 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Jaguar Cars / February 2005S-type ad following Super Bowl
Did other US viewers see the gorgeous S-type commercial during the Super Bowl post-game? Beautiful close ups of the car. As I recall, the last line of the voiceover was something like "Can you resist?" Ad was selling the car's beauty, not power - Maybe Ford has finally figured out why many people buy Jags. Best Jaguar ad I've seen in a while. Michael W. Chicago, IL, USA 2003 S-type 4.2 Maybe Ford has figured out that they can charge more for a Ford if it has a Jag badge? Now run along.. >Maybe Ford has figured out that they can charge more for a Ford if it >has a Jag badge? > >Now run along.. And don't forget to take your S Type Taurus! Seriously, though, take a ride in a real Jag and you'll trade that S Type in, pronto! Actually thats a Lincoln LS, The Taurus is the X-type. > Actually thats a Lincoln LS, The Taurus is the X-type. No, no, no, one more time, the S-Type is the LS, the X-Type is the Mondeo. And all the Kings Horses and all the King's men couldn't turn Ford horseshit into Jaguars...again. >> Actually thats a Lincoln LS, The Taurus is the X-type. > >No, no, no, one more time, the S-Type is the LS, the X-Type is the Mondeo. >And all the Kings Horses and all the King's men couldn't turn Ford horseshit >into Jaguars...again. The S-type shares a floor pan with the Lincoln, but was developed separately by Jaguar in the UK. They are not the same car, although I understand that the Lincoln benefitted from some of the Jaguar input. This is normal world industry practice. Manufacturers within all the big groups share floor pans and share development costs and parts bins. It isn't an issue anywhere else except with Americans in relation to Ford and Jaguar. It certainly isn't an issue in Europe, I can only assume it is some sort of snobbery thing. Similarly, the X-type is based on the Mondeo floor pan, but re-engineered by Jaguar. It is not simply a rebadged version of the same car. Both the S and X types are contributing to Jaguar selling more cars than ever in most of the world. Unfortunately, the current chronic weakness of the dollar makes it very difficult to sell these cars in the US to people who would rather drive SUVs anyway. Still, shouldn't be feeding the trolls, should I. David Betts (davidb@motorsport.org.uk) The Classic Car Gallery: http://www.ofoto.com/I.jsp?m=17830847103&n=398038677 David Betts davidb@motorsport.org.uk wroe: >Manufacturers within all the big groups share floor pans and >share development costs and parts bins. It isn't an issue anywhere >else except with Americans in relation to Ford and Jaguar. It's only a problem for *some* Americans, apparently. :) Michael W. Chicago, IL, USA 2003 S-type 4.2 >David Betts davidb@motorsport.org.uk wroe: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >It's only a problem for *some* Americans, apparently. :) Thanks, good point. I mustn't believe everything I read on usenet ;-)>. David Betts (davidb@motorsport.org.uk) The Classic Car Gallery: http://www.ofoto.com/I.jsp?m=17830847103&n=398038677 Munch munch...MORE!!! mmmmmmmm. Hey its all a matter of opinion. But hey if sales is what makes a Jag, then sell away. Snobbery? Hardly. I was pissed when Lincoln was absorbed into the parts bin in the late 60's just as I am pissed about Jaguar being absorbed. But then again... as a boy from a FORD family, maybe I am pissed for good reason. Still, it wont stop me from helping people fix their POS. Blake >can only assume it is some sort of snobbery thing. What owning a Ford and fooling everyone its a Jag? Yep you are right, it must be a snobbery thing! I wonder if this is how the Daimler owners felt when the company was bought out by Jaguar. What a step down for Daimler. The V-8 went into a Mark II then the 420 and XK6 got badged with the Daimler name to go after a better class of customers. It's the 60s all over again!! Webserve > >Maybe Ford has figured out that they can charge more for a Ford if it > >has a Jag badge? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Seriously, though, take a ride in a real Jag and you'll trade that S > Type in, pronto! > I wonder if this is how the Daimler owners felt when the company was bought > out by Jaguar. What a step down for Daimler. The V-8 went into a Mark II > then the 420 and XK6 got badged with the Daimler name to go after a better > class of customers. > > It's the 60s all over again!! So true. Look Gentlemen if you want the truth, I am punching guy's in the nose for a thread in this group; its dead. I think the newer S type is a definite improvement over the last one however I still know its true roots. Change is the way of the world, and unfortunatly for me, my POS XJ40 (That I love very much) is most likely my last modern Jag. I want E-type, 420, Mark II, Mark I, and yes, even my evil 79 XJ6 back. Hey webserve, dont you have a buddy selling an XKE? My appologies for using certain posters for punching bags, however it did create more traffic than before. I guess when tradition dies so does a part of me. Sincerely, DieInterim (Blake) Yes, my mechanic is selling his e-type. I believe it is a '70 or a '74. 49,500 original miles Dark blue with a black leather interior. The paint is not original. The original owner could not get a blue one so she bought a eggshell (or what ever that awful color green is) Green Coupe with a Black interior. Immediately had the whole thing stripped down and painted blue. The paint job fooled me. I couldn't find original color anywhere and the car is not blistering or rusting. 3.8 litre with a manual choke. Lovely car. Wants $18 for it I believe. > > I wonder if this is how the Daimler owners felt when the company was > bought [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Sincerely, > DieInterim (Blake) >> I wonder if this is how the Daimler owners felt when the company was > bought [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Sincerely, > DieInterim (Blake) Loved the banter! Tio me there's a simple pass/fail test fro the "new" Ford/Jaguars: in 40 years will people drool over them like they do old XKs, Mark IIs, E-Types, etc.? (Most likely they'll simply wonder why a Ford rental car got into the museum!) The concept of a car being judged by it's museum quality fails immediately when one thinks that the only two motorcars in the Metropolitan Museum of Art are the XKE and the VW !!!. Both are cult cars for the most part -- but things of artistic beauty?? With SO many other Marquees and motorcars to pick from over the years!! A lot of what is behind your question of the 40 year test is as much esthetics as it is realistic. If Ford had not purchased Jaguar, would there have even BEEN a Marquee 40 years from now?? Jaguar was in dire straights when Ford took over and it is still having serious problems. But they are on the way up if the new advanced lightweight is any indication. As it is now, parts are harder and harder to find for the older Jags. The consolidation going on to streamline the parts line does not always work. Parts from an XJ6 do not always work on a XKE (although sometimes they do!!) As for the current S-Type. I am glad they made it!! I love the looks on S-Type owners when they come out and see my original 1967 S-Type parked next to their newer version. A total lack of the knowledge of the history of the line. I even had one guy accuse me of stealing the S-Type nameplate to put on my old car -- which to him was NOT a Jaguar despite the leaper and the oval grill. A new generation is born!! Webserve > >> I wonder if this is how the Daimler owners felt when the company was > > bought [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Mark IIs, E-Types, etc.? (Most likely they'll simply wonder why a Ford > rental car got into the museum!) >The concept of a car being judged by it's museum quality fails immediately >when one thinks that the only two motorcars in the Metropolitan Museum of >Art are the XKE and the VW !!!. Both are cult cars for the most part -- >but things of artistic beauty?? With SO many other Marquees and motorcars >to pick from over the years!! I'm not sure that MOMA qualifies as a suitable bellwether, it is more a reflection of Pop-Art than of automotive beauty. Perhaps we should ask if Jay Leno would buy one in 40 years? >A lot of what is behind your question of the 40 year test is as much >esthetics as it is realistic. If Ford had not purchased Jaguar, would there >have even BEEN a Marquee 40 years from now?? Jaguar was in dire straights >when Ford took over and it is still having serious problems. But they are >on the way up if the new advanced lightweight is any indication. A comparison of the results of Jaguar under Ford and other car companies taken over by German car companies (you know who I mean) lead me to the conclusion that the bean counters at Ford have no interest in cars, they treat their products as soulless appliances that *only* exist to maximise profits. If Ford don't sell Jaguar, will there be a Jaguar marque 40 years from now? Finally, I must remark on your ongoing use of my least favourite spilling misstayk: Marquee : 1. Large and often sumptuous tent 2. Permanent canopy over an entrance of a hotel etc. Marque : 1. A name given to a product or service Unless you're referring to a convertible 420G with a canvas roof, please use 'Marque'  SignatureAlan Brand "Grace", 1967 Jaguar 420 Toronto, ON Canada Points taken!! I will try to get my fingers to behave on the "e" key *S* Although a convertible 420G does sound like a great idea!! Webserve > >The concept of a car being judged by it's museum quality fails immediately > >when one thinks that the only two motorcars in the Metropolitan Museum of [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > "Grace", 1967 Jaguar 420 > Toronto, ON Canada >Points taken!! > >I will try to get my fingers to behave on the "e" key *S* >Although a convertible 420G does sound like a great idea!! >Webserve It does, in fact I'm sure I read about one a couple of years ago but can't pinpoint the source at the moment. There is a picture of one at http://www.big-jags.de/jagseng/jaguar_modifications.html Cheers, Alan (off the soap-box!) > It does, in fact I'm sure I read about one a couple of years ago but > can't pinpoint the source at the moment. There is a picture of one at > http://www.big-jags.de/jagseng/jaguar_modifications.html > > Cheers, Alan (off the soap-box!) Hey, that doesn't look half bad! The 420G/Mark X is not my favourite model although they always look so impressive I wouldn't be embarrassed by having one. We have a pristine Golden Sand 420G in town that turns a darn sight more heads than any contemporary Jag ever would (or my Mark 2, for that matter). On the Ford -Jaguar issue, my personal take is that to me the only real Jaguar has an XK engine in it i.e before BL or Ford blanded them out. This is not a criticism of the quality etc. of modern Jaguars. It is just a perception thing - like the only real James Bond was Sean Connery not bland Roger or the Irish bloke (and who remembers George Lazenby?). Graham George Who? By The Way, Allen. I finally figured out why I was spelling marque the way I was. I have automatic spell check on my outgoing e-mails and every time spell check was done it told me that marque is not a word and that the proper spelling is marquee. And we ALL know that Bill Gates knows what he is talking about!! I will have to believe that -- at least until I make as much money in my lifetime as he makes a year. Webserve > >The concept of a car being judged by it's museum quality fails immediately > >when one thinks that the only two motorcars in the Metropolitan Museum of [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > "Grace", 1967 Jaguar 420 > Toronto, ON Canada >By The Way, Allen. Obviously, you're not addressing me, but I'll answer anyway [insert upbeat emoticon] > I finally figured out why I was spelling marque the way I was. I have >automatic spell check on my outgoing e-mails and every time spell check was >done it told me that marque is not a word and that the proper spelling is >marquee. The spill chucker is only telling you that the word you are typing is not in its limited lexicon and substituting the nearest one it has, regardless of context. Change to a better spill chucker, they are often part of a better email and/or newsgroup software solution. > And we ALL know that Bill Gates knows what he is talking about!! I will >have to believe that -- at least until I make as much money in my lifetime >as he makes a year. Bill Gates is the best snake oil salesman of our time and nothing more. Many excellent software products have fallen by the wayside in the face of M$ smoke and mirrors marketing. Fortunately, many still thrive, albeit in relative obscurity. SignatureAlan, leaping onto another soapbox Very simply, Web, I doubt seriously anyone even 10 years from now will look upon the current S-Type with the reverence we all have for old Porsches, MBs, BMWs or, to the point, classic Jaguars. Let's not even think about the Mondeo/X-Type. These products are heading for the ash heap of automobiledom and will be viewed as "Faux-Jaguars", because that's what they are. No one disputes Ford saved Jaguar from itself 15 years ago, however, there's no doubt they're in process of destroying a marque they simply wanted to keep away from GM. Here's hoping wise heads at Ford prevail and either fund it properly or sell it off and get back to what Ford does best: Build trucks! > The concept of a car being judged by it's museum quality fails immediately > when one thinks that the only two motorcars in the Metropolitan Museum of [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] >> Mark IIs, E-Types, etc.? (Most likely they'll simply wonder why a Ford >> rental car got into the museum!) I actually agree with you regarding the current line of Jags -- with the possible exception of the XJR. But I really don't have a problem with that!! Jaguar was in a mess and Ford gave them the ability to exist. Slooooowly, Ford has started to bring them back into the world of competitive auto making. I have heard nothing but good things about the diesels they produce now and even though I am not a fan of the estate wagon, I realize that modern needs call for a modern response. If you can't beat them -- join them syndrome. One of the things I DO like is the fact that the quality -- which Jag has NEVER been known for has started to become one of the shining areas at Jaguar. My local paper yesterday had a BIG, full page article about how badly the Mercedes is being made now. Their conclusion, between parts falling off the Mercedes and the wind whistling through nearly every Mercedes convertible made is that Mercedes in no longer the premier marque that it once was. According to rankings now, Mercedes list as number 5 in customer satisfaction behind Toyota, BMW, Honda and yes, Jaguar!!! I, for one believe Jaguar is on the right track. Their new Advanced Lightweight, if it goes into production WILL be a car that 40 years from now, my kids (who love Jags) WILL drool over as "Those were the days!!" Especially with the hybrids coming on so strong in the marketplace. In fact, my High School senior son who drives an XJ40 to school every day -- is already in love with the new Advance Lightweight. That is a good sign for Jaguar for the future. Let's just hope the Lightweight does not fall tot he same fate as the F1 Webserve > Very simply, Web, I doubt seriously anyone even 10 years from now will look > upon the current S-Type with the reverence we all have for old Porsches, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > when one thinks that the only two motorcars in the Metropolitan Museum of > > Art are the XKE and the VW !!!. Both are cult cars for the most art -- > > but things of artistic beauty?? With SO many other Marquees and motorcars > > to pick from over the years!! [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > >> Mark IIs, E-Types, etc.? (Most likely they'll simply wonder why a Ford > >> rental car got into the museum!) > I actually agree with you regarding the current line of Jags -- with > the [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Webserve Ford have owned Jaguar for 16 years now, more than time enough to judge their performance. The public is voting with their wallets, and Jaguar's in deep trouble in the marketplace. Jaguar's quality soared in the mid-90's, in the States they nearly knocked off Lexus in '98. However, it quickly tanked again thanks to the S & X-Type fiascos. But, the issue at hand is the design of the cars themselves, which the public knows aren't true Jaguars. Ford had an opportunity to introduce something really new & excxiting into the marketplace, instead they tried to fool everyone and it backfired. The Advanced Lightweight shows promise, but it will take a lot more than that. PAG President Mark Fields stated publicly Jaguar won't regain share or return to profitrability before '09. At that point Ford will have owned them for 20 years! Fords ownership may have been a short-term fix, but long term it's been a flop. I seriously doubt they'll even make '09, now they've appointed an American bean-counter, Bibi Boerio, to be Managing Director. She's a Ford finance moonie who doesn't know a proper Jaguar from a box of soap. At a time when they need a solid veteran car person at the helm, this is who they get? Kinda says it all AFAIK. Your right -- time to call John Delorean!! Webserve > > I actually agree with you regarding the current line of Jags -- with > > the [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > soap. At a time when they need a solid veteran car person at the helm, this > is who they get? Kinda says it all AFAIK. > Your right -- time to call John Delorean!! > > Webserve Or, perhaps they could bring back one of the real Jaguar people who've been frittered off to meaningless obscurity within Ford, like Roger Putnam. (BTW, DeLorean actually does own an XJ6.) >> > I actually agree with you regarding the current line of Jags -- with >> > the [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > this >> is who they get? Kinda says it all AFAIK. 10 years from now, the current crop of MBs, BMWs and Porsches will be nothing more than 10 year old pre-owned cars. Also destined for the ash heap. Just like my 2003 S-Type R. I didnt buy it to put in a museum or to keep in the garage. I bought it to drive back and fourth to work, run my kids around and go shopping on the weekends. I put 20k miles on it in the first year and havent had a single complaint. And there isnt another car out there that can run with it, with 5 comfortable adults for what I paid. To me, it is just a car. If I want something truely enjoyable to drive, I peel back the cover on my Austin Healey 3000 MkI. Oh well, no one gets it anyway. >Very simply, Web, I doubt seriously anyone even 10 years from now will look >upon the current S-Type with the reverence we all have for old Porsches, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >away from GM. Here's hoping wise heads at Ford prevail and either fund it >properly or sell it off and get back to what Ford does best: Build trucks! > 10 years from now, the current crop of MBs, BMWs and Porsches will be > nothing more than 10 year old pre-owned cars. Also destined for the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Oh well, no one gets it anyway.< No, actuially they do get it, which is why Jaguar is in the crapper. Having driven an S-Type R, I understand why you love it. However, it isn;t a true Jaguar, which is why it doesn't sell, and isn;t worth anything. I may not be fair, but it's the way it is. >>Very simply, Web, I doubt seriously anyone even 10 years from now will >>look [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>away from GM. Here's hoping wise heads at Ford prevail and either fund it >>properly or sell it off and get back to what Ford does best: Build trucks! >> 10 years from now, the current crop of MBs, BMWs and Porsches will be >> nothing more than 10 year old pre-owned cars. Also destined for the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Jaguar, which is why it doesn't sell, and isn;t worth anything. I may not be >fair, but it's the way it is. Someone please explain something to me, because I am ver y curious about this. What makes a "True Jaguar"? Does it have to leak oil? Does it have to not start when its been parked in the rain? Does the shift gate have to break 11 times in 7 years? Does it just have to flat bedded back to the dealer frequently? Does it have to have the gas tank replaced 3 times in 7 years? Does the paint have to go totally dull in 3 years? Does the chrome have to peel off the grill? Does the leather seats have to split seams within 35,000 miles? Does the turn signal knob have to disintegrate? Does the cigarette lighter have to work only occaisionally? I have owned several different Jaguars over the last 25 years, some bought brand new, some not. I have always loved the performance, style and panache of the marque, even in spite of their notorious reliability issues. I can honestly say that my current Jaguar, a 2003 S-Type R is a great car. Is it, in any way, similar to any of the older ones I've had? No way. Is it better? Hell Yeah. Will it be a classic in 2043? Who knows, who cares. Modern cars are just not built to be classics. An S-Type R is nothing like a vintage S-Type. Just like a modern Porsche 911 is nothing like a vintage 911. The current crop of Jaguar cars dont sell for a lot of reasons. I dont think its because they are not "true jaguars". Jaguar set sales records in every year from 1999 - 2003. These sales were largely driven by the S-Type and X-Type, a couple of untrue Jaguars. Jaguar Cars are better now than they ever were. Sure they arent the lightweight, great handling, sexy cars fitted with mechanical jewels for engines anymore, but. Wait, I'm not sure I even agree with that. Have you driven a new XJR lately? Ford has saved Jaguar from the ruins. They are spending enormous amounts of money developing some very interesting new products. Go drive the new Aston Martin DB9 and tell me thats not a great car. Could something equally great be in Jaguar's future? Probably. But, since it wont be a "True Jaguar" then f.ck it! Just another POS ford. I really do wish someone would take some time and write a sensible post, without any personal attacks, explaining to me what a "True Jaguar" is. Because, I just dont get it, I guess. Please, I'm being totally serious here. Thanks for listening. T Whew!! I don't know about you, but I feel better after reading your post.!!! What a true Jaguar is --- is a matter of opinion. Back in 1973, when I bought my first Jaguar, a 1962 Mark II 3.8 liter Saloon, I was CONTINUALLY being told by the XKE people that my Mark II was not a true Jaguar. Now the Mark II is regarded as the flagship of the saloons. In the late 60s Jaguar bought out Daimler. The Daimler people felt the same way towards Jag as the Jag people now feel about Ford. So is a Daimler 420 a true Jag? It is nearly identical to the Jag 420. Do we consider only Jags with race proven XK engines? Or is it only the V-12? What about that period of time with British Leyland owned Jag? Do we consider those cars to be true Jags?? Personally, I think they are all Jags. Currently, I own 3 Jags. 2 from the 60s and one from the late 80s. All three are fantastic cars. They are all far superior in some ways and far inferior in some ways to my best friend's 2001 XJR. I will be continually impressed by the speed and handling of his XJR. The XJR has NOTHING over the ride and sound of that XK engine when I press the 1967 420. But they are all Jags. What is happening is that, like most people, Jag owners can't handle change. I for one embrace it. I think the Ford take over saved Jaguar and I think the new Lightweight is a step into the future. It is all the fun of what makes up Jaguar. Even these lists. Cheers Webserve >>> 10 years from now, the current crop of MBs, BMWs and Porsches will be >>> nothing more than 10 year old pre-owned cars. Also destined for the [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Thanks for listening. A "true Jaguar" sits on a dedicated platform, not one developed as a mass-market product. A "real Jaguar" has more, not less, leather than a Ford Explorer SUV, and it DOES NOT utilize a Ford engine & transmission. A "real Jaguar" does not have a cheap interior ladden with cheap Ford switchgear, cheap gauges, cheap headliners & cheap leather befitting a Ford pickup. "Real Jaguars" aren't built in Ford plants, kept alive as Socialist work programs with Jaguar executives ordered to "make it work". I can go on with this, but you get the point. I get so confused trying to figure things out on this list!! So a True Jaguar should not have appeal to the masses and survivability of platform? My 1967 S-Type is not a Jaguar because it came from the factory with NO leather ANYWHERE!! My top of the line Jaguar 420 and Mark II are not Jaguars because like most other Jags the only leather in the entire car is the eat fronts!! Same for my 1989 XJ40. Obviously the 1968 XKE is not a true Jaguar because they switched the switches and gauges from toggle to cheap rocker in 1968 to meet US safety standards. The point is you have NO idea what a Jaguar is to say things like this!! Webserve > A "true Jaguar" sits on a dedicated platform, not one developed as a > mass-market product. A "real Jaguar" has more, not less, leather than a Ford [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > programs with Jaguar executives ordered to "make it work". I can go on with > this, but you get the point. Jaguar is dead. Has been for a long time. Jaguars are free spirited hunter/killers. They are lean and have little fat. They are known for their explosive speed and tenacious grip. Jaguars are unique. Other cats can be confused with the Jag, but when it comes to getting their prey the real Jags stand out. What the debate here is - the death of individuality and the prolonging of the Leyland buisness plan. Leyland took Jag off course, and Ford continues this move. If we did not bitch the new Jagd would still have the small FORD explorer seats, not picnic tables, or even wood for that matter. Jaguar did not choose the V8 because it superior to a well designed six, its because its cheaper to make. Now the price has not dropped to match the cheapening of the products, but the brand loyal customers are dwindling. My neighbor loves my XJ40, and it is pristine, lowered, and hotter than most. He loved mine so much he went to buy one. He didnt you know why? He said it looks and feels like a FORD. Theres the problem...people see a FORD and not a Jag. Sure newer Jags are nice and have shinny paint, put the allure of Jag has benn greatly diminshed. I guess it is a snobbery thing, some people dont want to own a FORD, they want a Jaguar. If you dont know the difference then you never did. Blake Blake, Without a doubt I don't understand!! I have never said otherwise. I never thought of a Mark IX or a Mark X as "lean and have very little fat" I have never considered a Mark I with a 2.4 litre engine as being known for "explosive speed and tenacious grip" They could barely get out of their own way!!! The S-Type, Mark II, 240 and 340 from 1967 on had Ambla (vinyl) interiors EVERY Jaguar I know of had vinyl door panels. With the exception of the seat faces on your XJ40 -- It is also all vinyl -- including the console lid!! My friend's Black on Black 2001 XJR built under the Ford banner IS, however, EVERYTHING you state a Jaguar should be. It has the same size seats as both my 420 and my XJ40 -- just better designed and more comfortable. With 380+ horsepower -- it is the fastest Jag I have ever driven and I have owned Jags since 1973. So you took an XJ40 and lowered it. And you still consider it a Jag?? Does it have a rear spoiler and a little dog in the rear window with a head that bobs up and down with eyes that light up when you turn on the directional?? How to make a mockery of a fine motorcar!! Time changes all things. I no longer work on an 8086 computer and I don't like all the unnecessary memory ports I have to pay for on new machines, but that is the way the industry has shifted. I have had to adjust. Things change, times change - get over it!! Here is the thing about snobbery. (or in your case pseudo-snobbery) Two of my kids who can drive, both drive Jags. One of them drives the XJ40 to High School. His Beemer friends and Lexus friends are all envious of him and they all talk about the XJR as one of the hottest machines on the road. Whenever they go somewhere they make him drive because he has "The Jag-wahrr!!". Is this not the future?? Both of these kids know a LOT about Jags and the history of Jaguar. They can't stand other Jags owners because of the "airs" these people put on. And most of the airs come from people who are driving XJ40s that are probably worth all of $2500 on a good day!! The ultimate irony!! Some day you will have to teach me the true meaning of what a Jaguar is. I am still new at them having only owned Jags for the past 32 years and doing all my own repairs and restoration. I am still a novice and obviously have SO much to learn from an experienced low-rider XJ40 owner like yourself!! Webserve > Jaguar is dead. Has been for a long time. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Blake Webserve, or whatever your name is, Now hold on a moment. I never spoke of leather everything. I never said mine was a real Jaguar. I never said that the newer Jag could'nt be a good car. I spoke of what a Jaguar should be/was. It was not always fat assed luxury, but it wasnt always someone else design redesigned. Honda is making huge waves with performance add ons, Jags.....nothing. As far as making a mokery of my car feel free. It low, mean, and fast. It handles way better and has little body lean yet still rides like a dream. I drive a Leyland (OMG!) It far better than some poorly waxed Jag with some old pipe smoking fart inside it that bought it because "it was cheap". When I get out onto the highway I pull up next to these X and s types, j gate down to second, hit 75mph, shift into third and bam. 120. bam Fourth, tops out at 150mph. Yep such a mockery. I drove a new XJ8, it can only go 120mph. Yet I can get in my car and travel 20mph in silence all day and be happy. I got your spoiler, it was your cheap shot at me. If nobody complained about changes then there would be a Taco Bell on every corner. Just like the food wrappers you throw in your back seats of your cars. Thanks. DieInterim. Dont worry, from what you display/ed you are certainly untrainable. >Blake, > Without a doubt I don't understand!! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >With the exception of the seat faces on your XJ40 -- It is also all vinyl -- >including the console lid!! Spot on. Jaguar always had entry models with budget interiors. Where it lost its way was to become a 'one trick pony' with the various XJ series. Mind you, even they had entry-level models. Fact is, Jaguars were never really up-market. They were always a bit flash and a bit on the cheap side. The bank manager drove a Rover; the bookmaker drove a Jaguar. My grandmother wouldn't have been seen dead in one. Before the XK, Jaguar's didn't even make their own engines. They bought in crude side-valve units from Standard. In fact, the first SS cars were simply rebodied Standards. Tarted up for a bit of flash. You did, however, get a lot of car for your money. Not particularly sporting, either, but then most Jaguars weren't. >My friend's Black on Black 2001 XJR built under the Ford banner IS, however, >EVERYTHING you state a Jaguar should be. It has the same size seats as both >my 420 and my XJ40 -- just better designed and more comfortable. With 380+ >horsepower -- it is the fastest Jag I have ever driven and I have owned Jags >since 1973. Yep! And the latest XJ has a genuine right to be considered one of the best cars in the world. Mind you, why anyone should be unhappy that people who can't afford an XK or XJ should be able to buy an S or X-type I have never understood. Just plain, old-fashioned, mis-placed snobbishness is the only explanation which comes to mind. That and ignorance, of course. Still, we really should ignore the trolls, you know. They are, after all, only here to wind us up. David Betts (davidb@motorsport.org.uk) The Classic Car Gallery: http://www.ofoto.com/I.jsp?m=17830847103&n=398038677 You should really piss off as you do noting here but call people trolls. DieInterim >I get so confused trying to figure things out on this list!! > So a True Jaguar should not have appeal to the masses and survivability [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > The point is you have NO idea what a Jaguar is to say things like this!!> Well, Web, having lusted after and finally bought a '67 E-Type new when I was but a guitar pickin' lad (with my own earnings, I might add), then near on 20 years later becoming an exec with Jaguar Cars, Inc. in the States, then spending 11 years watching Ford throw the baby out with the bath water, I guess I don't know what the Hell I'm talking about, huh? I'll simply leave it up to the marketplace to be the judge, where Ford's Jaguars are considered something of a cruel joke and after 16 years of buggering the marque, Ford has alienated the customers, the dealers and ain't made one pence in profit. In the process of their wondrous "King Midas In Reverse" management wizardry, Ford have tanked the brands image in the eyes of the press and public, destroyed one of the most cohesive, dedicated workforces in the industry and turned a legion of devotees into absolute enemies. If that all adds up to success to you, let me know what you plan on investing in so I know to steer clear! > Webserve > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > with >> this, but you get the point. Actually, No I don't think you know what you are talking about. I think you fall under the expression " Can't see the forest for the trees!!" And actually, after going back and reading your past posts, I find it hard to believe that anyone who worked for Jaguar could be SO misinformed about the history of the line!! Even today you can buy XJ40s on Ebay-UK that have the standard cloth interiors, no sun roof and no A/C. And these were factory cars made BEFORE Ford took over. Maybe you washed cars at a Jag dealership somewhere!! Webserve > >I get so confused trying to figure things out on this list!! > > So a True Jaguar should not have appeal to the masses and survivability [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > with > >> this, but you get the point. I really wonder what made you snap, after all my post was not directed at you. <plonk> > Actually, > No I don't think you know what you are talking about. I think you fall [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Webserve Well, as a matter of fact, my first job in the car business was washing cars at the local Jaguar dealer while I was in high school. I got to know & love Mark X's, Mark IIs, XKs, E-Types, etc. with all their infuriating faults & warts. Many people who love Jaguar have a negative opinion of Ford's idiotic mis-management of Jaguar. If you want to go of whistling the Company tune in blissful ignorance while Jaguar is being destroyed, go ahead. Call us "trolls" if you will, you seem to have an inability to face facts. Jaguar has always enjoyed a more exclusive image in North America, the Middle East & other "ROW" markets than it has in the UK. Down-spec "executive" Jaguar XJs with cloth seats & 2.9/3.2 engines were never sold in North America as they would be virtually impossib;e to sell, much less at a profit, and they would harm the brands exclusive image. It's common knowledge they never made the Company any money in the UK market either. As for your other charges re: my background with Jaguar Cars, I will gladly wager any amount of money you'd care to put up. You have a 100% chance of losing, Mr. Wise Guy. I guess you and I just have a different perspective of what Jaguar is all about. Jaguar never was in the past nor is it now a top of the line auto manufacturer. As Sir William Lyons once put it, Jaguar is to be "the best of all worlds, offering grace, space and pace at a reasonable price". (This is from the Sir William Lyons biography). Jaguars of the past have been this. Since Ford has taken them over, Jaguar has continued to be this. We may differ in what the definition of grace, space and pace is exactly, but you will NEVER convince me that the XJR does not qualify under that banner. The reason for my reaction to your comments is that you have systematically put down every Jaguar made with the exception of the XKE. I retract my earlier comments to you. You were getting so disjointed that I thought you were bing ridiculous. Still, you continued to put down everything related to a marque I have driven since I was a college senior in 1973. And this coming from someone who purports to have spent a good part of his career working for Jaguar. If you are an example of pride in a job and a product, then I can see how Jaguar got to where it had to be bought out by Ford. Rarely have I "listened" to any one as bitter as you. I have grown to feel sorry for you. Have some pride in yourself. You may be looking back on your life with Jaguar and see a waste but I don't think you wasted your life!! Webserve > > Actually, > > No I don't think you know what you are talking about. I think you fall [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > wager any amount of money you'd care to put up. You have a 100% chance of > losing, Mr. Wise Guy. >I guess you and I just have a different perspective of what Jaguar is all > about. Jaguar never was in the past nor is it now a top of the line auto > manufacturer. < I take it you're saying Jaguar has always been, and will continue to be "inferior" to top brands like BMW, MB, Lexus? Hmmm, that's a surprise to me, since they were my direct competitors and I was tasked with beating them in customer service. (By '98 we'd topped all but Lexus and only missed them by 3 points out of 1000.) > As Sir William Lyons once put it, Jaguar is to be "the best of all > worlds, offering grace, space and pace at a reasonable price". (This > is from the Sir William Lyons biography).< Interesting how Sir William's philosophy always seems to be taken out & dusted off when Ford/Jaguar needs to rationalize their obvious product subterfuge. > Jaguars of the past have been this. Since Ford has taken them over, > Jaguar has continued to be this. We may differ in what the definition of > grace, > space and pace is exactly, but you will NEVER convince me that the XJR > does not qualify under that banner.< The XJR is one thing, the faux-Jaguar S & X-Types are something else. However, the content comromises made on the X350 by the Ford bean-counter thugs have clearly tarnished the vehicle. Read any long term press report on the XJ and every analyst points out these warts. > The reason for my reaction to your comments is that you have > systematically put down every Jaguar made with the exception of the XKE.< Absoulutely untrue. I have noted at times the obvious faults of pre-Ford Jaguars, some of which were inexcuseable, and the necessity that some larger organization take control of the outfit to make it address its endemic problems. I have also ststed numerous times my love for the marque and the dedicated, talented people that were the heart & soul of Jaguar. Most of them have been systematically driven from the Company, replaced by career-centric Ford moonie bean counters who wouldn't know a Jagaur from a box of soap. Thus came the S & X-Type fiascos, and the rest is history. > I retract my earlier comments to you. You were getting so disjointed that > I thought you were bing ridiculous. Still, you continued to put down > everything related to a marque I have driven since I was a college senior > in 1973. < Totally untrue, you're reaching for justification of blanket statements. > And this coming from someone who purports to have spent a good part of his > career working for Jaguar. If you are an example of pride in a job and a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > back on your life with Jaguar and see a waste but I don't think you wasted > your life!!< Thank you for your concern. > I take it you're saying Jaguar has always been, and will continue to be > "inferior" to top brands like BMW, MB, Lexus? Hmmm, that's a surprise to me, > since they were my direct competitors and I was tasked with beating them in > customer service. (By '98 we'd topped all but Lexus and only missed them by > 3 points out of 1000.) No, actually, I was referring to Bentley and Rolls-Royce (remember them?) Or do you think Jaguar is equal to or superior to those 2 marques? It seems Jaguar has reached their goal!! According to JD POWERS, Jaguar ranks number 2 in the top 5 for customer satisfaction again this year -- 4th year in a row. Mercedes is not even in the top 5 on the list any more!!!! Results came out yesterday from IntelliChoice, Inc regarding the Used car market. For the 4th year in a row, Jaguar was the number one Luxury certified used car marque!! It was followed by Cadillac, Volvo, Lexus, Audi. Mercedes and BMW did not make the top 5 again this year. http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4020743&src=msn So I guess we are all drinking the same kool-aid and can't see the "reality" that you see. >> I take it you're saying Jaguar has always been, and will continue to be >> "inferior" to top brands like BMW, MB, Lexus? Hmmm, that's a surprise to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No, actually, I was referring to Bentley and Rolls-Royce (remember them?) > Or do you think Jaguar is equal to or superior to those 2 marques?> Not the same market segment. By the way, both of them are now run by the Germans, who seem to have done a better job of rescuing them than Ford have done with Jaguar. > It seems Jaguar has reached their goal!! > > According to JD POWERS, Jaguar ranks number 2 in the top 5 for customer > satisfaction again this year -- 4th year in a row. Mercedes is not even > in the top 5 on the list any more!!!!> No they haven;'t, the goal is to be #1. We came in #2 in '98. They've since fallen as far as the bottom 1/3rd. Nice to see they've caught up to where we were 7 years ago. > Results came out yesterday from IntelliChoice, Inc regarding the Used car market. For the 4th year in a row, Jaguar was the number one Luxury certified used car marque!! It was followed by Cadillac, Volvo, Lexus, Audi. Mercedes and BMW did not make the top 5 again this year.> http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4020743&src=msn> This is a measure of the certified used car programs in the USA. FYI, Jaguar Cars, Inc. pioneered certified used car programs for luxury marques in the '80's and has won this award several times. It's an area where Jaguar must excel because the cars have horrendous residual values and the dealers left to their own devices will simply wholesale the cars, making the situation even worse. I'm surprised BMW & MB even show on the list. Because their used vehicles are in great demand, and command premium prices, they provide litle if any market support for their used cars. > So I guess we are all drinking the same kool-aid and can't see the > "reality" that you see.< The "reality" is a Company with a sales rate HALF its target and losing over $1b USD a year. If that's a sign of success to you, heaven help us all. You're grabbing at straws. There's an undeniable "Jaguar reality" that can't be ignored: Ford/Jaguar management is in propcess of flusing the one real asset they bought in 1989, the marque image, right down the crapper. Customers are staying away in droves and quality, deep pocket dealers, like the Penske organization and Shelton have given up and abandoned the brand. Want to know what the future holds for Jaguar? Just watch the dealers. After investing millions in new facilities, personnel, etc. to support a sales rate that's now obviously a decade or more away, if even that, Jaguar dealers are for sale at fire sale prices, and Jaguar retail sales operations are being moved into second & third tier facilities all over the Country. When the primary customers and investors in the marque, the dealers, throw in the towel it's time for those in fairly land to fact facts. >Maybe Ford has figured out that they can charge more for a Ford if it >has a Jag badge? I dunno. Perhaps you're mistaken or confused. Ford was not mentioned in the commercial. Michael W. Chicago, IL, USA 2003 S-type 4.2 No Perhaps you are in love with fake things, like your POS FORD. >No Perhaps you are in love with fake things, like your POS FORD. I'll take my S-Type R POS ford anyday over the blatant junk Jaguar was producing before ford brought some sanity to the QA department at Jaguar. I had a late 80s XJ6, may it rot in hell. Worst car I ever owed. I still cant believe how much I paid for it new. What a ripoff. I now have a 2003 S-Type R and its the greatest car I have ever owned. When the fake is better, I'll take the fake, thank you. T Alrighty then!
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.