Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

rickey939 · Aug 28, 2005, 11:27 PM

Jaguar 2007 XK information from CNN...

New Hotness!

sek929 · Aug 28, 2005, 11:29 PM

A little Aston Martin-ish, but sexy nonetheless.

air · Aug 28, 2005, 11:33 PM

meh.

sek929 · Aug 28, 2005, 11:35 PM

Jags NEED to get rid of that stupid "j" gate shifter,

simonjames · Aug 28, 2005, 11:42 PM

looks like a Japanese copy of an Aston Martin - throw a Lexus badge on it and I'd believe it

SSharon · Aug 29, 2005, 12:04 AM

The car is fine, I just don't like most people driving them.

MacMan4000 · Aug 29, 2005, 12:06 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Jag and Aston Martin owned by the same company? Ford I think.

I could be wrong...

What's wrong with the "J" shifter, my mom's XJ8 has it and I don't mind it at all.

Sage · Aug 29, 2005, 12:48 AM

Originally Posted by MacMan4000

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Jag and Aston Martin owned by the same company? Ford I think.

I could be wrong...

Not only that, but if I recall correctly, the man who designed all of Aston's current lineup, Ian Callum, is the same man who penned this new Jag. So the visual relationship to AM isn't just a coincidence – same person, practically the same styling.

Not that I mind, because other than the fussy head- and taillights, it's quite the looker.

I saw the original concept car in person just a mile from my house (the Jag people were really nice – let me get up right to it and touch it and look inside), and it's a very handsome car. I kind of miss the "upside-down horseshoe" center console though, and the steering wheel looks like it was lifted from a Pontiac Grand Prix.

JoshuaZ · Aug 29, 2005, 04:33 AM

Unless it flies or drives itself, whatever.

Kerrigan · Aug 29, 2005, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by rickey939

Jaguar 2007 XK information from CNN...

It probably looks good in person, but..

The front end looks a lot like a Ford Taurus

Doofy · Aug 29, 2005, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by rickey939

You can tell it's a Ford. Look at the weird Ford angles at the trailing edge of the headlights and the leading edge of the tail-lights.
(I hate this pointy angles on lights thing going on at the moment).

Even the fold where rear "bumper" meets rear body looks like it's straight off a Focus.

And did nobody tell Ford that Jaguar badges are supposed to go on the topside of the front, not the grille?

Originally Posted by rickey939

Gah! Overuse of silver colouring again.

The whole thing looks too narrow. Doesn't "sit" right for a Jag. The front end is too bulbous (and strangely too bland at the same time).
All in all, it's too boring and it doesn't look right for a Jag (which are supposed to be gentlemen's carriages, not generic suburbanite baubles).

rickey939 · Aug 29, 2005, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The front end looks a lot like a Ford Taurus

Awesome!

[/Ford Taurus owner]

Jim Paradise · Aug 29, 2005, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

It probably looks good in person, but..

The front end looks a lot like a Ford Taurus

I was thinking the same thing. The only thing that I like is the side profile of this Jag, but the front looks very boring. Whatever happened to those big fronts with a large grill that Jags used to have?

ebuddy · 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

It probably looks good in person, but..

The front end looks a lot like a Ford Taurus

I immediately thought the exact same thing Kerrigan! Nice catch. I also notice the back end looks suspiciously like the new Saab 9-3.

Kerrigan · Aug 29, 2005, 09:03 PM

Since the late 90s, I've had a sneaking suspicion that Ford was trying to move small design elements from its mid range cars like the Taurus into its upper end brands like Jaguar, and vice versa.

AKcrab · Aug 29, 2005, 09:09 PM

The title says /Pics.

I want my money back.

TailsToo · Aug 29, 2005, 09:53 PM

No thanks.

Scandalous Ion Cannon · Aug 29, 2005, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

It probably looks good in person, but..

The front end looks a lot like a Ford Taurus

That was the first thing to come to my mind also.

rickey939 · Aug 29, 2005, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by AKcrab

The title says /Pics.

I want my money back.

Fine, I'll get the X-rated pics started...

Jim Paradise · Aug 30, 2005, 12:06 AM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Since the late 90s, I've had a sneaking suspicion that Ford was trying to move small design elements from its mid range cars like the Taurus into its upper end brands like Jaguar, and vice versa.

