By on August 29, 2007

xf_132.jpgJaguar's embargo on pictures of their new XF midrange model expired over the weekend. After seeing the snaps, it’s clear the brand is set to follow suit. Whereas the Jaguar C-XF concept car was a stunning shape with brilliant details, the production version is… meh. Of course, the concept-to-production castration has afflicted many a dream car. But the transformation is particularly regrettable for Jag. While Porsche had 14 years to move production Boxsters back toward the spirit of the original concept, Jaguar is out of time. 

The past fifteen years have been excruciating for fans of the once-legendary British brand. Although Jag’s reliability and quality were removed from the laughing stocks, the company’s management made a stunning and seemingly endless series of catastrophic miscalculations: retro-styling, anemic engines, diesel engines, station wagons, anemic diesel station wagons and a model so execrable it threatened to banish “X” to the bottom of the cool letter list. And the rest, including misbegotten marketing and Ye Olde Ford lack of continual development.

jaguar_c_xf_concept_1.jpgFast forward to today and the time has come for Lyon’s legacy to face the final curtain– or at least a transfer of ownership from Ford to someone else. But even as FoMoCo prepares to cut bait and fish, Jaguar needs something, anything, to keep itself alive until someone, somewhere can get into resurrection mode. The XF is so not it. In fact, the sedan may reduce the marque's selling price and hinder any efforts to apply the paddles to the brand’s sunken chest. 

The C-XF made the auto show circuit to demonstrate that the old cat had at least one life left. Even before it headed back to the Galactica for federalization, Jag supporters fretted that its claws would be removed. Designer Ian Callum felt compelled to assure onlookers that the concept vehicle would be locked away in the Jaguar "vault" after it made the rounds.

And the concept might still be in that vault, for all we know. Meanwhile the production version of the C-XF is exactly what its admirers feared: yet another bland brand betrayal. 

xf_11.jpgFor example, the door handles, hidden in the B and C pillars on the concept, are now sticking out on the sides of the car just like everything else on the road.  The concept’s glamorous headlamps have become globular and saggy headlights. The C-XF’s low roofline was lifted to allow taller folks to enter comfortably; a sure sign that God hates proper sports cars. 

Jag’s interior defecators took the C-XF’s break-from-tradition cabin– remarkable not just for its shape but for the absence of traditional stuffy Jaguar club-room finishing– and threw it in the rubbish bin. In its stead, the production XF will be adorned with the usual almost BMW-quality leather and wood polished until it looks just like plastic. Oh, a few novel elements from the concept’s interior made it to market.

xf_29_eu_hr.jpgA gimmicky gear selector knob called JaguarDrive SelectorTM rises from the XF’s center tunnel. Trick yes, but also a bold declaration that Jag’s "true sports saloon” will have neither a manual gearbox nor a dual clutch S-tronic DSG type deal. And although the XF’s six-speed automatic is a welcome advance, it keeps Jaguar in its now traditional spot: one step behind the competition. Lest we forget, Mercedes is packing seven-speed boxes into its cars thee days, and the rest of the luxury pack are paddling pistonheads to performance-related profit.

The XF also features covered air vents that “roll back” when the driver presses  the push-button ignition– that pulses like a “beating heart” (or annoying idiot light). It’s a direct steal from the Volkswagen Phaeton, with one critical telling difference: when the Vee Dub reaches the appropriate cabin temperature, the fascia rolls back and continues heating or cooling with indirect ventilation. Not so the XF. So, what’s the point?

xf_23.jpgThe XF’s engine lineup is the real bright spot in this tarted-up Teutonic wannabe– if only because it isn’t a 3.0-liter Duratec V6. Well not for the Yanks anyway. While the Eurozone gets the old six-pot and a diesel option, American XF’s come one way: with a 300-horse V8. Hang on; Jaguar's latest example of cutting-edge engineering needs two extra cylinders to put out what Infiniti, Cadillac, Acura, Lexus, and BMW are doing with six pipes? And while the eventual 420-horse supercharged V8 will be a screamer, it's far from enough to pull this buggy out of the mud.

On the face of it, before a test drive, the XF looks like it's too little too late. Again. If The Blue Oval Boyz hadn't lost $12.6b last year, the XF might be acceptable. If Jaguar's U.S. sales were more like 2002's 60k cars and not 2006's 20k, the XF might be a "solid effort." But Coventry doesn't have that luxury. The XF needed to be a grand-slam home run. It isn’t. Here’s hoping the new management has better luck. 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

79 Comments on “Jaguar XF: Love’s Labour Lost...”


  • avatar
    Roger Hislop

    Noooooooooooooo! Let me say that again. Nooooooooooo!

    The concept looked fantastic, albeit in a slightly BMW 6-clonish way. The production version XF looks like a goddam Volvo from the front (with just enough S-Type beltline droopiness to look ridiculous).

    I really have a soft spot for Jag – I loved hooning around in the XK and XKR, and even a chaffeur driven trip in a long wheelbase XJR was pretty special. But now I weep.

  • avatar
    ejacobs

    Why do I keep seeing a damn Buick when looking at it head on?

  • avatar
    guyincognito

    Holy ****!! I thought this time they were going to make it not look like a Taurus.

  • avatar
    CeeDragon

    My heart skipped a beat when I looked at the interior. No J-Gate?! There is a God.

  • avatar
    BigChiefMuffin

    Not sure this article is very consistent. In the second paragraph, you seem to bemoan the fact that Jaguar put a diesel engine into the car ( despite the fact that it was pretty much obvious to everyone that it was exactly what they needed in Europe and has been one of their few successes ) while in the second last paragraph, you seem to be bemoaning that fact that America won’t be getting a diesel engine ?

    Quotes like “while the eventual 420-horse supercharged V8 will be a screamer, it’s far from enough to pull this buggy out of the mud ” dom’t seem to make sense. Jaguar are quoting a 0-60 of 5.1 secs for this car – seems pretty fast to me..

    You further bemoan the choice of a 6 speed auto, citing Mercs 7 speeder. Yet this is a unit which has been consistently critized in just about every review I have seen of it, while the 6 speed autos that BMW and Audi used are considered excellent units

    As for the styling – it is hard to tell from pictures but IMHO it seems a pretty well executed car. I don’t think Jaquar have toned down the production version from the concept any more than anyone else has for a mainstream car. Again, critizing the raised roofline is churlish – this is not, nor was ever meant to be, a sports car

    Sorry but all in all, I think that Jaguar have done a pretty good effort in coming up with a credible alternative to the 5/E/A6/Lexus. Your criticisms seem off the mark

  • avatar
    Sajeev Mehta

    Well said, Justin. The roofline and doors really look like a Lincoln MKS. That, and the general plumpness of a tall, boxy sedan…characteristics that have NO place in a Jaguar.

    I’m sure Lexus is thrilled to see the production version. L-finesse is looking more appealing everyday.

  • avatar

    BigChiefMuffin :

    In the second paragraph, you seem to bemoan the fact that Jaguar put a diesel engine into the car ( despite the fact that it was pretty much obvious to everyone that it was exactly what they needed in Europe and has been one of their few successes )

    I beg to differ. The dieselization of Jag was a HUGE mistake that helped ruin the brand’s cachet.

    Sure, BMW’s diesels are as good as if not better than some of their petrol-powered cars, but Jag should NEVER have tried to be BMW.

    The diesel Jags embody the brand’s absurd– and ultimately futile– pursuit of the mass market.

  • avatar
    durailer

    that gear selector knob says it all for me… looks nice, but is Jaguar supposed to have sporting characteristics? Pace and grace… how do they expect their drivers to change gears at speed? In that case, a column mounted selector would outdo that knob.

  • avatar
    flytoget

    This Jag has Lexus written all over it.

  • avatar
    NeonCat93

    I can see it now…

    Passenger:”I don’t like this radio station.”

    To me this car doesn’t look like a Buick, it looks like a late 90s Volvo.

    If I had been in charge of FoMoCo, I would have changed Jaguar to a sports car division and sold it through Lincoln dealerships as a Corvette competitor, instead of whatever market/demographic Jaguar was supposed to be in.

  • avatar
    Sizzler

    This editorial is right on!

    The XF is the car that was to save Jag. It is the one they had to get right. It is the car that was to depart from the age-old retro XJ designs of yore and bring Jag back to the future, with cutting edge styling and performance.

    Instead they sent out a Taurus to do a man’s job. Yuck!
    Callum must be phoning up Bez begging for his job at Aston back.

  • avatar
    Sanman111

    The maserati quattroporte is what jag should be making this car look like if they want to make them sell. Frankly, I think the ford mondeo is better looking than that.

  • avatar
    jurisb

    how many models does Jaguar have ? right, could we count that xj sedan as a model or as an prehistoric make-up miracle? here we go, no new models, poor diversity,pooorified image by using off -the-mazda-shelf platform, poor quality multiplied by space age parts prices and here we go -the kitten goes belly up. jaguar always have associations with chic, but only associations, the true potential is already shown by inability to crank out serious hp numbers without going supercharged. plus the poor british fit and finish. british car industry and the whole great britain reminds me USA. the same agonizing manufacturing industry, the same mind-boggingly mind boggling external debt and the same ostrich- in -the -sand attitude.

  • avatar
    starlightmica

    Did I just hear the offers for J/LR drop a notch?

  • avatar

    I'm almost embarrassed to admit that I rather like it, gimmicky JaguarDrive Selector and all. I think it is a legitimate 5-Series fighter. Jag has made some serious miscalculations in the past, true, the X-type is execrable, but this car combined with the XK I think are going to come together to present the performance/sexiness image Jag needs. Boo hoo, it doesn't look like the far-out concept. Is anyone really surprised? Production cars never look like the sleek & sexy concepts that inspired them. 

  • avatar
    starlightmica

    Well, I could afford to have one of these, but there are better places to put our money.

  • avatar
    carguy

    Where to start? The headlight seem to be out of the Monte Carlo, the whole front end looks like a late model Hyundai Sonata and the side air vents seem to interrupt any hope for visual cohesion that the rear and front end may have ever had. The interior seem to shy away from the warm Jaguar designs of old and opt for something new that looks very much like a Lincoln.

    Ford has tried to milk the Jaguar brand for all it can – let’s face it, who would have ever bought an X-type if it wasn’t for the Jaguar badge? The old XK wasn’t much better and even the new is nowhere near the standard set by the competition from Germany. However, the brand had such loyalty that the retro nostalgia designs kept the public forgiving the products shortcomings (let’s face it, they didn’t buy them for the mechanical engineering). However, even the strongest brand will erode when abused and this new design may be the last straw – a design so confused that if you removed the badge and it could be the latest offering from Korea. So if it doesn’t even look like a Jaguar what is the attraction for potential buyers?

  • avatar
    discoholic

    Justin,
    I don’t mean to be critical, but of course the concept car was absolutely stunning and the production version is rather less so. What production version of a concept car in the last 100 years wasn’t? There are safety laws and crash tests, and as for the higher roofline… you know, most 25-year-olds can’t really afford a Jag, and the 55-year-olds who can would rather get into and out of the car without the indignities of slipped discs or external help.
    Does that make the XF “bland”? Well, what about the competition, then: the E-Class is so dull it’s like Belgium on wheels, Audi has been milking the same design for decades, and Bangle’s Beemers are so hideous that driving them into a wall at 60 mph would actually improve the looks. Next to these, the production XF is still traffic-stoppingly gorgeous.
    I honestly believe that a design like this is the only thing that will save Jaguar from oblivion – it’s obvious from the sales figures that retro is what it is: yesterday’s news.

    Robert:
    I humbly disagree with your opinion on Diesel Jags – while they’re not exactly the passionate driver’s first choice, it’s simply economic suicide to offer a car in this class in Europe without a Diesel mill (ask Lexus – the GS has been a complete non-starter in Germany for that reason). The only way to preserve Jag’s cachet would be to move it three miles upmarket, where you can charge $200,000 for a car. Otherwise, you need volume, and you won’t get it without a diesel.

  • avatar
    BigChiefMuffin

    Hi Robert

    Still think Jaguar HAD to launch a diesel. I believe it accounts for something like 70% of their sales in Europe, which are small enough as it is. Where would they be with out it ?

    Brands with a far greater “sporty” heritage, such as BWM, happily flog diesels and no one says that they are damaging their heritage. I drove 1000 miles in a 520d last year and it was a surprisingly good car. Audi even races one at Le Mans

    If anything ( and I am talking about Europe here ) Jaguars greatest problems with the new car is that they don’t have ENOUGH diesels in the range. The big 3 Germans have between 3 and 4 diesel engines to choose from each ( ie 520d, 525d, 530d, 535d ) while Jaguar is just offering one engine ( and an old one at that ) to compete.

    We might not like the idea of a diesel Jag but I think it can only be a good think if the brand prospers again and, to do that in Europe, they need to offer a strong diesel range. It’s what the market wants

  • avatar
    SpinningAround

    Robert Farago :

    The dieselization of Jag was a HUGE mistake that helped ruin the brand’s cachet.

    Exactly, and symptomatic of all the things Ford did wrong with Jag. The X-Type, estate cars, front wheel drive cars, the oddly proportioned S courtesy of the shared Lincoln platform, the decision to shelve the F-Type and pursue diesels, penny-pinching on the new XK, the failure to offer a 7-speed auto or deliver a flappy paddle DSG-style cog-swapper, the lack of development of the big V8 in favour of a range of smaller engines pulled straight from the Ford corporate production lines. The list goes on and on.

    Although the prototype and the production model share many of the design cues, the production car looks like my Mum’s Volvo with a double-height grill from the front and has more than a little of the new Mondeo from the side. Maybe with a hint of that Chinese-only Buick mixed in for good measure. Which is sad because the prototype was definitely more four-door Aston. Even those wheels are insipid.

    It’s odd that they felt the need to raise the roofline so much, given Merc’s success with the CLS pseudo-coupe. I also don’t really understand the need to de-emphasize the bonnet bulge or the side-strakes.

    Sad sad sad.

  • avatar
    SherbornSean

    It seems to be quite the fashion to criticize Jaguar styling. The XJ was “too traditional” and the XK was “too conservative” and now the XF is “too watered down.” Maybe the bar was set so high with the E that Jaguars will never be able to live up to that standard and still meet modern safety and packaging requirements.

    Cars like this are hard to judge by pictures. I’ll wait until I see one in the flesh.

  • avatar
    SpinningAround

    discoholic :

    There are safety laws and crash tests, and as for the higher roofline… you know, most 25-year-olds can’t really afford a Jag, and the 55-year-olds who can would rather get into and out of the car without the indignities of slipped discs or external help.

    I’d reckon it’s more sill height than roofline that determines how hard getting in and out is. Merc with the CLS, Chrysler with the 300 and perhaps to somewhat of a lesser extent the BMW 6 Series have all shown that relatively high-waisted, low roofline cars can go into production and be successful despite the impact it has on rear headroom and all round visibility.

    With high-discharge lights there really isn’t a particularly good reason to go from the prototype’s thin, aggressive slanty lights to the bubble-shaped things they ended up with either. Well at least there shouldn’t be on cars that are going to be in this price bracket.

  • avatar
    KatiePuckrik

    It’s funny, but a lot of people praise Ford for not killing Volvo and letting them flourish whereas GM crushed SAAB like bug. But yet, people causually gloss over what Ford have done to the big cat.

    First off, using a Mondeo platform to build the X-Type had “Disaster” and “Accountant’s idea” written all over it. I don’t care how “award winning that platform was, NO-ONE wants to buy a luxury car that was engineered from the start from a Mondeo. And let’s face it, if someone is going to buy a Jaguar, they know a little about cars to make this a factor. Would you buy a Mercedes-Benz engineered from a Chrysler platform?

    Secondly, Jaguar’s lack of focus has been a main bugbear of mine. Jaguar can’t work out whether they want to make luxury sedans or sporty cars. Now considering that Jaguar for the last 14+ years has been sandwiched between Volvo (a maker of luxury sedans) and Aston Martin (a maker of sporty cars) Jaguar must have been very confused and I’m willing to bet that Aston Martin and Volvo had more clout in the PAG group to tell Jaguar not to tread on their toes (In fact, I remember a story about GM where Chevrolet made a luxury car (or something like that) which trod on Cadillac’s toes. Cadillac complained to head management and forced Chevrolet to cancel that car). On a side note, Nissan in Europe are heading down that route. There is now no mid range sedan in the Nissan line up. There is only the Micra (small urban car), The Qashqai (crossover suv), The Note (large crossover SUV), the Murano (VERY large SUV) and the 305Z (bad sports car with a Renault engine). Nissan have totally lost the plot.
    Thirdly, I disagree with Mr Farago (please don’t hit me!) about the dieselisation of some Jaguars. The diesel powertrains was one of the only world class things Jaguar had going for it. I don’t blame them for utilising it. To make a diesel as refined as a petrol engine AND have a good MPG rate should have been a selling point which Jaguar should have exploited.

    On the whole, the new XF symbolises what’s wrong with Jaguar. Brilliant concepts, terrible execution. And there’s a very good reason why this is the case. Jaguar have also been deficient in one other area, PASSION. Jaguar should never been a volume car maker. They are a niche maker and like all niche makers every car should have passion and creativity installed as standard. When Jaguar are finished being beaten like a ginger step-child by Ford I hope a petrolhead someone like Sir Anthony Bamford takes them over. Jaguar can still survive, but only with the right person at the top.

  • avatar
    SpinningAround

    SherbornSean :

    It seems to be quite the fashion to criticize Jaguar styling. The XJ was “too traditional” and the XK was “too conservative” and now the XF is “too watered down.”

    But perhaps that is the point that everyone is making- that Jaguar really had no choice but to do something truly bold. With the prototype they actually appeared to be doing so. Despite this need, which is hardly a recent issue, they keep ‘blinking’ when the moment comes. Case in point- shelving the F-Type in favour of diesel wagons…

  • avatar

    KatiePuckrik :

    Would you buy a Lexus engineered from a Camry platform?

    Ever hear of an ES350?

  • avatar
    KatiePuckrik

    To be fair we don’t have that model in the UK, but duly noted and changed, but my point remains the same! God I hate Toyota sometimes! :O)

  • avatar
    Pch101

    Still think Jaguar HAD to launch a diesel. I believe it accounts for something like 70% of their sales in Europe, which are small enough as it is. Where would they be with out it ?

    Jaguar is bleeding cash and losing money. Perhaps this is part of the reason.

    Mr. Farago can speak for himself, but I am of the opinion that it was a big mistake to try to turn Jaguar into a competitor against the luxury brands (BMW, Mercedes, etc.) The segment is simply too competitive, and there isn’t much place for Jaguar in it. Let’s face it — the cachet of English sport sedans is long gone, so why try to revive it?

    In my mind, Jaguar should have abandoned the luxury segment and moved up to the exotic/near-exotic category ala Porsche, Aston Martin, Bentley, etc. It has a bit of brand heritage that could allow it to build some limited edition uber-Brit twelve-cylinder cars and the like that would have allowed it to capitalize on its past, instead of running headlong into the competitive meat grinder created by Merc, Lexus and the rest. It’s like the Battle of the Marne all over again.

    Jag simply can’t achieve the production and sales scale needed to make a large line of cars with multiple engine choices profitable. If it limited itself to just a few highly focused cars with some Cool Britannia but still somewhat traditional design, and could move those cars at fairly high prices, then it could make money. But trying to beat BMW at its own game with a design that looks like a Buick that collided with a Volvo? No way.

