http://www.autoblog.com/2008/11/25/rendered-speculation-jaguar-xf-coupe-breaks-cover/
Quite lovely, supposedly this will slot in below the XK though I have to wonder how much room there is since it can't possibly be much cheaper than the XF sedan if it is using the same powertrains and the same chassis.
I was against Jaguar's previous attempt to go down market, but under Tata ownership it makes a lot more sense than it did under Ford leadership (with Volvo and Lincoln providing in-house competition). Besides, the XF coupe as pictured looks far better than the X-type ever did.
Wow, that rendering almost looks too good to be the XK's little sister. If it ever gets produced, I'll probably spend my free time at a Jag showroom staring longingly at it, though :wub:
Oooooooooooooh, I really like that! :ohyeah:
Cheers,
Madman of the People
Looks nice!
Remember the F-type sports car Jag was going to build? I'd much rather see that than an XF coupe.
Quote from: MX793 on November 25, 2008, 05:29:03 PM
Remember the F-type sports car Jag was going to build? I'd much rather see that than an XF coupe.
Yes.
Yes.
Oh my fucking fuck yes. Why did they kill that?
Why is the XF so fucking bland? Why doesn't this car excite me in the least!?
From that rear angle, it looks overly upright and not at all sleek. Callum's DB9 is much more lithe.
Quote from: Raza on November 25, 2008, 06:24:31 PM
Yes.
Yes.
Oh my fucking fuck yes. Why did they kill that?
Why is the XF so fucking bland? Why doesn't this car excite me in the least!?
Looking at some of Jaguar's cars from the past ten years, I'm wondering why we have to make such a fundamental change as the XF (which is surprisingly generic):
(http://photo.netcarshow.com/Jaguar-XK180_Concept_1998_photo_01.jpg)
(http://photo.netcarshow.com/Jaguar-F-Type_Concept_2000_photo_02.jpg)
(http://imagehost.vendio.com/preview/sc/schmittmotorcars//97JagXK82.jpg)
(http://scars.hit.bg/jaguar%20S-type%20R.jpg)
(http://www.desktopcar.net/wallpaper/27889-2/Jaguar_x-type_2008_552.jpg)
(http://www.jaguar-xj8.com/XJ8inMidnight.jpg)
How on earth can these cars be so visually undesirable as to require the extent of changes brought on by the XF?
Nice. It reminds me of an Aston from behind. :huh:
Quote from: omicron on November 25, 2008, 09:35:26 PM
Looking at some of Jaguar's cars from the past ten years, I'm wondering why we have to make such a fundamental change as the XF (which is surprisingly generic):
How on earth can these cars be so visually undesirable as to require the extent of changes brought on by the XF?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20145762/
The F-Type is so nice. :wub:
One of my favorite model cars that I have...
Quote from: TBR on November 25, 2008, 09:55:57 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20145762/
Blecch. Further evidence that the Great Unwashed are not to be trusted.
I like the sedan, but I'm not really a fan of the coupe.
If the XF even selling well??
I've seen a couple. I might have seen more that I didn't recognize and just thought they Lexus GSs.
Quote from: Yawn on November 26, 2008, 07:06:06 AM
If the XF even selling well??
I hope so, but I don't think so. I've seen but a few on the road.
I think I'm in a very small minority when I say this: I do not like Jaguar's new vehicles. They just...don't look like Jaguars.
This....this is a Jaguar.
(http://www.jaguar-xj8.com/XJ8inMidnight.jpg)
Quote from: giant_mtb on November 26, 2008, 08:24:12 AM
I think I'm in a very small minority when I say this: I do not like Jaguar's new vehicles. They just...don't look like Jaguars.
This....this is a Jaguar.
(http://www.jaguar-xj8.com/XJ8inMidnight.jpg)
I know those are great cars, but ever since James May's pseudo-rant on his Jag XF review, the XJ now makes me think of tweed coats, bowler hats, and red phone booths
Not that all of those things aren't awesome anyways :lol:
edit: oh, and a monocle. Can't forget about the monocle :praise:
Quote from: omicron on November 25, 2008, 10:02:48 PM
Blecch. Further evidence that the Great Unwashed are not to be trusted.
Unfortunately the Great Unwashed are the ones that buy expensive luxury cars.
Quote from: Vinsanity on November 26, 2008, 10:34:20 AM
I know those are great cars, but ever since James May's pseudo-rant on his Jag XF review, the XJ now makes me think of tweed coats, bowler hats, and red phone booths
Not that all of those things aren't awesome anyways :lol:
Aside from the styling, which I love especially on the post face lift model, There is really nothing backwards about modern Jaguars. People will choose to ignore this, however, and instead gravitate to the hip cars driven by duo cores and adorned with weird shapes and art deco flare in the supposedly hip interiors.
To the X350...the last of the proper British saloons...
I love art deco. It suits more of a fedora and pencil moustache style than a bowler hat and monocle.
Quote from: Vinsanity on November 26, 2008, 12:30:56 PM
I love art deco. It suits more of a fedora and pencil moustache style than a bowler hat and monocle.
Pencil mustache? Your view of cool seems askew.
I blame BMW. If you look at BMWs pre Bangle can't you make the same arguments we're making here with Jags?
There is nothing wrong with Jaguars except that luxury buyers don't want to purchase them which is a HUGE problem! Unfortunately you can't stay relevant with this sort of styling. Every lux car maker has had to change the way their cars look to remain competitive.
My wife, being a Jag fan since birth (her father had XKEs and XJs for years), watched that Top gear road test of the XF that had James May's rant, and disagreed with him, and hated the XF on that show, saying it looked like a generic Lexus.
Then she saw one pass her on the interstate and got a good look at it in the metal from all angles. She came home gushing about how much better it was in real life and how beautiful and un-Lexus like it seemed on the road. Now she wants one.
Oh, and when this coupe shows up, it'll be my new favorite new car. this car with 500 hp? Yes, please!
Looks great, but I think it'll step on the toes of the XK too much.
And yes, I still think of their old styling when I think Jaguar. One of my bosses is going to buy an 2006 XJ here soon. Those things just tannnnk in value!!! It's unbelievable. He can get one around $30,000.
Yes I can't believe how cheap they are. At the local Buick dealer (don't know why it was there) was a 2005 XJR with 21K miles for $24,999.
As I've said, many times, ALL mass produced luxury status symbol vehicles tank in value pretty quickly. Mercedes, Jaguar, BMW, Range Rover, etc.
Quote from: ChrisV on December 22, 2008, 12:57:51 PM
As I've said, many times, ALL mass produced luxury status symbol vehicles tank in value pretty quickly. Mercedes, Jaguar, BMW, Range Rover, etc.
Almost all mass-produced vehicles tank in value pretty quickly. Some just more quickly than others. It's the same with luxury cars; some hold their value quite well.
https://www.alg.com/DepreciationRatings
Quote from: ifcar on December 22, 2008, 01:02:05 PM
Almost all mass-produced vehicles tank in value pretty quickly. Some just more quickly than others. It's the same with luxury cars; some hold their value quite well.
https://www.alg.com/DepreciationRatings
Actually, if you look on that list, all the BIG luxury sedans are in the bottom categories. mercedes, BMW, Jaguar, Audi. Their most expensive luxury cars sink much quicker than lower priced cars, and lose much more money overall. they are on par with rental based cars in desireability when used.
Why is that?
Pretty simple: a top luxury car is a status symbol. A symbol of conspicuous spending. That status is lost when it isn't this year's model. Buying or holding on to a used status symbol isn't a symbol of conspicuous spending... ;)
That's why I say it shouldn't be surprising that top luxury cars like the Jag are on the fast track when it comes to depreciation.
Quote from: ChrisV on December 22, 2008, 01:31:32 PM
Actually, if you look on that list, all the BIG luxury sedans are in the bottom categories. mercedes, BMW, Jaguar, Audi.
Not quite all. The big European luxury sedans are in the bottom categories, anyway.
However, it does seem to vary significantly by vehicle. The Range Rover Sport is definitely a conspicuous consumption vehicle, but it is among the best cars at holding its value.
Quote from: ifcar on December 22, 2008, 01:57:41 PM
Not quite all. The big European luxury sedans are in the bottom categories, anyway.