I've felt that about their X-type models. Whenever I see the rears of them, it always strikes me as the kind of crap you'd see on a Ford.

tracemhunter · Aug 30, 2005, 12:23 AM

i hate the way people in the commercials say jaguar. they say it like "jag ewe are" rather than "jag wire" or "jag wahr". maybe its just my accent. idk.

AKcrab · Aug 30, 2005, 01:16 AM

Originally Posted by rickey939

Fine, I'll get the X-rated pics started...

Old Hotness™

Gator Lager · Aug 30, 2005, 01:24 AM

a yugo or this
http://www.highresautoimages.com/saleen/s74.html
and it helps to have tons of money for the latter.

Goldfinger · Aug 30, 2005, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by tracemhunter

i hate the way people in the commercials say jaguar. they say it like "jag ewe are" rather than "jag wire" or "jag wahr". maybe its just my accent. idk.

Because that's how you're supposed to pronounce it maybe ?

JoshuaZ · Aug 30, 2005, 04:35 AM

Originally Posted by rickey939

Fine, I'll get the X-rated pics started...

Now thats hot.

LilWolfChokingOnCigs68 · Aug 30, 2005, 08:15 AM

Wow. It even has 4 wheels! And two headlights, and reddish taillights! It's practically a look alike for a VW Thing!

Anyone else see the resemblence? It looks almost identical!

Doofy · Aug 30, 2005, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by LilWolfChokingOnCigs68

Wow. It even has 4 wheels! And two headlights, and reddish taillights! It's practically a look alike for a VW Thing!

Anyone else see the resemblence? It looks almost identical!

Dude, if you're going into automative design you're going to have to start noticing things like "the Ford fold", "the BMW hockey stick" and "the Audi wheel-arch". Otherwise you're gonna flunk.

LilWolfChokingOnCigs68 · Aug 30, 2005, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Dude, if you're going into automative design you're going to have to start noticing things like "the Ford fold", "the BMW hockey stick" and "the Audi wheel-arch". Otherwise you're gonna flunk.

I notice a lot more than that, and honestly, just because it's a luxurious 2 seater sports car that looks 'fat and heavy' doesn't mean it looks almost identical to an aston martin. As for the ford taurus comment, the grill is similar, the headlights are NOT, and the comment about the back end looking like a saab is just retarded. WOW THEY BOTH HAVE TAILLIGHTS!

Your comments about it having focus traits are also pretty ...uh.. well, I don't see that at all. Ford definitely has a cutting edge styling thing going on, but that's a good thing. Now that VW is starting to produce ugly cars, fords are looking better and better.

ajprice · Aug 30, 2005, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Dude, if you're going into automative design you're going to have to start noticing things like "the Ford fold", "the BMW hockey stick" and "the Audi wheel-arch". Otherwise you're gonna flunk.

Knowing how to spell automotive would be helpful too!

Doofy · Aug 30, 2005, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by ajprice

Knowing how to spell automotive would be helpful too!

Wow. Is that the best you can do? Spelling errors?

Strange how Safari spell-check didn't pick that one up.

Doofy · Aug 30, 2005, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by LilWolfChokingOnCigs68

Your comments about it having focus traits are also pretty ...uh.. well, I don't see that at all.

Check the angles on the training edge of those headlights. Bet ya it's exactly the same angle as found on a Focus headlight. It's all about the angles.

Originally Posted by LilWolfChokingOnCigs68

Ford definitely has a cutting edge styling thing going on, but that's a good thing.

Not really. At least not in this case. Jaguar has its own set of styling cues but Ford are attempting to replace them with their own "new edge" cues. Traditional Jaguar buyers won't like that at all (same with the Discovery 3 - Ford made it appeal to urban blingers a little too much and consequently most of the traditional hardcore buyers are all out looking for Discovery 2 models).

Powerbook · Aug 30, 2005, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Not really. At least not in this case. Jaguar has its own set of styling cues but Ford are attempting to replace them with their own "new edge" cues. Traditional Jaguar buyers won't like that at all (same with the Discovery 3 - Ford made it appeal to urban blingers a little too much and consequently most of the traditional hardcore buyers are all out looking for Discovery 2 models).

I'm with the Doofus here. This new XK brakes imho more Jaguar styling rules instead of "refining" etc. them. Give me the older series anyday:

Regards,
Powerbook

ReggieX · Aug 30, 2005, 10:26 AM

I'd rather take the Aston and have the original.

LilWolfChokingOnCigs68 · Aug 30, 2005, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

(same with the Discovery 3 - Ford made it appeal to urban blingers a little too much and consequently most of the traditional hardcore buyers are all out looking for Discovery 2 models).

And why did they do that? To piss of the hardcore owners? No. Because they want to make MONEY. Urban yuppies with way too much money who never go offroading buy a lot of them, way more than the hardcore enthusiasts would have.

LilWolfChokingOnCigs68 · Aug 30, 2005, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Powerbook

I'm with the Doofus here. This new XK brakes imho more Jaguar styling rules instead of "refining" etc. them. Give me the older series anyday:

I think it's starting to look dated. Looks mid 90ish. The new seems to carry on the spirit, but has a fresh look to it. I like it.

Doofy · Aug 30, 2005, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by LilWolfChokingOnCigs68

And why did they do that?

Because they're idiots.

Originally Posted by LilWolfChokingOnCigs68

To piss of the hardcore owners? No. Because they want to make MONEY.

The best way of making money isn't to take a unique, traditionally-biased object and ditch it for a non-unique, modern-biased one. All Ford did with the redesign of the Disco 3 was to put it into direct competition with all the other blinger SUVs, including those with a "Ford" badge on them. Even Land Rover knew this before Ford bought them, which is why the Disco 2 is pretty much identical to the Disco 1.

Oh well... ...at least they haven't screwed the XJ or Defender up yet.

Link · Aug 30, 2005, 12:11 PM

Hehe, knew it wouldn't be long before someone started bashing it because it was an American car, you guys are quick to diss anything NOT from Japan or Europe..

FWIW, the only R&D VW, BMW, and Mercedes seem to be doing lately is using photocopiers to rip off Honda/Toyota designs, hehe.

LilWolfChokingOnCigs68 · Aug 30, 2005, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Link

Hehe, knew it wouldn't be long before someone started bashing it because it was an American car, you guys are quick to diss anything NOT from Japan or Europe..

FWIW, the only R&D VW, BMW, and Mercedes seem to be doing lately is using photocopiers to rip off Honda/Toyota designs, hehe.

You forgot ford ripping off audi. Not that it's a bad thing.

Doofy · Aug 30, 2005, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Link

Hehe, knew it wouldn't be long before someone started bashing it because it was an American car, you guys are quick to diss anything NOT from Japan or Europe..

Yeah, because none of us dissenters own American cars, do we?

Powerbook · Aug 30, 2005, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Link

Hehe, knew it wouldn't be long before someone started bashing it because it was an American car, you guys are quick to diss anything NOT from Japan or Europe..

You act pretty idiotic. No one cares. Cars are designed, developed and made in multi-national teams anyway. The only point is, is this XK a worthy successor or not? This discussion is up on every new model with a long and/or famous history.

Pb.

macroy · Aug 30, 2005, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Link

FWIW, the only R&D VW, BMW, and Mercedes seem to be doing lately is using photocopiers to rip off Honda/Toyota designs, hehe.

You talking the exterior right? 'cause I don't see any Japanese cars matching the technology used in these German cars (i.e. SMG or DSG).

Goldfinger · Aug 30, 2005, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by macroy

You talking the exterior right? 'cause I don't see any Japanese cars matching the technology used in these German cars (i.e. SMG or DSG).

Exterior yes. Saw the latest 3-series, looks absolutely ****ing ridiculous. Looks like a Mitsubishi. Don't think that the Japanese don't have the technology, they just don't implement it. BTW: the SMG gearbox sucks balls. It's as uncomfortable as it gets in normal trafic.

cjrivera · Aug 30, 2005, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Exterior yes. Saw the latest 3-series, looks absolutely ****ing ridiculous. Looks like a Mitsubishi. Don't think that the Japanese don't have the technology, they just don't implement it. BTW: the SMG gearbox sucks balls. It's as uncomfortable as it gets in normal trafic.

Agree with you on the new 3 series. Ugh. (Actually worse than some Mitsubishis)

But gotta disagree on the SMG. Works fine in most situations. I don't understand what you mean by "uncomfortable" in traffic. Maybe in auto mode. But it's the same as a stick in manual mode.

Lancer409 · Aug 31, 2005, 07:33 AM

odd shape for head/tail lamps. not a big fan of the design but it does look more modern than the current ones. i dunno .. it doesnt scream luxury to me (outside)

Goldfinger · Aug 31, 2005, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by cjrivera

Agree with you on the new 3 series. Ugh. (Actually worse than some Mitsubishis)

But gotta disagree on the SMG. Works fine in most situations. I don't understand what you mean by "uncomfortable" in traffic. Maybe in auto mode. But it's the same as a stick in manual mode.

The SMG is VERY jerky in auto mode. Painfully so. And in manual mode it isn't as smooth as a real manual. It sure is fast tho'. The SMG is excellent for driving fast all the time and accelerating as fast as possible but in day to day use it's no fun.

PB2K · Aug 31, 2005, 08:48 AM

that saab 9-3 has a babboons ass

macroy · Aug 31, 2005, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

The SMG is VERY jerky in auto mode. Painfully so. And in manual mode it isn't as smooth as a real manual. It sure is fast tho'. The SMG is excellent for driving fast all the time and accelerating as fast as possible but in day to day use it's no fun.

And that's where folks need to understand that SMG wasn't "really" meant for everyday driving. SMG "SHOULD" be used if you are using your car to run the track. The advantage here is the time shaved off from mis-shifts during cornering and accleration (no need to heel-toe). The problem is that many that get it "THINK" its an alternative to an automatic (i.e.. the guy/gal who wants manual but has a significant other that can't drive a straight manual). I'm also guessing that's why they pulled it from the regular 3's. However, the II was way better than the original. And I'm going to guess the new one in the M5/6 will be even better than that.

And no, its not exactly fit for day to day travel (althought I find no problems with it) - but that doesn't make it any less of a technology given what it was trying to achieve.

Goldfinger · Sep 1, 2005, 03:20 AM

Originally Posted by macroy

And that's where folks need to understand that SMG wasn't "really" meant for everyday driving. SMG "SHOULD" be used if you are using your car to run the track. The advantage here is the time shaved off from mis-shifts during cornering and accleration (no need to heel-toe). The problem is that many that get it "THINK" its an alternative to an automatic (i.e.. the guy/gal who wants manual but has a significant other that can't drive a straight manual). I'm also guessing that's why they pulled it from the regular 3's. However, the II was way better than the original. And I'm going to guess the new one in the M5/6 will be even better than that.

And no, its not exactly fit for day to day travel (althought I find no problems with it) - but that doesn't make it any less of a technology given what it was trying to achieve.

I know that. You don't have to tell me that but they should only offer the damn thing on the M models. You can still buy the SMG on the 3 series (only 325 and 330 IIRC) and on the 6 series, over here anyway.

PS: people that mis-shift can't drive

Originally Posted by MacMan4000

What's wrong with the "J" shifter, my mom's XJ8 has it and I don't mind it at all.

There's nothing wrong with the J-gate but the new XK doesn't have a real J-gate. That's an L-gate with sequential shifting.

I see this new XK more of a successor to the E-type. That's why there is more of an accent on sporyness than luxury. And Jaguar could use a car positioned that way.

Link · Sep 1, 2005, 03:45 AM

BTW, I like the design, but they should never sell a jaguar without the hood ornament.

Car manufacturers don't include that enough anymore

G4ME · Sep 1, 2005, 03:57 AM

love how you guys quote jags styling from a few years back, that **** is bull compared to pre 80's, thats when a jag was a jag and it ment something, beyond just looks and how the fscking tail lights looked it was more then that it was a jag and it stood for something, nowadays, they are just all just jag emblems placed on crap.

give me a day when a jag had only a multiple of 6 for cylinders and i will be a happy man

btw loved how the incorporated the leaping haunches of the trade mark Jag into that new piece of bull