X-type engine choice
Discussion
swansea v6 said:
I am looking a selling the rover75 family car and getting a Jaguar x type. Are there any massive difference between any of the petrol v6's? Reliability, performance and economy wise?? And any 'essential' extras or spec level to go for??? (Has to be a manual)
People always say not to go for the 2.1 because it's as thirsty as the larger ones but far less of a performer. It also doesn't have four wheel drive.3.0 is one to get. My Dads had a drumming noise on high torque acceleration which transfer box didn't actually fix. Turned out to be propshaft which was a cheaper repair. He paid 350 for a 2nd hand box fitted, and about 200 for the new propshaft fitted. It's engine warning lights which don't reset and show no fault, and ABS sensors in the 9 years he has had it.
swansea v6 said:
I am looking a selling the rover75 family car and getting a Jaguar x type. Are there any massive difference between any of the petrol v6's? Reliability, performance and economy wise?? And any 'essential' extras or spec level to go for??? (Has to be a manual)
If you have the choice what reason is there for picking the lesser models?The 2.1 is fwd and under powered and uses almost as much fuel as the 3.0
2.5 is ok and is AWD but again isn't going to better the 3.0 by any meaningful amount.
3.0's will generally be the best specced, although finding a manual is difficult.
Personally I'd go for an early car too as they had a limited slip centre diff, after 2005 (I think???) they changed to an open diff and relied on the TCS to help sort things out. These don't handle as well and the AWD doesn't work as well in slippery conditions.
300bhp/ton said:
swansea v6 said:
The 3 litre does appeal but that transfer box does concern me? Will look into costs to repair that? Probably more than the purchase price of a lot of them now?
Transfer box is the biggest weak point in these.A general sign is an oil leak from the transfer box. It only holds a small amount of fluid so once it leaks it eats itself. I thought I had a sump leak, but it wasn't! It then started whining and rumbling. Prop had had it too, a well known weakness in the centre bearing.
So check for leaks and rumbles!
The other weak point is rust up under the plastic sill covers. Some can be utter lace others are fine. Obviously this can be patched and as covered by plastic the cosmetics are easier to sort out - mine is fine and well cleaned!
The 3.0 is the best engine by far, plenty of go, and fuel economy not really any worse than the 2.5.
Manual box is a bit lumpy if rushed, smooth changes are best done gently.
General service parts are Ford or equivalents so fairly cheap. Most jobs DIY friendly - but I get a garage to do the fiddly stuff.
If looking for older models get an se spec with cruise, heated leather, heated front screen. I don't have the last two but have electric leather seats - infinite adjustment and very comfy for me.
Don't fuss about having the nav screen.
Edited by Six Fiend on Wednesday 30th January 09:43
swansea v6 said:
I am favouring the idea of a 3.0 more than the other models, what kind of mpg would I be looking at? A lot of adverts state 30mpg and I do not believe that for an instant!
I had a 3.0 sport manual for a bit. I do recall it being quite thirsty but other than that, it was a good car.Realistically for me it's low 20s in town i.e. 20-22.
On a general motorway jaunt at 70-80 then 30+ is easy. Often 33-34.
A B-road play using lower gears and higher revs rolling on and off throttle will drop it to the 20s.
A long haul at indicated 60mph will see a gnat's tadger over 40mpg. (Did it on a 400 mile round trip)
It's quite an easy engine to allow to work gently and make progress without caning it so with a bit of sensible driving isn't too thirsty
On a general motorway jaunt at 70-80 then 30+ is easy. Often 33-34.
A B-road play using lower gears and higher revs rolling on and off throttle will drop it to the 20s.
A long haul at indicated 60mph will see a gnat's tadger over 40mpg. (Did it on a 400 mile round trip)
It's quite an easy engine to allow to work gently and make progress without caning it so with a bit of sensible driving isn't too thirsty
swansea v6 said:
I am favouring the idea of a 3.0 more than the other models, what kind of mpg would I be looking at? A lot of adverts state 30mpg and I do not believe that for an instant!
I have a 3 litre SE auto. Great car although the auto box is sometimes a little sluggish however I don't think it's a problem so it doesn't worry me.Mine sounds good in tunnels as a previous owner fitted an aftermarket exhaust system.
As for fuel consumption. 30 mpg in mine is simply an unachievable figure so I don't know who quoted that as its a load of tosh.
I can 20 mpg if I'm lucky around town. On longer journeys I can get a little as 15 mpg from it although I do have a slightly heavy right foot.
If you don't mind having an affair with the petrol station go for the 3 litre as the others are gutless - at least the couple I drove recently were.
I got leather, cruise, heated/adjustable seats & instant frog & rear demist courtesy of the heated screens.
Haven't got the touch screen & don't miss it.
Also got a factory fitted stereo system which has a cd changer in the boot & a tape deck!!! That means I can play my old stuff without having to buy it again on cd.
The tape deck is surprisingly good quality as well which pleased me.
All in all it's a good car.
swansea v6 said:
15mpg??? Really??? Was expecting low to mid twenties not teens??
There's either something wrong or it's an exgerated lie. The 3.0 X-Type was designed to sell against the BMW 330 and equivalent Audi. And will offer up similar performance and mpg. Slightly lower mpg maybe vs the BMW due to AWD loses and additional weight.Parkers list the 3.0 @ 27mpg which is probably not far off, esp for the manual. Expect mid/low 20's in town or hard driving and 30+ on a longer cruise.
My parents have the 2.1 auto and while it is a nice car for just pottering around town, it is very gutless (under powered imo) and the auto-box has to go into kick down for even moderate acceleration, or even just when trying to maintain speed going uphill. It also averages about 22 mpg around town and maybe 28-30 on a very steady run.
I actually think the X-type is a nice car and still looks good/modern today, even though the design is what, 12? years old now. - I like it enough that I just bought a 3.0 for myself, which I am picking up in a couple of days
I can't see that it can be that much more thirsty than the 2.1 but the difference in performance is very noticeable. Haven't drive a 2.5 as again, I can't see it would be much cheaper to run than the 3.0. If you want high MPG then the diesel is the way to go.
I actually think the X-type is a nice car and still looks good/modern today, even though the design is what, 12? years old now. - I like it enough that I just bought a 3.0 for myself, which I am picking up in a couple of days
I can't see that it can be that much more thirsty than the 2.1 but the difference in performance is very noticeable. Haven't drive a 2.5 as again, I can't see it would be much cheaper to run than the 3.0. If you want high MPG then the diesel is the way to go.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff