By on March 20, 2007

100_0063.jpg

As far as I’m concerned, Jaguar died the day the suits killed the F-Type. Jag’s prototype Boxster beater had it all: sexy looks, the promise of phenomenal performance and a decent chance of hitting the right price point. But oh no, the American owned company decided to spend its time and money building… diesels. And a badge engineered Ford Mondeo called the X-Type. And estates— sorry, “sportwagons.” So, seven years later, I found myself behind the wheel of Jaguar’s perfect storm: a diesel X-Type Sportwagon. Or, as the Brits say, the dog’s breakfast.

To its credit (however inadvertent), the Sportwagon loses most of the inherent silliness of the X-Type sedan’s XJ mini-me design. While the Sportwagon offers precisely nothing in the way of aesthetic originality, the larger pallet makes it a more convincing faux XJ, a model whose sheetmetal offered virtually nothing in the way of originality over the previous XJ, whose design was a giant leap backwards from its squared-off predecessor. In other words, grandfather clock carrying Jaguar badge snobs need apply.

100_0067.jpgDespite an elegant tail design (stolen from the previous gen BMW 5-Series wagon) and enormous rear taillights (pilfered from a school bus), the Sportwagon wants the world to think it’s a, um, sport wagon. Our UK-spec tester made a bit more of an effort to project performance than its American counterpart. And I do mean a bit: blacked-out window chrome and [optional] mucho macho Proteus 18” wheels flaunting gold brake calipers. Compared to the gold standard in this niche, Audi’s S and RS Avants, the XTSW looks like a small station wagon wearing oversized running shoes.

At least it’s a small station wagon. With the rear seats folded down, antique dealers and their empty nest clients will be well pleased with the Jag’s class-leading cargo hole, complete with large, properly positioned tie-down rings. With the rear seats in place, schleppers must pack their gear to the rafters. Unfortunately, without a cargo net, passengers risk death by Tumi. In compensation, Jaguar provides a Styrofoam-lined underfloor hole with a 12-volt power point– perfect for hiding your recharging laptop from nosey Narcs.

100_0068.jpgForget utility. Our tester’s Sport Premium interior just wasn’t going to let the performance theme die a dignified death. The dash was afflicted with a carbon fiber veneer, a material that belongs in a Jaguar station wagon like Spandex shorts belong on an English footman. The Sportwagon’s thick, leather wrapped steering wheel, highly bolstered seats and six-speed gearbox underlined the model’s accelerative intent. The silver-rimmed white-on-black gauges are elegant in a Darth Vader kinda way, but they lack the large print legibility Jaguar’s target demographic requires.

Before we evaluate the Sportwagon’s sportiness, it’s important to note that Jaguar fits the US version with ye olde 3.0-liter Duratec V6, four wheel-drive and a price tag knocking on 40 large. Our English sacrilege special came with a 2.2-liter diesel, front wheel-drive and a $50k sticker.

OK, fire-up the oil burning Sportwagon. The ensuing clatter sounds like a Manhattan deli dishwasher heard through airplane earplugs. Never mind the noise, feel the G’s! Actually, the first G is “Gee, when is this thing going to get going?” The second is “Gee, why would anyone put this much torque into a front wheel-drive car?” But the third G stands for genuine grunt. Don’t be fooled by the Sportwagon’s distinctly unsportsmanlike 9.3 second zero to sixty sprint. At 2000rpm, the Sportwagon surges with genuine conviction. You’re all done at 4000rpm, but it’s a hoot while it lasts.

100_0066.jpgIn terms of handling, the Sportwagon suffers from a bad case of luxosport bi-polar disorder. The power-assisted steering works wonderfully around town, but makes at speed positioning and mid-course corrections a distinctly dodgy business. The brakes feel pliable in the ‘burbs, seriously squidgy anywhere else. If you somehow master the art of speeding and nothingness, you face yet another dynamic challenge: the Sportwagon’s six speed box is as rubbery as Jim Carrey’s malleable mug.

But abyssmal ride quality is this car’s greatest sin. If the Sportwagon displayed sufficient grace over rough surfaces, you could simply dismiss its sporting pretensions as a bit of harmless, largely theoretical fun, kick back, savor the mileage and cruise. But the Sportwagon’s engineers were determined to make this beast stay flat and level in the corners—which it bloody well does— no matter how poor the resulting ride. Wrong answer.