  • avatar

    KatiePuckrik I knew someone would catch me out! OK how about a Mercedes-Benz engineered on a Chrysler platform? They're supposed to share a common platform between the next-generation Grand Cherokee (and Commander, if it survives that long) and M-Class.

  • avatar
    SpinningAround

    KatiePuckrik :
    Jaguar have also been deficient in one other area, PASSION. Jaguar should never been a volume car maker.

    I doubt the Jag people lack passion. I think you nailed it when you discussed Jag’s difficult PAG market position between Ford and Volvo at one end and Aston at the other.

    Jag didn’t, or in reality probably not allowed, to capitalize on the vast (I seem to remember figures of 300M – 600M p.a.) sums of money that Ford dumped into a second-tier F1 team with Jag logos by producing a range of sports and hot RR versions of all their cars. An XK-RR with an F1 semi-auto, monsterous blown v8 and hardcore suspension. The F-Type, with matching blown V8 RR version. A truly brutal XJR-RR with a semi-auto.

    The later is almost the perfect example of a whole market Jag had to themselves for years and for whatever reason never capitalized on. Whilst Aston and Porsche are getting into the 4-door executive express game and AMG and Maserati have been there for a while, Jag almost defined the segment over 10 years ago. And yet they never pushed it to the edge.

    Instead we got FWD Mondeo rebadged nonsense, a Lincoln-platformed retro mobile with bizarre proportions and the XJ/XK ranges crippled to avoid impinging on Aston’s market.

  • avatar
    Justin Berkowitz

    The diesel situation is a really tough call. Yes, it was a good move to boost European sales, and in fact the 2.7 turbo diesel is an excellent motor (for an oil burner).

    BUT it’s also a damn diesel, and has no place in a Jaguar. This is a company with historical baggage (heritage, if you will) and they are not doing what is necessary to keep the good stuff and dump the bad.

    The mistake is pursuit of the mass market. Porsche sells fewer cars with astronomical profits ($28,000 USD average per car). Yes, Porsche has succumbed and is building the Cayenne and Panamera, but those profits are driving development of the 911 and Cayman and Boxster, the latter two of which are orgasmic and as brand-faithful as they come.

    The XF was Jag’s chance to shine. Honestly, I think it looks decent. But decent is nowhere near enough for them.

  • avatar
    Redbarchetta

    WTF?! Isn’t there enough ugliness in the world.

    Jaguar is sooo in trouble. If I was one of the prospective buyers I would be seriously concerned after seeing that.

    This screams “we didn’t have enough time or money to fully develop the concept into a competetive car for it’s market, so just take this with the Jag badge on the front.”
    If they don’t have enough money and desire to make a kick-ass last ditch effort, what is left to look forward to.

    Production cars never come out exactly the same as concepts, but cutting out what actually made the concept appealing is complete stupidity. This thing is so bad I don’t want to see it on the road next to me, I feel nausious.

  • avatar
    Justin Berkowitz

    @Sherborn Sean

    I agree with you that it seems to be trendy to blast Jaguar. My criticisms are more nuanced than “XJ bad, S-Type bad, XF bad.”

    I rather like the current XJ – my criticism is just that it didn’t look different from the older model, and that lead many people to not notice them or realize they were new.

    The S-type is my favorite Jaguar to look at and drive since the old XJ12 coupe. I think it’s a great looking car, and once they sorted out the interior and suspension in 2004-2005, it really hit its stride. The naturally aspirated V8 and the supercharged V8 are peaches. The market, as you know, disagrees with me.

  • avatar
    SpinningAround

    Pch101 :
    In my mind, Jaguar should have abandoned the luxury segment and moved up to the exotic/near-exotic category ala Porsche, Aston Martin, Bentley, etc.

    Which would have fit perfectly with their sponsorship of the F1 team, their oft-times market leading technology such as their use of aluminium, and perhaps even to some extent their choice to evolve their designs gently in the way that Bentley and Porsche do so well. Even though Porsche appear to have beaten their new 4-door to death with the ugly stick, the 911 design cues, sports car and racing heritage and market position will no doubt mean it sells well…

    Instead the creeping brand devaluation has all but killed them off. It’s bad enough that, as a maker of cars with grace, pace and space, start pumping out small Mondeo-alikes. At least when that started they were 4 wheel drive. When you start building FWD diesel wagons it is all over.

    It is interesting that Ford didn’t learn a sinle thing from the UK car industry’s vast success in devaluing fantastic names like MG, Wolseley and Vanden Plas by sticking grills and leather seats with picnic tables in Austin 1300’s, Mini’s and Metros.

  • avatar
    whatdoiknow1

    Jaguars search for relevence today is just plain sad. This brand is truly dead! The XF is a car the does not know what it is trying to be, just like the brand itself.

  • avatar

    It is a Buick Lucerne with Subaru headlights.

    For all of you out there saying it doesn’t look too bad, I suggest buying one and watch the depreciation take your breath away. I would buy a Phaeton over this any day, it, at least, was innovative.

    The car needs to be lower and a bit longer, the headlights revised, the grill more aggressive. If they wanted to keep a link to the past, they should have kept the hood ornament instead of their horrid new Puma logo.

    If I was a car company shopping to buy the Jaguar brand, I would absolutely forbid them from releasing this model. It can only further dilute whatever brand equity is left and make it just that much harder to resurrect. Jaguar is totally fixable and retrievable as a brand, but it is definitely on the fragile edge of losing any value whatsoever.

  • avatar
    whatdoiknow1

    The XF needed to be a grand-slam home run. It isn’t. Here’s hoping the new management has better luck.

    If I hit a home run in an empty ballpark does it matter? Is it a home run or just a ball hit over the fence?

    Jaguar is like Cadillac in that both companies have lets lesser brands surpass them in the premium market. With that said the Jaguars name really does not mean very much anymore. Jaguars used to seen in the same light as MB and BMW. Audi used to seen as a lesser mid-level brand. Today Audi is were Jaguar used to be.

    Even if the XF is a great car how many folks will notice?

  • avatar
    Hank

    Everyone knows concepts are not accurate portrayals of what will actually come down the line. Half the changes are mandated by safety considerations alone (rooflines, bumpers, etc.).

  • avatar
    BigChiefMuffin

    The thing is – the average reader of TTAC is not the average buyer of a car or the average Jag buyer. We tend to like sports cars and specialized cars. These are niche small volume lines which only very few companies ( Porsche, Ferrari ) can make money out of.

