It looks like the 2008 Jaguar XJ sedan will be getting a few styling updates. Although most of the bodywork on this prototype appears unchanged, the front airdam has a slightly different shape compared to current models. It's also clear that this test car is wearing the side vents currently used only on the top of the line Portfolio model. Changes in back look as though they'll be nothing more than a slightly reshaped bumper valance.
I know this "big cat" is a better car than the old XJ in driving dynamics, and in some areas in quality. But Ford has virtually erased its Jaguar-ness in the process. It doesnt exude that mysterious, sleek, detailed, tailored, timeless look of the last XJ. This effects all Jaguars do date especially the X-Type. The XK is good but you still see it a bit in the Taurus front end. These cars used to have class, now they really dont have much brand identitiy at all.
It seems to me that some of the comments above are competely superfluous [I would imagine that everyone is intelligent enough to know the impetus] and some miss the point slightly.
I happen to be a driver of one of those pretty, sleek, low slung, exclusive looking older XJs. And I say this to you now...the fact that this car looks...unsubstantial...is not Ford's fault. The blame is squarely with Jaguar, which maintains an automomous power structure, unlike,Lincoln or Mercury. It is their fault and their responsiblity. We forget that Ford purchased Jaguar in 1989 and produced beautiful cars until about 2001 when this incarnation one came out. They really didn't have much of a choice at the time to keep things about the same.
They are redesigning it for 2009 I think it was, and the idea is that they will return the cat-like lower stance to the vehicle, and move it upmarket. I am looking forward to it. I hope by that time they will have done away with the X-Type. The fact that some cublicle worker can spend 35 grand and own a jag-U-ar is lunacy.
My dad had a '97 XJ6 and the only real problem I had with it was the stupid J-gate. The XJ is a timeless piece of work and I'll reserve judgement until I see an uncovered rendition of this.
Spend billions, get barely new sheetmetal, aging noncompetitive engines, loss of primary advantage (awesome interiors). who was the brilliant finance major that came up with that?
ACTUALLY IT WAS 1990 THAT FORD PURCHASED JAGUAR... EITHER WAY, THE CARS ARE LOSING THEIR IMAGE. IT KILLS ME THAT THE XK LOOKS LIKE A TAURUS COUPE... SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP THE XK WOULD BE TO SIMPLY ADD THE TWO "FANGS" TO THE OVAL, TO BREAK UP THE SHAPE... WOULD BE TRADITIONAL XK. HOW'D THEY MISS THAT?
Hehe - in response to Mr. CDOKE's comments about the X type and how it ennables those wretched cubicle dwellers to stain the hallowed mark of the Jag-U-Ar with thier filthy pressence? What a bunch of arrogant crap. I am 29 years old and bought an X for my wife, and can tell you that while its not the XK that I dream of, its a fine car for her to run around in while she does her errands - big enough for the kids in back and the trunk does a fine job of carrying things. The AWD makes it safe, and we think its much better looking in and out than most of the competition in that price bracket. And about that price bracket?? I realize that 35 grand is not "Jag Money" and not everyone likes the fact that its a Ford Mondeo with a boob job, but thats not the point.... Most luxury manufacturers have entry level models - BMW 3 series and the like - great cars, but still the first step on the ladder... Down the road we would love an S type or even an XK, but that would be a dumb buy right now for where we are... but that little red X my wife drives is "Jaggy" enough for now - as I am still but a cube dwelling peasant.... What an ass.
So I was off by a year, it really does not change the point. I am not really an ass: although I doubt that I could get you bo believe that. And telling you that I am 23 and my XJ was a christmas present years ago from my parents won't help dispell that image. Admitedly, it was also a gift for going into my father's line of business: the petroleum industry. In either case, I generally don't like people to know I drive it, believe it or not, although I love driving it.
Yes, most luxury car companies do have entry models. But in the words of my father, "a BMW is no Jaguar". I think the S-type was fine, but the X-type is something which was really out of line with Jaguar. At least what I have read on the subject suggests that they are fully aware that they have damaged the brand image as the result of creating the X-type, but are at a loss with what to do with it. I , for, one think they shoudl get rid of it.
cdoke has it right. Owning a Jaguar is not a "right". It is something to aspire for. The current effort to return the brand to its upscale roots is the right course. I currently own a Jaguar (not my first) and am always amused at the lack of knowledge about the brand by those who bash it the most. A classic example is saying that the Jaguar copies the Taurus when it fact it was the Taurus that copied the Jaguar (their designers are brothers - fact). Then there are those who can't remember whether the big sedan is the XK or the XJ (it's the XJ). P.S. They still have "awesome interiors" and are not common Bimmers in the parking lot. :)
I really don't want to monopolize this comment line and I know it isn't really a discussion board , but I do want to brush on one thing right quick. My suggestion when testing the interior of any car is that you not only look at it, but do the following. Find a new car at the dealer, sit in it and close the doors .Now inhale deeply into your mouth, then inhale deeply into your nose. The reason you do this is that the "new car smell" which is the result of the plasitcs used in the car is toxic and you will be able to know quickly what the interior materials actually are. BMW in particular is really bad amout this [Volvo is one of the best BTW] I remember taking my friend shopping at a BMW dealership here and every car I sat in gave me a headache and made me sick to my stomach. I remember in particular a Z4 which had just come off the truck and I could only sit in it for about 5 seconds otherwise I would have vomited on its aluminium [actually it looked more like stainless] clad dash. Were you to conduct this test in a Jaguar, the smell is very pungent, but it isn't that "new car smell": it is the smell of leather.
I have to agree with some of what has been said in the recent posts, both from CDOKE and Harold - I have long admired Jags, a genetic condition passed on from my father and I would love to see them move upmarket and regain the level of prestige that was enjoyed in the past. And I would agree with CDOKES dad in that I'd take any Jag over any BMW any day! My only point of debate was that I am not sure entry level or junior model cars are detrimental to the image of the car... any X owner knows that they sort of got a sample of whats to come, not the whole meal... thats what keeps you looking forward. I also think that with the U.S. auto market as cut throat as it is, it kind of a needed evil to survive. BMW, Benz and Lexus all have junior level cars too.. Its not pretty, but It keeps the companies healthy so that thier big dog cars can really deliver the goods and remain something to aspire to. In closing, I appologize if I took CDOKE's cubicle guy comment too personally... Cubes bring out the worst in us all.
sddoc07, I highly disagree. Its a refresh, not a redisgn. And I think it is sort of lame how every few years cars get new looks and its 'all new' with no real upgrades. The Dodge Viper is a great example. No changes since 1994. But slight upgrades and a new performance model (R/T 10 was turned into SRT-10) and thats it.
You don't need to apologize, creepindesoto, my comment was at best tactless. I think the heart of what I think is that I don't believe that Jaguar should strive to compete with the more "mainstream" luxury brands, which is really what they have attempted to do. I have always loved cars, and when I was very young (about 9) for a while I really liked Mercedes [Aftter going to a rather prestigious school of engineering, if I do say so myself, I realize now that "German Engineering" is a total farce and little more than a marketing scheme, the last period in history the Germans as a whole were good at engineering was during the reign of Hitler.] I remember at the time though, you could purchase a Mercedes for oh...20 or 25 grand, but a Jag was maybe 50-55 grand. I remember thinking that a Jag was out of my range, and that it was stratopshericaly nicer than Mercedes. Even the most expensive nicest Mercedes was crap to the cheapest Jag in my mind at the time. Now, I don't know if rational adults view car brands en masse like that, but I know kids do. I believe that the car that has replaced Jags lately in mystique is Maserati. Incidentally, I have read that the new XJ should be thought of as "a better developed Maserati Quatroporte.
I certainly agree with you there - I for one am a little tired of all this fawning over BMW and Das Benz.... especially Beemer. The cars to me are very oddly styled and then theres i-drive. (why drive?) It seems kind of counterintuitive for a company that claims to be the "Ultimate Driving Machine" to employ so many distractions.... Oh well. My only point to this petty little rant is that it would be nice to see the Jag taking advantage of this environment to get a little PR out... They still have that classic saloon car feel, but the past editions almost had a coachbuilt quallity to them.. It really would be neat to see them return to that.. It seems like they know what is in the gambit here - It's more a question if they can do what needs to be done. In time - If they keep building stuff like that XK, they will do just fine. I see no Taurus there - just classic E-type!
I own an '07 XJ Super V8. My first Jaguar, although my family's second. The first was an '03 X-Type my wife bought. I had always aspired to a "real" Jag, thought them beautiful to look at, etc., but was turned off by the reputation for unreliability. The X-Type, however, had been trouble free, and I had been reading how quality was going up in successive J.D. Powers surveys. When the lease on my Lexus LS430 was expiring, I went about test driving every care I could find (except the BMW 7 Series, which is not attractive and all I know who have owned it complain about the i-Drive). The Jag was the last to be driven. It was the only car in which I found myself smiling while I was driving it. It became a decision between the Jag and a Maserati Quattroporte. The clincher: my wife decided that the Maserati would not be prestigious enough to her family in Japan, but the Jag would heap loads of sophistication upon us.
In other words, the X-Type brought Jag a new customer for its XJ.
I have read a lot of negative comments about "dated" XJ design in recent months, and cannot fathom it. Isn't a Jag supposed to bring to mind images of the old school?
Wait a minute here. Have any of the detractors driven a 2005-2007 Jaguar? It is a sweet, sweet ride. The styling might not be your cup of tea but it's conservative like a blue blazer with grey slacks. Conservatively styled cars won't have any songs written about them but their refined looks are timeless and the car will look good 10-15 years from now.
I've haven't owned a Jaguar lately but the three I did own; a '74 XJ6L, a '70 XKE, and a '76 Jaguar XJC could be summed up in two words: beautiful and satisfying. I've owned about sixty cars and recently wrote a book about many of them called "Forty Cars That Owned Me." The three Jaguars ranked near the top the list which included an Aston Martin DB-5, a Triumph TR-3B, three Lincolns, two Cadillacs, five Mustangs, a Audi 5 + 5, and several other rally cars and road racing cars.
Otherwise known as pointless - Ford's idea of a restyle
all style no substance. They are so far behind on powertrain.
I know this "big cat" is a better car than the old XJ in driving dynamics, and in some areas in quality. But Ford has virtually erased its Jaguar-ness in the process. It doesnt exude that mysterious, sleek, detailed, tailored, timeless look of the last XJ. This effects all Jaguars do date especially the X-Type. The XK is good but you still see it a bit in the Taurus front end. These cars used to have class, now they really dont have much brand identitiy at all.
It seems to me that some of the comments above are competely superfluous [I would imagine that everyone is intelligent enough to know the impetus] and some miss the point slightly.
I happen to be a driver of one of those pretty, sleek, low slung, exclusive looking older XJs. And I say this to you now...the fact that this car looks...unsubstantial...is not Ford's fault. The blame is squarely with Jaguar, which maintains an automomous power structure, unlike,Lincoln or Mercury. It is their fault and their responsiblity. We forget that Ford purchased Jaguar in 1989 and produced beautiful cars until about 2001 when this incarnation one came out. They really didn't have much of a choice at the time to keep things about the same.
They are redesigning it for 2009 I think it was, and the idea is that they will return the cat-like lower stance to the vehicle, and move it upmarket. I am looking forward to it. I hope by that time they will have done away with the X-Type. The fact that some cublicle worker can spend 35 grand and own a jag-U-ar is lunacy.
My dad had a '97 XJ6 and the only real problem I had with it was the stupid J-gate. The XJ is a timeless piece of work and I'll reserve judgement until I see an uncovered rendition of this.
Spend billions, get barely new sheetmetal, aging noncompetitive engines, loss of primary advantage (awesome interiors). who was the brilliant finance major that came up with that?
ACTUALLY IT WAS 1990 THAT FORD PURCHASED JAGUAR... EITHER WAY, THE CARS ARE LOSING THEIR IMAGE. IT KILLS ME THAT THE XK LOOKS LIKE A TAURUS COUPE... SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP THE XK WOULD BE TO SIMPLY ADD THE TWO "FANGS" TO THE OVAL, TO BREAK UP THE SHAPE... WOULD BE TRADITIONAL XK. HOW'D THEY MISS THAT?
Hehe - in response to Mr. CDOKE's comments about the X type and how it ennables those wretched cubicle dwellers to stain the hallowed mark of the Jag-U-Ar with thier filthy pressence? What a bunch of arrogant crap. I am 29 years old and bought an X for my wife, and can tell you that while its not the XK that I dream of, its a fine car for her to run around in while she does her errands - big enough for the kids in back and the trunk does a fine job of carrying things. The AWD makes it safe, and we think its much better looking in and out than most of the competition in that price bracket. And about that price bracket?? I realize that 35 grand is not "Jag Money" and not everyone likes the fact that its a Ford Mondeo with a boob job, but thats not the point.... Most luxury manufacturers have entry level models - BMW 3 series and the like - great cars, but still the first step on the ladder... Down the road we would love an S type or even an XK, but that would be a dumb buy right now for where we are... but that little red X my wife drives is "Jaggy" enough for now - as I am still but a cube dwelling peasant.... What an ass.
So I was off by a year, it really does not change the point. I am not really an ass: although I doubt that I could get you bo believe that. And telling you that I am 23 and my XJ was a christmas present years ago from my parents won't help dispell that image. Admitedly, it was also a gift for going into my father's line of business: the petroleum industry. In either case, I generally don't like people to know I drive it, believe it or not, although I love driving it.
Yes, most luxury car companies do have entry models. But in the words of my father, "a BMW is no Jaguar". I think the S-type was fine, but the X-type is something which was really out of line with Jaguar. At least what I have read on the subject suggests that they are fully aware that they have damaged the brand image as the result of creating the X-type, but are at a loss with what to do with it. I , for, one think they shoudl get rid of it.
cdoke has it right. Owning a Jaguar is not a "right". It is something to aspire for. The current effort to return the brand to its upscale roots is the right course. I currently own a Jaguar (not my first) and am always amused at the lack of knowledge about the brand by those who bash it the most. A classic example is saying that the Jaguar copies the Taurus when it fact it was the Taurus that copied the Jaguar (their designers are brothers - fact). Then there are those who can't remember whether the big sedan is the XK or the XJ (it's the XJ). P.S. They still have "awesome interiors" and are not common Bimmers in the parking lot. :)
I really don't want to monopolize this comment line and I know it isn't really a discussion board , but I do want to brush on one thing right quick. My suggestion when testing the interior of any car is that you not only look at it, but do the following. Find a new car at the dealer, sit in it and close the doors .Now inhale deeply into your mouth, then inhale deeply into your nose. The reason you do this is that the "new car smell" which is the result of the plasitcs used in the car is toxic and you will be able to know quickly what the interior materials actually are. BMW in particular is really bad amout this [Volvo is one of the best BTW] I remember taking my friend shopping at a BMW dealership here and every car I sat in gave me a headache and made me sick to my stomach. I remember in particular a Z4 which had just come off the truck and I could only sit in it for about 5 seconds otherwise I would have vomited on its aluminium [actually it looked more like stainless] clad dash. Were you to conduct this test in a Jaguar, the smell is very pungent, but it isn't that "new car smell": it is the smell of leather.
I have to agree with some of what has been said in the recent posts, both from CDOKE and Harold - I have long admired Jags, a genetic condition passed on from my father and I would love to see them move upmarket and regain the level of prestige that was enjoyed in the past. And I would agree with CDOKES dad in that I'd take any Jag over any BMW any day! My only point of debate was that I am not sure entry level or junior model cars are detrimental to the image of the car... any X owner knows that they sort of got a sample of whats to come, not the whole meal... thats what keeps you looking forward. I also think that with the U.S. auto market as cut throat as it is, it kind of a needed evil to survive. BMW, Benz and Lexus all have junior level cars too.. Its not pretty, but It keeps the companies healthy so that thier big dog cars can really deliver the goods and remain something to aspire to. In closing, I appologize if I took CDOKE's cubicle guy comment too personally... Cubes bring out the worst in us all.
sddoc07, I highly disagree. Its a refresh, not a redisgn. And I think it is sort of lame how every few years cars get new looks and its 'all new' with no real upgrades. The Dodge Viper is a great example. No changes since 1994. But slight upgrades and a new performance model (R/T 10 was turned into SRT-10) and thats it.
You don't need to apologize, creepindesoto, my comment was at best tactless. I think the heart of what I think is that I don't believe that Jaguar should strive to compete with the more "mainstream" luxury brands, which is really what they have attempted to do. I have always loved cars, and when I was very young (about 9) for a while I really liked Mercedes [Aftter going to a rather prestigious school of engineering, if I do say so myself, I realize now that "German Engineering" is a total farce and little more than a marketing scheme, the last period in history the Germans as a whole were good at engineering was during the reign of Hitler.] I remember at the time though, you could purchase a Mercedes for oh...20 or 25 grand, but a Jag was maybe 50-55 grand. I remember thinking that a Jag was out of my range, and that it was stratopshericaly nicer than Mercedes. Even the most expensive nicest Mercedes was crap to the cheapest Jag in my mind at the time. Now, I don't know if rational adults view car brands en masse like that, but I know kids do. I believe that the car that has replaced Jags lately in mystique is Maserati. Incidentally, I have read that the new XJ should be thought of as "a better developed Maserati Quatroporte.
I certainly agree with you there - I for one am a little tired of all this fawning over BMW and Das Benz.... especially Beemer. The cars to me are very oddly styled and then theres i-drive. (why drive?) It seems kind of counterintuitive for a company that claims to be the "Ultimate Driving Machine" to employ so many distractions.... Oh well. My only point to this petty little rant is that it would be nice to see the Jag taking advantage of this environment to get a little PR out... They still have that classic saloon car feel, but the past editions almost had a coachbuilt quallity to them.. It really would be neat to see them return to that.. It seems like they know what is in the gambit here - It's more a question if they can do what needs to be done. In time - If they keep building stuff like that XK, they will do just fine. I see no Taurus there - just classic E-type!
Here is my offering to the X-Type debate:
I own an '07 XJ Super V8. My first Jaguar, although my family's second. The first was an '03 X-Type my wife bought. I had always aspired to a "real" Jag, thought them beautiful to look at, etc., but was turned off by the reputation for unreliability. The X-Type, however, had been trouble free, and I had been reading how quality was going up in successive J.D. Powers surveys. When the lease on my Lexus LS430 was expiring, I went about test driving every care I could find (except the BMW 7 Series, which is not attractive and all I know who have owned it complain about the i-Drive). The Jag was the last to be driven. It was the only car in which I found myself smiling while I was driving it. It became a decision between the Jag and a Maserati Quattroporte. The clincher: my wife decided that the Maserati would not be prestigious enough to her family in Japan, but the Jag would heap loads of sophistication upon us.
In other words, the X-Type brought Jag a new customer for its XJ.
I have read a lot of negative comments about "dated" XJ design in recent months, and cannot fathom it. Isn't a Jag supposed to bring to mind images of the old school?
Wait a minute here. Have any of the detractors driven a 2005-2007 Jaguar? It is a sweet, sweet ride. The styling might not be your cup of tea but it's conservative like a blue blazer with grey slacks. Conservatively styled cars won't have any songs written about them but their refined looks are timeless and the car will look good 10-15 years from now.
I've haven't owned a Jaguar lately but the three I did own; a '74 XJ6L, a '70 XKE, and a '76 Jaguar XJC could be summed up in two words: beautiful and satisfying. I've owned about sixty cars and recently wrote a book about many of them called "Forty Cars That Owned Me." The three Jaguars ranked near the top the list which included an Aston Martin DB-5, a Triumph TR-3B, three Lincolns, two Cadillacs, five Mustangs, a Audi 5 + 5, and several other rally cars and road racing cars.
Regards.
Pat Nowak
www.fortycars.com