30 minutes with a Jaguar XK
Recently we had the opportunity to spend some brief time in Jaguar's latest offering, the XK. The timing couldn't be more perfect as rumors are swirling about Ford possibly putting the luxury marque up for sale. All we can say is that if every Jag were more like the XK the British company would be in a lot better shape right now.
(Follow the jump to see how the final 29 minutes with a Jaguar XK went, along with more of our shots and some interesting shots from the Jaguar XK press kit)
The shape of the XK borders on automotive erotica and is even more pleasing to the eye in person. While some claim the ovular grille comes a little too close to the guppy mouth of the third generation Ford Taurus, we'd like to remind those folks it appeared on classic Jaguars first, including the E-type, which is considered by cars connoisseurs to have one of the most beautiful bodies of all time. Particularly appealing on the XK are the rear fenders that bulge out like a flexed thigh to cover the car's wide rear track. Yes, it all looks a little Aston, but it comes via the pen of Ian Callum who is responsible for much of Aston Martin's current design language. 
Regardless, the XK is instantly recognizable as a Jag. Despite that, we were surprised how many heads it didn't turn while tooling around downtown Cleveland. If the design can be faulted for anything, it's that the shape doesn't project the aura of exclusivity exuded by, say, a Porsche 911.
The XK's extensive use of aluminum throughout its chassis and monocoque body structure are clearly evident from the moment the car's Start button is pushed. The coupe weighs 3,516 lbs., which, while not as light as a Lotus Elise, is a good number for a sports car that has to coddle it occupants like a luxury car, as well. Thanks to the aluminum's inherent stiffness the platform feels rock solid yet tossable.
The car's 4.2-liter AJ-V8 now produces 300 hp and 310 ft-lbs. of torque, which felt ample though fell far short of awe inspiring. Apparently Jaguar's relying on the supercharged XKR version to provide the shock and awe treatment. We were overly impressed, however, by the Jag's 6-speed epicyclice automatic transmission with steering wheel mounted paddle shifters. Offering both a Drive and Sport mode with different degrees of shift speed, the manually operated electrohydraulic shifter was a gem and takes a seat behind Audi's DSG in our list of favorite slushboxes.
Inside the XK, however, is where our praise began to fade and we remembered how Jaguar came to be in its current precarious position. While the interior's design and ergonomics were fine, if not very good, the cabin's fit and finish left much to be desired for a premium sports coupe. Out tester had approximately 3,500 miles on the odo, though some cockpit materials were already noticeably worn. The steering wheel, for instance, looked dirty with grime embedded in the leather's shallow creases and the damped lid covering the center console's storage nook had clearly popped off sometime in the past.
Regardless of the foibles we found with the XK, it's immediately evident this car is in a class above Jaguar's current lineup. Perhaps only the range-topping XJ sedan can stand with the XK as deserving of the brand's badge, and we hope that a forthcoming redesigned S-Type will also raise the bar for this troubled brand. Until then, we'll enjoy occupying a spot on Jaguar's waiting list for reviewing the XK. We just hope that by the time one's available the brand isn't flying the flag of a different parent company.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
ruggels 1:14PM (8/05/2006)
my neighbor's got one and all i can say is it's even more of a dog of a design in person! (he's also got a previous gen). and ford wonders why jag is failing. where are their beautiful cars like that R-D6 concept. Here's an idea ford, why not build 80% of your concepts like Audi does, there's a reason they're the most profitable brand of VAG. I'm sorry but this new jag looks cheap and rushed, not at all stately or refined, not at all what you'd ask of a halo car for a failing brand. Maybe Ford will wise up and shift some of their Mazda engineers over to Jag to build fun attractive cars that people will buy, instead of relying on downward badge reengineering and stale lines.
Reply
gbh 1:27PM (8/05/2006)
I like the looks of the new Taurus coupe. The price does seem a bit high though.
In all honesty, the front and rear views are just so painfully boring - even worse in person than in the photos.
Bold moves indeed...
Reply
Seabass 1:28PM (8/05/2006)
How can this car be nice looking when it stole the front end off of a Ford Taurus? Ugliest Jaguar ever.
Reply
dave 1:34PM (8/05/2006)
if it had a japanese name on it, you'd love it.
Reply
bge 2:44PM (8/05/2006)
If anyone were to pay attention, they would realize how the jaguar look has evolved. One of the pictures above clearly shows it as well.. if you're lazy to look it up. Taurus? Give me a break.
Reply
Dubbedinenglish 2:45PM (8/05/2006)
3. You do realize that there was something caled the E-type? Also look at pic #6 from the bottom.
Why autoblog did get the most boring interior of all the wonderful selections?
This
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0603fs_08z+2007_jaguar_xk+interior.jpg
or this
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0603fs_06z+2007_jaguar_xk+interior.jpg
is much better.
Having driven one of these cars I must say it is astonishing to have in your hands. It feels much more responsive than a 6 series does! No wonder MT rated this car five stars.
Reply
Steve 3:13PM (8/05/2006)
Why would I choose this car over a 6 series or 911? Both of which are cheaper and perform better.
Reply
Seabass 3:30PM (8/05/2006)
#4:
So what if it had a Japanese name? It could be built by the French for all it's worth. It still looks like a friggin' Taurus.
Oh and guess what? I own a '69 Series II E-Type. Don't lecture me on Jaguar's evolution. Ford has rammed the Jaguar name into the wall with it's "new" designs that inspire nothing. The true Jags were the ones with chromed v-12 engines that required fine tuning of it's three carburetors, not the ones these days that substitute "design and style" with "plastic".
Reply
Ryan 3:52PM (8/05/2006)
"3. How can this car be nice looking when it stole the front end off of a Ford Taurus? Ugliest Jaguar ever.
Posted at 1:28PM on Aug 5th 2006 by Seabass 0 stars"
-Ford Taurus???? Try almost a carbon copy of the Mitsubishi Eclipse in the front.
Reply
Ryan 3:53PM (8/05/2006)
Plus, if the FORD TAURUS looked anything like this, the Taurus would BE the best family car of all times on the coolness level.
Reply
UK-KID 4:38PM (8/05/2006)
The last Gen XK was undeniably Beautiful and still Better looking than the Replacement. My question is, Why did ford not retain the original designers and refrain from interfering with the people at JAG ?
Reply
dave 4:54PM (8/05/2006)
ford rammed it's name? yugo could have taken it over instead of ford and it still would have been far better than when jag was on its own. only thing they had going then was some of the best styling in the world. as for the quality, mgb's were better.
Reply
&& 5:11PM (8/05/2006)
Definitely not erection-inducing styling. It's like they took those wonderful concept pictures, then transformed them into a slighly sporty coupe suitable for old people.
Reply
Thad 5:17PM (8/05/2006)
Seabass,
"Oh and guess what? I own a '69 Series II E-Type. Don't lecture me on Jaguar's evolution. Ford has rammed the Jaguar name into the wall with it's "new" designs that inspire nothing. The true Jags were the ones with chromed v-12 engines that required fine tuning of it's three carburetors,"
So, by your own definition, your '69 E-Type isn't a true Jag. You might check under the hood, you've got a 4.2l straight six under there.
This car looks like an E-Type to me. Too bad the Taurus had that horrible guppy mouth grill; it's definitely the more recent memory for most folks. I think the problem is, the XK's grill is too high up on the front. Looks a little awkward compared with the C/D/E-Types, and even the XK-8, in the collage.
--Thad, who owns a '71 Series II FHC E-Type, and doesn't believe SeaBass does. :-P
Reply
Dubbedinenglish 5:41PM (8/05/2006)
Steve,
THe 6 series does outperform the Jag, however it lacks the "feel" the past BMWs are known for. The 650 moreover isolates the driver from driving, something the Jag delivers on a wonderfully pleasing level. The 911, for a price that matches the Jag, equips you with the 3.6. The 3.6 is does not match the Jags 4.2 V8 in means of responsiveness. For the drivers car the jag is the one.
Reply
auto 7:09PM (8/05/2006)
The Jaguar is keeping it real. The silver is slick!
Reply
Steve 7:18PM (8/05/2006)
#15, that 911 3.6L outperforms the Jag's v8 in a straight line and around the track so I don't know what you're talking about. It also gets better mileage.
Reply
Seabass 7:35PM (8/05/2006)
"--Thad, who owns a '71 Series II FHC E-Type, and doesn't believe SeaBass does. :-P"
Hey Thad;
http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/8426/img0006az8.jpg
Mine's the black one in the middle with the hood open. Where's yours?
Eat it asshole.
Reply
Seabass 7:39PM (8/05/2006)
--Thad, who owns a '71 Series II FHC E-Type, and doesn't believe SeaBass does. :-P
Hey Thad;
http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/8394/img0006bc7.jpg
Mine's the black one in the middle with the hood open. Where's yours, smartass?
Reply
Dubbedinenglish 7:39PM (8/05/2006)
The six series does the same but the Jag feels just that good to drive.
Anyway why would pay for an 80K 911 thats less of a diving experiance than the cheaper, more fun Cayman S.
Reply