I test drove the Jaguar X type 2.5 Auto this weekend, and it was the worst autobox /engine match I have ever come across! It flat spotted continuously and obviously required several seconds thinking time to pick a ratio - dangerous trying to make a quick exit on a roundabout!
It also held low ratios far longer than needed on long uphill pulls. Is anyone else disappointed with this car? I know it has 'sport 'mode and a manual selection option, but that isn't the point of an automatic.
I was completely put off.
|
My impressions in August replying to an X type vs. Rover 75 question; perhaps yours was faulty?
"Got invited to a day out driving Jaguars recently and drove a 2.5 X type automatic, a 3.0 sport X type manual, and finally, a 3.0 S type. The X type felt cramped in the front and unwelcoming in the back, and not that well put together; bits of trim coming adrift. The 2.5 felt a better all-rounder than the sport, suprisingly. Good driving position, fantastic adhesion and more than enough performance delivered through a faultless auto box. The sport was neither one thing nor the other, didn't like the clutch or the gearbox and ride too hard for my taste, while there didn't seem to be enough performance to justify the sport badge. AND I think a mistake to give it that anonymous radiator; if it's a Jag, it should look like one"
Don't be put off, find another one.
|
|
|
|
or buy a Rover 75, perhaps?
|
|
Better yet, Lexus is200,top build quality.
|
Buy British!
The Lexus is only an upmarket Toyota, anyway.
David
|
Jag is American
only the name and workers are british
|
|
Not much wrong with up-market, or even down-market Toyotas, based on experience since the first Carina (apart from boredom with the cooking ones), just as long as they are built in Japan.
|
jags X type is just the latest Granada 4 x 4 with a different badge on it!
not built in Coventry therefore not a Jag!
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're right. The 2 Lexus owners I know would not feel they could realy trust a Jag or a Rover compared with a Lexus. The Jag owner living in my block regrets his, says things are always coming loose. Fact is the Lexus got there first and wropte the reliability book and the others are just trying to catch up. Go for the best, don't drive an also-ran for all that money, that would be my thinking. As for Jag or Rover being British, nah, not these days, they're global like evrything else.
|
|
I know it's a case of each to his own but I cannot understand all the praise for the Lexus, particularly the IS200. I test drove all 3 variants when I was looking to replace my BMW 320 and found them so disappointing. The handling was okay up to a point but there was so little feedback from the steering and the chassis. It felt dead. The six speed box, I felt, was a complete waste of time, only accommodating sedate gearchanging smoothly. The paintwork is awful and I have yet to see one over 12 months old with anything other than very scabby alloys, which seems to a particular Lexus failing. Not a patch on the C class or 3 series. Oh, and why are they all so damned ugly?
|
|
Beauty isn in the eye of etc etc.......my feeling is I'd gladly swap some fancy leatherwork and dubious "British-ness" for something I can really feel confident will not provide me with the unscheduled and challenging experience of standing by an expressway amidst clouds of steam. Especially when I'd paid all that for it. I suppose the ultimate test of these cars will come 5-6 years down the road when we can see their s/h values and how much or whether they are sought after. Meanwhile Toyota-san has my vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've driven a 75, X-type and IS200 and seriously for the money, spec, engine and styling, try out a 75. I found the IS200 too harsh on our less than smooth roads. The X-type interior is not up to the quality of the 75 and I found the 3L engine too gruff. The Rover 2.5L V6 engine is very smooth and it's got fantastic noise insulation, you have to really keep an eye on the speedo.
Rover doesn't have the cachet of the Jag brand or the reliability reputation of the Lexus but it's 75 is very, very, very close. The 75 is an individual's cars, the interior especially in the Conoisseur is the best for any car under £40K and it is the reference standard for beauty and practicality.
Check out 1 or 2 yo prices for a 75 Connoisseur V6, it's a bargain.
|
|
|
Well said, Micheal. The noise insulation on V6 75's is quite stunning and yes you do have to watch that speedo!
It's not until you have driven one that you can appreciate the quality of the car.
Rgds
David
|
It'll be ten years before I get near owning one of them but I hope the Rover 75 lives up to this initial praise. They are high on my list to keep an eye on for the future.
Gut feeling again but I would choose one over the Jaguar on "Car Park" appeal alone. Was near one yesterday in metallic gold (ish) with a cream leather, superb!
David
|
|
|
|
Make sure you buy a Longbridge Rover 75. The original Canley 75s didn't handle as well. The fat tyres gave the impression of good grip about town. But once you got the car out onto a real road its shortcomings soon became very apparent. Anyone had any trouble with 75 KV6s? This engine in to older 800 seems to be a nightmare. The old K series stretch bolt head gasket problem, but with two heads twice the chance of a failure.
HJ
|
|
|
Re: K-series engines
HJ is right the older Rover engines had poor machined tolerances on their engine blocks leading to head gasket leakage and failure.
This is a bit anorak-y ....
They solved it with a change in casting technology. The K-series Aluminium engine blocks are cast using zircon sand from Australia, it's rare and expensive. The result is a highly accurate cast relying on fewer machine tools to complete the process.
The result are highly accurate tolerances not out of place on a Formula 1 engine. Hence no gasket problems. To my knowledge they are the only mass car manufacturer using this technology for all its engines. They also own the patents on the technology and license it around the world. Ford are a big customer for their Aston Martin and Jaguar ranges. Hence the partnership deal for the Ford V8 for the new MG-X80 range.
When Rover got Powertrain from BMW, they bought one of the most advanced foundries in the world, the patents and license rights. Why BMW didn't want to know is anyone's guess.
Add to that Mayflower are a share holder of MGR and are partners in developing new variable compression engines and the picture starts to develop.
John Tower's he's a smart cookie. Anyone writing off MGR is in for a shock.
|
|
|
The KV6 engine in the 75 is basically the same as they unit in the old 825, which did have a head gasket problem. BUT, the unit in the 75 has improved block construction [probably down to the casting procedures as above] Rover tell us the engine is completely different with many new components (we didn't believe them back then, but something must be different, given the reliability)
We currently have several 75's with the two litre and 2.5 litre KV6 engines out there with 80K plus on them with no problems, whatsoever. So, from experience, Rover seem to have 'fixed' the inherent head gasket problem with this engine.
MGR would have to have complete faith in this engine to offer a 3yr/60K warranty, surely?
Customers report to us as not having to add one drop of oil in between services (15000 miles!)
Micheal wrote :-
>John Tower's he's a smart cookie. Anyone writing off MGR is in for a shock.
I have to agree with you, Micheal. I know that I am biased, but I have every confidence in him and his team.
Rgds
David
|
|
|