    When we think of Jaguar, we think of E-types. However, to most people, Jaguar is just as synonomous with luxury. When the “fateful” decision on the S-type styling was made( which, IMHO marked the beginning of the end ). they had a choice – go sporting and go straight against BMW, Audi et al using their E-type heritage, or go trad luxury using their MKII heritate. At the time, retro was in and value of MKII’s were going thru the roof. Morse was driving them on TV and they were cool. Put yourself in their place of PAG – They chose wrong but it was an easy mistake to make

    Ford could not use Jag to compete against Porsche – that was Aston’s role ( in the initial PAG plan ). The heartland of Jag’s sales was in the £20K to £50K range, slightly above Volvo in terms of sticker price. The Mondeo platform share has been roundly critized but Audi A4 buyers don’t mind sharing with a Skoda, nor do Bentley buyers witha VW. And the Mondeo platform was actually very good ( try an ST220 if you ever get the chance )

    Yes Ford’s ownership of Jag has been a disaster but you can see why they made most of the calls they did – it is easy to be wise in retrospect..

  • avatar
    omnivore

    As far as I know, the XF does have paddle shifters behind the steering wheel. I think you twist the knob one gate to the right, to ‘S’, and then you can control the gearbox with the paddles. Personally, I like the rotary shift. It’s a different idea, and a neat one, especially now that everyone from Subaru to Dodge is imitating Mecedes’s waggly-gate shifter.

  • avatar
    brownie

    I think Jaguar’s critics  don’t know what they want from Jaguar. They want it to make bare-bones sports cars; they want it to make upscale exotics; they want it to make sports sedans; they want it to make luxury sedans. I’m sorry, but in the absence of a test drive the criticism of this car is off the mark. Point by point: 1) Styling – Um, isn’t this subjective? I think it looks dull from the front, great from just about every other angle. Every car has some bad angles. 2) Engine – since when is 300hp objectively “not enough” for a base leve luxury car? This can’t be determined without a test drive. My porky S4 puts out less than 280hp at the wheels (thanks to Quattro), and it’s way more than enough, thank you very much. 300 is only not enough if you want to have more hp than your neighbor, and if you care about that there is the supercharged version. Besides, I thought this site was above that kind of thinking. 3) Transmission – critics let their bias in here. They want Jaguar to have some kind of manual shifter because that’s what they like – they are driving enthusiasts, after all. But since when has Jaguar catered to the sports car market? The 60’s maybe? They were primarily making cars with automatic transmissions long before Ford came along. If anything, I think a manual shifter would be a departure from their brand and nothing more than trend-following. And yes, 6 gears is enough, unless you like bragging about having more. Every other criticism I’ve heard is minor. The air vent thing sounds bizarre, I agree, but it’s a silly reason to dismiss a car entirely.

  • avatar
    SpinningAround

    carguy:
    The old XK wasn’t much better…

    There we would have to differ. It was released in the mid-90’s and was breathtakingly good looking at the time. The old model still looks pretty good today (certainly the coupe- I always though the droptop a tad ungainly). At the time, I cannot think of a true GT that came anywhere close for the price and certainly nothing with a blown V8 that, at least in a straight line, could legitimately take on 911s.

    Justin Berkowitz :
    I rather like the current XJ – my criticism is just that it didn’t look different from the older model, and that lead many people to not notice them or realize they were new.

    I love the current XJ, partic. in XJR form. It’s light, fast as hell and is a good handling car to boot. But the compromises, at least in the short-wheel based form, in terms of the size of the boot and rear seating imposed by the evolutionary design along with the lack of distinction between old and new models is very problematic. Jag thought they needed a strong visual link between old XJ and new XJ in that 911 Porsche way. Apparently was a poor decision all around.

  • avatar
    Justin Berkowitz

    @BigChiefMuffin:
    Excellent points. Although I come to a different conclusion, I agree in large part.

    I think you touch on something very important in your post, though. Many of the decisions at the time seemed reasonable. You’re spot on. I think much of the issue for the past ten years of Jaguar has not been the decisions, but the execution. Consider:
    –“Entry level luxury car with all-wheel-drive” (but the X-Type has strange proportions and has always felt cheap inside).
    –“Let’s try something new on the interiors on the S-Type” (but the outcome looked like a bureau and had obvious Ford parts-bin components)
    –“Let’s make the next XJ and XK out of aluminum” (and then they look identical to the steel predecessors)

  • avatar
    SpinningAround

    BigChiefMuffin :
    The heartland of Jag’s sales was in the £20K to £50K range, slightly above Volvo in terms of sticker price.

    The heartland of new Jag sales, up until the late 90’s and early 00’s was probably 50k UKPDs plus quite a lot more in some cases.

    For example, according to the numbers I found the Mark 2 of 1959 was about 4500 UKPD in 1960 which comes out at about 73k UKPD inflation adjusted.

    The XK launched at around 50k UKPDs in 1997 in coupe form and more for the convertible.

    I couldn’t find a list price for either the Series One XJ or the XJS but I would bet that they started at the the top of your range and went upwards.

    So historically a 20k to 50k price bracket simply wasn’t their market. That was where Ford positioned them.

  • avatar
    Justin Berkowitz

    SpinningAround
    You’re absolutely right, and the heavily subsidized X-Type lease cars didn’t help.

  • avatar
    BigChiefMuffin

    Yes Justin, I agree, your point is well made – the execution was not great, and yet, Jaguar do better than ever in the JD Power surveys, which suggests that corners really were not being cut.

    It really was a marketing/design mess – in the bits that they should have been daring ( design, sportiness, appeal to a younger audience ) they weren’t, while in the bits they could have been conservative ( aluminium usage, getting into F1 team ) they went daring…

  • avatar
    guyincognito

    I’m suprised at the positive responses to this vehicle. Jaguar is a vast money pit and the brand is for sale. Ford dumped $2 billion into it and this is the product? How will this compete in a stacked market of vehicles with equal or better styling, astronomically better reputations for reliability/resale value, equal or better performance, higher technology, etc. As Mr. Farago frequently states a brand has to excel at one thing. What is that for this vehicle?
    With the uncertainty facing Jaguar, ie potential sale to an Indian or Chinese company, how many people would even take a risk on a truly compelling offering?

  • avatar
    BigChiefMuffin

    Spinning Around – yes the XK was 50 UKPD at launch, but the XJ ( the only other model at the time ) started at about 10 to 15k less. The thing is that Jag could not survive on the volumes that this area generated ( not even Porsche can hence the Cayenne ), while Volvo at the time did not really go over 30 UKPD.

    Again, if you were sitting in the seat and had to map the parameters of the next car for Jag to launch to expand its range ( which it had to do ), sitting in the Jag HQ circa 1999, would you really have said that the S-type was the wrong move ?

  • avatar
    Steve_S

    Ehile it’s not as pretty as the concept it is still an attractive car. as pretty as a 5 series, A6 and better than an E-Class. I’d love for a concept interior to make production but it never happens. I was surprised the shift knob actually made it.

    Keep in mind this in not an XK coupe it’s a sedan. Its also isn’t supposed to be a 4 door coupe like the CLS or upcomming 8 series.

    I’d also expect some visual tweaks on an XF-R.

    Just like an R-Class I eventually intend to encourage my wife to get, sometimes its nice to have a car not everyone likes, it means you can get a good deal on a used one and you won’t see them on the road everywhere.

  • avatar
    Joe O

    Hi Justin,

    I’ve got to say I thought this review was a mixed bag. I think you hit the nail on the head in some areas, and missed in others. I’ll only mention the parts I think you missed, and I would love to hear your response:

    1. Transmission – How is a well-sorted 6-speed in so way inferior to the 7-speeds? We don’t know if it’s well-sorted or not, but I think most car rags and customers now realize that a solid automatic of 5 or 6 gears is all that matters. Besides, don’t customers in this market want wide ratios, clean shifts, and a transmission that doesn’t hunt…nor need to hunt due to gobs of choices?

    2. You mention how Jag is putting an 8-cyl that makes 300 hp and that is somehow inferior to the competitions 6-cyl’s that make 300…but what is the size of the 8-cyl? What’s the powerband like? Power delivery? Fuel Economy?

    Why not knock the BMW 3.0 liter twin turbo for producing “only” 300 HP with 20% more displacement and a whole ‘nuther turbo than the 2.5 liter Subaru STI engine? What a completely pointless statement. I think your comment in this area lost me for this editorial…

    3. Regarding the trans…you know the market. They don’t need to offer a manual; it’s be a pointless exercise in a car not meant to offer serious sport. They don’t need a DSG-style trans; the competition doesn’t offer one. Heck, even Audi doesn’t offer it (to my knowledge) on their higher-end vehicles as their current DSG can’t handle gobs o’ torque.

    Lastly…I’m a young lad, not used to the grand history of Jag. But I was raised to admire them as luxury par excellence, though bedeviled with electrical gremlins.

    To me, the new XK is gorgeous. And Jag was always about an extension of the imagery of sitting in a fine leather armchair with a glass of brandy in front of a fireplace, sitting in a dark english lounge smoking a really high quality cigar.

    To me, Jag was always about the sensual side of masculinity that resides in enjoying the finer things in life. Smooth, classic, understated. While these pictures don’t display that (on the outside) I’ll wait to see it in person to judge…and in a darker color with a darker interior.

    And to me, a good start is offering an 8-cylinder that puts out 300HP as the base of the car. Especially if it’s matched up with a wide power-band and is ~4.0 liter in size :)

    Joe

  • avatar
    whatdoiknow1

    The problem with the NA Jaguar/ Ford V8 putting out only 300HP is simply that this engine is “old news”, a carryover that has been around for what, 10 years now! While this engine is more than adaquate in the really world, adaquate is a term that we associate with $15,000 to $25,000 cars, not highend luxury cars that are supposed to have “heritage” and “prestige”. It is hard to sell a expensive car when it is obivious that less R and D dollars were spent on its developement than a the typical family sedan.

    Who wants a luxury car that is clearly built on a low budget? On the face value of it the carryover engine make one ask, where else has Jaguar cut corners to save on developement cost?

    BTW: VW/Audi does use a DSG in the Veyron so I thin kit can handle a bit of torque.

  • avatar
    SherbornSean

    Justin,
    Thanks for the clarifications. I too am disappointed that the production model isn’t completely faithful to the concept.

    But I think that everyone who is damning the car should see one in the flesh before they bash Jaguar and Ford for it. I remember thinking how ugly its competitors, the CLS and Quattroporte, were in pictures, and then being impressed in person.

    And goodness, can people just let go of the Mondeo/Jag, already? Yes, it was a mistake. Not an entirely baseless error — the Entry Luxury market is growing rapidly and the TL, ES300 and A4 were all based on basic midsized FWD vehicles and had sales success in the US. But is failed. Fine. Let’s move on.

  • avatar
    AGR

    A new model for Jag is better than nothing. They are so far behind the “8 ball” with their sales. It will be interesting to see how this model will do in the market place.

  • avatar
    BostonTeaParty

    There are still some great surfaces on this vehicle, look at the c/d pillar area and how it flows off the trunk into the waist line. thank god they moved away from the retro [email protected] era. yes the headlights and grille are terrible compared to the show car but name a showcar that didnt get watered down due to costs/legislation and criteria to come up with the production version. its painful but true, you never get the short overhangs, pillarbox windows and 30 inch tyres in real life. i think you need to see this in the flesh to fully appreciate it, we can all judge from pictures but its different in reality.
    saw much better front end proposals than made it to the final version.

    RF i have to disagree with you on the diesel issue, think most of europe would too, as diesels are a requirement for luxury sales if you want to compete now. they’re sporty enough to still give you the cruising and power experience aswell as fuel economy when required.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    This brand is truly dead!

    Not at all. The brand has enormous potential. But it has been poorly managed, and that potential goes largely unfulfilled.

    as diesels are a requirement for luxury sales if you want to compete now.

    My take on this is that Jaguar shouldn’t be a luxury brand. It has failed dismally at the effort, and any efforts to continue to do so would be to lead to its death.

    It’s fair to say that the market can be roughly segmented into three tiers: mainstream, luxury and exotic. (Notice that “luxury” in this case is not the top tier. The semantics in the auto world are different than they are with many other consumer products.)

    Jag is clearly not a mainstream brand, so not much need to discuss this, other than to mention that Jag needs to avoid selling cheaper products at all costs in order to protect its brand.

    Being a luxury brand requires moderate-to-high price points AND some degree of mass production capacity. The need to mass produce requires that sales volumes hit a fairly high critical mass in order to be profitable. It’s a crowded space that has become more crowded because of the Japanese, who are raising the quality bar in this segment. It’s a tough place to be, and not everyone can win at this one. Jag has tried and already failed.

    That’s Jag’s problem. It can’t compete as a luxury marque, the odds of hitting those necessary sales volumes are pretty dismal. That leaves it with one remaining shot — near-exotic/exotic, with price and volume positioning ala Porsche.

    Jag really has no business trying to sell anything that would retail in the US for less than perhaps $50k, and the emphasis should be on cars that are more costly than that. It simply can’t stay in business if it tries to otherwise, as Ford has learned the hard way.

    That sets it up to be a low volume, high margin producer with a small audience, which is quite a bit different from BMW, etc.
    This means that there is no room for an X-type lower-priced entry point, they have to move higher up the ladder. And there’s no need or room for a diesel if that’s where they were to end up.

    This leaves it in a place where it should have only a few models and a few engine choices. With its heritage, it offers the perfect opportunity to be branded as it once was, as an orientation toward comfortable exclusive performance, more similar to Bentley than to Ferrari. I don’t see it taking on either the entrenched Germans or the well capitalized and determined Japanese in the more mundane luxury space.

  • avatar
    P.J. McCombs

    I’d hardly call the XF “ugly.” The problem is that it looks nothing like a Jaguar, which may be even worse to a brand grasping desperately for an identity.

    For all the noise Jaguar has made about ditching retro design and going modern, I don’t see the point if derivative wedges like the XK and XF are the result. You’re done with the DB9, Callum. Just let it go. Breathe! There, that’s better.

    IMO, the slinky profiles and defiantly low, long decklids of recent Jag designs were the things keeping the brand from being redundant in its class. I also fail to see the point of replacing the cozy, club-room cabins of recent Jags with frosty, angular ones. You might as well just get a Lexus.

    All that said, I’ll join those defending the XF’s 300 hp V8. The one-upmanship in output figures has gotten ridiculous in the last half-decade. It’s largely irrelevant to consumers, and just amounts to posturing.

  • avatar
    ex-dtw

    I like this car.

    The front end could use some “crisping” and I hear what you are saying about 6 vs. 8 cylinders, but still, this is LIGHT years ahead of the s-type. And what is the competition? The Bangle-ized 5?

    Methinks that you were a tad harsh.

  • avatar
    ex-dtw

    In continuance…

    From what I see, the rear and side profile is dramatic, this side of gorgeous. to my eyes, it is a poor man’s Aston. Shameless maybe, nad maybe Ian Callum’s a one trick pony, but who cares?

    I love Aston’s and if that means I look like I am riding in a knock off, I guess I don’t care. I’m a poor man so sign me up – though I will wait till I see one in person.

  • avatar
    brownie

    whatdoiknow1: Sorry, but I don’t think even high-end consumers care about whether their engine design is new or not. Case in point: Volkswagen/Audi/Bentley. How many different vehicles over multiple model generations have gotten Audi’s 4.2 V8? What about the W12? The fact that you could get it in a Phaeton 3 years ago doesn’t seem to be slowing down Bentley any. And people only complained about the R8’s recycled V8 before anyone got to drive it; haven’t heard any complaints about it lately.

    Also, the Veyron’s DSG box is heavily modified and hardly suitable (cost-wise) for a “normal” production vehicle. But I gather that VAG is hard at work designing DSG’s sufficiently resilient for more general use (in torquier cars).

  • avatar
    Joe O

    My point about DSG’s having problems with torque more applied to the fact that it’s not a “big deal” that the Jag isn’t equipped with one, as long as the 6-speed auto it gets is a good unit. DSGs are not mainstream yet in this class. I really think the market is not yet there….

    DSG provides great things for people wanting acceleration and briskness; but I think conventional autos backed by a serious engine provide the same thing in the perception of THIS market (look at how many BMW fanatics are raving about the new 6-speed ZF vs the SMG).

    Joe

  • avatar
    Dynamic88

    I think it’s interesting that some here believe Jag needs to focus on being either a luxury sedan maker, or a sports car builder, while a few days ago, many claimed Toyota could make 29 different vehicles w/o any dilution of brand immage.

    IMO Jag has meant two things – at least in NA. 1. A private men’s club on wheels. 2. The XK sporting heritage.

    I don’t see why they can’t make a V12 sports car to sell in the Aston Martin Range (and if Aston can survive why not Jag?) and then a leather and wood luxo liner complete with brandy snifters and a little sporting pretention for the sedan buyers.

    It’s true that the luxury sedan market is competitive, with many superior offerings, but properly executed Jag can give a feeling of privilege and entitlement which some members of our classless society find very appealing. A 7 series, or a big Merc just doesn’t give the same class conscious vibe. This is Jag’s niche in the luxury sedan market.

    Going down-market, and basing a car on the Mondeo was a disaster, as far as brand immage is concerned. Most of us Yanks didn’t know what a Mondeo was, but we sure could spot the smallness and cheapness and general UN- Jag-ness of it.

  • avatar
    JFP

    I didn’t think much of the S-Type until I drove a relative’s V8 model. I was really impressed. It was luxurious as hell, and performed really nicely. Plus, they are pretty affordable used. I don’t see that the XF is that bad.

  • avatar
    50merc

    Jaguar has no future in the US if the comments from this crowd are representative of the market. Sales numbers are already stunningly low. So it seems the important question is how the XF is received in the UK and Europe. Over there, tax considerations make a company-paid car a standard perk for corporate managers. Class-leading residual value estimates (as touted by Jag’s advertising) should help, but I wonder whether the brand has become so damaged that it just can’t win back customers from the German marques.

    It appears the XF has a roomy back seat. That should appeal to the executives who also rate a company driver.

    Personally, I would like the XF better if it had some of those classic Jaguar/British touches. I loved details like the little fold-down tables in my old Jag. But I suppose safety regulations have done away with those, just like they’ve made the front ends so similar for all cars.

  • avatar
    kjc117

    It looks like a Buick and that is not a compliment.
    For an upmarket brand the design does not reflect that image at all.
    It is overdesigned trying too hard to impress and awe the public.

  • avatar
    jthorner

    My *** that thing is ugly. It looks like a botched nose job on the existing X/S type design brief.

    The last time Jaguar had a really compelling product portfolio was sometime in the early 1960s. The Mark II sedan, the E-type and even the large Mark X all were fascinating entries into their segments which had a character nothing else could touch for their price. The E-type gave you Ferrari feelings for less than 1/2 the price. The Mark X gave you a bargain priced Rolls Royce. The Mark II made a BMW 2002 seem underpowered and boring.

    There isn’t a single modern Jaguar which stands alone as an object of gotta-have-it lust or seems like a screaming bargain compared to anything else which give it’s owner the same feelings.

    “I think it’s interesting that some here believe Jag needs to focus on being either a luxury sedan maker, or a sports car builder, while a few days ago, many claimed Toyota could make 29 different vehicles w/o any dilution of brand image.”

    That is because the brand image and history of Jaguar and Toyota are completely different things. Toyota is a bit like the Sears of old, a place you can go to get just about anything and know that you will get a decent product at a decent price (I’m talking about the Sears of the 1960s, not the shadow it has become). Jaguar is a whole ‘nuther thing and should be exclusive and rare. The point of Toyota is that anyone can have one and not be embarrassed by it. The point of Jaguar should be that only a select few with resources, taste and the personal elan to pull it off can have one.

  • avatar
    Areitu

    Those garish headlights remind me of something the Chinese or Koreans would pen up, or a bloated version of the monte carlo’s headlights. It also reminds me a bit of the european Ford Mondeo. The interior snapshots I’ve seen so far are rather reminiscent of the Subaru Legacy.

    Of course, I’m probably critical towards the car because of the tone of the editorial…I’m sure it performs and drives beautifully–more than satisfactory for the people who shop this segment–but at this point, I don’t have any desire to own a Jaguar product.

  • avatar
    djkronik57

    Seriously, it looks like a Buick Terraza.

    And as if the grill wasn’t bad enough, the headlights have lost all sexy styling. Other than the front end though, it’s not so bad. Too bad the front end is SO bad.

  • avatar
    audirs4man

    What were they thinking? I find myself looking at this page and thinking what an ugly looking Buick that is in the picture. But then It suddenly hits, its a Jaguar. The side and rear look like a Lexus GS300 which as we all know isn’t the prettiest or best car one earth. Then we get to front which looks like a Buick lacrosse beaten with the ugly stick. Lets just say the interior wasn’t really planned out well either. The shifter knob belongs on a 1979 Linoln and the interior belongs in a Mercury Sable. Jaguar was supposed to make a comeback and if they thought this is it then you can forget of Jaguar once and for all. (Jaguar XJR is one of the sexiest cars ever built)

  • avatar
    Qusus

    Wow!?!? Am I the only guy who thinks this is the best lookin’ four door in my lifetime (at least in pictures)… even if the front end initially made me think “oh hey check out that new Buick…”

  • avatar
    BostonTeaParty

    as part of this topic check out autoblog.com and their xf rekects article, with just a small number of the drawings and models that were done on this project. still a dog? or a king among princes??
    http://www.autoblog.com/2007/08/30/the-xf-rejects-jaguar-didnt-choose/

  • avatar
    Pat Holliday

    Traditional Jaguar styling such as that of the XJ and X-Type really looks like nothing else on the road. So for the XF really, they had three choices:

    1) Stick with it – not really working out. The S-Type was largely designed for the British-fantasy-desires of the conservative U.S. market, in actuality they deserted the brand in droves.
    2) Go futuristic/exotic – Too risky for a car at this price point
    3) Bring the brand up to date – what they’ve done. The XF looks every bit as modern as the equivalent Lexus (a GS drew up at the lights next to me yesterday, and it struck me how alike it was.)

    I still think the XJ is one of the finest cars out there, stunningly good looking and just oozing class. I’d also like to put in a good word for the much-maligned X-Type, a great car and well engineered, just frankly too obtainable for a relative youngster like myself.

    With regards to the concept, sure we’ve all seen it and would inevitably compare the two. But will the average sales exec in his company car, or will he care? Probably not, and at least here is a Jaguar his squash pals won’t accuse him of being an ‘old man’ for driving.

  • avatar
    bmilner

    I don’t find it that ugly either, I just don’t find it particularly special looking. The thing is, Jaguars have to be utterly fantastic looking to stand out. That one shot from the 3/4 hind view seems the most compelling, the ones of the nose/front are the least.

    Lastly, I too think the grills have been looking VERY Buick-like. If you changed the headllights and the grill on this car, it could be really special, especially if it drives as well as the S-type. Toward the end of it’s production run, the S-type was a great driving car.

  • avatar
    guyincognito

    “I’d also like to put in a good word for the much-maligned X-Type, a great car and well engineered, just frankly too obtainable for a relative youngster like myself.”

    Really?? I had one for a year which was 364.5 days too long. Dropped the trans in the first 2 weeks. Interior materials were simply awful. It completely lost its composure at 35mph on entrance ramps, had the crappiest stereo I’ve ever heard in any car, ever, even with the $1100 cd player option, and got smoked by base civics at trafic lights. That said, it did perform well in the snow and drove smoothly and quietly.

  • avatar
    wsn

    Replying to flytoget
    This Jag has Lexus written all over it.

    Lexus maybe bland, but not ugly. And look at the gap between the hood and the headlamp.

  • avatar
    flytoget

    Oh. Don´t get me wrong. Lexus is a nice car, in the sense that it´s authentic. XF´s, however, is a mere emulation, a desperate attempt to get into mid-size luxury segment. That, itself, explains its perennial design turkey.

  • avatar
    jthorner

    “Lexus is a nice car, in the sense that it´s authentic.”

    If buy authentic you mean a slavish copy of MBZ designs with a lower price and better reliability, then I guess Lexus is authentic. Newer Lexus models also borrow from BMW and are just barely starting to develop their own look and feel.

    For many years a Lexus at first glance always looked like one or another MBZ design.

  • avatar
    Seth

    Nothing like a british green jag with beige interior… Wear a tweed jacket and enjoy a good english country side with a jag…someday.. or maybe I am doomed to a mitsu on a crappy concrete north american city..

  • avatar

    Is it just me or is Jaguar again (after the XK) going for the Korean look?

  • avatar
    Thomas Minzenmay

    This car looks like a Korean knock off of a Jaguar. With the only difference that even the Kia Opirus has more style…so sad.

  • avatar
    OliveOfJamie

    Well its 2015 now and glad to see Jag trying to take some of the lions share from top brands like BMW with its diesel engine. The style and technology of the XF really proves how much has been improved and could become a leading brand within the luxury car market. BigChiefMuffin it would be futile for any car manufacturer not to attempt to challenge big players in the market. Really it is the only way to survive these days. You will also notice in top car sale websites that the percentage of Jag models and cars enter the market have increased dramatically. For example http://www.carsales.com.au/car/jaguar/xf Carsales in previous years only had close to a couple hundred Jags on the market now there are more than a thousand in Australia. I really shows they are competing and hopefully to their betterment going to take a bigger share of the market than the boring BMW.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • RHD: When you have solar panels, charging is basically free.
  • RHD: The oil companies are making record, multi-billion dollar quarterly profits. This situation is brought about by...
  • EBFlex: “No. Your “issue with EVs” involves a single use case which is not relevant to everyone and not the...
  • EBFlex: “Congrats, enjoy the truck and ignore the sourpuss.” Huh? If anything I am showing how much I...
  • raynla: Wait…I thought Mary led Joe?

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber