RE: You Know You Want To: Jaguar XKR
Discussion
VladD said:
As for the XKR, I love the front of the old one and the back on the new one. I've love an XKR to replace my S-Type, but I'm not sure I want an auto box any more.
Please, please, please try the new XK (X150) before you dismiss it.The transmission in the X150 is a revelation, and is night and day when compared with Jag auto boxes of old (J-gate), which were awful.
Just try it.
The real value lies with the XJ of the same period. Same 4.2 V8, similar aluminium construction, more practical space and I've just bought one for buttons. 
This nicely compliments the earlier XK8 Convertible I have, which I think is considerably more aesthetically attractive and no less engaging to drive, even if it does only have the 4.0l.
This nicely compliments the earlier XK8 Convertible I have, which I think is considerably more aesthetically attractive and no less engaging to drive, even if it does only have the 4.0l.
Mon Ami Mate said:
The real value lies with the XJ of the same period. Same 4.2 V8, similar aluminium construction, more practical space and I've just bought one for buttons.
They come in at less than half the price don't they?Same as the last generation XJ/XK. Largely the same running gear and performance at a fraction of the cost.
DJRC said:
Thats all well and good, but it then shouldnt be criticised for being rolly and heavy and not sharp. Its actually amusing that the gibbon in that first post states because of this he went to buy a 996TT instead, which the GT3 girls all diss because its too soft.
The 996 turbo (Audi does the TT) is razor sharp compared to a XKR it's also a very good road car in all traffic conditions. It maybe soft compared to a GT3 , but a 996 turbo is a usable on adaily basis - GT3 owners often state they couldn't use it in traffic due to the heavy clutch.Mon Ami Mate said:
Just paid £7k for mine. Almost spotless, 80,000 miles, full Jaguar service history.
The reason XJ's are so cheap is many have blistering paintwork,seen models as late as 57 plate with this, the trade know it and auction prices reflect it. Also seen 06 XK's with this problem. Paint adhesion with the aluminium bodies, Jaguar have had problems.NGK210 said:
Aye, it's a great tragedy that Ian McCallum's original/intended twin-headlamp design was vetoed by Ford's US el supremos, who deemed the styling "too radical" for Jag's "traditional US customer base" - ie, golf-playing BOFs.
Autocar ran a 'leaked' pic of the full-size prototype - it looked chuffing cool
Anybody got a link to this? I'd love to see what it looked like.Autocar ran a 'leaked' pic of the full-size prototype - it looked chuffing cool
g7jhp said:
Seem to have upset someone.
At no point did I say it was a track car (I have owned a Caterham so I know the difference).
All I pointed out was the weight was very noticeable. To expand it rolls alot incorners and it was heavy under braking due to the sheer weight of the car (the weight was pointed out in the original article). This may be OK for the US but in the UK you still encounter roundabouts, twisty A/B roads and long sweeping bends on the road.
The 996 turbo isn't a track car, it's a great GT (some may require a little more comfort), but it also does the twisty stuff pretty well.
Hope that calms you down
At no point did I say it was a track car (I have owned a Caterham so I know the difference).
All I pointed out was the weight was very noticeable. To expand it rolls alot incorners and it was heavy under braking due to the sheer weight of the car (the weight was pointed out in the original article). This may be OK for the US but in the UK you still encounter roundabouts, twisty A/B roads and long sweeping bends on the road.
The 996 turbo isn't a track car, it's a great GT (some may require a little more comfort), but it also does the twisty stuff pretty well.
Hope that calms you down
That simply isn't true. On the road the suspension is perfectly firm. Feels very light for a GT IMO.
My only gripe with the 5.0 is that the supercharger whine has vanished. The 4.2 sounded better on WOT, though I do like the sportier exhaust note on the 5.0.
monthefish said:
Please, please, please try the new XK (X150) before you dismiss it.
The transmission in the X150 is a revelation, and is night and day when compared with Jag auto boxes of old (J-gate), which were awful.
Just try it.
I loved the old J gate boxes, though the new one definitely suits the XK more.The transmission in the X150 is a revelation, and is night and day when compared with Jag auto boxes of old (J-gate), which were awful.
Just try it.
Alfa numeric said:
NGK210 said:
Aye, it's a great tragedy that Ian McCallum's original/intended twin-headlamp design was vetoed by Ford's US el supremos, who deemed the styling "too radical" for Jag's "traditional US customer base" - ie, golf-playing BOFs.
Autocar ran a 'leaked' pic of the full-size prototype - it looked chuffing cool
Anybody got a link to this? I'd love to see what it looked like.Autocar ran a 'leaked' pic of the full-size prototype - it looked chuffing cool
Perhaps a kind PH staffer can have a word with a Haymarket colleague at Autocar's pic archive..?
king loonatic monthefish said:
I hated them. Slow and ponderous, even on an upshift cruising on the motorway i.e.
Third.
Move handle to 4...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...into 4th.
Absolutely. Not sporty in the slightest, but was smooth, refined and felt at home in a luxury coupe. The newer XKs are a sportier offering, and the new gearbox is brilliant.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff