: Jaguar X-Type vs Rover 75


gritbox
13-03-2007, 17:18
whats the actual diff with these 2 cars? they both look really similar but the jag seems a little cheaper? i love rovers, but a jag does have a flashier name i suppose so how come they cost less!? take it insurance will cost more?

shadydave
13-03-2007, 17:41
Dont be fooled by the jag, poor interior, poor build on the early ones, general all round sense of cheapness, the 75 is by far the better car.

gritbox
13-03-2007, 17:43
thats what i thought. they dont look remotely as nice inside. ive wanted a connoisseur for a few weeks but i stumbled across a contemporary today, and WOW! got the classyness of the connoisseur outside, with the sporty facelift and also a much sportier, sleeker black interior. is there anything about the contemporarys i should know?

Scarlet Fever
13-03-2007, 17:47
75 is more of an S-Type competitor for me.

X-Type is the modern equivallent of a Ford Scorpio in my book, but on a smaller floorpan (really narrow seats, intrusive B-post, rear legroom is compromised too (marginally worse than the Rover/ZT) - generally feels a lot smaller inside than the Rover/ZT).

On the plus side, the built in satnav is excellent (touch screen - cool!), heated front windscreen is good, takeaway hook on glovebox lid is handy too, 4WD is nice as well, and the optional odments shelf in the boot of the saloon is a great idea. And there is the badge too.

tanvir
13-03-2007, 17:58
is there anything about the contemporarys i should know?

Yeah... they're nice ;)

gritbox
13-03-2007, 18:02
haha. are they regarded as same spec as connoisseur, only sportier?

whats a good price for one, 9 grand good? i can hardly find any at all!

Ian
13-03-2007, 18:17
I tend to thing of the Connoisseur being on the same level as Contemporary and Connoisseur SE being on the same level as the Contemporary SE.

They both have different equipment levels, aimed at the different people that they attract.

gritbox
13-03-2007, 18:24
and contemps are for younger peeps aye?

DeeMan
13-03-2007, 18:28
Rover 75 unambiguously;)
have 2 cars Vauxhall Omega MV6 full spec,
and Rover 75 thats thing!,
belive that Rover will back to UK,

Ian
13-03-2007, 18:28
I guess the main differences for the Contemporary are, the body coloured side strips, as opposed to chrome on the rest of the 75 range. And a Black Ash Dashboard, as opposed to Light Oak or Burr Walnut.

And I guess that the Alloy Wheels look a little sportier on Contemporary models ;)

Ian
13-03-2007, 18:31
I have had a Jaguar X-Type for a few weeks before, and as Scarlet Fever says, I found the interior to be small in comparison to the Rover 75. It definitely felt alot narrower.

Also, there were lots of 'Ford' switches littered about the dashboard. Most people probably wouldn't recognise them, but having driven lots of Ford products, I tend to pick up on these sorts of things. I just expected the X-Type not to adopt Ford parts, where the customer can see.

I found some of the plastics to be a bit hard and brittle - especially around the J-Gate transmission selector.

onelife
13-03-2007, 19:19
I work for jag and would never have an X-TYPE is an old mondeo with jag body most of the components are carry over underneath and as someone said the switches are nearly all ford. 75/ZT'S LOOK MILES BETTER.

sdavies4
14-03-2007, 08:44
I work for jag and would never have an X-TYPE is an old mondeo with jag body most of the components are carry over underneath and as someone said the switches are nearly all ford. 75/ZT'S LOOK MILES BETTER.

onelife - I work at the Jag - were are you ???

Rover_ron
14-03-2007, 10:59
Dont be fooled by the jag, poor interior, poor build on the early ones, general all round sense of cheapness, the 75 is by far the better car.


As driver of both here's my view.

My 75 is an 02 CDT with 105k miles on it, Synergy etc to boost power to 150bhp. My X-type is an 07 estate 2.0D S and standard, has 128bhp.

The Jag is no substitute, but build quality and interior is comparable except for the plastics of the centre console which belong to an Amstrad 'hifi'. The steering wheel has the texture of carboard and has a thin rim and tacky Amstrad radio controls.

Ride and seats are firmer but there is less initial understeer entering a bend. Overall handling and grip seems about the same. The Pirelli Pzeros are noisy in a coarse roaring way.

The engine is quieter when revved and as smooth except around 1200rpm when it can be felt through the steering wheel. The clutch is much lighter.
Brakes lack the 75's initial bite, but otherwise are fine.

The performance is lively with somewhat over sensitive throttle response, whereby 80% of the performance needs barely 50% of the pedal travel. Its the opposite to the CDT, which requires 100% of the pedal travel for 100% of the performance but this more progressive action makes is easier to drive in urban areas.

Overall Jaguar need to address the areas of (relatively minor) critiscm before they can satisfy the majority of former 75 owners. A few quid spent by them would make all the difference.
However, I'll probably spend it instead, and will fit a wood dash kit and wood/leather steering wheel. Toyo Proxes T1R tyres look likely as well.

Centre console and steering wheel quality not good enough.
Fit some decent tyres
Soften the ride and seating.
Re calibrate the throttle position sensor to give a more linear response.

If you can find a used one at a good price and don't mind spending some money on the interior/steering wheel/tyres then an X-type would make a decent British built alternative. My Tu3 will be available shortly which will boost power to 155-160bhp and torque to 270lbs ft.
I would not let the critiscms put you off.

There is a page on my website with photos.

http://tuning-diesels.com/Jagx/jaghome.htm

One major overisght on jaguars part - NO automatic diesels.

Ron

barnsleybill
14-03-2007, 12:09
The only think I think the Jag has better is the engines - what a car the 75 could have been with a 2.2 Diesel?

Spanky
14-03-2007, 12:24
The only think I think the Jag has better is the engines - what a car the 75 could have been with a 2.2 Diesel?

Are the Ford TDCi engines better than the BMW ones...??

(it is a question by the way....)

dixon75
14-03-2007, 13:32
Are the Ford TDCi engines better than the BMW ones...??

(it is a question by the way....)

a good question.....

the Ford units are proven and usually bullet proof, the only upside i could see which separates the two would be the lower cost of parts for the ford engine, on the flip side, Ford engines are usually less punchy than the competion. I.e. Peugeot, Vauxhall, Renault (as a big blue oval fan, it hurts to say that!)

onelife
14-03-2007, 15:30
sdavies4 I work in halewood at the moment, hopefully going back to the midlands soon

jami_duff
14-03-2007, 16:51
To be honest I think the 75/ZT is quite bad for front leg room, and the B-pillar gets in the way on the 75/ZT when I drive it too (father owns a ZT I sometimes drive).

The ZT eats tyres much faster than my friend's X-type...

The centre console on the Jag is poor compared to the ZT, although the ZT seats are poor (already had 2 seats replaced on warranty, now the new seats are splitting - car has done 48,000 miles. My old 620 has done 147,000 and my bolsters are unmarked....).

The rear view isn't great on either but I think the ZT is worse.

I have no experience of diesels in either, but the Ford 2.5 V6 in the Jag is more powerful than the 2.5 KV6 and doesn't suffer from plastic manifolds breaking off, and has chain driven cams so doesn't need the KV6's expensive timing belt changes - but it's also heavier. In my opinion (but this is clearly very subjective) the Ford engine sounds better than the KV6.


Being an MG Rover forum it's natural that there's a large 75 bias here, although personally I prefer the X-type inasmuch as I have considered buying an X-type but have not considered buying a 75/ZT.

I hope this is taken in the manner in which it's intended - I'm not just trying to stir up 75 owners!!!

Rover_ron
14-03-2007, 18:47
Are the Ford TDCi engines better than the BMW ones...??

(it is a question by the way....)

My experience over the last 2 weeks is that the TDci engine (jointly developed with Puegeot - their HDI, but with Delphi injection), is quieter when revved, punchier due no doubt to the VNT turbo, but suffers a noticeable vibration at 1200rpm. Its also produces more torque (244lbs v 221lbs) than a CDTi and 2bhp less in an X-type (128 v 130bhp)

I'm sure the current version of the BMW engine (i.e in their own cars) is as good. The 75's engine dates back to 1998 and was the first common rail car engine.

Currently testing a Tu3 on it at present.

Ron

Rover_ron
14-03-2007, 18:51
Being an MG Rover forum it's natural that there's a large 75 bias here, although personally I prefer the X-type inasmuch as I have considered buying an X-type but have not considered buying a 75/ZT.

I hope this is taken in the manner in which it's intended - I'm not just trying to stir up 75 owners!!!

The main reason why a 75/ZT owner would buy an X-type is probably the increasing unavailability of a 75 or ZT.
The only alternatives for me would have been an Alfa 156 2.4JTD or Lexus Is 2.2 Diesel. However I prefer to buy British, or at least, keep Brits in work!

Ron

AndrewPorter
26-03-2007, 12:16
I considered both cars before I bought the tourer.

Both are excellent but the 75 has the nicer interior however if I needed to replace the 75 an X Type estate would be high on the list (along with the Disco 3, Freelander 2 and XJ6)

Rob Bell
26-03-2007, 13:28
I seriously considered buying an X-Type wagon when they first came out. But the problem really is the interior quality relative to the R75 we had at that time. Frankly the Jaguar was a disappointment. It looks similar, but is clearly a lot cheaper. Getting back behind the wheel of the 75 felt like getting into a higher quality car.

Regarding the handling of the diesel X-type - frankly I wasn't all that impressed with it. It went okay, but the ZT is a much sportier drive, without loosing any of the comfort. And the MG Rover seats are excellent - in the Jag you'd need to get the sports pack, and in even then, in leather, they're much flatter than the MG's.

We bought a ZTT.

Only criticism of this is the interior - not as homely or warm as the 75s. Have since ditched the grey 'technical' plastic, and have 'Monogrammed' it to match the exterior colour, and the interior is now exactly as I like it... although I still want colour matched seats to get rid of the naff blue/yellow patterned seats.

Rover_ron
26-03-2007, 14:04
I must admit my X-type is 'growing' on me, especially the engine.
My 75 has not been driven for a couple of weeks due to the egr supply tube splitting so when I fixed this and had a drive on Friday, it felt heavy and a bit ponderous. The long travel accelerator and heavy clutch didn't help. However it still felt more 'solid' and comfortable. I'd definitely prefer it for long motorway journeys.

The X-type is lighter to drive, very much more responsive thanks to the vnt turbo, is quieter when revved but suffers from tyre noise, and as you said Rob, the handling is nothing special despite the firmer ride, and better damping. (i was expecting more given its Mondo heritage)

It is most enjoyable out on the county roads up here, where the light clutch, gearshift, & steering and snappy throttle response make it a doddle to drive quickly with out any effort at all.

Mind you its a lot more fun since I stuck a Tu3 on it! (quicker than my 75 too)

I have a set of Toyo Proxes T1rs waiting to be fitted in the hope that they will be a lot quieter and offer more grip.
A dash upgrade kit and wood/leather steering wheel are on the list of 'to dos'.

So a 75 it isn't, but the potential is there.

Ron

Scarlet Fever
26-03-2007, 14:52
To be honest I think the 75/ZT is quite bad for front leg room

Bizzarre comment - X-Type is miles worse than my ZT and i have the 260 (with the larger transmission tunnel intrusion). I'm very surprised indeed.

and the B-pillar gets in the way on the 75/ZT when I drive it too (father owns a ZT I sometimes drive).

The ZT eats tyres much faster than my friend's X-type...

Agreed.

The centre console on the Jag is poor compared to the ZT, although the ZT seats are poor (already had 2 seats replaced on warranty, now the new seats are splitting - car has done 48,000 miles. My old 620 has done 147,000 and my bolsters are unmarked....).

Ahh, your talking leather quality, not comfort. OK, in this regard, i agree - ZT seats tend to wear thin on the 'kidney' inserts. In all other respects though i'd have to dissagree, comfort is the big difference - X-Type seats are diabolical in this regard, really narrow and rock hard bolsters, i find (being of larger stature) that i tend to sit on the bolsters and have actually had bruises by the time i reached my destination.

The rear view isn't great on either but I think the ZT is worse.

Saloon vs Saloon = agreed
Tourer vs Tourer = about the same

Being an MG Rover forum it's natural that there's a large 75 bias here, although personally I prefer the X-type inasmuch as I have considered buying an X-type but have not considered buying a 75/ZT.

I hope this is taken in the manner in which it's intended - I'm not just trying to stir up 75 owners!!!

Taken as meant, you are right - this is a pro R75/ZT forum and as such the X-Type will suffer in comparison. But reading through the thread i don't think we've been too uncharitable. The 75/ZT has it's faults too and there will always be people that prefer one over the other - i don't think anyone has said it's a bad car, indeed i read the above and think it has come out quite well in comparison.

For me, it was extremely uncomfortable. That said, my old man has an aluminium XJ8 and the seats are awfull in this too. 16 way electrically adjustable, memory seats with three stage heating and they are too narrow (slightly, they are wider than the X-Type) and too hard. Actually the XJ8 sums up the way Jag has lost it's way to me quite well. I'm a fan of the marque and overall i think they are really good cars, but they are suffering from a lack of thought in my eyes.

Examples:

1 ) Seats - mega fantastic, but uncomfortable.
2 ) Digital compass in rear view mirror - positioned poorly (it's in the view out the rear window, if it had been lower it'd be in front of a rear headrest)
3 ) High level brake light - whole window goes red after dark when braking
4 ) Dash mounted ignition - too low, keys impact on knee

There's others too, none serious, but all very annoying, it's like they had a great idea, but then only thought it through 90%.

Anyway, my Dad loves 'em and as i said earlier, i'm a fan. But the X-Type is dissapointing (extended test over 3 weeks of a Tourer, plus my Dad had a 3.0 Sport when it was released (for 6 months, it was too much of a step down for him from his previous XJR), it's just not a Jaguar to me. No real experience of the S, but loads of experience of the XJ6 and then latterly the XJ8 over the past 15 years or so.

Jaguar are doing very well in my eyes, but they just need that last little bit of product development to make them spot on i feel. :)

Rover_ron
26-03-2007, 15:10
Jaguar are doing very well in my eyes, but they just need that last little bit of product development to make them spot on i feel. :)


That sums it up nicely.
Which is actually quite shocking when Rover did a better job on the 75 several years earlier. (They had BWM backing, Jag had Ford's and it shows up Ford's lack of experience in the luxury car market)
Shame on Jaguar management for letting Ford spoil a potential 75 rival
Ron

Rob Bell
26-03-2007, 15:14
Seeing the pix of the S-type show car, and hearing that the real thing isn't going to look too much different... well, I could be saving my pennies and going Jaguar in a few years time!

I agree with you Andy - Jags have suffered from a serious lack of imagination on the styling front in the Ford years - but with Ian McCallum on board, things should be on the up and up (see new XK8 for example!)

Will the X-type ever be replaced though, I wonder?

murphyzt
26-03-2007, 16:16
We bought a ZTT.

Only criticism of this is the interior - not as homely or warm as the 75s. Have since ditched the grey 'technical' plastic, and have 'Monogrammed' it to match the exterior colour, and the interior is now exactly as I like it... although I still want colour matched seats to get rid of the naff blue/yellow patterned seats.

Rob,

Any pictures of the interior? Sounds different.

Rob Bell
26-03-2007, 18:40
Couple of older pictures here when I first undertook the mod...
http://forums.mg-rover.org/showpost.php?p=1484786&postcount=83

I've since colour coded the ash tray and switch panel.

I am thinking of the window switch surrounds too - but that might be taking things too far - what do you guys think? Definitely need to do something about those seats though!

Ian
26-03-2007, 19:04
It looks great Rob - I think I would be inclined to keep the electric window switch surrounds black ;)

murphyzt
26-03-2007, 19:10
That looks good Rob. MGOracle has just posted on another thread, his car with the aircon and radio surrounds painted the same as the original ash tray etc. That looks good also.

Rob Bell
26-03-2007, 20:45
I think that you're right Ian. Probably a bit too far... plus they'd probably scratch too easily. Best left in its native matt plastic blackness :)

I like what MGOracle did to his radio console - but I won't colour this in Royal Blue as it really would be too much. If I were to respray the ICE bezel and the ACC panel, I think that I'd go for a deep glossy black (mimicking piano lacquer)... What'd'ya reckon?

Ian
26-03-2007, 20:51
I'm not sure about the Piano Black - I think I prefer the regular plastic colour.

fevsisere
26-03-2007, 20:55
What do you call a top spec mondeo?A Jag x type!!

AndrewPorter
26-03-2007, 21:35
I think that you're right Ian. Probably a bit too far... plus they'd probably scratch too easily. Best left in its native matt plastic blackness :)

I like what MGOracle did to his radio console - but I won't colour this in Royal Blue as it really would be too much. If I were to respray the ICE bezel and the ACC panel, I think that I'd go for a deep glossy black (mimicking piano lacquer)... What'd'ya reckon?

You've given me a thought - a piano black dash on the 75!

Rob Bell
26-03-2007, 23:05
Would look stunning IMO. But I remain a fan of the Black Oak...

real car man
03-04-2007, 18:34
hi everyone, my work mate has a rover 75 a very nice car and a nice ride, but not a patch on an x type you mention interiors you can seriously compare a rover 75 interior to this (picture 2) and looks come on now think about it (picture 1) mention to people you have a rover nothing happens mention jags heads turn, what is that rover what wants to be a subaru the interior looks like it has come out of a cortina, now come on every one rovers are nice but not nice enough. come on every one i know you love your rovers
but dont mention them in the sme sentence as a jag, no offence intended. p.s nice wheels on the 75 lol lol lol.......

http://www.filehigh.com/serve/18977/328464.jpg

http://www.filehigh.com/serve/18977/328469.jpg

murphyzt
03-04-2007, 18:48
hi everyone, my work mate has a rover 75 a very nice car and a nice ride, but not a patch on an x type you mention interiors you can seriously compare a rover 75 interior to this (picture 2) and looks come on now think about it (picture 1) mention to people you have a rover nothing happens mention jags heads turn, what is that rover what wants to be a subaru the interior looks like it has come out of a cortina, now come on every one rovers are nice but not nice enough. come on every one i know you love your rovers
but dont mention them in the sme sentence as a jag, no offence intended.

http://www.filehigh.com/serve/18977/328464.jpg

http://www.filehigh.com/serve/18977/328469.jpg


Unfortunately, the person who mentioned the jag first is a new jag owner who has also owned rovers.

Rover that wants to be a Scooby!!! Don't think so.

P.S. Did you see the results of the auto express power survey??? Where was the scooby in the sports section?? the ZT was second.. Where was the jag in the comfort section??? the rover 75 was second!!!... and no, the scooby and jag weren't first!!!



want any more?? :dddc:

real car man
03-04-2007, 18:56
scooby, scooby, lol lol what is a scooby if it is a 75 it suits the name.. lol lol

Rover_ron
03-04-2007, 18:57
hi everyone, my work mate has a rover 75 a very nice car and a nice ride, but not a patch on an x type you mention interiors you can seriously compare a rover 75 interior to this (picture 2) and looks come on now think about it (picture 1) mention to people you have a rover nothing happens mention jags heads turn, what is that rover what wants to be a subaru the interior looks like it has come out of a cortina, now come on every one rovers are nice but not nice enough. come on every one i know you love your rovers
but dont mention them in the sme sentence as a jag, no offence intended.



As someone who has both, I refer you to my earlier reply - no. 14 and stand by my comments.
However, having been testing my Tu3 tuning module on my X-type, it is now quicker than my 150bhp 75CDT and very lively indeed. However, my 75 does not suffer from torque steer, nor does the fronr rear up like a stallion when flooring the throttle in 2nd gear. the last time experienced this sort of wayward behaviour was back in 1992....

The X Type is good, but as Autocar commented - "not good enough", and I'd add, especially for a 75 owner. On the other hand, its probably the only UK built alternative and it is lighter to drive.

Ron

murphyzt
03-04-2007, 19:00
scooby, scooby, lol lol what is a scooby if it is a 75 it suits the name.. lol lol

A scooby my good man is the subura impreza owner's name for their cars. http://forums.mg-rover.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

real car man
03-04-2007, 19:01
sorry rover ron all the technical nonsense doesnt affect me when i go out for the day all i see is a smooth quiet ride..with lots of toys and all wheel drive, and lots of grunt if i need it..

Ian
03-04-2007, 19:03
I just find the X-Type interior plasticky and nasty compared to the 75. The X-Type 2.5 V6 SE that I had for a few days, just wasn't a patch on my 75 at the time.

Leddfutt
03-04-2007, 19:05
The big thing the X has for me is a 3.0 litre V6 pushing out over 230 BHP and driving all four wheels ! The only 75 to compare would be a V8 RWD but these are fairly rare, and way too thirsty.

The links to Mondeo are always used to slag off the X but it is based on the latest model Mondeo which is well recognised as a good drivers car and I for one do not have a problem with the Ford links.

The X Type may have limited rear leg room but I never sit in the back so I don't care :lol:

real car man
03-04-2007, 19:08
The big thing the X has for me is a 3.0 litre V6 pushing out over 230 BHP and driving all four wheels ! The only 75 to compare would be a V8 RWD but these are fairly rare, and way too thirsty.

The links to Mondeo are always used to slag off the X but it is based on the latest model Mondeo which is well recognised as a good drivers car and I for one do not have a problem with the Ford links.

The X Type may have limited rear leg room but I never sit in the back so I don't care :lol:


good point well put
http://forums.mg-rover.org/images/dark/statusicon/user_online.gif http://forums.mg-rover.org/images/dark/buttons/reputation.gif (http://forums.mg-rover.org/reputation.php?p=1940407) vbrep_register("1940407") http://forums.mg-rover.org/images/dark/buttons/report.gif (http://forums.mg-rover.org/report.php?p=1940407)

Ian
03-04-2007, 19:14
These days, very few X-Types that are sold are 4WD. The majority of sales are 2.0 Diesel and 2.2 Diesel Front Wheel Drive models ;)

murphyzt
03-04-2007, 19:19
The big thing the X has for me is a 3.0 litre V6 pushing out over 230 BHP and driving all four wheels ! The only 75 to compare would be a V8 RWD but these are fairly rare, and way too thirsty.

The links to Mondeo are always used to slag off the X but it is based on the latest model Mondeo which is well recognised as a good drivers car and I for one do not have a problem with the Ford links.

The X Type may have limited rear leg room but I never sit in the back so I don't care :lol:

Yes you're right to compare the 3.0 V6 to the V8 but what about the jags other engines?

I actually like Jags in an arthur daley kind of way. Where the 75 has the pipe and slipper brigade the jag has the camel coat and cigar brigade!!!!

real car man
03-04-2007, 19:22
These days, very few X-Types that are sold are 4WD. The majority of sales are 2.0 Diesel and 2.2 Diesel Front Wheel Drive models


but you have the choice....

Ian
03-04-2007, 19:23
but you have the choice....

From the press reports about the X-Type facelift towards the end of the year, you won't have a choice for much longer - the X-Type is likely to go Diesel only ;)

real car man
03-04-2007, 19:29
From the press reports about the X-Type facelift towards the end of the year, you won't have a choice for much longer - the X-Type is likely to go Diesel only ;)

mmmmm 2.5 turbo diesel.... nice

murphyzt
03-04-2007, 19:31
:rofl: Don't mess with our Ian, he'll wipe the floor with you.

Ian
03-04-2007, 19:43
Jaguar X-Type - pffttt - doesn't even offer a V8 in the line-up :lol:

murphyzt
03-04-2007, 19:45
told you!!!

Daytona
03-04-2007, 21:09
Jaguar X-Type - pffttt - doesn't even offer a V8 in the line-up :lol:

The rest of the range does. Was a V8 specified in all the MGR range?

Leddfutt
03-04-2007, 21:24
Yes you're right to compare the 3.0 V6 to the V8 but what about the jags other engines?

I actually like Jags in an arthur daley kind of way. Where the 75 has the pipe and slipper brigade the jag has the camel coat and cigar brigade!!!!

When I decided to buy an X Type it had to be the 3.0, the 2.0 is under powered and as for weasy diesels, well it just aint Jaguar old boy !! come to think of it neither is front wheel drive. Can't see Arfur D in a diesel somehow :rolleyes:

< N I C K >
04-04-2007, 01:28
The big thing the X has for me is a 3.0 litre V6 pushing out over 230 BHP and driving all four wheels ! The only 75 to compare would be a V8 RWD but these are fairly rare, and way too thirsty.

The links to Mondeo are always used to slag off the X but it is based on the latest model Mondeo which is well recognised as a good drivers car and I for one do not have a problem with the Ford links.


The four wheel drive 3.0 V6 X-type isn't exactly renowned for it's fuel economy with it's high revving nature. It would probably better the lazy 4.6 V8 but not by enough to skyte about it.

I consider the 75 an X-type & an S-type rival. I parked next to an X-type the other day & there's not much between in size. I love the squat look & stance of the X-type. But don't like all the folds & squinty headlights.

The 75's interior certainly looks better but can't comment on quality or even driving characteristics having not driven one.

All I know is that on a head to head comparison between a 2.1 X-type & an 2.5 Rover 75 (same price bracket) the motoring journos preferred the 75.

However if something terrible happen to my 75, heaven forbid, I could think of worse things than an X-Type.

Daytona
04-04-2007, 08:13
The Pirelli Pzeros are noisy in a coarse roaring way.

I've got Pirelli PZero Neros and found them to be quite the opposite. This is after covering many miles at high cruising speeds (often comfortably into 3 figures) whilst heavily loaded with holiday luggage over in europe. Never had any problem with noise, ride or grip.


From the press reports about the X-Type facelift towards the end of the year, you won't have a choice for much longer - the X-Type is likely to go Diesel only ;)

Link?

Ian
04-04-2007, 08:22
Link?

Only paper based I'm afraid - it was in either Autocar or Auto Express, the Geneva Motor Show issues IIRC.

Daytona
04-04-2007, 09:37
Only paper based I'm afraid - it was in either Autocar or Auto Express, the Geneva Motor Show issues IIRC.

"Likely", though. Not for certain although they may well be looking to continue a trend? http://www.jaguar.co.uk/uk/en/latest/news/current/XJ_Greenest_Luxury_Car.htm

Jaguar's XJ 2.7 Diesel has been named the greenest luxury car on Britain's roads in the Environmental Transport Association's 2007 Car Buyers Guide. The award, presented by television presenter Janet Ellis at the RIBS in London recognises Jaguar's commitment to delivering CO2 and fuel consumption advantages to customers with the development of its industry-leading diesel engines and application of advanced lightweight aluminium vehicle architectures.

75king
04-04-2007, 15:45
I have to agree with "real car man" on this one. The Jaguar is a far superior car in almost every way. I had one before my X-type and sold it after a catastrophic breakdown resulting in a holiday wasted. In brief the engine exploded and as it stopped, something jammed and the gearbox subsequently stopped causing the entire car to skid to a halt (straight bit of road at low speed).

Anyway, the build quality of the X-type is in my opinion far superior, but that seems to be personal preference.

What is not, however, is reliability. I work in sales so cover about 60-70,000 miles a year and have never had a single problem in my Jaguar, however, not counting the final breakdown, in the rOVER, I did about 10,000 miles a time before it was in the garage, be it gearbox, instrument panel wiring burning out, handbrake cable locking in the 'on' position resulting in a £30K contract lost.

The X needs nothing except diesel and servicing.

Sorry guys, truth hurts.

Ian
04-04-2007, 15:56
Seems a strange Forum Name: "75King" for someone that doesn't own a Rover 75 anymore, and signed up to slate it?

shouldn't your car say "Jaguar", rather than Rover 75?

Me ode China
04-04-2007, 16:35
I have had a Jaguar X-Type for a few weeks before, and as Scarlet Fever says, I found the interior to be small in comparison to the Rover 75. It definitely felt alot narrower.

Also, there were lots of 'Ford' switches littered about the dashboard. Most people probably wouldn't recognise them, but having driven lots of Ford products, I tend to pick up on these sorts of things. I just expected the X-Type not to adopt Ford parts, where the customer can see.

I found some of the plastics to be a bit hard and brittle - especially around the J-Gate transmission selector.

I agree with Ian about X-type seeming narrower, however, I have always aspired to a Jaguar and will keep saving until I can afford the 'dream'

Previosuley had 200, 400 and 600 Rovers and I chose my 75 with the Grandpa wood trim and leather as I couldnt stretch to a Jag to get the real thing

Cant help thinking I wished I had saved longer and waited especially as the residuals on my 75 are shocking and you never get those head turning glances Jags and other prestige cars get

75king
04-04-2007, 17:00
I suppose my name should be JagsRking, but I thought that it would be sort of stupid to sign up to a Rover Forum with Jag as a name, so I tried to sign up with one that would seem a bit more suitable, such as the type of car that I used to have, followed by a brief description of me!

I liked the 75, I would have to, to do long distances in it, but I can honestly say that it doesn't compare to the X.

I would potentially buy another one at some point, but only when I can't afford to run the more prestige Jaguar.

75king
04-04-2007, 17:08
I should have added, that my wife-to-be has a 200, which is why I am floating about.

Having said that, this doesn't look like the most hostile forum on the net...

Me ode China
04-04-2007, 17:09
I suppose my name should be JagsRking, but I thought that it would be sort of stupid to sign up to a Rover Forum with Jag as a name, so I tried to sign up with one that would seem a bit more suitable, such as the type of car that I used to have, followed by a brief description of me!

I liked the 75, I would have to, to do long distances in it, but I can honestly say that it doesn't compare to the X.

I would potentially buy another one at some point, but only when I can't afford to run the more prestige Jaguar.

Really jelous 75king

Would love a Jag with that special 'look at me' feeling you get behind the wheel

red_rover
04-04-2007, 17:16
The Rover 75 was a car that was built with a huge development cost with a very long development. It was built with the premium market in mind. It had a dashboard that people love to this very day.

Now althought the X-type is alright, it does fail on;

*Rubbish looking climate control system which only seems to be on a couple of models
*Poor equipment levels. Most models have windy rear windows and manual air conditions
*Little tiny headlights that just look odd
*The doors look very dated externally
*Not as practical
*Didn't win as many awards as the 75 has
*Never even achieved the sales the 75 had despite roughly the same price
*Although the Mondeo is a competent car - its just that. The X-type was built upon a a family car platform where as the 75 was designed with 'premium' in mind from the wheels up

The 75 is the superior car although the X-type is a good little second cousin to the 75.

75king
04-04-2007, 17:26
The Rover 75 was a car that was built with a huge development cost with a very long development. It was built with the premium market in mind. It had a dashboard that people love to this very day.