100_0067.jpgYes, well, God knows there’ve been a lot of those over at Jaguar since Ford assumed control of the storied English automaker. The diesel Jaguar Sportwagon embodies all the brand’s failed attempts at snatching some of BMW’s success (even the name sounds like a German translation). Hello? Jaguar didn’t make its bones building ultimate driving machines. They [poorly] crafted saloons and sports cars with pace and grace. Unless Jaguar returns to their founding formula, laughable distractions like the Sportwagon will be their undoing.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

47 Comments on “Review: 2005 Jaguar Sportwagon...”


  • avatar
    SherbornSean

    Everyone keeps begging Ford to bring diesels and wagons and Mondeos to the US. Based on this review, I’m not so sure.

    The silver lining is that at least Jaguar didn’t try to make an SUV.

    Yet.

  • avatar

    Spot on about the styling. The XJ look did’t work well with the X-Type’s stout proportions. (Isn’t working well with the stouter current XJ, either.)

    I haven’t driven an X-Type in years, yet I still distinctly recall the ride as among the worst I’ve experienced. Every bump and divot was dealt with abruptly and, even worse, VERY loudly.

    Sounds like they haven’t used the intervening years to sort out the suspension.

    I’d probably consider a used X-Type wagon since the resale value will surely be dreadful, except that they never offered the wagon here with a stick. I don’t recall the stick used with the V6 being quite so bad as you describe it in the diesel.

    My site’s page for these cars (I entered pricing data for the baby Jag into TrueDelta’s database on a whim, knowing as I did so that no one would ever use them):

    http://www.truedelta.com/models/X-Type.php

  • avatar
    sitting@home

    “The ensuing clatter sounds like a Manhattan deli dishwasher heard through airplane earplugs”.

    Why do people insist diesels are ready for main-stream. Whenever I’m in the UK, you can hear a diesel coming from a mile away and smell it for five minutes after it’s gone. The people there are paying for their mpg with their lungs. Long may the Californian bureaucrats keep those things out of here. If Jaguar/Ford can’t engineer one indistinguishable from a gas(petrol) engine, what chance have Hyundai/Kia (and then the coming Chinese wave after that).

    Does a FWD Jaguar sound like design-by-beancounter rather than design-by-engineer to you ?

  • avatar
    blautens

    I agree with Mr. Karesh – unless you don’t mind setting money on fire, purchasing a slightly used Jaguar is always far more tempting than eating the rapid depreciation of a new one.

    But this wagon seems like a mish mash of bad ideas. Our friend has an X type wagon (gasoline, with properly small wheels and tires) and it rides okay, though, so perhaps there’s hope. It’s a proper realtor’s car…dunno that I’d want to drive it, though.

  • avatar
    Martin Schwoerer

    It sounds like it is inferior to the Mondeo it is based on. Quite a trick. Like a Cadillac that is inferior to a Buick. Waitasecond…

  • avatar
    jconli1

    I gotta say… maybe its the misdirected frustration of being an ‘Merican in a world of more interesting cars, maybe its the inherent allure of a black european sportwagon regardless of quality… but damn the contents of that review, and the full awareness of the Mondeo underneath it all – I want that car.

    … for about $23k

  • avatar
    jerseydevil

    Yes they should have persued the F-type

  • avatar
    Alex Rashev

    It looks so 1997 it’s not even funny.

    I don’t get it, Jaguar was supposed to be a mix between Rolls Royce and Aston Martin, not BMW and Kia. This ugly thing shows everything that is wrong with Jaguar these days.

    The F-type could have been such a cash-cow, and the timing is just right, too – roadsters are gaining popularity again. What a pity.

  • avatar
    P.J. McCombs

    Count me among those who appreciate this car’s looks. I know it’s shameless, amateurish riff on the XJ (itself hardly original), but compared to the A4 or 3-Series wagons, its classical lines are quite striking.

    I’ve never driven an X-type, and though I’ve read dozens of lukewarm reviews on the U.S.-spec car, I’ve never gotten a sense of exactly why it’s unsatisfying to drive. Individual components of the driving experience are usually described as average at worst. Guess it’s an unharmonious, “less than the sum of its parts” thing.

  • avatar
    Infamous Dr. X

    What a kick in the stomach. You’d think that Ford would either try to actually fix the situation and bring Jaguar back to glory, or at least have the decency to let the Cat die in a dignified manner.

    These half-baked attempts to foist monstrosities such as this upon an unsuspecting public seem pretty unconscionable.

    If Ford’s not going to actually solve the problem and start producing some some quality Cat, they should just admit defeat and pull the plug, rather than prolong the misery.

  • avatar
    ash78

    I think the problem is the basic notion of deriving it from the Mondeo. You can’t truly bolt an entry-lux car (with very established brand cachet and national pride) onto what is essentially a fleet car, the UK’s version of the Chevy Malibu. Imagine if Caddy tried that here. They could call it the “Cinnamon” or something along those lines ;)

  • avatar
    Gottleib

    “bring Jaguar back to glory, or at least have the decency to let the Cat die in a dignified manner.”

    I think Ford did just that, Jaguar was dead, built dreadful cars that didn’t work, yes they looked nice but they were very unreliable. At least now they work well, may not please the folks that frequent this site, but they work and don’t leak oil all over the garage like the classics of yore did.

    Remember your Mother saying, “If you can’t say anything nice then don’t say anything at all!” Some of your super critics need to heed her words.

  • avatar
    SherbornSean

    Three cheers for Gottleib!

    People forget that before Ford, Jaguar was at the bottom of all the quality rankings. After three years of ownerwhip, Jaguar was near the top, ahead of M-B, Infiniti and Porsche. That’s quite an acheivement.

  • avatar
    MW

    “Everyone keeps begging Ford to bring diesels and wagons and Mondeos to the US.”

    Well, sure. As Fords, at reasonable prices. Not as fake $40K luxury cars.

  • avatar
    Steven Lang

    I have to disagree…

    Jaguar has plenty of opportunity in the marketplace. The primary reason why it’s struggled as of late is bad market positioning.

    The X-Type has struggled for the same reason as the 1st gen Volvo S40. The vehicle simply doesn’t belong as a direct competitor in the sports sedan market. When folks think of Jaguar, they tend to think of all the luxuries that come with an elite British marque. Burled walnut trim, the smell of a luxury leather interior (ok, that may be) and all the comfort one would ever want in a luxury car. Volvo’s on the other hand are the safe, conservative and durable vehicle. Almost akin to an upmarket Toyota.

    There are plenty of buyers in both ends of those markets. However when these companies try to delve into the ‘sports’ side of the luxury market, they’re outmatched. Ford decided to use the Mondeo chassis in order to satisfy the luxury and sport enthusiasts at the same time. This is like trying to win a beer drinkig contest with a cup used for sake. The Jaguar marque does not translate into ‘entry level sports car’ driving and the culture/DNA of the company is in an entirely different universe.

    I’m surprised though at the dislike for the late 90′s Jaguar XJ’s. To me, they represented the absolute pinnacle of what Jaguar should be offering to the buying public. A truly gorgeous design with a bias in the chassis towards touring and driver comfort. I think these Jaguars were the only true original alternative to the 5-Series / LS / Q / E-Class / A6 vehicles that more or less were differet shades of each other.

    Jaguar should keep up with full sized touring cars and ditch the S and X class vehicles. An XJ, XK, and perhaps a full sized sedan to compete with the bland ES330′s, Lucernes and Avalons in the 40-45k range would be ideal for the Jaguar marque.

  • avatar
    CSJohnston

    As an X-Type owner (and yes, I did buy used… no flies on me) I will agree with much of this article (it is harsh over rough roads and the interior is drab although you guys seem to give BMW a pass on this same fault).

    The Jags strengths were the standard AWD, decent performance out of the 3.0L V6 and steering that I believe to be very good in day-to-day use.

    What I would like to openly question is this knee-jerk reaction amongst the autocogniscenti that the Mondeo platform is some kind of a bad basis for a vehicle of this type. No one seems to get too upset at Audi’s equally (if not more so) pedestrian roots for the last-gen TT and A4 or the fact that most of the Acura line up rests on humble underpinnings.

    So if it is OK for Acura, Audi (Lexus, Infiniti, Bentley, Porsche, etc) to skimp by not producing their own unique platforms for all their models, why is it such a heinous sin for Jag?

    And if the response is that the Mondeo is an awful starting point, I would beg to differ.

    Fun read in the end though.

  • avatar
    hal

    Jaguars don’t do much for me but I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the Mondeo is a bad car, quite the contrary. However sticking a wavy bonnet on a Mondeo and calling it a Jag is not a good idea for the car (which doesn’t deserve the higher price tag) or the Jaguar brand.
    I’m wondering what (other than brand appeal) your Xtype does for you that a V6 AWD Passat (the direct Mondeo competitor) wouldn’t do better for less $$$?

