By on September 9, 2010

In the interests of truth, we feel compelled to point out that this is not, in fact, the 2011 Jaguar XJ. But considering the damn thing had hardly changed in 35 years, it’s easy to understand why the Detroit News thought it could get away with just slinging up a photo of the previous year’s model. And though that may have worked for the better part of the last four decades, now that Jag has a truly new XJ, it’s just cruel. Or sloppy. Either way, it’s plenty ironic.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

18 Comments on “What’s Wrong With This Picture: The Easiest Mistake In Auto Journalism Edition...”


  • avatar
    bomberpete

    Has anyone ever noticed that Scott Burgess looks like Keifer Sutherland after a particularly rough night on the town? That could explain a lot.

  • avatar
    mjz

    At least he keeps his pants on, unlike Sutherland.

  • avatar
    Polishdon

    THe picture has been changed already, check out:

    http://www.detnews.com/article/20100909/OPINION03/9090362/1148/auto01/Jaguar-returns-to-royalty-with-the-2011-XJ-V8-sedan

  • avatar
    cirats

    I saw one of these (the new one – not the one pictured above) on the road the other day and was surprised I hadn’t seen or heard of the new design.  It’s a great looking car from the front and side.  From the rear, not so much.  It needs the rear-end from the XF.  Or maybe the XF needs the front from this car.  Is the old XJ design, with the traditional 4 headlights across the front, totally a thing of the past now?  If so, that’s a real shame.  I’d rather see something like that continue and Jaguar use the XF (or some other new nomenclature) to go off in these more modern directions.

  • avatar

    It’s not Scott Burgess’ fault. His job is writing about cars and there’s no doubt that he knows that Jaguar has moved away from it’s traditional XJ styling. This was the mistake of an editor. Believe it or not, not everybody in Detroit is knowledgeable about cars.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    It’s a shame that the 2011 XJ doesn’t look like that photo.
    <comicbookguy> Worst. Redesign. Ever. </comicbookguy>

    • 0 avatar
      redliner

      oy! I’m sure i’m in the minority, but I liked the last XJ, I though it looked handsome and classy. I actually bought an XJR (CPO, there is NO WAY, I would put up with the unbelievable depreciation). Not the best car, by far, but I loved it, very charming.

  • avatar
    hreardon

    We’ve got quite a few of these around Northeast Ohio.  It’s a very handsome car with one exception: that rear overhang is ferociously long.

  • avatar

    I’ve read plenty of Scott’s reviews.  He’s like your neighbor who knows nothing about cars, but talks obliviously about them as you try to escape.  “I had a Mustang once, a 1961.  It had a fuel injected 4 barrel 350 and it never lost a race.  They don’t make ‘em like that anymore.”

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      Heh, that reminds me of a lot of customers we get on the new 5.0 Mustangs.  “Well, my Mitsubishi Evo/’96 Mustang with a supercharger/Acura Integra is faster than the new Mustang, but I’d like to take a look at it anyway”.  Yeah buddy, sure it is…

  • avatar
    blowfish

    Mr Tata got to have a vay of making them jags work, is turning a profit as heard last, atleast they’re still in the also ran position. Slowly moving the manufacturing to Asia.
    They just want Old Blighty to know they could do it.
     
     

  • avatar
    Jack Baruth

    I like Scott, but if Jaguar PR had a penis, its testicles would be resting on Scott’s lips.

  • avatar
    bomberpete

    THanks a lot, Baruth. Didn’t your mother ever wash your mouth out with soap? We were just having fun and now you went and got all of us in trouble!

  • avatar
    stationwagon

    Jaguar should have kept the hood ornament.

  • avatar
    MLS

    Automotive “journalists” commit these sorts of errors far too frequently.  If I see one more newspaper article mistakenly use the winged Chrysler brand badge in place of the corporate Pentastar logo, I’ll scream.

    • 0 avatar
      msquare

      If the “journalists” were actually responsible for the finished product you see, I’d agree with you.

      They’re not. As Ronnie Schreiber mentioned, writers write, editors edit, producers produce. Nice thing about the web is that you can make a correction just as fast as you can make the mistake. Burgess probably called in and had them fix it.

      The person who made the original mistake probably sifted through a bunch of filenames, saw “jaguar” and didn’t double-check.

      It’s a mistake. That’s all it is.

  • avatar
    bomberpete

    Having worked on that side of the street, I agree with msquare. Most of us are only picking on Burgess for being so Ra-Ra, not a minor error like this.
     


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
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India