Between The Lines: AutoWeek's Long-Term Jaguar XK-R

Press cars are specially selected, carefully prepared and meticulously maintained. Why wouldn’t they be? You can hardly expect a manufacturer to pluck a car from the assembly line and trust their model’s reputation to the vagaries of quality control– even though the car’s less likely to receive a harsh critique than a seventh grade production of The Wizard of Oz. To their credit, the manufacturers eventually “let go;” surrendering specially selected, carefully prepared new vehicles to the buff books’ long-term fleets. When things go wrong, as they do, the result betrays the tension between payola and editorial credibility.

In the August 20 issue of Autoweek, Mac Morrison provides an update on the mag’s long-term 2007 Jaguar XK-R drop top. “IT’S SO FINE, IT’S SUNSHINE” dismisses any thoughts that the mag’s Jag might have some of those pesky reliability issues that have dogged the brand since, um, ever. The strapline pours on the feel good: “Jaguar’s XK-R is a universal favorite" (also all caps, but it hurts my ears).

“Opinions on our new Jaguar in its first three months with us are nearly unanimous, with each driving experience a carbon copy of those preceding it. And those experiences are good."

Morrison’s paean to pussycat perfection begins with that most revealing of collective possessive pronouns: “our.” From the fourth word, the author signals objectivity’s defenestration; as the Zen saying goes, that which you own owns you. Of course, the $97,875 XK-R in question ($92,500 plus $5,375-worth of Autoweek selected options) doesn’t really belong to Mr. Morrison or Autoweek. But the responsibility to maintain more than a modicum of editorial independence does.

Anyway, describing the staff’s reaction to maximum Jagitude as “nearly unanimous” is like saying that Parindsehole Hiltohanchie is “virtually clean and sober;” we instantly want to know about those exceptions. No wonder Morrison feels compelled to calm us down and call it good.

“The exhaust gurgle sounds genuinely like an agitated cat on full alert. If that strikes you as a cliché, then you’ve never heard an XK-R on wide-open throttle. The taut yet comfortable suspension compresses and rebounds fluidly through corners as the gearbox cracks off perfect downshifts with a flick of the paddle. Passengers absorb it all from the confines of a cockpit born for long, top-down, sunset cruises.”

Although a cliché is a cliché because it’s true, you get the picture: it’s a fantastic automobile. Well, fair enough. But none of this adds much to J.P. Vettraino’s original review. What we want to know– still– is how the blown cat has held up to long term scrutiny.

After three paragraphs of passionate reverence, including the reassurance that “not one driver voiced disappointment with the overall experience,” Morrison finally gets down to business.

The scribe slates the XK-R’s touch screen for its user-antagonism, condemns the trunk-mounted antenna’s aesthetics as “ridiculous on a $98,000 car," slates it for its sloth-like retraction and blames the tardiness for a $500 post-car wash repair bill. And then, the real money shot…

“Our XK-R also exhibited some strange electronic (ahem) glitches. Once it would not detect the key. Another time, the backup sensors went beserk for no apparent reason, while one editor claimed multiple warning lights illuminated and disappeared just as mysteriously. Yet another driver experienced cruise-control failure. None of the problems repeated and the car spent no days out of service.”

It’s a damning indictment of Jaguar’s quality control, wrapped in (ahem) qualifiers and obvious backpedaling (the editor “claimed” idiot light malfunction). Nevertheless, it was said, and Morrison ends the update with a justifiable blend of boosterism and foreboding.

“We certainly do not question the enthusiasm that exists for Jaguar’s latest. Here’s hoping the next nine months provide no significant reason to do so.”

We certainly do question the need for AutoWeek, Car and Driver, Motor Trend, etc. to run manufacturer-sponsored long term fleets, the lack of full disclosure and the unanswered question of whether or not the dealers who service the vehicles know that they’re doing so on behalf of a motoring journalist.

Obviously, readers want to know the real world livability and reliability of new-to-market cars, and how they’re treated down at the dealership when things go awry. But that information is best provided by real world drivers driving honest-to-God production vehicles. In fact, AutoWeek does just that in an excellent regular feature sampling owners’ comments. So what’s the point of the long-term fleet?

No matter how you answer that question, a larger one looms: what effect does such an expensive freebie have on a publication’s editorial integrity? There’s an implied quid pro quo: don’t be too harsh on our products and your multi-thousand dollar ticket on the new car gravy train is assured. It’s an ethically unjustifiable extravagance.

There. I’ve said it. The cat is out of the bag.