  • avatar
    yournamehere

    ppl have been asking for the same question for YEARS! Ford has something against updating platforms…US Focus has been on the same thing or what 8yrs now? the Mustang JUST got an all new chassis for the 1st time ever…the panther platform is probably older then i am….if it doesn’t have an 8ft bed ford doesn’t care…

  • avatar
    Johnster

    As a fan of station wagons I would love to see a “King-of-the-Hill” comparo between the diesel Jaguar X-Type Sportwagon and the new diesel Cadillac BLS Station Wagon.

  • avatar
    Dave M.

    Obviously I’ll be in the minority, but nothing says stately sophistication more than the XJ8. It has by far (to my eyes) a much stronger presence than the hideous S-class or 7 series.

    And without Ford intervening in ’89, I highly doubt Jag would still be here.

    I think the Sportwagon is a beautiful car, but it sounds like Ford cut too many corners in the interests of cost containment. Too bad.

  • avatar
    CSJohnston

    I guess my problem is that most reviews I read always attaches the Mondeo qualifier to the X-Type. It frames the crtique of the vehicle in a way that is not necessarily done in the same way with other cars based on similar componenents and platforms. I mean how many times do we read about the Golf-based TT, the Passat-based A4, The Accord-based TL, etc, etc?

    As for the X-Type versus Passat thought: I bought my X in 2003 when the only Passat that compared was the W8 version. MSRP of the Jag and the VW are actually very close. When prices are that close, brand would enter into the equation.

    Did the then-gen Passat “do” anything better than the Jag? I don’t know but I am not overly enamoured with VW. I factored in my relationship with the selling dealer, Jag’s warranty and yes, even reviews (which in `02 and `03 are not nearly as harsh as they are now). The Jag even had a 5-Speed manual which was a nice touch.

  • avatar
    Jonny Lieberman

    That car is more the dog’s bollocks.

    In a bad way.

  • avatar
    dean

    Dave M: And without Ford intervening in ‘89, I highly doubt Jag would still be here.

    To which I respond: would anyone really care, given what they offer? Does ANYONE lust after a Jag? (That could certainly change if they put the C-XF into production.)

    For my money, I would much rather have an A4 Avant. I love that car.

  • avatar
    gunnarheinrich

    Man, I knew when I saw the RSS feed “Jaguar Sportswagon” that the ensuing article was going to hurt.

    It hurt deeply. But what’s worse is the idea that there is a Jaguar stationwagon in the world. Will someone tell me what kind of a world we live in?

    It’s a world where Opels where Cadillac badges and sport four cylinder diesels! DIESELS!!!!

    It’s all too much….I…I don’t know if I can go on…I… I may buy a HONDA!

  • avatar
    Mrb00st

    question: why in the world would anyone drop 40k on a base model (US) X-Type sport wagon when you can get a fully loaded VW Passat Variant 3.6 4Motion for the same money?

  • avatar
    Seth

    The problem here is not the car itself. Its the price. But you cant blame Jag tho. Why? Well then you have to read this
    “This year marks the 25th anniversary of the original Mercedes-Benz 190, a little car that led to some big changes, not only in Stuttgart, but across the entire automotive industry.

    Whether or not to launch such a small car led to “an intense debate,” recalls Juergen Hubbert, the former boss of the Teutonic brand, and a man known to many as “Dr. Mercedes.” Back in the early 1980s, the definition of a luxury car was rigid and narrowly defined, perhaps best personified by the likes of the big Benz S-Class and slightly smaller E-Class. A compact? Verboten, argued the traditionalists. But in the wake of the second Mideast oil crisis, consumers were clamoring for something smaller and more fuel-efficient, and the radicals won.

    It’s easy to understand why there were so many folks inside Mercedes worried about the baby Benz. It was more than just a downsized S-Class – or perhaps less, if you prefer. On the most basic 190 models, there were cloth seats with mechanical adjusters and none of the electronic and mechanical niceties you normally associate with a Mercedes. Wood and leather yielded to inexpensive plastic. The exterior design was clunky and awkward, and the interior layout was unpleasantly inefficient, with virtually no leg room for back seat passengers.

    Yet despite its drawbacks, the baby Benz proved an immediate hit with consumers around the world. It quickly demonstrated that size alone is not the measure of a luxury car. And at Mercedes, that led to a dramatic change in strategy. Back in the early ’80s, you could count the marque’s various models on one hand. Today, you’ll run short of fingers and toes, with a range that includes the classic S- and E-; the 190′s descendant, the C-Class; the SL, SLK and SLR; the CL and CLK; and, well, the list just keeps going.

    Full article at TCC.

  • avatar
    cheezeweggie

    I thought I saw a Volvo emblem on the tailgate.

  • avatar
    HawaiiJim

    It’s a beautifully designed wagon.

  • avatar
    BigChiefMuffin

    I think, as ever with Jags, the concept here was correct but the execution was poor. In Europe, there is certainly big demand for small diesel estates – hence the success of A4 Avants and 3 Series Tourings.

    Younger buyers ( who tend to buy these sort of cars ) normally want some vestige of “sportiness” in whatever they purchase. As they get older, they become progressively more into “comfort”. Where the big German marques succeed is in pitching their entry models as “sporty” and then, as they get larger ( 5 series then 7 series ) they get more “comfortable” in their appeal ( while still trying to retain some sportiness – no one likes to feel old )

    Where Jaguar failed initially with the execution of the X-type was not in using the Mondeo chassis ( which is actually very good ) but in trying too much to ape the XJ which is targetted at too old a market.

    Their attempts to rectify the situation with various Sport models have failed, as the model’s identity is now too entrenched in people’s minds as “an old man’s car”. 5 years ago I bought, on a whim, an XKR and was amazed at how my friends mocked me for being an Old Aged Pensioner at the time ( despite being 35 )

    Jag need to re-establish the “sportiness” heritage of the brand ( E-types, Le Mans etc ) – the F type would have been perfect. The Gorgeous ad campaign that they are currently running misses the mark by miles….

  • avatar
    guyincognito

    I once had an X-type 3.0 certified pre-owned lease. It had 16″ wheels, so the ride wasn’t bad, handling on the other hand… It was also an awful piece of shit. Stranded me within 2 weeks of getting it. Despite the low low payment and 24 month lease deal I ditched it after only a year. This car was much better as a Mondeo. They killed all of the positive handling attributes to turn it into a Jag and added negligable comfort and terrible reliability. On the positive side, I would say that it was a chick magnet. In fact, anyone who wasn’t a car guy/girl was amazed that I could afford a Jag.

    I can’t believe they are actually still building variants of this car, based on the circa 2000 Mondeo while a much better and newer Mondeo hits the streets.

  • avatar

    Here’s a thought…

    Maserati is the new Jaguar. Jaguar is the new Lincoln. Lincoln is the new Mercury. Mercury is the new Oldsmobile.

  • avatar
    Blunozer

    What a ghastly car!

    The heck with comparing this car against a A4 Avant… What about a Subaru Legacy GT wagon for thousands less?

    Faux carbon fibre belongs in a tarted up Focus, not a Jag. Whomever decided to market a FWD diesel Jag should be shot.

  • avatar

    Dean is right. Ford may have saved Jaguar from death, but small estate wagons are a fate worse than death for a marque such as Jaguar. Sir William Lyons built cars with soul, and to a price. He was the man that built the XK 120 and the E-type, and the Mark 2 and the XJ. Now we have tarted up Fords for outrageous prices. Honestly, Jaguar would be better off dead. –chuck

  • avatar
    hal

    “In fact, anyone who wasn’t a car guy/girl was amazed that I could afford a Jag.” this is the money quote. but the other side of that coin is the nauseous feeling owners of “real” Jags might have when they see the X type. : P

  • avatar
    hal

    How about Jag as the new Aston Martin? Tart it up and flog it off as soon as it makes a profit?

    I don’t think there is necessarily a problem with a Jag wagon, just call it a “shooting brake”, put it in a photo with a chap in green wellies shooting pheasant and the Yanks will lap it up. (probably)

  • avatar
    Geotpf

    There is something fundamentally wrong with the mere concept of a Jaguar station wagon.

  • avatar
    HawaiiJim

    Jaguar has now proven that they can make a wagon with the feel and flair of a Jaguar. They’ve also bucked the trend of the disappearing station wagon. They deserve kudos, in my opinion.

  • avatar
    Ingvar

    There are at least three fundamental problems with the X-type:

    It is a:

    1. Front wheel drive
    2. Diesel
    3. Station Wagon.

    And it simply isn’t stylish enough. On top on that, the car tries to be too much, when it’s neither fish nor fowl. It’s neither sportish or stylish, and it simply lacks the Jaguar-DNA grace and pace. It looks like a Jaguar designed and manufactured by koreans.

    BMW has positioned itself as the car for choice in the ciorporate segment. The 3-series is intenden for the up-and-coming young executive, the 5-series for middle management, and the 7-series for the senior executives and chairmen of the board. The guy in the 3-series wants to achieve the goals of the men in the 5- and 7-series.

    The fundamental problem with the X-Type is that it actually isn’t a young peoples car, In Europe it is an old peoples car. Instead of young and ambitious 30-somethings, the demographic for the X-type reads more like retired middle class who chooses the cheapest Jag instead of the most expensive Ford, Opel or Volkswagen. It is the equivalent of a Buick or Mercury. At the end of the day, all it is is a tarted-up Ford Mondeo. And it shows.

  • avatar

    The fundamental problem with the X-type is that it was designed and marketed as a competitor to the BMW 3-series. Had it come even as close as a Lexus IS, it might have been a sales success, given Jaguar’s cachet. While Audi has been incredibly successful at selling cars which are assembled from the VW parts bin, they earn their props by highly differentiating the majority of their cars from more humble VW’s of similar size. Unfortunately for Jaguar, the X-type simply was not sufficiently differentiated from the competent, if plebian Mondeo.

    And, Ingvar, as a BMW 3-series owner and a corporate president, it is possible that I am unique in my enjoyment of a small, quick and maneuverable car which can still in a pinch carry four people, but I don’t think so. I don’t aspire to either the 5- or 7-series, but then again I did not buy the car for image, but for the simple fact that it does virtually everything I need in a package which offers a modicum of daily-drive luxury but will as well tear around a race track on the odd weekend. 5′s and 7′s are simply too large for my taste; it’s bad enough that my new 3′er is north of 3600 pounds, unladen.

  • avatar
    Gottleib

    And a Porsche SUV makes sense?

  • avatar
    nino

    I think the problem is the basic notion of deriving it from the Mondeo. You can’t truly bolt an entry-lux car (with very established brand cachet and national pride) onto what is essentially a fleet car, the UK’s version of the Chevy Malibu. Imagine if Caddy tried that here. They could call it the “Cinnamon” or something along those lines ;)
    ———————————————-

    Cadillac BLS or….SAAB 9-3

  • avatar
    nino

    I’ve always liked the looks of the Jag X. It stands out in a sea of CamCords and Bangle back Bimmers.

    What I’ve always felt the problem was is that the car was way overpriced for what it delivered. As has been mentioned already, other cheaper cars offer more than the Jag X.

    But with their dismal resale value, they make a better deal than many new small sedans.

  • avatar
    wsn

    Does Jaguar really need to have an “entry-level-luxury” model? After all, Ford owns Volvo and Lincoln.

    Why not just make S/SL-class fighter with Jaguar, TSX/TL fighter with Volvo and C/E-class fighter with Lincoln?

  • avatar
    wsn

    Replying to nino:

    I’ve always liked the looks of the Jag X. It stands out in a sea of CamCords and Bangle back Bimmers.

    What I’ve always felt the problem was is that the car was way overpriced for what it delivered. As has been mentioned already, other cheaper cars offer more than the Jag X.

    Your 2 point contradict each other. In the first paragraph, you want something unique and not a sea of XXX. In the second paragraph, you want some good value.

    As a matter of fact, there are a sea of Camry/Accord or even 330′s simply because they provide the best value in their class. The logic is simple: everyone buys great values —> cars of great value sells a lot —> there will be a sea of this car model.

    Even wondered why so many pistol-heads bash Toyota and praise VW?

  • avatar
    nino

    I don’t see that my points contradict each other.

    If the Jag X was a Camry/Accord competitor and priced in line with those two vehicles, I believe that it would offer a good value with a bit of style thown in. But the reality is that the Jag X was priced more in line with cars like the Lexus ES 330 and the BMW 3 series. At that price point, the style of the car isn’t enough to make the price worth while. If however, the Jag X offered the driving dynamics of the 3 series BMW, I feel that the looks of the car would’ve given it an advantage over it even at the same price.

  • avatar
    TaxedAndConfused

    Hope you weren’t driving whilst taking that “behind the wheel” picture ? Centre lane owner’s club too ?

  • avatar

    TaxedAndConfused:

    Of course not. And that’s the slow lane– in the UK.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India