Now althought the X-type is alright, it does fail on;

*Rubbish looking climate control system which only seems to be on a couple of models
*Poor equipment levels. Most models have windy rear windows and manual air conditions
*Little tiny headlights that just look odd
*The doors look very dated externally
*Not as practical
*Didn't win as many awards as the 75 has
*Never even achieved the sales the 75 had despite roughly the same price
*Although the Mondeo is a competent car - its just that. The X-type was built upon a a family car platform where as the 75 was designed with 'premium' in mind from the wheels up

The 75 is the superior car although the X-type is a good little second cousin to the 75.

Yeah, that rubbish looking touch screen.
I couldn't comment, my car has almost every option, and I have never seen an X-type with windy rear windows, but I do agree that some have them, it is less common than electric.

I'm not here to argue, I'm far to mature to do that, but the X-type is far less Mondeo than you are Ape.

The X-type would sell less because the higher quality components potentially lead to higher running costs.

Ian
04-04-2007, 17:31
The reason we have so many invaders from the Jaguar forums guys, is that there is a thread on Jaguarforums, and some are coming over just to wind up.

Best to leave it, as no-one wants a forum war of any kind.

I'm sure everyone will agree that different people have different tastes. Lets leave it like that. Very few people have had experience of both vehicles, I have been lucky enough to drive both. What doesn't help is the 2nd and 3rd hand comments like "My mate said", and "My brothers, uncles, sisters etc etc".

http://www.jaguarforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=5165

75king
04-04-2007, 17:40
:banghead:
I'm sure you would have done the same thing in the same position, seeing your pride and joy slated!

Still, all a bit of fun, eh?
:)

But you do have a waaaay cooler selection of smilies than we do...


01jagx

red_rover
04-04-2007, 17:44
:banghead:
I'm sure you would have done the same thing in the same position, seeing your pride and joy slated!

Still, all a bit of fun, eh?
:)

But you do have a waaaay cooler selection of smilies than we do...


01jagx

What? No one has slated your cars? If you look at .org its very pro-Jaguar.

The Rover 75 has heritage that harks back to the day when ROVERs were more expensive than Jaguars and were at the top of the automotive game. That makes the 75 a very special car as for Rover owners its Rovers last 'Glory' car.

75king
04-04-2007, 17:46
"Dont be fooled by the jag, poor interior, poor build on the early ones, general all round sense of cheapness"

Not exactly friendly though!

Ian
04-04-2007, 17:46
Very Pro-British cars indeed we are, so much so that Jaguar will get their very own addition to the .org forums at the end of May ;)

Ian
04-04-2007, 17:52
"Dont be fooled by the jag, poor interior, poor build on the early ones, general all round sense of cheapness"

Not exactly friendly though!

I think that is matched by one of your members, slagging me off due to my commitment to the forums! Not exactly friendly is it!!!

I think it is best for you to go back to your forums - as you will see, apart from Red_Rover trying to keep the peace, no-one has registered on your forums trying to score points!

Rover_ron
04-04-2007, 17:54
Very Pro-British cars indeed we are, so much so that Jaguar will get their very own addition to the .org forums at the end of May ;)


That's good news!

I'll be on there straightaway with results of my TU3-TDCI testing!

Ron

Ian
04-04-2007, 17:55
That's good news!

I'll be on there straightaway with results of my TU3-TDCI testing!

Ron

Excellent Ron - as always, your input will be invaluable :)

75king
04-04-2007, 18:18
Guys, I don't want to leave here with hard feelings in place. It was a bit of fun, if one of your forumers spotted it the other way around, I'm sure the same would have happened but in reverse.

As a forum we are certainly the most hostile, friendly, casual one I have ever come across - how many other forums can claim that users clubbed together to pay for an engine repair? Very few, if any.

I don't think that 5slices was being unfriendly towards you Ian, he was being banterous.

I apologise on behalf of the forum if we have indeed caused offense here, but I do not think that we have. :)

real car man
04-04-2007, 18:34
only a bit of fun, one thing though my touch screen sat nav, climate control, radio, cassette, and cd changer really annoy me some times, lol, that was a silly comment about the climate control,

murphyzt
04-04-2007, 18:44
Funny one guys. I think it just shows how passionate we all are about our cars, whatever the make.

real car man
04-04-2007, 19:05
we all have one thing in common we love our cars, all good fun, just be carefull what you say about the x type.

< N I C K >
05-04-2007, 03:08
we all have one thing in common we love our cars.

Agreed. Anyone who's a car enthusiasts goes up a notch in my book.

I've just checked out the threaded on JaguarForums & frankly I was a little surprised by some of the snobbish replies regarding perceived brand prestige. And the guy bagging Ian drives a BMW.
I don't think the snobbishness is warranted given the UK Autocar report that the X-Type may not be replaced but rather superseded by some 4x4 crossover vehicle. This is no doubt due to the X-type's failure in the compact executive segment. So the 75 & the X-Type has more in comment than you may think.

Also with Jaguar bleeding red ink & the owner Ford in trouble there were rumours Renault could be the next owners! However this probably won't eventuate as Ford has sold Aston Martin & Land Rover sales are holding the premiere group together. The irony is the Mk I Freelander & Range Rovers were put together by Rover & BMW.


As I said earlier I like the X-Type & I hope it is replaced. And with all things being fair the X-Type should be better than a 75 because it's newer. Apparently the Jaguar engines used the Rover 75 as a bases for comparison when developing the X-Type.

welshMGman
05-04-2007, 08:27
Not driven an X-Type, but might consider one to replace the ZT-T. Would prefer the 2.5/3.0 V6 AWD rather than Diesel FWD, but, if Jag stop making AWD Petrol, then who knows?

My father had an XJS 4.0L Straight Six manual for over ten years. Physically, the XJS and ZT-T are approximately the same size (note 'approximately'). Whilst the XJ-S had a nicer ride (it was a Jaguar Jaguar, after all!), the 'feel', according to my father, of the ZT-T is nearly the same.

The Biggest problem with the XJS was the poor steering lock (15 inch wheels; RWD) compared to the ZT-T (18 inch; FWD), which made parking a nightmare.

What Jaguar ought to do with the X-Type is make a convertible version to tackle 3-Series; A4; 9-3....

Jaguar appear to have the best warranty of all car maunfacturers though, and my father had excellent service from the dealer (70+ miles away).

Jaguar priced themselves out of the lower-end premium GT/Coupe market with only offering the XK with a V8 that was not as reliabel as the straight-six. They need to offer something in the 25K-40K bracket.

75king
05-04-2007, 10:10
The X-type is guarenteed to be made as is for a couple of years, then it is being face-lifted I believe.

5Slices does not drive a BMW...yet.

I don't think that it is snobbery as such, but more fact. But hear me out. I agree that rover has a good history, but of late, the first car that springs to my mind is the Metro, probably because my Aunt used to have one, followed by the City 'thing'. Now, OK, there are more prestige models such as the 75, but then there are these low end models that would always hold the make back.

It has been inferred that Jags rep would go down if they made a 4x4 'crossover', or SUV as it is usually called. And it might. But Rover had vehicles that would always hold it back.

murphyzt
05-04-2007, 10:50
Some valid points raised, but through development, the last range of MGRover cars where IMO by far the best they had manufactured, except the City Rover obviously.

I do hope that Jaguar continue with a long future and continue to produce cars worthy of the brand name. But, as we are all aware, Jaguar's recent past has been a rocky one and there is no saying that it will not follow a similar fate to that suffered by the MGRover brand unless future finance and devolpment continue to be secured.

Ian
05-04-2007, 11:16
The X-Type is likely to be facelifted for the Frankfurt Motor Show in September, at which time, according to the rumours, only Diesel engines will be offered.

marsh
05-04-2007, 11:18
I always thought the 75s styling was too similar to some of the jags to be a coincidence. WEre they perhaps influenced by similar designs or drawn up by similar people.

Even down to the shape of the back reggy under the chrome boot handle. Both the same on the 75 and IIRC the x-type. if not it then another Jag

Ian
05-04-2007, 12:01
I always thought the 75s styling was too similar to some of the jags to be a coincidence. WEre they perhaps influenced by similar designs or drawn up by similar people.

Even down to the shape of the back reggy under the chrome boot handle. Both the same on the 75 and IIRC the x-type. if not it then another Jag

The styling of the Rover 75 can be traced back through its history, The P5 etc., Have a look at www.austin-rover.co.uk and you will be able to see the linage.

Don't forget that the X-Type was launched a year or so after the 75 was unveiled, so Jaguar were able to copy some of the styling cues ;)

murphyzt
05-04-2007, 12:09
Out of the Jaguar drivers who have posted on this forum, how many of you are owners as opposed to company car drivers?

Just wondering what sort of niche the X-type is filling in relation to company cars and private.

Daytona
05-04-2007, 12:48
Out of the Jaguar drivers who have posted on this forum, how many of you are owners as opposed to company car drivers?

Just wondering what sort of niche the X-type is filling in relation to company cars and private.

Private owner bought new.

AndyTucker
05-04-2007, 15:52
My experience over the last 2 weeks is that the TDci engine (jointly developed with Puegeot - their HDI, but with Delphi injection), is quieter when revved, punchier due no doubt to the VNT turbo, but suffers a noticeable vibration at 1200rpm. Its also produces more torque (244lbs v 221lbs) than a CDTi and 2bhp less in an X-type (128 v 130bhp)

I'm sure the current version of the BMW engine (i.e in their own cars) is as good. The 75's engine dates back to 1998 and was the first common rail car engine.

Currently testing a Tu3 on it at present.

Ron

The 2.0/2.2 diesels in the Mondeo and X-Type aren't the ones jointly produced wih PSA. They're Ford's own 'Puma' design.

The joint-venture 2.0/2.2 diesels can be found in the Focus/C-Max/S-Max/Galaxy/C30/S40/V50/Freelander II, and they aren't related at all to the units in the Mondeo and X-Type.

Rover_ron
05-04-2007, 16:50
The 2.0/2.2 diesels in the Mondeo and X-Type aren't the ones jointly produced wih PSA. They're Ford's own 'Puma' design.

The joint-venture 2.0/2.2 diesels can be found in the Focus/C-Max/S-Max/Galaxy/C30/S40/V50/Freelander II, and they aren't related at all to the units in the Mondeo and X-Type.

Thanks for puitting me right on that. I did notice the Mondeo one is DOHC.
Is it the PSA/Ford one that is SOHC?

Ron

Daytona
05-04-2007, 16:57
Don't forget that the X-Type was launched a year or so after the 75 was unveiled, so Jaguar were able to copy some of the styling cues ;)

Except the X used the long established XJ for styling cues which had been around for decades before the 75 ;)

real car man
05-04-2007, 17:07
Out of the Jaguar drivers who have posted on this forum, how many of you are owners as opposed to company car drivers?

Just wondering what sort of niche the X-type is filling in relation to company cars and private.


all mine...

TastyBurger
05-04-2007, 17:31
Not noticed this thread before - hilarious! Just goes to show how passionate people are about their cars. Great stuff.

Funnily enough the x-type is on my list of possible next cars to purchase - but having only just bought the ZT (and happy with it ;) ) it wont be for at least a couple of years.

75king
05-04-2007, 17:42
Owner
& another few characters to make 10...

red_rover
05-04-2007, 17:55
Except the X used the long established XJ for styling cues which had been around for decades before the 75 ;)

And the P4, P5 and P6 were out long before Jaguar launched the XJ (IIRC '68?)

Daytona
05-04-2007, 18:16
And the P4, P5 and P6 were out long before Jaguar launched the XJ (IIRC '68?)

And the XJ drew from the Mk X which drew from earlier ones such as the Mk VII and Mk V in a gradual evolution. Just looking at the 3/4 front view of a Mk VII you can see the lines of the XK120 clearly. Let's face it, when you start with pre-war cars which invariably had a large radiator and two searchlights, you're bound to see similarities when evolution has run its course.

Don't forget, Rover kept splitting off with different frontal designs with the P6, SD1 and first 800 but realised the Jaguar style chrome grill was a winner ;)

Condottieri
05-04-2007, 20:05
Well, I certainly support Daytona on this one! The X-type Jaguar comes from a clearly identifiable evolutionary pedigree of Jaguars. The Rover 75, seems to me to owe more of it's lines to that same Jaguar pedigree than any previous Rover species!

Red-Rover mentions the Rover P4, 5, and 6 models as contenders for the ancestry of the Rover 75's shape and body features. But how sustainable is this if we look at them alongside each other? Well, let's start with the 75:

http://www.geocities.com/george434@btinternet.com/rover75-L.jpg

Then let's look at the nearest (latest built) of Red-Rover's Rover contenders for influencing the 75's appearance, the P6:

http://www.geocities.com/george434@btinternet.com/rover_p_6.jpg

With the best will in the world, I can't see the relationship! But let's go back to the 75's grandpa and great-grandpa Rovers, the P5 and P4 - maybe the family likeness just skipped a generation!:

http://www.geocities.com/george434@btinternet.com/p5.jpg


http://www.geocities.com/george434@btinternet.com/p4.jpg

Nope! And nope again - in fact there's no discernable family line going on here. So what about the Jaguar lineage? After all, look how many small ads for Rover 75's mention 'the Jaguar type' as a selling point. Is this a valid comparison? Well, as Red-Rover correctly said, the XJ6 has been in production since 1968's Series I. And when I first started seeing Rover 75's in my rear view mirrors, the grille and headlamp arrangement always struck me as 'XJ6-ish'. So let's look at an XJ6 for the purposes of comparison:

http://www.geocities.com/george434@btinternet.com/xjiii.jpg

Ahhhh! Now the 75 again:

http://www.geocities.com/george434@btinternet.com/rover75-L.jpg

Oh yeah! We can see who his Daddy was!

Now, the XJ6 Series III I've pictured came out in 1979 - some twenty years before the Rover 75. So if the Rover 75 was so clearly derivitave of the Jaguar's lines in 1998/9, then clearly it's nonsense to say that the Jaguar X-type of 2001 was based on the 75! The X, of course, was based on the same sources as the Rover 75 - Jaguar's XJ range. Only difference being, the X-type was part of the family, whilst the 75 was - to put it politely - an illegitimate offspring.

Feel free to disagree with me though, folks - but I think a picture's worth a thousand words!

Ciao,
Stirling

Ian
05-04-2007, 20:24
I actually wasn't referring to exterior styling cues, I was referring to the interior!

Condottieri
05-04-2007, 20:36
I actually wasn't referring to exterior styling cues, I was referring to the interior!

Er, but I was responding to Red-Rover's citing of the P4, 5 & 6, Ian! I take it you accept the points I made about the exterior styling cues, though?

However, let's talk about the interior. In my view the 75 interior raised the game of Rover interiors to Jaguar levels. And a damn good job was made of it too - they managed to out-Jaguar Jaguar in some ways! But the fact is the cues were again derivative of Jaguar's XJ range, from the mount of wood used, to the Connolly-style leathers. And the 75's centre instrument console and gear shift area owes everything to the Jaguar XJ6 which broke new ground with such a compsition in 1968's Series I XJ6.

Ciao,
Stirling

red_rover
05-04-2007, 20:41
And the XJ drew from the Mk X which drew from earlier ones such as the Mk VII and Mk V in a gradual evolution. Just looking at the 3/4 front view of a Mk VII you can see the lines of the XK120 clearly. Let's face it, when you start with pre-war cars which invariably had a large radiator and two searchlights, you're bound to see similarities when evolution has run its course.

Don't forget, Rover kept splitting off with different frontal designs with the P6, SD1 and first 800 but realised the Jaguar style chrome grill was a winner ;)

The 'Jaguar' chrome grill was actually harking back to Rover's past that started in 1904.

red_rover
05-04-2007, 20:44
Er, but I was responding to Red-Rover's citing of the P4, 5 & 6, Ian! I take it you accept the points I made about the exterior styling cues, though?

However, let's talk about the interior. In my view the 75 interior raised the game of Rover interiors to Jaguar levels. And a damn good job was made of it too - they managed to out-Jaguar Jaguar in some ways! But the fact is the cues were again derivative of Jaguar's XJ range, from the mount of wood used, to the Connolly-style leathers. And the 75's centre instrument console and gear shift area owes everything to the Jaguar XJ6 which broke new ground with such a compsition in 1968's Series I XJ6.

Ciao,
Stirling

What? The 75 and XJ are nothing alike?!

THIS IS WHAT THE 75 TAKES ITS EXTERIOR FROM

http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/images/retro_05.jpg

The reason Rover went down this road was to re-establish the very core of 'Roverness', which had - management felt - been lost during the SD1 and 800 era. This is perhaps a design direction that asserted itself quite strongly during the BMW era, when a misty-eyed Bernd Pischetsrieder ensured his edict that Rovers should exude 'Englishness' - which he (and many other Germans) seem to have confused with the 'Trad-Brit' wood-and-leather cliché.

Many considered Rover's glory years to be in the golden age of P4, P5 and P6 production, and it was felt Rover's new car should hark back to this era. Quality was utmost in designers' and managers' minds, and it seems Rover's high watermark in this department was during the P4 era.


Rover's P4 remains a very able car to drive today, and has a timeless look to it. Richard Woolley took many design cues from it when creating his 'modern classic' 75.

So, Rover's brief was clear - make the car look as 'English' as possible, but keep a modern package in check with enough features from the 'P-Series' to allow any potential customer to form a clear link in their own mind between the two era - perhaps banishing thoughts of post modern, unreliable heaps such as the SD1 and 800. Of course, this would have been a tough brief to answer, and it is clear that Richard Woolley trod a compromise line between his own '600-Series update' and 'modern P4'.
According to AUTOCAR magazine's Executive Editor, Richard Bremner, this is absolutely the case. His enthusiasm for the 75 is abundantly clear, even if he feels the retro brief is not in the spirit of previous innovative Rovers: "It would be a while before I fully appreciated just how well crafted a design this car is. When I first saw it - at Gaydon - I was a little disappointed. It looked too traditional, too much like the replacement for the 600, and not true to the innovative heart of Rover as was (P4, P5, P6, P9, SD1). I still think that now, but what you notice with time is the exquisite sculpting of its flanks, both along the length of the car, and from window line to sills. Only the Alfa 156 is as well done. The chrome strip was terrific too. And with the possible exception of the headlights, there is no aspect of the exterior that looks wrong."

This is not a universal opinion though, even though the 75 is so well sculpted, it's the retro concept, which many people have difficulty coming to terms with. After all, the P4, P5, P6 and SD1 are all considered great Rovers, and yet, none of them were retro themselves, and are still lauded today as being daring and contemporary in their day...

Would they be thought of in such terms had they been designed with one eye on their past?

The Rover 75 takes its styling cues inside and out from ALL the P's (the P6 seats).

The X-type is just a plain retro model where as the 75 is classically designed.

TastyBurger
05-04-2007, 20:45
Really - does it matter. Its a bit like 'my Dad is bigger than your Dad' in this thread at the moment.

Daytona
05-04-2007, 20:45
As far as I'm concerned on the interiors, they both give me that all important "feel good" factor with the wood and leather. That's important in any car and sadly lacking in so many modern alternatives. The wood trim in my Dolly Sprint was one of the features which really caught my attention. Apart from that superb 16valve engine!

red_rover
05-04-2007, 20:47
Er, but I was responding to Red-Rover's citing of the P4, 5 & 6, Ian! I take it you accept the points I made about the exterior styling cues, though?

However, let's talk about the interior. In my view the 75 interior raised the game of Rover interiors to Jaguar levels. And a damn good job was made of it too - they managed to out-Jaguar Jaguar in some ways! But the fact is the cues were again derivative of Jaguar's XJ range, from the mount of wood used, to the Connolly-style leathers. And the 75's centre instrument console and gear shift area owes everything to the Jaguar XJ6 which broke new ground with such a compsition in 1968's Series I XJ6.

Ciao,
Stirling

Argghhh what is it with Jaguar owners being so arrogant?

The 75 interior is a ROVER based interior BASED on past Rovers. It doesn't out Jaguar interiors because it doesn't have anything to do with a Jaguar interior.

When has Jaguar done a dashboard like the 75?

red_rover
05-04-2007, 20:49
Really - does it matter. Its a bit like 'my Dad is bigger than your Dad' in this thread at the moment.

I like the X-type. But I will not have people say that the 75 is a copy of a Jaguar. Its insulting to Rovers far more important history.

Thing is, Jaguar has been stuck with the XJ for far too long and when people think of Jaguar they only thing

Inspector Morse
Aurthur Daily
Jaguar E-type

TastyBurger
05-04-2007, 20:54
I'm not having a go red rover - the way I see it is that some Jaguar forum members have seen it as good sport to come and troll here. Lets not feed the trolls is my opinion. ;)

Condottieri
05-04-2007, 21:01
Really - does it matter. Its a bit like 'my Dad is bigger than your Dad' in this thread at the moment.

Totally disagree with you on that, Burger. I think this is a pretty engrossing debate on the origin of the species of two of the greatest names in British motoring - Jaguar and Rover. I can speak with a little authority on the merits of both as I currently run an S-Type Jaguar myself, whilst my wife has the 75 Connisseur. You don't have to agree with the other side in such a debate to respect their position! And there's been some fascinating factoids about the rise and fall and (sort of) rise of the 'British' motor industry thrown up on this thread and its sister one over on the Jaguar forum. Jaguar and Rover owners actually have more in common than dividing them (though we all enjoy a bit of 'tribal' banter!). The involvement of both Jaguar and Rover in the debacle of BL broke down the final defences of our motoring industry to the onslaught of the Germans and Japanese. (A British debacle which IMHO was made inevitable by a combination of arrogant and incompetent management and an archaic, self-destructive labour movement). So no, Burger, I think there's more value to these threads than just tit for tat point scoring between marques (though there's room for some of that too!)

Ciao,
Stirling

Condottieri
05-04-2007, 21:09
Argghhh what is it with Jaguar owners being so arrogant?

The 75 interior is a ROVER based interior BASED on past Rovers. It doesn't out Jaguar interiors because it doesn't have anything to do with a Jaguar interior.

When has Jaguar done a dashboard like the 75?

Hello again, Red-Rover! Not arrogance - just the quite confidence which comes from driving the best! :bgrin2:

Now, as to your dashboard question. Take a look at the XJ6 Series I and what do you see? Acres of walnut from side to side, curving down to the airvents on each side. And the clocks, spread out from the main dials behind the steering wheel to the centre of the dash. Could equally well describe the 75 dash, huh? Of course I'm not denying that many cues were also sourced in the Rover back catalogue, but I honsetly believe it's no design coincidence that so many people - car buffs and laymen - refer to the 75 as a Jaguar look-alike. There are plenty worse things to be called you know!

Ciao,
Stirling

TastyBurger
05-04-2007, 21:10
But as someone looking in on the debate for the most part it just seems tit for tat!

Condottieri
05-04-2007, 21:25
Hi Burger,
Well, apart from the sister thread to this one over on the Jaguar forum, there is another one which is discussing the Rover forum and Rover cars - the 75 in particular. It's only Jaguar owners on a Jaguar forum involved in it so far, but check it out - I don't think you'll find it uncomplimentary! Here's the link:

http://www.jaguarforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=39807#39807

Ciao,
Stirling

JohnSwitzer
05-04-2007, 21:43
As someone whose weeks away from an X Type 2.2 oil burner, my thoughts are simply that the Jaguar all round is a better car... but pound for pound, the 75 is better value.

The 75 dash is unquestionably a beautiful place to be. Aesthetically, the car just looks right - especially in Contemporary guise, whereas the Jaguar looks awkward from some angles. And when it comes to ride quality, it is ahead of the Jaguar. Oddly sized and being bigger than the Jag, there is also more space inside the Rover.

But the Jaguar does have better seats. The 2.2 litre Diesel is better than the B*W sourced Rover unit. The 6 speed gearbox is silkily smooth, even if the clutch is a tad unforgiving. Visibility is a little bit better than the Rover. The car seems much more composed on the road and more sure footed. And road noise is much less noticeable in the Jaguar... even when approaching the ton.

In an ideal world, I'd have a new Longbridge built 75 Contemporary - but sadly it is not an ideal world we live in. Hence, I'm settling for a (very good) second best in the X Type and in the process am dismissing both the B*W 3 series and the Audi A4, both of which left me feeling seriously underwhelmed :err:

Regards

John

MGR_Petrolhead
05-04-2007, 22:10
The Jaguar X-Type estate is arguably better looking than the 75 tourer. I like the Jaguar but its Ford parts bin special sort of image hasnt worked. I would still have one if one was offered to me. And I would not sell it afterwards unless I had serious problems. The X type looks better than a facelift 75 without the v8 grille but not as good as the pre facelift.

red_rover
05-04-2007, 23:16
Hello again, Red-Rover! Not arrogance - just the quite confidence which comes from driving the best! :bgrin2:

Now, as to your dashboard question. Take a look at the XJ6 Series I and what do you see? Acres of walnut from side to side, curving down to the airvents on each side. And the clocks, spread out from the main dials behind the steering wheel to the centre of the dash. Could equally well describe the 75 dash, huh? Of course I'm not denying that many cues were also sourced in the Rover back catalogue, but I honsetly believe it's no design coincidence that so many people - car buffs and laymen - refer to the 75 as a Jaguar look-alike. There are plenty worse things to be called you know!

Ciao,
Stirling

What do you see when you see a Rover P4 or a Rover P5 with acres of wood and shelve units with a mid-mounted clock? :)

Lets see;
http://www.motorbase.com/pictures/contributions/20000829/std_1963_Rover_P5_3-5V8_dash.jpg
http://www.motorbase.com/uploads/2003/09/12/fs_03.08.31_front_interior_2.jpg
http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/images/r75_03.jpg

Hmm all have lots of wood and mid mounted clocks that wrap round at the edge. Fancy changing your suggestion that it looks more like a Jaguar interior? ;)

The Rover marque has a much longer history with its wood content on the dashboard than Jaguar ever did.

< N I C K >
06-04-2007, 03:41
Now, the XJ6 Series III I've pictured came out in 1979 - some twenty years before the Rover 75. So if the Rover 75 was so clearly derivative of the Jaguar's lines in 1998/9, then clearly it's nonsense to say that the Jaguar X-type of 2001 was based on the 75! The X, of course, was based on the same sources as the Rover 75 - Jaguar's XJ range. Only difference being, the X-type was part of the family, whilst the 75 was - to put it politely - an illegitimate offspring.

Heh don't say this to Richard Woolley (the 75 exterior designer) Ciao. I think he'd be deeply offended.

I've never confused an XJ6 with a 75. Out on the road they've a completely different stance & you devalue your argument by so adamantly making the comparison. The XJ is squat, angular, & purposeful. The 75 is rounded, plump, & cigar shaped (if anything the 75 looks more like the S-Type, but I wont' go there).

I would never claim the X-Type styling is solely based on the 75. Nor would try show a clear 75 styling linage from previous Rover models like you and Red_Rover have. To do so misses the point of the 75. Here are some key quotes from Geoff Upex (Rover's design cheif) & Woolley in CAR December 1998;

"
There was plenty of pent-up feeling about what a Rover should be, & I guess I had been carrying the idea around in my head. It shows its lineage relative to the 600, which I think is good thing - it doesn't wander off.
" Richard Woolley.

"The 75 is quite definitely not a rework of the past. 'Retro misses the point,' says Upex. 'It's the wrong way to describe this car. But it has values from the past.' Nor was there endless agonising over the Rover P5 & P6, the purest of the post-war Rovers. 'We didn't examine a P5 & a P6. It's the feeling that's important,' says Geoff Upex. 'We have a subliminal memory of these cars which we wanted to instil, but in a natural way,' adds Woolley. Instead, the 75 'is a bit of a celebration of British Car design. The chrome isn't all functional. I hope it rekindles pride of ownership - I hope I never see a grubby 75,' he says, grinning."

I can see Rover 75 design elements in the Rover 400 saloon & the P5. But it certainly can't be pinned to any one car - it's a car that looks forward not back.

I like the Jaguar but its Ford parts bin special sort of image hasnt worked.

No offense, but bagging the X-Type because it shares some components with Ford is exactly the same sort of snobbery I was criticising the JaguarForums for. The X-Type is very much it's own car & should be judged as such.

Daytona
06-04-2007, 06:44
Argghhh what is it with Jaguar owners being so arrogant?

Its insulting to Rovers far more important history.


Who's being arrogant now? Both companies, in my opinion, have made important contributions to motoring history.

I like the Jaguar but its Ford parts bin special sort of image hasnt worked.

Do a bit of research before posting sweeping statements like this and then compare with Rover's fairly recent history. How old are the Civic parts the 400/45/ZS are based on?

Thing is, Jaguar has been stuck with the XJ for far too long and when people think of Jaguar they only thing

Inspector Morse
Aurthur Daily
Jaguar E-type

Oh dear, is Rover's image better?
"Auntie" Rover
Pensioners off to the post office
Hyacinth Bucket
Alan Partridge
Watchdog reports

Not my views but they are the sort of things you hear mentioned in the media which, rightly or wrongly, does influence opinion. I prefer to think of things like
Le Mans (for both companies)
Gas turbine cars (Rover)
Interesting construction techniques (Rover)
Aston Martin performance for substantially less money (Jaguar)
Great train robbery (Jaguar)
Midsomer Murders (Jaguar)

AndyTucker
06-04-2007, 07:01
Thanks for puitting me right on that. I did notice the Mondeo one is DOHC.
Is it the PSA/Ford one that is SOHC?

Ron

Both the Ford 'Puma' 2.0 and the Ford/PSA DW10 2.0 are DOHC 16v. It's the Ford 'Lynx' 1.8 in the Focus that's SOHC 8v.

The existence of two entirely different and similar capacity engines is down to the way that Ford and PSA did their joint venture diesel arrangement and the timing of it.

The Ford 'Puma' diesel engine was an entirely new design funded by the 2000MY Transit vehicle programme, started in 1995/6 ish. The engine was produced in 2.0 and 2.4 guises. Very shortly after the Transit programme was started, the 2001MY Mondeo programme was started. It was a natural choice to use a derivative of the modern direct-injection Puma engine in the Mondeo, since it was light-years ahead of the existing 1.8 Endura TD in the Mondeo.

In 1999, Ford and PSA signed a joint venture agreement for the development and production of diesel engines. This would give Ford access to PSA's planned smaller capacity 1.4 and 1.6 engines, and would give PSA access to Ford's planned 2.7 V6 engine. PSA already had their own DW10 2.0 diesel engine, and had a 2.2 DW12 under development. By this point, Ford's Puma engine programme was just about complete, and both the Transit and Mondeo had been designed to carry the engine, and would have required substantial re-engineering to carry a PSA unit.

Transit was launched in early 2000 with the 2.0 and 2.4 Puma units, and the Mondeo followed later with a derivative of the 2.0 unit, optimised for passenger vehicle use. A common rail version was under development as part of the original programme brief, but it wasn't ready until 2002. This became known as the TDCI, with a 2.2 variant following 2 years later.

The X-Type used the Puma unit due to its Mondeo underpinnings. It was a much easier and cheaper exercise than installing a PSA-derived unit.

For the 2004.75MY Focus programmes and later, a development of the original PSA DW10 unit was used, since the availability of the engine was known about from the start of the programme. The 2008MY CD345 Mondeo also uses engines based on the original PSA DW10.

What becomes of the Puma then? It didn't really make much sense to bin a relatively new engine, but the engine was noted to be more robust than the PSA unit, as a result of its Transit origins. It included chain-driven cams and was engineered for commercial use, but was more expensive to produce than the PSA unit and didn't have quite the level of refinement. As a result of this, the Puma continues in the 2007MY Transit as a 2.2 common-rail unit, and PSA's 2.2 commercial vehicles now also use the engine rather than the DW10/DW12. Of course, the X-Type also uses it.

Rover_ron
06-04-2007, 07:51
Both the Ford 'Puma' 2.0 and the Ford/PSA DW10 2.0 are DOHC 16v. It's the Ford 'Lynx' 1.8 in the Focus that's SOHC 8v.

The existence of two entirely different and similar capacity engines is down to the way that Ford and PSA did their joint venture diesel arrangement and the timing of it.

The Ford 'Puma' diesel engine was an entirely new design funded by the 2000MY Transit vehicle programme, started in 1995/6 ish. The engine was produced in 2.0 and 2.4 guises. Very shortly after the Transit programme was started, the 2001MY Mondeo programme was started. It was a natural choice to use a derivative of the modern direct-injection Puma engine in the Mondeo, since it was light-years ahead of the existing 1.8 Endura TD in the Mondeo.

In 1999, Ford and PSA signed a joint venture agreement for the development and production of diesel engines. This would give Ford access to PSA's planned smaller capacity 1.4 and 1.6 engines, and would give PSA access to Ford's planned 2.7 V6 engine. PSA already had their own DW10 2.0 diesel engine, and had a 2.2 DW12 under development. By this point, Ford's Puma engine programme was just about complete, and both the Transit and Mondeo had been designed to carry the engine, and would have required substantial re-engineering to carry a PSA unit.

Transit was launched in early 2000 with the 2.0 and 2.4 Puma units, and the Mondeo followed later with a derivative of the 2.0 unit, optimised for passenger vehicle use. A common rail version was under development as part of the original programme brief, but it wasn't ready until 2002. This became known as the TDCI, with a 2.2 variant following 2 years later.

The X-Type used the Puma unit due to its Mondeo underpinnings. It was a much easier and cheaper exercise than installing a PSA-derived unit.

For the 2004.75MY Focus programmes and later, a development of the original PSA DW10 unit was used, since the availability of the engine was known about from the start of the programme. The 2008MY CD345 Mondeo also uses engines based on the original PSA DW10.

What becomes of the Puma then? It didn't really make much sense to bin a relatively new engine, but the engine was noted to be more robust than the PSA unit, as a result of its Transit origins. It included chain-driven cams and was engineered for commercial use, but was more expensive to produce than the PSA unit and didn't have quite the level of refinement. As a result of this, the Puma continues in the 2007MY Transit as a 2.2 common-rail unit, and PSA's 2.2 commercial vehicles now also use the engine rather than the DW10/DW12. Of course, the X-Type also uses it.

Thanks for that explanation.

So which engine does the Mazda MPV 2L use - it sounds like the its Focus one?

Ron

MGR_Petrolhead
06-04-2007, 16:36
Heh don't say this to Richard Woolley (the 75 exterior designer) Ciao. I think he'd be deeply offended.

I've never confused an XJ6 with a 75. Out on the road they've a completely different stance & you devalue your argument by so adamantly making the comparison. The XJ is squat, angular, & purposeful. The 75 is rounded, plump, & cigar shaped (if anything the 75 looks more like the S-Type, but I wont' go there).

I would never claim the X-Type styling is solely based on the 75. Nor would try show a clear 75 styling linage from previous Rover models like you and Red_Rover have. To do so misses the point of the 75. Here are some key quotes from Geoff Upex (Rover's design cheif) & Woolley in CAR December 1998;

"
There was plenty of pent-up feeling about what a Rover should be, & I guess I had been carrying the idea around in my head. It shows its lineage relative to the 600, which I think is good thing - it doesn't wander off.
" Richard Woolley.

"The 75 is quite definitely not a rework of the past. 'Retro misses the point,' says Upex. 'It's the wrong way to describe this car. But it has values from the past.' Nor was there endless agonising over the Rover P5 & P6, the purest of the post-war Rovers. 'We didn't examine a P5 & a P6. It's the feeling that's important,' says Geoff Upex. 'We have a subliminal memory of these cars which we wanted to instil, but in a natural way,' adds Woolley. Instead, the 75 'is a bit of a celebration of British Car design. The chrome isn't all functional. I hope it rekindles pride of ownership - I hope I never see a grubby 75,' he says, grinning."

I can see Rover 75 design elements in the Rover 400 saloon & the P5. But it certainly can't be pinned to any one car - it's a car that looks forward not back.



No offense, but bagging the X-Type because it shares some components with Ford is exactly the same sort of snobbery I was criticising the JaguarForums for. The X-Type is very much it's own car & should be judged as such.

I meant 'ford parts bin' hasnt worked as a generalisation. I know full well that rover had parts in their last cars from the 1980s but it wasnt highlighted as much. It was picked up right from the start of the xtype reviews. Like I said, I like the X-type. Such snobbery is an example of anti-x type motoring fans.

I apologise if I caused a stir;) and anyway I am pro jaguar too - my cousin works for them:) at Witley.

red_rover
06-04-2007, 18:08
Who's being arrogant now? Both companies, in my opinion, have made important contributions to motoring history.



Do a bit of research before posting sweeping statements like this and then compare with Rover's fairly recent history. How old are the Civic parts the 400/45/ZS are based on?



Oh dear, is Rover's image better?
"Auntie" Rover
Pensioners off to the post office
Hyacinth Bucket
Alan Partridge
Watchdog reports

Not my views but they are the sort of things you hear mentioned in the media which, rightly or wrongly, does influence opinion. I prefer to think of things like
Le Mans (for both companies)
Gas turbine cars (Rover)
Interesting construction techniques (Rover)
Aston Martin performance for substantially less money (Jaguar)
Great train robbery (Jaguar)
Midsomer Murders (Jaguar)

Yes but what you mention there are all things after Rover became trapped with rest.

But what I'd like to add;

Midsomer Murders IS the Rover 75. John Nettles stated how much he loved the 75 and he bought one privatley that he still owns

Avengers - John Steed and his awesome Rover SD1

:) Sorry if I sounded a bit hypocrital earlier though - re arrogance!

Condottieri
07-04-2007, 00:55
Avengers - John Steed and his awesome Rover SD1.

Gentlemen:
IIRC, John Steed in the Avengers drove in the first series (the Honor Blackman days) a 1920's supercharged Bentley in British Racing Green. In the second series (the Diana Rigg days) he drove the same Bentley. In the third series (the Linda Thorson days) he drove Red Rover's early Rover SD1. In the final New Avengers series (the Joanna Lumley days - sigh - ) Steed drove the truly awesome Broadspeed Jaguar XJ12-C, again in British Racing Green.

ITC productions are to be commended by all we British marque enthusiasts for placing their screen heroes in the best of British wheels (although they also placed Roger Moore's Simon Templar in a Volvo P1800-S - but only because Jaguar knocked back their request in 1961 for one of the new E-type's. Jaguar reckoned that as they had more pre-orders than they could build, they didn't need the free publicity from a new TV show! Fast forward to 1976 and it was a different story when production of The Return of The Saint with Ian Ogilvy started - Jaguar were only too happy to supply a new Jaguar XJ-S for the Saint to drive!)

Ciao,
Stirling

baxlin
07-04-2007, 08:40
[quote=Condottieri;1944130
Now, as to your dashboard question. Take a look at the XJ6 Series I and what do you see? Acres of walnut from side to side, curving down to the airvents on each side. And the clocks, spread out from the main dials behind the steering wheel to the centre of the dash. Could equally well describe the 75 dash, huh? Stirling[/quote]


"curving down to the air vents........." Don't all cars have the centre of the bonnet higher than the edges, so the screen and therefore the dash will curve down to the edges. And the Mk1 Cortina was the first car to have through ventilation and therefore air vents, IIRC.

"clocks spread out from the main dials behind the wheel..." Doesn't ergonomics enter into this?

So apart from the walnut bit - which has been British "tradition" from the year dot (what does the "board" bit of dashboard mean) this could be describing any well-designed view from the driver's seat IMO, not just - and certainly not inventing it - the XJ6.

And my point?

I just love my 75 Conn SE - I can't remember a car getting to me like this one has!

Condottieri
07-04-2007, 09:09
Don't all cars have the centre of the bonnet higher than the edges, so the screen and therefore the dash will curve down to the edges.

No, they don't! And you don't need to look far for an example - here's one of Red Rover's pics:

http://www.motorbase.com/uploads/2003/09/12/fs_03.08.31_front_interior_2.jpg

clocks spread out from the main dials behind the wheel..." Doesn't ergonomics enter into this?

Yes they do - and IMHO the 75 has very similar dash ergonomics to the XJ range!

So apart from the walnut bit - which has been British "tradition" from the year dot (what does the "board" bit of dashboard mean) this could be describing any well-designed view from the driver's seat

No! See above.

I just love my 75 Conn SE - I can't remember a car getting to me like this one has!

Now I can understand that feeling about a car, and can quite understand the 75 inspiring them.

Ciao,
Stirling

baxlin
07-04-2007, 11:16
Sorry Stirling, I thought I could see which way you were arguing, but I can't now because you seem to have confirmed all my points - in the photo the car looks as if it has the centre of the dash higher, (and a central clock to boot) it has the main instruments behind the wheel, and a walnut dash. All years before the XJ, I thought. I dare say there are older Jaguars which also have all these features too, again all before the XJ series, so the XJ is hardly original, IMO.

Still, as my business partner has a love for all things Jaguar - he currently has an XK8 ragtop, I don't want to fall out with any Jaguar owners.

My own thoughts had always been that the 75 took its styling both exterior and interior from earlier the P range of Rovers, particularly the P4 and the P5, (for the rear numberplate styling), but maybe not. Rover got it right with the 75 whatever they did.

Regards

Malcolm

Condottieri
07-04-2007, 19:57
Hi Malcolm,
Don't want to seem pernickety, but the specific point I was picking you up on was where you say Don't all cars have the centre of the bonnet higher than the edges, so the screen and therefore the dash will curve down to the edges. As the photo shows, not all dashes curve down to the edges - certainly not those of the Rover P4/5's. Rather these are squarely horizontal 'slabs' of wood which are not particularly matched for grain, and do not present the impression of an integrated continuum. The Jaguar XJ6 Series I dash did elegantly curve equally from the centre down to each extremity, and was perfectly matched for grain throughout each panel, thus giving the impression of an integrated whole. The Rover 75 perfectly replicates - and indeed refines - this standard.

If it's any consolation, I believe the 75 dash has the edge over the Jaguar S-type in so far as it continues the wood veneer to each extremity of the dash, with the air vents at either side being embedded into the surrounding wood veneer. Whereas the S-type veneer terminates where it meets the air vents at either side, meaning that the extremities are plastic.

Ciao,
Stirling

I want that one
08-04-2007, 04:09
Posted this on Jag forum so it is only fair to post it here too, wow is that really the time? :)

Hi guys, I think these posts are very funny and as I don't own nor have I ever driven any of these cars (although I have been in an X-Type once) I thought I could give an impartial view so here goes…

Firstly I will start with the Rover 75, I think of the 75 as an old mans car a grandfather clock on wheels and as I as only 29 it is definitely not for me.

Secondly the sales reps fav the Mondeo based X-Type. I just see this as a poor mans Jag, mutton dressed as lamb so again it is not for me.

Thirdly (and yes there is a third car in this debate) the MG ZT, now this is what I’m talking about designed by the guy behind the McLaren F1 and can’t you tell. It just looks mean and menacing if I were to liken these cars to dogs, I would say the 75 is a Corgi (not to well up on my dog breeds but the Queen has these and she’s old J) the X-Type as hmmmmm……. I’m having trouble because this car does not stir any emotion for me hmmmmmm….. Ah got it, it’s a mongrel. And that leads my on to if you will pardon the pun the mutts (you know what) now for me the ZT would have to be a Doberman Pincher not the most dangerous of dogs but all the same you would not want to upset it.

Now before all you Ford/Jag fans start to spit out you dummies and start saying things like you have never driven any of these cars how can you comment. I am just expressing what these cars say to me, as for commenting on ride/build quality ect I leave that to the experts who by the way say that the Rover/MG knocks the spots of the…. damn Jaguars don’t have spots (maybe because they have already been knocked off?) J. Anyway have a look at the links below; out of the 152 cars tested the Rover comes in 26th place with the MG in 44th place. Understandable as with bigger wheels and stiffer springs the ride quality of the ZT is going to suffer somewhat to that of the 75. However the Jag only manages 64th place but this does show what a good job the Jag engineers have done it, as the car on which it is based the Mondeo only made it to 80th place ouch. Oh yeh nearly forgot the reason I have put the S-Type link in is because one of the Rover guys was being laughed at for saying that he thought of the 75 as more S-Type competition then X-Type/Mondeo and as it only came in 3 places higher than the 75 at 23rd place I think this proves his point, don’t you? And this survey is not one mans opinion it is built by the people like you who own and drive these cars.
A brilliant man once wrote “he who laughs last thinks slowest” or maybe I just read it on one of the Jag forum guy’s tags but anyway if I owned an MG or Rover I would be laughing quite loud right now! J

http://www.topgear.com/content/carsurvey/2006/rover/75/ (http://www.topgear.com/content/carsurvey/2006/rover/75/)

http://www.topgear.com/content/carsurvey/2006/rover/mg%20zt/ (http://www.topgear.com/content/carsurvey/2006/rover/mg%20zt/)

http://www.topgear.com/content/carsurvey/2006/jaguar/x-type/ (http://www.topgear.com/content/carsurvey/2006/jaguar/x-type/)

http://www.topgear.com/content/carsurvey/2006/ford/mondeo/ (http://www.topgear.com/content/carsurvey/2006/ford/mondeo/)

http://www.topgear.com/content/carsurvey/2006/jaguar/s-type/ (http://www.topgear.com/content/carsurvey/2006/jaguar/s-type/)

BuckMR2
08-04-2007, 10:22
Posted this on Jag forum so it is only fair to post it here too, wow is that really the time? :)

Hi guys, I think these posts are very funny and as I don't own nor have I ever driven any of these cars (although I have been in an X-Type once) I thought I could give an impartial view so here goes…

Firstly I will start with the Rover 75, I think of the 75 as an old mans car a grandfather clock on wheels and as I as only 29 it is definitely not for me.

Secondly the sales reps fav the Mondeo based X-Type. I just see this as a poor mans Jag, mutton dressed as lamb so again it is not for me.

Thirdly (and yes there is a third car in this debate) the MG ZT, now this is what I’m talking about designed by the guy behind the McLaren F1 and can’t you tell. It just looks mean and menacing if I were to liken these cars to dogs, I would say the 75 is a Corgi (not to well up on my dog breeds but the Queen has these and she’s old J) the X-Type as hmmmmm……. I’m having trouble because this car does not stir any emotion for me hmmmmmm….. Ah got it, it’s a mongrel. And that leads my on to if you will pardon the pun the mutts (you know what) now for me the ZT would have to be a Doberman Pincher not the most dangerous of dogs but all the same you would not want to upset it.

Now before all you Ford/Jag fans start to spit out you dummies and start saying things like you have never driven any of these cars how can you comment. I am just expressing what these cars say to me, as for commenting on ride/build quality ect I leave that to the experts who by the way say that the Rover/MG knocks the spots of the…. damn Jaguars don’t have spots (maybe because they have already been knocked off?) J. Anyway have a look at the links below; out of the 152 cars tested the Rover comes in 26th place with the MG in 44th place. Understandable as with bigger wheels and stiffer springs the ride quality of the ZT is going to suffer somewhat to that of the 75. However the Jag only manages 64th place but this does show what a good job the Jag engineers have done it, as the car on which it is based the Mondeo only made it to 80th place ouch. Oh yeh nearly forgot the reason I have put the S-Type link in is because one of the Rover guys was being laughed at for saying that he thought of the 75 as more S-Type competition then X-Type/Mondeo and as it only came in 3 places higher than the 75 at 23rd place I think this proves his point, don’t you? And this survey is not one mans opinion it is built by the people like you who own and drive these cars.
A brilliant man once wrote “he who laughs last thinks slowest” or maybe I just read it on one of the Jag forum guy’s tags but anyway if I owned an MG or Rover I would be laughing quite loud right now! J

http://www.topgear.com/content/carsurvey/2006/rover/75/ (http://www.topgear.com/content/carsurvey/2006/rover/75/)

http://www.topgear.com/content/carsurvey/2006/rover/mg%20zt/ (http://www.topgear.com/content/carsurvey/2006/rover/mg%20zt/)

http://www.topgear.com/content/carsurvey/2006/jaguar/x-type/ (http://www.topgear.com/content/carsurvey/2006/jaguar/x-type/)

http://www.topgear.com/content/carsurvey/2006/ford/mondeo/ (http://www.topgear.com/content/carsurvey/2006/ford/mondeo/)

http://www.topgear.com/content/carsurvey/2006/jaguar/s-type/ (http://www.topgear.com/content/carsurvey/2006/jaguar/s-type/)

Hi I Want That One or is it George like Bush form your posts on the Jag forum?Anyway...
George,
Firstly you can read surveys from anybody and as with statistics they can be manipulated so let me give you the facts...
Taken from the book''The X Type..The inside story of the most important Jaguar ever''
''In the end the percentage of donor parts from Mondeo to X Type is actually no more than 20% and of this most are bits you don't see like wiper mechanisms and air conditioning systems.The most significant carry-overs are suspension,brakes and basic engine block.But so much work has been done on each of these components by Jaguar that it hardly seems fair or accurate to describe them as Ford cast-offs.For example the Macpherson strut front suspension has been so comprehensively redesigned** to maximise ride refinement and eliminate torque steer that it would be barely recognisable to a Ford engineer.The rear suspension is from the Mondeo estate not the saloon as it uses a more compact version of the multi-link setup which allows for a lower boot floor and greater ride refinement.''
**The Mondeo uses single tube Macpherson struts and the X type engineers redisigned these into a better twin tube strut.
The floor pan..if an unmodified Mondeo floorpan was used in an X type the AWD wouldnt fit.
The gearbox is not the same as a Mk3 Mondeo either its a unique variant in the manual enabling precise, low effort action and a Jatco in the auto with a 32Bit ECU.
Then theres the safety..side curtain air bags,seat weight sensors which also detect how far the seat is forward or backward to calculate the amount of inflation for the airbags and the weight of the passenger incase he/she is a juvenile.
Then theres the AWD...non on a MK3 Mondeo...also as long any 2 wheels can get grip the car will get moving or any 1 wheel with cars fitted with DSC.
The engine...how many Mondeos push out 231bhp from the factory...none...why?..because the X Type engine is derived from Jags brilliant AJ-V6 engine (which was derived from the AJ-V8 ie from XK8!).Jaguar spent a lot of time developing the AJ-V6 engine results included a wide torque spread with over 90% of torque available from 2500-6800 rpm and 80% from 1500-6800rpm.Both 2.5 and 3.0 engines have continuosly variable (not 2 position) phasing on both inlet cams plus variable induction geometry.There are 2 butterfly valves in the induction manifold/plenum chamber which open/close under control of a 32bit ECU to feed air seperatly into each bank of 3 cylinders or link them directly to exploit benficial resonances (thats sound to you http://www.jaguarforum.co.uk/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif ).The 2 butterfly valves allow 4 operating modes (closed/closed,closed/open,open/closed,open/open) 3 of which are exploited.The variable cam phasing, a drive by wire throttle (AWD engines),new 12 hole fuel injectors,close coupled ceramic catalysers ( one per bank) enable the engines meet the EU4 emissions standard and LEV (low emission regs) in USA and Canada.
Hope this helps somewhat but it is a 65 page A4 book so just tried to outline a liitle bit of it!
Also the Jag ECU is so good it even allows for tyre wear.
So these are just a few of the reasons I picked an X Type,my next car will be an X Type,etc.
In over 20 years of driving I have owned around 40 cars.Never have I owned a car as long as my current car..that says something especially to people who know me.
At work I drive around 30 cars per week after repair at our insurance approved bodyshop including a lot of Rovers/Mondeos(used to own one).
The X type is lightyears ahead of both of the cars mentioned in my opinion and experience.Yes car manufacturers like to save money especially true of parts..ie Vauxhall use a lot of the same parts as Saab, VW/Audi/Skoda/Seat all share parts (Vw Lupo is exactly the same car as a Seat Arosa bar the badges but more ££'s), Renault Traffic van is same as a Vauxhall Movano (we had a Movano being repaired in our bodyshop recently the headlight from Vauxhall dealer had Renault wriiten on it with a Renault part number),Peugeot and Citroens share parts....the list goes on and on.
At least with the X Type you know the Jag engineers have taken some Mondeo parts and spent a lot of time redesigning them to be better,sorry much better in feel,design and build quality.
My fingers are sore now from typing but I have just touched on the tip of the iceberg.
There are those who know and there are those who believe (especially car salesmen) hearsay and rumour.I'm glad I am in the first group.Next time there is an X type seminar at Castle Bromwich get yourself along..you will be amazed with facts and learn a lot.
Further to what I said on statistics...the survey was for 2006 cars.
The results were from a negligable amount of 2006 owners from the overall amount sold in the UK.If things in reality really were that bad why have the 1000's on this and other forums got one (I have never had any problems bar a sensor which was easily replaced in 2 years with mine (the 2years bit says something too doesnt it..ie if it was a rubbish car then why keep it for 2 years??) when we could all go and buy a Rover or a Mondano?
If the complete number of 2006 X type owners be questioned it would show different results...see this forum for some of those other owners for example and how much they like there cars.
How do you know for sure that all the X type owners were actually X type owners and not just people with jealous attitudes slamming the X?
Surveys only show results from the people who return them.
As you like TopGear from all the links you posted lets take Clarkson...on Youtube video clips he loves the X type...especially when skiing behind one along an icy country lane or beating a downhill skiier with the AWD (not seen any Rovers or Mondeos do this http://www.jaguarforum.co.uk/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif http://www.jaguarforum.co.uk/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif http://www.jaguarforum.co.uk/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif ) yet in his Good Car, Bad Car supplement in the Sunday Times he says he doesnt like it.Come on Jeremy its either one or the other and going from him nearly c**ing in his pants racing downhill against the skiier I can see which one it really is.Cant you?

PS
Rover owners...drive carefully as more and more parts are becoming unavailable with no suppliers making the parts anymore..for example Rover 25 stub axles.We have a 53 plate one in our insurance approved bodyshop at the moment which could be written off for relatively minor o/s/f suspension damage because there are no OE suppliers of this part anymore.The dealers cant get them, there are none in UK,Europe or the rest of the world.The insurance company is going to ask the owner if she will consider 2nd hand as if not the car will be written off.I have never heard of insurance companies asking if an owner wants to have a 2nd hand part fitted before...another first for Rover??

Condottieri
12-04-2007, 19:19
Gentlemen,
Further to my earlier contention that, good though other marques may be (and I concede the series I Rover 75 is very good), they can never seem to capture that certain je ne sais quoi which is the birthright of every Jaguar. This aura that surrounds a Jaguar is unquantifiable, but you recognise it when you see it! As has been rightly said before, a picture's worth a thousand words - how much more worth in the case of a car, then, are moving pictures! I think the link below captures in action all that is special about the Jaguar marque - a specialness not hindered by the glamorous driver! And it's all British - something current Jaguar and Rover drivers can both appreciate, I think. After all, our marques may be owned (lately in the latter case) by foreign parent companies, but the essence and ethos of Jaguar and Rover/MG is nothing if not British. Enjoy the film!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfFRQ-StpwA

Ciao,
Stirling

< N I C K >
12-04-2007, 23:19
Further to my earlier contention that, good though other marques may be (and I concede the series I Rover 75 is very good), they can never seem to capture that certain je ne sais quoi which is the birthright of every Jaguar. This aura that surrounds a Jaguar is unquantifiable, but you recognise it when you see it!

I don't think what you've said really applies to the new Jaguar C-XF (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bTFuWfSKhI&mode=related&search=). Jaguar designers are no longer going to be hamstrung by vocal loyal Jaguar supports such as yourself. Which is a shame in someways because I rather like the retro & heritage orientated cars such as the S-type & X-type - they're refreshingly different to any other cars on the road.

While Jaguar trades to heavily on heritage, the Rover 75 doesn't. It tries to be a sort of 'future Brit' by balancing modern with heritage & that's why I like it.

Rover_ron
13-04-2007, 07:43
Gentlemen,
Further to my earlier contention that, good though other marques may be (and I concede the series I Rover 75 is very good), they can never seem to capture that certain je ne sais quoi which is the birthright of every Jaguar. This aura that surrounds a Jaguar is unquantifiable, but you recognise it when you see it!
Ciao,
Stirling

Come on - this is pompous claptrap!

There is as much of an aura surrounding the 75 as there is some Jaguars.

As I've said before, Jaguar sell cars because of the badge.
They'd sell just as many if they were rubbish and built in the Far East, for this sole reason. Thus sales certainly have nothing to do with any 'aura'.
Please note, I am refering to the majority of sales - not those more enlightened owners who frequent the forums.
And yes, the same applies to many (non forum) Rover/ MG owners.

As for "but you recognise it when you see it!"
That's only because Jaguar have barely changed the styling in decades! This, I believe is a good thing and I certainly prefer the looks of the pre facefited 25, 45 and 75. (I cannot abide the current tendency of manufacturers to clone the styling across their model range.)

As someone who is fortunate enough to drive both a 75 and an X-type, neither are perfect but the Jaguar does not imbue any feelings of 'specialness', compared to my 41/2year old 106k mile Rover 75.

This debate will run & run!

Ron

baxlin
13-04-2007, 08:22
This debate will run & run!

Ron

Just like my R75 (I hope)

Condottieri
13-04-2007, 09:35
Now Ron, I'm going to have to take issue with you here on a couple of points! Firstly, you're really going to have to get a grip on your prejudices and generalizations against Jaguar owners - after all, you are one yourself! First we were 'arrogant', now it's 'pompous' as well. I'm afraid this says more about some chip on your shoulder than it does about Jag owners!

You really undermine your whole argument, however, with this statement of breathtaking silliness:

As I've said before, Jaguar sell cars because of the badge.
They'd sell just as many if they were rubbish and built in the Far East, for this sole reason.

If Jaguars were rubbish and being built in the Far East the marque would be finished beyond repair. To suggest that they'd sell 'just as many' under such cirscumstances is utter tosh - and you know it!

As you also know, you're not the only member here who owns both a Jaguar and a Rover. I myself drive an S-Type whilst my wife has a 75; Daytona runs two Rover's in addition to his Jag! Yet those who own both, but who are primarily Jaguar enthusiasts do not equate the two in terms of prestige or 'aura'. It's interesting that as a Rover man, however, you're happy to claim to see no difference between the two! Mmmmm....

Two things I do agree with you on: The 75 pre-facelift was undoubtedly Rover's masterpiece, which they unaccountably went on to spoil with the revamp. And I too abhorr the trend to clone across the range. As to Jaguar retaining core themes to their styling across decades, I see that as one of their great strengths (and one that has also stood Royce and Bentley in good stead!). You write: As for "but you recognise it when you see it!"
That's only because Jaguar have barely changed the styling in decades! But that's the whole point of Jaguar! In contrast, Rover went through many wedge shaped misconceptions and Jap clones on the way to the 75! I have some concern that Jaguar's designers are currently gleefully announcing their plans to ditch the 'traditional' for cutting edge 'modernity' in their car's appearance. This to me seems a dangerous route to take - there's more than enough 'cutting edge' angular wannabe's running around. Jaguar's niche is a different one, and they change that at their peril IMHO.

But finally - did you like the XK140 film?!?

Ciao,
Stirling

Rover_ron
13-04-2007, 10:33
Now Ron, I'm going to have to take issue with you here on a couple of points! Firstly, you're really going to have to get a grip on your prejudices and generalizations against Jaguar owners - after all, you are one yourself! First we were 'arrogant', now it's 'pompous' as well. I'm afraid this says more about some chip on your shoulder than it does about Jag owners!



So you don't accept that the majority of drivers (again I am not lumping forum members into this category) who have aspired to Jaguar ownership have done so because of the name and badge.

And you deny that Jaguar can sell their products because they are Jaguars first and good cars second?

I have no chip on my shoulder especially when it comes to motor vehicles but do believe there is a fair bit of badge snobbery and elitism about.



If Jaguars were rubbish and being built in the Far East the marque would be finished beyond repair. To suggest that they'd sell 'just as many' under such cirscumstances is utter tosh - and you know it!


Don't agree. Brand loyalty would see to it!
Plenty of Brits bought Rovers in the days when they were Hondas, albeit made in the UK. Had they been made elsewhere then they'd still have sold.




As you also know, you're not the only member here who owns both a Jaguar and a Rover. I myself drive an S-Type whilst my wife has a 75; Daytona runs two Rover's in addition to his Jag! Yet those who own both, but who are primarily Jaguar enthusiasts do not equate the two in terms of prestige or 'aura'. It's interesting that as a Rover man, however, you're happy to claim to see no difference between the two! Mmmmm....



That's not what I said. I meant that the Jag does 'nothing' for me that the 75 doesn't.



Two things I do agree with you on: The 75 pre-facelift was undoubtedly Rover's masterpiece, which they unaccountably went on to spoil with the revamp. And I too abhorr the trend to clone across the range. As to Jaguar retaining core themes to their styling across decades, I see that as one of their great strengths (and one that has also stood Royce and Bentley in good stead!). You write: But that's the whole point of Jaguar! In contrast, Rover went through many wedge shaped misconceptions and Jap clones on the way to the 75! I have some concern that Jaguar's designers are currently gleefully announcing their plans to ditch the 'traditional' for cutting edge 'modernity' in their car's appearance. This to me seems a dangerous route to take - there's more than enough 'cutting edge' angular wannabe's running around. Jaguar's niche is a different one, and they change that at their peril IMHO.

But finally - did you like the XK140 film?!?

Ciao,
Stirling

I'm glad we agree on something!

Ron

< N I C K >
13-04-2007, 11:47
Firstly, you're really going to have to get a grip on your prejudices and generalizations against Jaguar owners - after all, you are one yourself! First we were 'arrogant', now it's 'pompous' as well.

.... don't forget snobbish.

Let's reconcile your following quotes against one another......


they can never seem to capture that certain je ne sais quoi which is the birthright of every Jaguar. This aura that surrounds a Jaguar is unquantifiable, but you recognise it when you see it!


I have some concern that Jaguar's designers are currently gleefully announcing their plans to ditch the 'traditional' for cutting edge 'modernity' in their car's appearance.


So one moment your banging on about Jaguar's je ne sais quoi & it's unquantifiable aura (no.. that didn't sound snobbish or pompous at all), & the next you're bemoaning Jaguar's new styling direction.

There's a certain irony in your statements because if Jaguar had an unquantifiable aura, other than through the eyes of a loyal Jaguar supporter, then I don't think the designers would be so quick to change styling direction.

Jaguar (Ford) don't want to be a niche player with heritage orientated cars, they want to be a big player with BMW & Mercedes.

But finally - did you like the XK140 film

yes ;)

Condottieri
13-04-2007, 12:31
So one moment your banging on about Jaguar's je ne sais quoi & it's unquantifiable aura (no.. that didn't sound snobbish or pompous at all), Sigh, what is it about this country these days, where the slightest sign of erudition (heaven forbid using an appropriate foreign phrase!) is derided as 'snobbish'? I see it as symptomatic of the general 'dumbing down' of our culture..........

Anyway, back to the cars! I see no contradiction at all about 'banging on' about Jaguar's unquantifiable aura whilst also 'bemoaning' Jaguar's new styling direction. The latter looks set to, potentially at least, damage the former.

There's a certain irony in your statements because if Jaguar had an unquantifiable aura, other than through the eyes of a loyal Jaguar supporter, then I don't think the designers would be so quick to change styling direction.


Oh but they would! The ultimate string-pullers behind Jaguar today have a primary concern with shifting units, and if that requires following current fashions and trends rather than maintaining the classicism of the Jaguar marque, then that's what they'll do. Take the Rover 75 as an example of this - the original design was achieved at great cost in terms of time and money invested in its development. As a result, they got it absolutely right - a beautiful-looking car, no doubt about it. So why 'facelift' (I hate that term!) it by tweaking it to make it closer to the blandness of its competitors? In the process it lost an awful lot of its character. The men in suits would say it was done to increase market share by removing some of the more overtly 'retro' elements of its styling, thereby making it more appealing to the mass buyers of every other modern saloon clone. Personally, I've never liked the application of 'retro' to Jaguar or the Rover 75, since rather than 'returning' to anything, both were in fact perpetuating a long established tradition of classic design cues which were the hallmarks of their marques. 'Retro' to me describes something built as a deliberate pastiche - and how can a Rover built by Rover or a Jaguar built by Jaguar be a pastiche of that marque?!?

Anyway, I'm glad you liked the Pretty Polly film - she's a cracker isn't she? (so is the XK140 she's driving)!

Ciao,
Stirling

genpk
13-04-2007, 12:43
Well, my 2 bobs worth, when I was looking to buy last time I tried an Xtype Jag, an S series and the Rover 75. I knew of Rover due to the fact that over the years here in Australia,they were /are regarded as a very high quality car but in recent years there are not many over here.
I took all three out for test drives and found spec wise, the X type was ok but not close to the feel,handling and quality build of the 75 and seemed a bit basic inside for a Jag.
The s series was nice,I think it was a 3 litre , pretty similar spec'd to the 75, drove pretty similar to the 75 but the difference in price over here was huge.
I then spoke with a couple of guys who service both Jags and Rovers and in their opinion, the 2.5 Rover 75 was one of the best cars they had ever dealt with ,stating the 2.5 motor was very reliable as was the whole car.
At the time (2 years ago) there seemed to be gearbox /transmission issues with the Jags.The result,I bought the Rover and still can't find anything near the quality for the money or find another car to match it as yet.

Ian
13-04-2007, 12:55
When I had the Jaguar X-Type, I just found the interior to be soul-less. The quality of materials used inside just weren't up to the standards of the 75. From the feel of the dashboard top, to the feel of the buttons, it just didn't stack up. The plastics around the J-Gate Automatic Gearbox selector in particular was cheap and nasty, not far off Kinder Egg type plastics.

That coupled with the size difficiencies compared to the 75, I just wouldn't be able to live with an X-Type from day to day.

Also, from certain angles, the X-Type just looks plain awkward, and from the front (On Base Models), looks a bit gawky. I think the X-Type is quite colour and Alloy Wheel sensitive, so a poor choice can make it look alot worse. But, when you choose well, the X-Type can look lovely. Daytona's X-Type Estate looks really nice, and he has chosen well.

Whilst on the Estate, I think that model is actually the pick of the range - it looks a little more balanced than the saloon - not bad for a company that doesn't have a history building an Estate. The only drawback is that it looks very similar to the old model Volvo V40.

StreetBoy
13-04-2007, 13:11
hi everyone, my work mate has a rover 75 a very nice car and a nice ride, but not a patch on an x type you mention interiors you can seriously compare a rover 75 interior to this (picture 2) and looks come on now think about it (picture 1) mention to people you have a rover nothing happens mention jags heads turn, what is that rover what wants to be a subaru the interior looks like it has come out of a cortina, now come on every one rovers are nice but not nice enough. come on every one i know you love your rovers
but dont mention them in the sme sentence as a jag, no offence intended. p.s nice wheels on the 75 lol lol lol.......

http://www.filehigh.com/serve/18977/328464.jpg

http://www.filehigh.com/serve/18977/328469.jpg

Wheres this jag you keep mentioning then mate, i don't see one!

Seriously, if you're going to buy a jag then buy a real one, not a poor imitation.

Condottieri
13-04-2007, 13:15
Whilst on the Estate, I think that model is actually the pick of the range - it looks a little more balanced than the saloon - not bad for a company that doesn't have a history building an Estate.

Although for a time the Lynx company produced the 'Eventer' an estate conversion of the XJ-S. A V12 estate - now that would get your goods to destination asap!

http://www.claymore.co.za/sherekhan/images2/eventer.jpg

Ian
13-04-2007, 13:18
Although for a time the Lynx company produced the 'Eventer' an estate conversion of the XJ-S. A V12 estate - now that would get your goods to destination asap!

http://www.claymore.co.za/sherekhan/images2/eventer.jpg

Absolutely, Eventer did produce the Estate conversion, but Jaguar themselves don't have a history of Estates.

Condottieri
13-04-2007, 13:26
Seriously, if you're going to buy a jag then buy a real one, not a poor imitation.

I'd wait 'till you've upgraded from that 214 you're running around in to at least a 75, Streetboy, before you start criticizing Jaguars of any kind!

Ciao,
Stirling

StreetBoy
13-04-2007, 13:53
I'd wait 'till you've upgraded from that 214 you're running around in to at least a 75, Streetboy, before you start criticizing Jaguars of any kind!

Ciao,
Stirling

Its got leather seats and air-con i'll have you know!

baxlin
13-04-2007, 13:59
I'd wait 'till you've upgraded from that 214 you're running around in to at least a 75, Streetboy, before you start criticizing Jaguars of any kind!

Ciao,
Stirling

Stirling, you're off again - "at least" a 75, suggesting it's a lesser car? Why not "at least" an X-type, being as you are on a Rover site, if you've forgotten?

Regards

Malcolm

Condottieri
13-04-2007, 14:19
Stirling, you're off again - "at least" a 75, suggesting it's a lesser car? Why not "at least" an X-type, being as you are on a Rover site, if you've forgotten? Regards Malcolm

No, I haven't forgotten Malcolm, and I'm on a Rover site because we also have a Rover 75 - but I didn't realize that being on the forum entailed toeing some Rover 'party line'! I've made no secret of the fact that, having both the Jaguar S-Type and the Rover 75, I do, overall, hold the 75 the lesser car - but not in all respects, some of which I've mentioned here. The fact is, however, that the 75 is the only car in the recent Rover stable which can bear comparison with any Jaguar - hence my reference to Streetboy getting himself a realistic Rover competitor before he dismisses any Jaguar models!

BTW - those Rover-owning members of this forum who also post on the Jaguar one don't feel the need to apologise over there for their preferring Rover - so why the defensiveness here? And at the end of the day, marque tribalism apart, we're all British car lovers!

Ciao,
Stirling

StreetBoy
13-04-2007, 14:48
to Streetboy getting himself a realistic Rover competitor before he dismisses any Jaguar models!

Ok, ok i bow to your vastly superior car. I think your s-type seems to suit your personality down to a tee- they have a nice big mouthy gob don't they... ;)

Seriously, i have driven the X-type 2.5, undoubtedly a nice car but special enough to wear the badge in my honest opinion.

Ciao

Rover_ron
13-04-2007, 14:58
Ok, ok i bow to your vastly superior car. I think your s-type seems to suit your personality down to a tee- they have a nice big mouthy gob don't they... ;)

Ciao

That's a classic!!!

We are taking ourselves too seriously.

Ron

Condottieri
13-04-2007, 15:03
That's a classic!!!
Ron

Yeah - a classic sign of having lost the argument!

Ciao,
Stirling

Austin-Towers
13-04-2007, 16:08
This is all very amusing.

I happen to like both cars, both have there plus and minus points. But I think the 75 has (had) the edge on price.....

< N I C K >
14-04-2007, 06:10
Yeah - a classic sign of having lost the argument!

An argument that you seem to have lost track of. It's X-Type vs. Rover 75, not S-type vs. Rover 75.

Although a Rover 75 2.5 KV6 manual trumped an S-Type 3.0 V6 manual in a UK Autocar review. But it was one of the early S-type before it's umpteenth re-works.

Condottieri
14-04-2007, 10:47
An argument that you seem to have lost track of. It's X-Type vs. Rover 75, not S-type vs. Rover 75.

Not so, Nick! I've remained consistent in my argument throughout - and unlike some Rover diehards, I've been prepared to give credit where credit's due to Rover over Jaguar. For instance my post in response to members of this forum in the sister thread to this one over on the Jaguar forum:

Hi RedRover,
Well put - and thanks for venturing over into 'enemy territory' after our 'Cat-raids' onto your forum! I agree with much of what you say. Like Daytona here, I had a vested interest in lurking around the Rover Forum - my wife drives a 75 Connisseur. And yes, I do like its interior. It's got more wood than an X-type, and I really like the instruments - the shape of the dials and the cream faces on them. AFAIK, the 75 was based on a BMW floor pan was it not? Anyway, what you say is correct, the 75 was designed and developed under the aegis of BMW, with BMW money behind it - therefore, corners were not cut. After putting together Rover's first really superbly designed car for aeons, BMW sold it as a British company back to British owners for a £1. Unfortunately these new owners were what can only be described as rip off merchants - Rover's British Management Team. I wonder if they've gone into asset stripping full time now - they made a good job of it with Rover before the collapse.

Where I'd disagree with you is that whilst the Rover 75 may score certain points over the Jaguar X-Type, really it was aspiring to Jaguar S-type levels - and there it fails! But the X-type has one thing the Rover - no matter how well designed or produced - will never have. And that is the cache of being a Jaguar. There is no substitute for that my friend!

Ciao,
Stirling


You'll note in particular that I agree - and on the Jaguar forum! - that the 75 does score over the X-type in certain regards! But note also my point that the X-type has the cache of being a Jaguar, and Rover just can't replicate that IMHO.

See also my post #127 on this thread which acknowledges the superior design of aspects of the 75's dash in comparison to that of the S-type. I do try to be as even-handed as possible, whilst making no bones about being first and foremost a Jaguar man! I respect the position of those for whom this is true of the Rover marque.

Ciao,
Stirling

StreetBoy
27-06-2007, 15:45
I'd wait 'till you've upgraded from that 214 you're running around in to at least a 75, Streetboy, before you start criticizing Jaguars of any kind!

Hi, i went one better- got myself an x-type (well, sort of!)... can i criticize now!? :happy:

baxlin
27-06-2007, 16:38
Hi, i went one better- got myself an x-type (well, sort of!)... can i criticize now!? :happy:

No, you're on a Rover forum!:tic: :whistle:

Rover_ron
27-06-2007, 20:12
Hi, i went one better- got myself an x-type (well, sort of!)... can i criticize now!? :happy:

You can on my forum if its a diesel as mine is an Xtype estate 2.0D + one of my Tu3's plugged in.
Addictive power delivery from that Transit engine though...

Ron

dixon75
28-06-2007, 07:22
i think he means, he bought a Mondeo.
which doesnt actaully share that much with the x-type...... good to see this thread alive again though

**EDIT** i'm a big blue oval fan btw, they are all nice cars.

Rover_ron
28-06-2007, 08:57
i think he means, he bought a Mondeo.
which doesnt actaully share that much with the x-type...... good to see this thread alive again though

**EDIT** i'm a big blue oval fan btw, they are all nice cars.

Er yes, I see what you mean. Still it will handle better than mine, be better equipped,,,,,,,,

Ron

steviezt
28-06-2007, 13:12
I know ive got a ZT but id probably have the Jag, the build cant be much worse on the Jag than the Rover (the build quality on my 03 ZT is appalling!) and the very fact that MGR is now not existant is not a good selling point either!

I know the X-type is basically a ford but nowadays thats no bad thing, they are making very good cars today (albeit bland ones) and the fact that ford "blessed" the X-type with Mondeo bits is unavoidable considering the bargain basement price these cars sold for in comparison with XJs and S-types.

I had a bit of a "drag strip encounter" with an X-type Diesel the other day in my ZT190 and it kept up with me easily all the way to and beyond the legal limit shall we say...

steviezt
28-06-2007, 13:42
I'd wait 'till you've upgraded from that 214 you're running around in to at least a 75, Streetboy, before you start criticizing Jaguars of any kind!

Ciao,
Stirling

I didnt realise that the only way you can have an opinion about a car and its qualities is to actually own one of the cars you have the opinion on?

Steve

Rover_ron
28-06-2007, 13:44
I know ive got a ZT but id probably have the Jag, the build cant be much worse on the Jag than the Rover (the build quality on my 03 ZT is appalling!) and the very fact that MGR is now not existant is not a good selling point either!

I know the X-type is basically a ford but nowadays thats no bad thing, they are making very good cars today (albeit bland ones) and the fact that ford "blessed" the X-type with Mondeo bits is unavoidable considering the bargain basement price these cars sold for in comparison with XJs and S-types.

I had a bit of a "drag strip encounter" with an X-type Diesel the other day in my ZT190 and it kept up with me easily all the way to and beyond the legal limit shall we say...

You'd be mad to swap a ZT for an X-type! The ZT will far out handle an X-type, though not sure about an X-type Sport with its stiffer suspension. My 75 felt a lot heavier and more 'solid' through bends, the X-type feels 'flighty and vague despite having a much stiffer ride.
The build quality of my 07 Estate is nothing special and plastics of the centre console are no better than is found on Amstrad or Goodmans 'hifi'.

In short, the natural successor to a 75/ZT is in fact an S-type!!

However the Transit based engine is superb if prone to diesel knock and thanks to a light clutch, steering and gear change and the explosive throttle response and 250rpm earlier build up of torque, mean rapid is less tiring.

(Apparently a recent ecu update has been blamed for the knock)

I have mixed feeling about the X-type; I am disappointed that it is not more like my 75 - its very similar to the 2003 Rover 45 that I owned a couple of years ago, yet the aforemtioned plus points make it enjoyable to drive in a more sporty, less limo like way. Jaguar missed the mark - maybe Ford would not have needed to put it up for sale if they'd tried harder!

Ron

baxlin
28-06-2007, 14:14
I didnt realise that the only way you can have an opinion about a car and its qualities is to actually own one of the cars you have the opinion on?

Steve

Not really, but if you don't have the "living-with" experience, how can you have an informed opinion?

Although I have, and love it, a 75 diesel, with its BMW-derived engine, I always say that I don't like BMWs. But I've never owned or driven one, so what weight does that opinion carry. None, because styling, which is obvious to all, owner or not, is subjective at best, and a matter of taste at worst, and everything else needs to be experienced first hand.

Malcolm

gaznav
12-12-2008, 00:45
Just read through this lot and thought I'd offer:

As an owner of a ZT CDTi and a Jag XType 2.2D SE Estate in the Gaznav household, I place the ZT way ahead of the Jag...

The Jag oozes Mondeo after you get over the leather seats, wood and a leaping-cat emblem (a bit like my old Porsche 924 was a VW LT van with a different body on it!). In retropsect, I'd sooner have a Mondeo and pay 1/3rd the cost of the Stealership Service costs!!!

Going to replace the X Type with an XF soon, I'm hoping that I'll be able to break-up with the ZT soon (I still can't find anything else that I enjoy!). Other than that it will have to be one of the last of Longbridge produced cars as a replacement?

Rover_ron
12-12-2008, 06:19
Just read through this lot and thought I'd offer:

As an owner of a ZT CDTi and a Jag XType 2.2D SE Estate in the Gaznav household, I place the ZT way ahead of the Jag...

The Jag oozes Mondeo after you get over the leather seats, wood and a leaping-cat emblem (a bit like my old Porsche 924 was a VW LT van with a different body on it!). In retropsect, I'd sooner have a Mondeo and pay 1/3rd the cost of the Stealership Service costs!!!

Going to replace the X Type with an XF soon, I'm hoping that I'll be able to break-up with the ZT soon (I still can't find anything else that I enjoy!). Other than that it will have to be one of the last of Longbridge produced cars as a replacement?

The XF is tempting but outside my budget and I need a 4x4 so have a Rav4 at present.
The X-type grew on me & with a remap & Synergy, the performance was fantastic, but the S-Type is closer to the 75 than an X-Type.

However I feel the X-type, is still an alternative to a 75/ZT when the supply of decent ones dries up especially as used prices are becoming reasonable.

The dealers are useless and overpriced - but aren't they all. If you can't do the servicing yourself, take it to your local independent. They are bound to be familiar with Mondeos!

Update us with your views of the XF.
Ron

onuo
12-12-2008, 09:29
This is the most depressing thread I've read, I have to agree this does smack of my dad is better than your dad as said by another member.



http://www.claymore.co.za/sherekhan/images2/eventer.jpg

You have to wonder if during the design process, did someone not say - "this looks like a sporty hearse!"

Mr Edd
12-12-2008, 09:49
If you were a policeman following this car in a Chase and the rear window started to drop. I for one would be braking very hard. :guns:

Edd

pondweed
12-12-2008, 19:49
An argument that you seem to have lost track of. It's X-Type vs. Rover 75, not S-type vs. Rover 75.

Although a Rover 75 2.5 KV6 manual trumped an S-Type 3.0 V6 manual in a UK Autocar review. But it was one of the early S-type before it's umpteenth re-works.

The S type got beaten by R75 in first Autocar review... too US focused.
X-type doesnt bear comparison - its a rehashed Mondeo. It might be complete but its not a "proper" design. As posted elsewhere, the interior is "75 meets Nissan Micra"
R75 is a fantastic design. If only they spent their minimal redesign money in 04 on sorting its foibles out and turning it into a dependable car.

cjmillsnun
12-12-2008, 21:35
I do wonder why this thread was brought back from the grave....

oldie
13-12-2008, 10:00
ive wanted a connoisseur for a few weeks but i stumbled across a contemporary today, and WOW! got the classyness of the connoisseur outside, with the sporty facelift and also a much sportier, sleeker black interior. is there anything about the contemporarys i should know?[/QUOTE]


As far as I can tell they have very similar specification (the Connoisseur usually has a few more extras), the major difference to me being the seats. I have a V6 Contemporary bought in preference to a Connoisseur because of them. I am looking for a diesel and if it were possible to obtain Contemporary seats I would happily consider a Connoisseur and exchange the seats.

cjmillsnun
13-12-2008, 10:03
Why not buy a connie and swap the seats with the v6 that you already have?

oldie
14-12-2008, 22:59
Why not buy a connie and swap the seats with the v6 that you already have?

That's certainly an option but I'm reluctant to buy another car and then have to try and sell a modified contemporary. If I could persuade a dealer to allow substitution as part of an exchange then I would give it a go; however I suspect that, despite their surface confidence, most traders are rather conservative individuals. My track record in disposing of replaced models is poor. I moved to the 75 after 20 years with a variety of SAABs and still have my last 9000 on the driveway (much to the disapproval and inconvenience of my better half).

gaznav
18-12-2008, 23:13
I do wonder why this thread was brought back from the grave....

I found this thread whilst looking for a forum for an issue with my X Type and I thought I'd add my two-penneth...for what it's worth?

Gaz

qprdude
19-12-2008, 10:06
To be honest I think the 75/ZT is quite bad for front leg room, and the B-pillar gets in the way on the 75/ZT when I drive it too (father owns a ZT I sometimes drive).

The ZT eats tyres much faster than my friend's X-type...

The centre console on the Jag is poor compared to the ZT, although the ZT seats are poor (already had 2 seats replaced on warranty, now the new seats are splitting - car has done 48,000 miles. My old 620 has done 147,000 and my bolsters are unmarked....).

The rear view isn't great on either but I think the ZT is worse.

I have no experience of diesels in either, but the Ford 2.5 V6 in the Jag is more powerful than the 2.5 KV6 and doesn't suffer from plastic manifolds breaking off, and has chain driven cams so doesn't need the KV6's expensive timing belt changes - but it's also heavier. In my opinion (but this is clearly very subjective) the Ford engine sounds better than the KV6.


Being an MG Rover forum it's natural that there's a large 75 bias here, although personally I prefer the X-type inasmuch as I have considered buying an X-type but have not considered buying a 75/ZT.

I hope this is taken in the manner in which it's intended - I'm not just trying to stir up 75 owners!!!

I'm confused. You have consdered buying an X type but not a 75, yet you seem to have a low opinion of the 75, and a high one of the mondeo,OOps sorry, Xtype. How does considering buying an X type supposed to make you prefer it?
I've considered buying an Aston Martin, but since I never actualy bought one, I've no idea whether I prefer it or not!

Back to the point, The 75 ,IMHO, is far more like the S type than the X type, both in body shape, and interior. I have owned both cars, and although the S type was a 3 litre V6 auto, powerful and rapid, and the 75 is a 2.0 litre turbo diesel, on consideration, I prefer the Rover.

John Armstrong
19-12-2008, 15:08
To me! I initially fell in love with the lines of the 75 - Don't they just flow so gracefully. The Rover 75 was designed by one person /design group whereas, to me the Jag was desighed by two different groups (one for the front and one for the rear) then stuck together. I'm sure that someone hear can express what I mean much better but hopefully one gets my drift.
cheers
John

dumbroverowner
19-12-2008, 15:27
I'm confused. You have consdered buying an X type but not a 75, yet you seem to have a low opinion of the 75, and a high one of the mondeo,OOps sorry, Xtype. How does considering buying an X type supposed to make you prefer it?
I've considered buying an Aston Martin, but since I never actualy bought one, I've no idea whether I prefer it or not!

Back to the point, The 75 ,IMHO, is far more like the S type than the X type, both in body shape, and interior. I have owned both cars, and although the S type was a 3 litre V6 auto, powerful and rapid, and the 75 is a 2.0 litre turbo diesel, on consideration, I prefer the Rover.
75 and S live in two different market segments. The only thing they had in common was both being 'retro' styled and debut at the BHam show in 1998
X-Type and 75 are comparable cars aimed at the same market segment.

As it happens I have both, and if the best of both appeared in one car that car would be a world beater

qprdude
19-12-2008, 17:23
whats the actual diff with these 2 cars? they both look really similar but the jag seems a little cheaper? i love rovers, but a jag does have a flashier name i suppose so how come they cost less!? take it insurance will cost more?


Yes, having owned both, I'm aware of that, but I was replying to the original post which stated that the two looked similar. They actually look nothing like each other, from any angle, whereas the S type and the 75 could well be confused in profile on a dark(ish) night. As regards the S type and the 75 being aimed at different markets, I bought both, and I'm the same market. There's always two ways of looking at these things.

Agedbrit
19-12-2008, 19:25
Are the Ford TDCi engines better than the BMW ones...??

(it is a question by the way....)


Have you ever seen clouds of black smoke coming out the back of a BMW diesel ?????

No, neither have I.

gaznav
19-12-2008, 20:42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanky http://forums.mg-rover.org/images/dark/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.mg-rover.org/showthread.php?p=1904347#post1904347)
Are the Ford TDCi engines better than the BMW ones...??

(it is a question by the way....)


Have you ever seen clouds of black smoke coming out the back of a BMW diesel ?????

No, neither have I.

And my 2.2d XType is on its 3rd set of injectors after just 65,000miles !!!! Fortunately, under warranty...

FLYER
19-12-2008, 20:49
And my 2.2d XType is on its 3rd set of injectors after just 65,000miles !!!! Fortunately, under warranty... good god thats absurd . flyer.:err:

gaznav
19-12-2008, 20:55
good god thats absurd . flyer.:err:

and according to my Jag Dealer (or stealer!) its a known fault with the 2.2d as well as an ECU software snag (I'm awaiting a recall for a reprogram in the near future).

That said they are very nice people at Jaguar, but they need to be with reliability like this! My BMW lump is far superior in reliability (I've only had a single injector seal go in over 115,000miles).

Gaz

FLYER
19-12-2008, 21:05
and according to my Jag Dealer (or stealer!) its a known fault with the 2.2d as well as an ECU software snag (I'm awaiting a recall for a reprogram in the near future).

That said they are very nice people at Jaguar, but they need to be with reliability like this! My BMW lump is far superior in reliability (I've only had a single injector seal go in over 115,000miles).

Gaz would i be right in saying they are over a ton an hour labour . flyer.:errx2:

gaznav
19-12-2008, 21:13
Don't know, never had the pleasure - the last 12500mile service was about £500 and it was just the normal consumables... Now the warranty is over then I will be doing the franchised thing before selling the old cow!

Kully
20-12-2008, 17:55
Having driven & lived with both X type & MGZT, the running cost were less for the Jag, I had a 2.5 X type for 4 years, and a ZT CDTI for 3 years, now have a 2.2 X Type. The build quality is much better on the jag, more updated technology, More poke on the engine, altogeather a much more refined car. Pick of the x types is the 2.5 all wheel drive, or the 2.2d. on the MGZT, the only one worth going for is a CDTI, or a V8 (if you can aford the fuel).

oska
20-12-2008, 18:24
Just traded in my 75 Auto 2.5 for a newer car...2.5 X-Type For the past 5 years I have been the biggest promoter for the 75 and that is after the large amounts of money I spent with the Thermostat housing,Vis valves and manifold, cost of the belt replacement,ECU replacement and some other big spends..and you know what,I still loved that carMy intention was to downsize but after visiting many garages and looking through the adds,I just couldn't downsize. At a local dealers there was a beauty of an MG ZT 190 just begging to be bought which I was so close to doing.The thing is,next to it was a 2.5 V6 Jag (a year older) same miles at 35k and you know what flashed through my head...the replacement belt,Thermostats and all other costs I had previosly had to shell out..at that time it became a no brainer even though I had always wanted the a 190. Side by side the Jag looked better (IMO) the inside was not as nice nor is it as comfy as my 75 ..but the lure of a chain driven reliable car was too much.This forum has been part of my life for a good number of years and I will continue to view and contribute with me experiance if required ..the Jag forum talks about which tyres to use, lifting air vents and mostly of minor issues....just by reading the forums you can immediately get a sense of how the cars perform and reliability issues...its a really odd situation for me as my blind loyalty with the Rover has suddenly vanished and now I when I look at like for like ..it really is a no brainer financially (IMO)I would say to anyone, buy an X-Type when you want to move on from the Rover 75...they are affordable now more than ever...that sense of ownership you first get when you own the 75 ...you feel with the x-type but without the cost.

Kully
20-12-2008, 22:43
good rational choice! worth checking one thing on the 2.5's. i drove one for 4 years from new, when they first came out. just check that the thermostat housing has been changed, i experienced a tube comming off, and the whole of the cooling system emptying. if it had happened 3 min later i would have been on the M5 with a trashed engine!. saying that the 2.5 is an ideal choice, shame they stopped making it. i had to settle for a 2.2d

Steed
13-01-2009, 12:14
Wow. I could have written what you put here, word for word - just replace the word "Rover 75" with "Alfa Romeo 156" and that's my story almost to a tee. I loved my Alfa, but after three years of annoying niggles and expensive repairs, it was time to go - I initially wanted a ZT (they look gorgeous), but on seeing the X-Type next to it at a dealership - a 2.5 AWD Prestige Plus with just about every extra you could throw at it, and the build quality looking so good...and the same price...I was swayed...even though I don't think the interior is as nice... The drive is gorgeous, the exterior is fine, and having driven Mondeos, I have no idea why everyone criticises the X-Type for sharing some of their DNA - the Jag has a completely different feel to it. Besides, people rarely moan about the Bentley being a tarted up VW Phaeton, and they have far more in common!!

Just traded in my 75 Auto 2.5 for a newer car...2.5 X-Type For the past 5 years I have been the biggest promoter for the 75 and that is after the large amounts of money I spent with the Thermostat housing,Vis valves and manifold, cost of the belt replacement,ECU replacement and some other big spends..and you know what,I still loved that carMy intention was to downsize but after visiting many garages and looking through the adds,I just couldn't downsize. At a local dealers there was a beauty of an MG ZT 190 just begging to be bought which I was so close to doing.The thing is,next to it was a 2.5 V6 Jag (a year older) same miles at 35k and you know what flashed through my head...the replacement belt,Thermostats and all other costs I had previosly had to shell out..at that time it became a no brainer even though I had always wanted the a 190. Side by side the Jag looked better (IMO) the inside was not as nice nor is it as comfy as my 75 ..but the lure of a chain driven reliable car was too much.This forum has been part of my life for a good number of years and I will continue to view and contribute with me experiance if required ..the Jag forum talks about which tyres to use, lifting air vents and mostly of minor issues....just by reading the forums you can immediately get a sense of how the cars perform and reliability issues...its a really odd situation for me as my blind loyalty with the Rover has suddenly vanished and now I when I look at like for like ..it really is a no brainer financially (IMO)I would say to anyone, buy an X-Type when you want to move on from the Rover 75...they are affordable now more than ever...that sense of ownership you first get when you own the 75 ...you feel with the x-type but without the cost.