk will be suspicious. It needs a fresh face to lose the baggage...
Never knew all of that! Makes a lot of sense given the experience. They should ideally have changed the bodyshell to differentiate it because it was functionally a different car but money didn't allow. The 1999 car was effectively a Jaguar styled Lincoln LS, as a Rover 600 was a restyled Honda Accord. The 2002 car was a recognition by Jaguar that the Lincoln LS just wasn't good enough a platform for the market it was in.
The same suspension components (various control arms, bushes, tie-rods etc) were used in virtually all the noughties Jags including the X350 alloy bodied XJ, the X150 alloy bodied XK and XKR. The XF was mechanically still a 2002> S-Type with some minor suspension tuning and improvements. The only S-Type suspension bits Jaguar got rid of for the X150 XKR-S and X250 XFR-S were the front uprights which were beefed up for improved stiffness and bigger wheel bearings.
I don't mind the S-Type's looks, but in my humble opinion the lack of budget or desire to restyle the X202 S-Type for the 2002 changes was it's weakness - the 1999 model was pants and once people drive a car and decide it's pants, it needs something that looks completely different for those people to give the new car a go. It's a bit like a serial killer insisting they're a changed person. Folk will be suspicious. It needs a fresh face to lose the baggage...
I also quite liked the look of the S.
BeirutTaxi said:
George111 said:
BeirutTaxi said:
What do you mean by 'more torque' and how do you think it translates into better acceleration?
Who want a chat about area under the curve and how torque doesn't mean speed ? Thought you were one of these Torque = Speed brigade who obviously didn't pay attention to their physics classes. Wills2 said:
Odd isn't it, jag launch new car with sat nav ICE and HUD that lags behind much older rivals? All this stuff is 3rd party supplied why can't they get the modern stuff.
It's a very pretty car and I think the engine at 300hp and 516 is competitive but it still manages to be 15-20% slower to 62 than the key rivals, why? When Jag say it only weighs 1750kg, they must be telling porkies again about the kerb weight...
Agreed and that's my issue.It's a very pretty car and I think the engine at 300hp and 516 is competitive but it still manages to be 15-20% slower to 62 than the key rivals, why? When Jag say it only weighs 1750kg, they must be telling porkies again about the kerb weight...
I think the version of the engine in my 640d is about 5 years old now and still has more bhp and does 51.2mpg and my combined is just north of 40mpg and I don't hang around. Easily gets 50mpg+ on a cold start 100+ miles cruise control journey.
The iDrive system is 4 years old and is still superior too, even BMW have launched a newer version in the 7 series which will now flow down to all new models.
It really frustrates me, my wife's Evoque also has a terrible sat nav screen and a more inefficient engine compared to BMW / Audi rivals.
I really do like the look of the XF from the outside even if this new model is not new enough for me, but the tech is at least a generation behind.
moffat said:
Wills2 said:
Odd isn't it, jag launch new car with sat nav ICE and HUD that lags behind much older rivals? All this stuff is 3rd party supplied why can't they get the modern stuff.
It's a very pretty car and I think the engine at 300hp and 516 is competitive but it still manages to be 15-20% slower to 62 than the key rivals, why? When Jag say it only weighs 1750kg, they must be telling porkies again about the kerb weight...
Agreed and that's my issue.It's a very pretty car and I think the engine at 300hp and 516 is competitive but it still manages to be 15-20% slower to 62 than the key rivals, why? When Jag say it only weighs 1750kg, they must be telling porkies again about the kerb weight...
I think the version of the engine in my 640d is about 5 years old now and still has more bhp and does 51.2mpg and my combined is just north of 40mpg and I don't hang around. Easily gets 50mpg+ on a cold start 100+ miles cruise control journey.
The iDrive system is 4 years old and is still superior too, even BMW have launched a newer version in the 7 series which will now flow down to all new models.
It really frustrates me, my wife's Evoque also has a terrible sat nav screen and a more inefficient engine compared to BMW / Audi rivals.
I really do like the look of the XF from the outside even if this new model is not new enough for me, but the tech is at least a generation behind.
Ares said:
In fairness, with both engines and In car systems/iDrive, BMW are ahead of the game and have been for some time. Jag is not as far behind the rest of the industry.
Engines maybe, but having worked with the Jag/Merc/Audi/BMW systems recently, I find the Merc's system the most intuitive in operation of them all. Takes me much less time to look for settings in that system.ZesPak said:
Ares said:
In fairness, with both engines and In car systems/iDrive, BMW are ahead of the game and have been for some time. Jag is not as far behind the rest of the industry.
Engines maybe, but having worked with the Jag/Merc/Audi/BMW systems recently, I find the Merc's system the most intuitive in operation of them all. Takes me much less time to look for settings in that system.RoverP6B said:
Kermit74 said:
Looks 4 yrs old already.. jag need to get shot of Callum and get a designer in who can make jags look modern.
Automotive design generally has not progressed in that time. We're reaching stagnation point. It's still easily the best-looking car in its sector.
tting out a 911.fatboy b said:
And still looks a country mile better then the mainstream German offerings don't you think? Let's face it all the Germans seem to be tweaking rather than changing. Jag have found a winning style. Let them milk it, it looks great.
I reckon the XF sales tell a different story unfortunately. I agree the German seem to tweak their designs. Design is subjective but for me Jag still hankers after some classical image of automotive design. I'd love to see something a bit sharper to reflect what they've done under the skin.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff