my next big mistake. Have your say!

[Taff]

Tell me what you know about X-type jagwahs, people, the one that look like this:-

 

 

Looks like I have a new job and I will need wheels, to cover the 55 mile round trip each day for work. I also have about a bag of sand to spend. I fancy something comfy and pleasant to be in and the germans have all been ticked off my list. I was also taken with the comment by someone on here that life was too short “not to have smoked about in a Jagâ€Â

 

So, anything have any experience of these not-so-big cats? Is diesel still the fuel of satan in a car such as this? Or am I being utterly ridiculous in even considering one of these in that price range?

[dollywobbler]

They're pleasant enough, but can generate scary repair bills. A bit like anything that age in that price range to be fair. 

[John F]

Hmmm do these really tick the 'proper Jag' box? I'm not so sure.

[alf892]

Tell me what you know about X-type jagwahs, people, the one that look like this:-

 

 

Looks like I have a new job and I will need wheels, to cover the 55 mile round trip each day for work. I also have about a bag of sand to spend. I fancy something comfy and pleasant to be in and the germans have all been ticked off my list. I was also taken with the comment by someone on here that life was too short “not to have smoked about in a Jagâ€Â

 

So, anything have any experience of these not-so-big cats? Is diesel still the fuel of satan in a car such as this? Or am I being utterly ridiculous in even considering one of these in that price range?

Congrats on the new job!

 

I had diesel one of these new in 2007 as a company car and loved it..........had no bother but then you would not expect any in the time I had it.

 

Not a lot of leg room in rear although the seat cushion is very long so actually better than they look.

[Mr_Bo11ox]

They certainly tick the 'shite' box

[twosmoke300]

Rust , Diesels are noisy (transit engine ) , twats to work on cos the engine is fekkin huge. Std common rail issues such as cripplingly expensive injectors etc. Dmf and concentric slave cylinder fitted so big bills loom there.

dont know about the petrols tbh but they have got to be better than the diesel.

A rover 75 is a nicer car I think.

[MrBiscuits]

Definately into shite price territory now. basically they come in 3 types:

 

2.5/3.0 V6 petrol, all 4wd - good fun but can suffer from transfer box problems (it doesn't hold a lot of oil...)

2.0 Diesel - Transit engine, just not right for a Jag IMO. also suffer DMF and usual diesel woes.

2.1 V6 petrol, fwd - Sounds nice, but gutless and ultimately not much more economical than the 3.0. Most reliable X type of the lot tho.

 

All can be had in sport or SE trim - SE is best because you get proper suspension and more toys. Sport wheels bend easily too.

 

Biggest drawback at the bottom of the market is that they can all rust - really quite badly on the sills, seemingly from the inside out. I've had mine for 4 years and I love it, even though its the giffer special 2.1 Auto. I find there's just no need to charge charge about like an Audi driver as the cabin is such a nice place to be. I've heard all the not a proper Jag arguments, but to be honest it doesnt matter. They still (to me) look and feel a bit more 'special' than a BMW or anything else for that matter, plus for practicality they have the advantage of not being 17ft long and the ability to crack an average 30+mpg.

 

My 53 plate is on 150k now, with no major issues. Not much you can do to them without a ramp though. I'm lucky I know a good specialist.

 

As others have said, a lot like the Rover 75. Having driven both I preferred the Jag.

[Cavcraft]

The diesel ones seem to be crap, by all accounts. The petrol aren't much better. Another vote for the 75 here, the better spec'd ones are much, much nicer inside than the Jags are.

[320touring]

Buy an x300 for 1k, apply lpg. Marvel

[cort16]

The petrol just came in different v6's didn't it. If that's the case you might as well go for the 3.0. A lot of the diesels came in a really miserable spec too.

[Junkman]

They are pretty much the culmination of everything I'd avoid like the clap. No character, no quality, no styling, no style, no USP, full to the brim with crappy electronics, and overpriced spares.

For a bag, get yourself a Seville STS and be amazed what OMGMPG you can get from a V8, what little goes wrong on something this newfangled, and how cheap spares can actually be.

[oldcars]

My mate who has a bodyshop has had two, he had rotten sills on them both so i would keep an eye on the rust, Wings were a bit tatty to. Would still have one tho

[DS20]

There was a 2.2 diesel as well, I think, although that's hardly a desperately exciting addition to the choices available. Personally, I'd look for an S-type / XJ / Rover 75, depending on your needs re mpg and cost of insurance. I think V-8 S-types are cheapo cheapo now

[cort16]

I'd have a 4wd 3.0 estate but that's about it.

[vulgalour]

In the back there's little leg room, the seats are firm and the ride quite bouncy, as though modern seats have been put in a cart sprung Ford.  Up front the seats are pretty hard, not great on the back support, and while things look smart they don't have that quality feel of an older Jag.  In fact, a lot of it feels very Ford executive which in a Ford is acceptable but in a Jag it jars somewhat with what you'd expect.  If you've ever ridden in a 90s Sovereign you'll be disappointed by one of these, they just don't measure up.

 

That said, they seem to be capable of being reliable and tough enough to do commuting duties and if you like a firmer seat and DFS interiors then it could be the car for you.

 

Oh, and the front end looks like someone sat on it because of those oval lights.

[Asimo]

Like a lot of Jags, the inside is so full of "Jaguar interior" they feel too cramped to be luxurious.

[Bren]

Mondeo better. More rust resistant than the jag, and people won't take the piss because you drive an "emporers new clothes" jag.

 

Engines have the same issues.

 

Have you considered a vectra? (Tongue firmly in cheek).

[cort1977]

They are pretty much the culmination of everything I'd avoid like the clap. No character, no quality, no styling, no style, no USP, full to the brim with crappy electronics, and overpriced spares.

For a bag, get yourself a Seville STS and be amazed what OMGMPG you can get from a V8, what little goes wrong on something this newfangled, and how cheap spares can actually be.

Totally agree with this, no one will look twice at an x type but a caddy is a caddy.

[MrBiscuits]

Totally agree with this, no one will look twice at an x type but a caddy is a caddy.

 

Not necessarily

 

[Bren]

Looks like an old mitzi lancer.

[oman5]

A caddy is a cavalier?

[Asimo]

Beat me to it but here it is anyway, the 1.9D Cadillac

 

[twosmoke300]

Aka Saab 9-3 aka vectra c aka fiat engined crap

[MrBiscuits]

A caddy is a cavalier?

Yep, that one is. GM 'J' body. So mk2 cav for us limeys

[brickwall]

The Carlton was a caddy too. Anyway, X type is fine, just a crap platform and what you'd expect from owners that did not understand the brand.

[Sigmund Fraud]

2.0 Diesel - Transit engine, just not right for a Jag IMO. also suffer DMF and usual diesel woes.

 

My boss had one of those, in 'Sport' flavour. It looked like a baby XJR but driving it made you realise it was much closer to a Transit Ghia than an olde-worlde Jaguar.

 

I fully agree with the fellow shitters who suggested that a Rover 75 dizzler is a far, far more refined car.

[Taff]

They are pretty much the culmination of everything I'd avoid like the clap. No character, no quality, no styling, no style, no USP, full to the brim with crappy electronics, and overpriced spares.

For a bag, get yourself a Seville STS and be amazed what OMGMPG you can get from a V8, what little goes wrong on something this newfangled, and how cheap spares can actually be.

 

 

Beat me to it but here it is anyway, the 1.9D Cadillac

 

Picture 2.png

 

sorry, but no. Having owned a 1952 Cadillac Coupe deVille, I couldn't sully it's memory with one of those

[Taff]

Not a lot of love for the almost-Jaguar in these parts.

 

The idea of 45mpg appealed, along with ticking the Jag box, plus there is no shortage of them in that price range (admittedly, probably with good reason). And whilst I understand the arguments for it, I can't get excited about a Rover 75, sorry.

 

Still, for £1000, I could buy three more Mk6 Escorts to go with the fucked one on my drive, and probably put together one half-reasonable one

[dugong]

Hmmm do these really tick the 'proper Jag' box? I'm not so sure.

 

 

An X-Type's a far better proposition than some tragic pub landlord wax special  XJ40 or X300, but they're 'proper Jags' (whatever that actually means). 

I actually couldn't give a rat's arse about 'marque values' and wouldn't mind a 3.0-litre V6 estate. 

 

The sills on them rust like buggery.

 

I also think I'm one of the few people who regards the traditional Jag interior as a spectacular waste of space rather than 'an all-embalming cocoon of restfulness' (other cliches are available). 

[AnthonyG]

The Carlton was a caddy too. Anyway, X type is fine, just a crap platform and what you'd expect from owners that did not understand the brand.

Think you mean the Omega? Sold as the Catera, famously with a launch ad campaign featuring ducks and a strap line of "the Caddy that Zigs". Which pretty much killed it's chances of success in its intended market (BMW/Mercedes drivers).