2002 Jaguar X-Type Article at Automotive.com

»Locate a Dealer»Find a Used Car»Get Financing

Most Popular: Hybrid Cars|Lexus IS350|Dodge Charger

HOME

2002 Jaguar X-Type 3.0 Long-Term Update

Below is an enthusiast article written by the automotive experts at European Car. We're a rather spoiled lot here at european car Magazine. All the cars we drive/test/report on range from good to great cars, with great ones being among the majority. Alas, our long-term X-Type belongs at the other end of the spectrum; it is a good car, but a

QUICK PRICE QUOTE

DEALER LOCATOR

User Rating

N/A

Rating:

Value Rating

N/A

LEARN WHY

IntelliChoice Value Rating

The chart above shows the purchase price versus ownership cost for each car from a specific vehicle class. The cars with better than average ownership cost/purchase price correlations are the best values, and these best value cars are represented by the dots below the curve. (i.e. the cars that have a lower ownership cost compared to its purchase price.) Those cars, which are worse than average or poor values, appear above the curve.

One way to view the graph is to draw a vertical line through any purchase price. You may see several dots that fall on this line - each of which is a car with a similar purchase price. However, notice the difference in ownership costs of each car represented by the vertical position of the dot. Two cars with the same purchase price can have thousands of dollars difference in ownership costs. This is what separates "good value" cars from "poor value" cars.

What is a good car value?

A "good car value" is one whose cost to own and operate is less than expected. The lower the cost to own and operate a car compared to what is expected, the better the value of that car.

But how do we know a car's "expected cost"?

For each car in the class, IntelliChoice plots the car's purchase price against the total five-year cost to own and operate it as determined by IntelliChoice research. Each dot on the above chart represents a specific car. Generally, we find that as the purchase price of the car increases, the cost to own and operate that car increases. This is why the dots on the graph tend to rise upward and to the right. This phenomenon also makes intuitive sense - as the purchase price rises, financing costs tend to rise, as do insurance, depreciation, taxes, and most other car ownership costs.

This is an important concept. It's normal for car ownership costs to rise as purchase price rises. Therefore, we can't just establish one "average" ownership cost number for each class, since cars in the class have different purchase prices. (This is why the "Relative" shown on each chart is different for cars in the same car class.)

Using statistical techniques, IntelliChoice "connects the dots" to form a curve that defines, for this car class, the relationship between the car's purchase price and car's ownership costs. This curve is our "expected cost" curve. The curve defines, for any car in the class, the five-year ownership cost that we would expect to see at each possible purchase price. If every car in the class were an average value, then all the dots would fall exactly on the curve. However, it's rare that any dot is exactly on the curve. Some dots are a little higher or lower, and some are a lot higher or lower. The dots that are a little lower are better than average car values, while the dots that are a lot lower are excellent car values (A dot that is a lot lower than the curve has ownership costs much lower than expected for a car of its purchase price). Conversely, a dot a little higher than the curve is a poorer than average car value, while a dot that is much higher than the curve is a poor car value.

Value is a relative term, not an absolute term. It is performing better than the logical expectation.

So is a Mercedes-Benz E320 expensive to own and operate? Certainly in an absolute sense. Most other cars cost less. But, when its cost to own and operate is plotted against cars with comparable invoice prices, the E320 costs less. So the E320 is not expensive to own and operate - it is a good car value. The Mercedes does not have low ownership costs, but it has low ownership costs for its invoice price.

Change Submodel

CHANGE VEHICLE

Article From European Car Magazine

2002 Jaguar X-Type 3.0 Part 3: Update

The chasm between good and great / By Sherri Collins / Article provided by: European Car Magazine

We're a rather spoiled lot here at european car Magazine. All the cars we drive/test/report on range from good to great cars, with great ones being among the majority. Alas, our long-term X-Type belongs at the other end of the spectrum; it is a good car, but at just over $43k as optioned, it doesn't come close to greatness.

Engineering editor Dan Barnes has already detailed out the baby Jag's failings (see european car 09/02), And while I'd love to be able to offer an equally compelling counterpoint to his rantings, I can't. The X-Type does have its good points, but, unfortunately, it doesn't have enough of them. The real problem is the price. For every positive attribute there is an equal and opposite one that begins with, "Yes but, for that price it really should be better."

The driver's seat is comfortable to sit in, the leather is of the expected high quality (although its cream color means it gets dirty very quickly), yet adjustability is an issue. Barnes thought the car must have been designed with women in mind, since he couldn't lower the seat enough to get adequate headroom. Well, I can't lower it enough either, and I'm only 5 ft 7 in. In addition, the side bolsters are angled out too widely, causing my right arm to bump against them every time I pull the shifter back. If the seats were designed for women, Jaguar must have been using short and wide models as the norm.

The Alpine stereo system produces decent sounds, yet I can't figure out why any new car, let alone one with a base price of $36k, has a cassette deck but no CD player. You can get a six-disc trunk-mounted player as an option, but that's an additional $1,200. Audi, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo have realized that an in-dash CD changer is the way to go; Jaguar needs to do the same. The central touch-screen display, which controls the audio, climate and navigation systems, is relatively easy to use and read, but, as with other all-in-one display systems, you can only view/operate one system at a time. I find it highly annoying to have to repeatedly exit and enter the different systems in order to change a radio station, adjust the vent controls, view the navigation map, etc. Layering is best used for cakes and cold-weather apparel.

The 3.0-liter V6's loudness doesn't equal its output (a commonly heard lament when Jaguar first abandoned the inline for the V several years ago): 231 bhp and 209 lb-ft of torque are decent numbers, but with the X-Type weighing in at 3, 428 lb, power is slow to accumulate and doesn't really kick in until well past 5000 rpm. It cruises well at speed and a quick downshift ensures ample passing power, but short freeway onramps can cause the occasional loss of confidence. The five-speed manual shifter is adequate, not stellar, not bad, just adequate. The clutch, however, has to go. I've driven Kias with better pedal feel and more precise engagement points.

The X-Type's "Sport" designation means, among other things, that it has sport-tuned suspension and performance-sized (if not exactly actual performance) tires. The ContiTouringContacts are, as the name implies, better suited for touring than sport. This is an all-wheel-drive sedan, and, as such, should be quite the handler. Power turn-ins are a breeze, yet there is something about the overall handling that doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. Perhaps it's the car's tendency to jounce its way over bumps and rough spots, or the ever-present acceleration squat and brake dive, but I find myself taking sweepers less aggressively than I would in say an Audi quattro or the Volvo S60 AWD. The sedan does not live up to its four-to-the-floor potential.

From a design standpoint, the X-Type doesn't have enough styling cues to call its own. It so closely resembles the previous S-Type that many non-car buffs can't tell them apart. It's not a bad-looking sedan; it just doesn't have any flair. One colleague said it was a more boring-looking Taurus, another simply calls it "The Potato."

Worried that I was being too critical, I gave several of my girlfriends (who wouldn't know a 911 from a 240Z) a ride in the car. They thought it was nice (two of them did mistake it for either a Ford or a Lincoln: "What are you doing in an American car?"). They appreciated the interior appointments and liked the navigation unit, but when told the price, they balked. I've ferried them around in much pricier cars that they've liked very much, so it wasn't that the car cost $43k but that it didn't seem worth the price. And that's the clincher. For an entry-level sedan, the Jaguar X-Type doesn't live up to its nameplate or its pricetag. An updated X-Type should fix that.