However, it does seem to vary significantly by vehicle. The Range Rover Sport is definitely a conspicuous consumption vehicle, but it is among the best cars at holding its value.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Cars-Trucks___2006-RANGE-ROVER-SPORT-SUPERCHRG-BLKONBLKFREESHIPBIN_W0QQitemZ300281967349QQddnZCarsQ20Q26Q20TrucksQQddiZ2282QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Cars_Trucks?hash=item300281967349&_trksid=p4506.c0.m245&_trkparms=72%3A727%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1308
2 years old and half price. All of them I've looked at have been depreciating rapidly (which is good for me, as my wife wants to replace our current 4.6 HSE with an RR Sport in a couple years)
Holy crap! Over 40k miles in a year! Sure, an economical commuter car i can see that, but in an RR sport? Especially this year with fuel costing what it did...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Cars-Trucks___2008-RANGE-ROVER-SPORT-HSE-LOADED-XENON-FREE-SHIPPING_W0QQitemZ310109833491QQddnZCarsQ20Q26Q20TrucksQQddiZ2282QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Cars_Trucks?hash=item310109833491&_trksid=p4506.c0.m245&_trkparms=72%3A727%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1308
One car doesn't show anything. ALG, which has a key financial interest in accurately predicting depreciation, said the Range Rover Sport has among the least steep depreciations of any new car.
Quote from: ChrisV on December 22, 2008, 07:13:15 AM
My wife, being a Jag fan since birth (her father had XKEs and XJs for years), watched that Top gear road test of the XF that had James May's rant, and disagreed with him, and hated the XF on that show, saying it looked like a generic Lexus.
Then she saw one pass her on the interstate and got a good look at it in the metal from all angles. She came home gushing about how much better it was in real life and how beautiful and un-Lexus like it seemed on the road. Now she wants one.
It's a really good looking car, and not to mention, it's a good car in general. Unfortunately, I've seen 3 or 4 in all their months of being on the road. In the same time, I've seen literally 100's of new C's, A4's, and 3's. I understand they are in a different price and size class, but still, the poor car isn't selling well.
Quote from: ifcar on December 22, 2008, 03:11:51 PM
One car doesn't show anything. ALG, which has a key financial interest in accurately predicting depreciation, said the Range Rover Sport has among the least steep depreciations of any new car.
Just saying that ALL of them I've looked at lately have been very heavily depreciated. I only posted two because it was about time to leave work and I didn't feel like copying/pasting the links to the hundred plus I found with ONE search.
Quote from: ChrisV on December 22, 2008, 07:13:15 AM
My wife, being a Jag fan since birth (her father had XKEs and XJs for years), watched that Top gear road test of the XF that had James May's rant, and disagreed with him, and hated the XF on that show, saying it looked like a generic Lexus.
Then she saw one pass her on the interstate and got a good look at it in the metal from all angles. She came home gushing about how much better it was in real life and how beautiful and un-Lexus like it seemed on the road. Now she wants one.
Your wife speaks car?
My mom speaks car.
Quote from: CJ on December 22, 2008, 05:10:04 PM
My mom speaks car.
Then why do you only speak boring mainstream cars?
Quote from: MrH on December 22, 2008, 07:01:11 PM
One in the same. ;)
Is there something I don't know about?
The XF looks good and all, but IMO the shape resembles an Aston Martin too much.
Quote from: ChrisV on December 22, 2008, 03:54:38 PM
Just saying that ALL of them I've looked at lately have been very heavily depreciated. I only posted two because it was about time to leave work and I didn't feel like copying/pasting the links to the hundred plus I found with ONE search.
The first link you posted, the 06, didn't seem to have a ridiculous amount of depreciation for a three-year-old vehicle. It wasn't $70k+ new, I wouldn't think.
Quote from: 2o6 on December 22, 2008, 08:17:56 PM
The XF looks good and all, but IMO the shape resembles an Aston Martin too much.
Oh the horror!
Quote from: ChrisV on December 22, 2008, 02:35:45 PM
Holy crap! Over 40k miles in a year! Sure, an economical commuter car i can see that, but in an RR sport? Especially this year with fuel costing what it did...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Cars-Trucks___2008-RANGE-ROVER-SPORT-HSE-LOADED-XENON-FREE-SHIPPING_W0QQitemZ310109833491QQddnZCarsQ20Q26Q20TrucksQQddiZ2282QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Cars_Trucks?hash=item310109833491&_trksid=p4506.c0.m245&_trkparms=72%3A727%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1308
I doubt the average Range Rover Sport owner is very concerned about the price of fuel.
Cheers,
Madman of the People
Quote from: CJ on December 22, 2008, 09:03:50 PM
Oh the horror!
It's not a bad thing, but IMO Jaguar should have more of their own brand identity.
Quote from: 2o6 on December 22, 2008, 10:52:30 PM
It's not a bad thing, but IMO Jaguar should have more of their own brand identity.
Which is (unfortunately) leading them to fiscal disaster.
Jaguar, like Audi, in my opinion doesn't do anything exceedingly well. And of course, their past reputations have a lot to do with the way they are both perceived today.
Buyers flock to Lexus because they are perceived as being the pillar or reliability and exemplar of service. You buy a Mercedes for a number or reasons but safety and style seem to go hand in hand these days. You buy a BMW because you are a cocker and you wanna feel cool :evildude:. j/k. For driving dynamics and what not.. See what I'm saying? Why do you wanna buy a Jag? Really though... what stands out in your mind? These things are important to people that don't give as much thought to the car industry than we nuts do.
And so, I think what we are seeing here is a new chapter in Jag history, the beginning of a new direction. It's do or die really...
I'd buy a Jag just for the name. To say I drive a Jag just sounds very cool. Even though I really like driving manuals, having a Jag (XJ or S type) as a second car to a Miata would be great. I admire the old school British driving enthusiast that I associate with Jag
Quote from: ziczachzo on December 23, 2008, 01:32:17 AM
Jaguar, like Audi, in my opinion doesn't do anything exceedingly well. And of course, their past reputations have a lot to do with the way they are both perceived today.
Buyers flock to Lexus because they are perceived as being the pillar or reliability and exemplar of service. You buy a Mercedes for a number or reasons but safety and style seem to go hand in hand these days. You buy a BMW because you are a cocker and you wanna feel cool :evildude:. j/k. For driving dynamics and what not.. See what I'm saying? Why do you wanna buy a Jag? Really though... what stands out in your mind? These things are important to people that don't give as much thought to the car industry than we nuts do.
And so, I think what we are seeing here is a new chapter in Jag history, the beginning of a new direction. It's do or die really...
I'm not sure the average car buyer thinks it through that far. I'd be more inclined to guess that most see them as interchangeable, and that Jaguar's just not on their radar screens.
Jaguar has always meant class and style, and in their sports car line, class, style and speed. Sir William Lyons stressed beauty above all, and compromised on some utility to get it in his sedans, especially the XJ of the '70s and '80s. the buyers of Jaguars didn't WANT "generic luxury sedan." They wanted to stand out, apart, with style. But that is, admittedly, a smaller market. Much smaller than the market that is made up of people trying instead to "fit in." Thus the new direction.
Looking like an Aston is fine, as Astons are not common cars. As an owner of one of these cars, you still won't see yourself everywhere. looking like an Aston would be bad if Astons were as common as Priuses.
When I think Jag I think intimate cockpit and good driving experience with lots of luxury. I would still buy an Audi, BMW, or Merc over a Jag any day but they do have some unique attributes and I understand their appeal.
When I hear Jag, I think terrible resale values and awesome values on used Jags.
Check out this deal:
2004 Jag XJR (http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/ctd/969161512.html)
Quote from: HotRodPilot on December 23, 2008, 01:34:45 AM
I'd buy a Jag just for the name. To say I drive a Jag just sounds very cool. Even though I really like driving manuals, having a Jag (XJ or S type) as a second car to a Miata would be great. I admire the old school British driving enthusiast that I associate with Jag
I don't know what it is about Jaguar, but usually when I see one I think to myself "Well, that driver actually has some taste." I feel the same way about A8 drivers too, but more about Jag drivers.
Buying a new big BMW or a Mercedes? Yea, you're very accomplished at sticking with the flock. A shepherd's dream.
Jaguars are just so elegant and painfully stylish, I don't know how you can't love them. Of course, if more people did love them, they'd be more common, and then, most likely, I'd grow a similar distaste for them as I have for their contemporaries.
However, the new XF doesn't make me think that the owner has taste or style. I think they're so old and confused that they thought they were in a Lexus dealer and just got tricked into buying one.
I would agree that Jag drivers do break the mold, whether for better or worse. Not every Jag I see oozes style to me, but the majority are overall more stylish and full of elegance compared to Mercedes/BMW (not audi) and thus the more emotional purchase.
Quote from: ziczachzo on December 21, 2008, 10:25:23 AM
Every lux car maker has had to change the way their cars look to remain competitive.
Tell that to Porsche.
Today at the local used exotic car dealership, I got to check out a new used XF with 4,600 miles on it for $46,000. I didn't think it was bad for a car that could have easily been close to $60,000 new, and compared to the 5er, it's a relative bargain.
I like it. I didn't get any seat time in it, but it looks a lot brighter and more cheery than the comparatively stark 5er. It didn't seem like it had the same immediate quality as the BMW from a quick look, but it was nice enough that I think it should be more than competitive and I hope it does well in the marketplace. It's a much different kind of Jag.
I, too, took another good, long look at the XF today. Still looks like a Lexus.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=16594.msg961353#msg961353 date=1231129753
I, too, took another good, long look at the XF today. Still looks like a Lexus.
If a Lexus had an affair with an Aston Martin.......
Quote from: Raza link=topic=16594.msg961353#msg961353 date=1231129753
I, too, took another good, long look at the XF today. Still looks like a Lexus.
I completely disagree. I've seen several in person now, and I love the way this car looks.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 04, 2009, 09:55:44 PM
I completely disagree. I've seen several in person now, and I love the way this car looks.
And again, I agree with you.
I think it's a good-looking car, especially in the deep blue that passed me by on the way home today, but it's very......derivative. It has a nice roofline, and looks sharp with big wheels, and the front overhang doesn't look quite so FWD-y in person, and the rear chrome adds a bit more flash than that Gordon fellow, and the interior is as cleanly-styled as ever, but......
Oh, bother. Jaguar has gone trendy. In trying to break away from tradition they've just done what everyone else is doing. It looks good in the same way that a Mondeo looks good, and I don't know if that's quite the right path to take.
Speaking of Mondeo, I always thought the XF should've had a roofline that resembles a "swoopier" version of this:
(http://photos.autoexpress.co.uk/images/front_picture_library_UK/dir_434/car_photo_217250_7.jpg)
Quote from: 2o6 on January 04, 2009, 09:39:05 PM
If a Lexus had an affair with an Aston Martin.......
I don't really see Aston in the design at all.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=16594.msg961661#msg961661 date=1231199617
I don't really see Aston in the design at all.
I see quite a bit of Aston in it. More than Lexus, in fact.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 05, 2009, 05:16:14 PM
I see quite a bit of Aston in it. More than Lexus, in fact.
I see Lexus. And when one drives by, I think it's a Lexus until I get a closer look.
It's not like I'm saying they copied a Lexus design. I'm just saying it looks like it should be the next Lexus GS, and not the new Jaguar.
Quote from: Vinsanity on January 05, 2009, 11:57:44 AM
Speaking of Mondeo, I always thought the XF should've had a roofline that resembles a "swoopier" version of this:
(http://photos.autoexpress.co.uk/images/front_picture_library_UK/dir_434/car_photo_217250_7.jpg)
They make a Mondeo saloon? I don't think I've ever seen one of those...
I think the XF looks a lot better than the 5-Series, A6 and new E-Class.
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on January 08, 2009, 12:21:04 PM
They make a Mondeo saloon? I don't think I've ever seen one of those...
lol, that's the exact image that comes to my mind when someone mentions the Mondeo
i am not too crazy about the pic, but the car (if built) should look gorgeous!
Quote from: Raza on January 05, 2009, 05:45:50 PM
I see Lexus. And when one drives by, I think it's a Lexus until I get a closer look.
Many people claim to see Corollas when a Jetta drives by. Do you?
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on January 08, 2009, 12:21:04 PM
They make a Mondeo saloon? I don't think I've ever seen one of those...
Seriously? I always thought the Saloon/Sedan Mondeo was the most attractive of the three.
Quote from: AltinD on January 09, 2009, 02:12:02 PM
Many people claim to see Corollas when a Jetta drives by. Do you?
From certain angles, there is a resemblance. What's your point?
I have to agree that it's reminiscent of a Lexus from certain angles.
Quote from: Raza on January 09, 2009, 05:36:09 PM
From certain angles, there is a resemblance. What's your point?
I don't see much, if not at all. Maybe it's because of the standartised bumbers you may use overthere ... I don't really know.