My last car was a Z3, My wife drives an X5 so I am biased toward BMW but when I started looking for something AWD even an 05 5 series wagon with AWD was over double the cost of my X type. And butt ugly. I started looking for AWD, then on a google search realized that Jaguar made an X Type. I have seen a few around but never really noticed that it was AWD. I've a had a succession of British cars, my very first car was a 1962 MG Midget I got for 400.00. Then a bunch of TR7s and most recently a Discovery. So I am immune to the whole you bought a what conversation. Then when I started investigating the X Type I saw a picture of the Estate. That was it, love at first sight. And I'm not a station wagon kind of person. Other than in my teens buying a 62 Chev Impala wagon for 50.00 for the party wagon (painted sky blue with house paint and a roller before I added the yellow flames ) but there is something about the body lines of a Jaguar that add to the whole wagon affect. Not to mention that a day doesn't go by the someone comments on the car. Although now in the winter with the black steel rims I've noticed less and less comments.

 

Not true... The standard AWD is a North American thing.. In Europe, FWD is standard..The AWD decision was made because Jaguar needed to compete with the likes of BMW and Mercedes in this market and knew that others had tried with FWD and failed..Highlighted by your comment above..Still, the X goes down in history as the Only FWD, transverse mounted engine, transaxle powered Jag ever. It is also the only Jaguar to be wholly based on an existing car, the Mondeo. Yea, I know the S shared a platform with the Lincoln LS, but it was designed from the ground up as both cars and not adapted from an existing car...

Don't take it wrong.. I actually like the X very much.. Wanted a wagon, but needed more room for the kids...So, S it was.. XJ would have been better but way out of my price range....

 

Lot's of misinformation and half truths about the x type. Read this if you care...in a nutshell, there is little to indicate that the x type is any less a jaguar or was a product of blending jaguar with ford than the s type was.

http://aronline.co.uk/index.htm?x400storyf.htm

Here are some (relevant) highlights:

1. Ford was developing its CD132 platform to underpin the all-new-for-2000 Ford Mondeo amongst others and seemed the best candidate to form the basis of the new small Jaguar.
The Ford Mondeo, the lead recipient of the CD platform, had established itself as a class leader, and given the huge investment it would receive from FMC, its platform would be the ideal starting point for a Jaguar. To call the X400 small however would be somewhat unfair, and this would not be a simple re-bodied version of the Mondeo, although sadly this would be label applied to the X-Type later in life. In terms of prestige, this really shouldn’t have been an issue, the B5 Audi A4 had been co-developed with owner Volkswagen’s Passat and shared far more with each other than had X-Type and Mondeo. Strange then that, Mondeo was the class leader, not Passat, yet being Mondeo related was somehow seen as undesirable.

2. The X400 would, at launch, be solely four-wheel drive. The design brief imposed meant that the X400 had to feel like any other Jaguar. The only reasonable way to achieve this would be with a rear biased all-wheel-drive set up. The car would be powered by more-or-less the same V6 currently installed in the mid-size S-type and would go on to power future XJ’s and the XF. The design brief insisted the X400 should have the best steering of any AWD or FWD car ever created and should handle neutrally to give the perception of an extraordinarily stable RWD vehicle.

3. The platform itself was no simple carry-over, either, the 2000 Mondeo had no AWD system to accommodate, and although some panels such as front strut tops were identical, most bore no resemblance. Further more, the wheelbases of the two cars did not even match, nor did their lengths, widths or tracks. The 2000 Mondeo featured a wheelbase of 2754mm and the S-Type's, already in excess of a short wheel base X308 XJ, was barely 150mm longer at 2909mm. Given that in a transverse architecture, the front axle sits further rearward and closer to the front bulkhead than in a longitudinal one, this 150mm difference was mostly ahead of the passenger compartment.

4. Essentially, from the front bulkhead rearward, the X400 was little different to any equivalent RWD architecture. The advanced body would also become the stiffest in class, by 30% no less, making it not only safe, but the ideal platform for its suspension systems, a trait very important to deliver a fine handling and riding vehicle. It also helped to prevent the onset of squeaks and rattles, and 81% of the body shell was double sided, zinc coated steel and used higher strength steels in critical locations reducing additional weight to deliver strengths, and cheaper steels in low demand areas.
The X400’s class leading body characteristics were made possible by the greatest use of Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) in a Jaguar product to date, and also helped deliver the product in record time. The car used two complete subframe assemblies in the best Jaguar tradition providing excellent insulation and engineering purity, and the vehicle was built in the same way as any RWD car, with the entire chassis and powertrain subassemblies being offered up to the body in one piece. The front subframe was a neat, stiff and strong one piece component, something that even the RWD X200 did not offer at launch, although that car’s two part crossbeams would later be replaced with a complete subframe later in life

5. The AJ-V6 that would be used in the X400 was a development of the same unit in the X200. If the origins of the architectures were complicated, the engine itself made their lineage seem positively straightforward. The AJ-V6 was based on Ford’s Duratec 25 and 30 V6 engines, usually used in transverse applications. The origins of the engine however were outside of the Ford family. In the early Nineties, Porsche were developing a lightweight 60° all aluminium alloy V6, but as Porsche struggled in the pre-Boxter era and plans for front engine, rear drive designs were shelved (and would be until the 2009 Panamera saloon), the engineering was sold to Ford and Cosworth. How much of this design still exists today is debateable, but it would seem to be here that the Duratec V6’s story began.

 

delete...

 

Thanks for that good read. I didn't intend for my comments to be derogatory.. Just like the article states.. Many manufacturers share platforms in order spread engineering costs. The fact still remains that whether positive (in my case) or negative, the unique aspects of the X are still true.

BTW.. The one thing I did learn and confirmed with a quick visit to jag-lovers.org to view the sales literature, is that the FWD version did not appear at launch but came out in 2002 instead, but as previously stated, was not ever sold here in the US.

 

I also found that thread to be an interesting read. As I am a fairly new Jag owner and member, I am not real well versed in details about Jaguar. All I know is that I have never had a car that handles and rides this well. Expecially with 80,000 miles on it. At this point, my biggest curiousity is what I can expect out of the motor. Will it last 100, 200 or 300,000 miles.

I'm sure it can be replaced. Not a job that I would look forward to. Will do what I need to keep this car. Don't care if it has any Ford parts or not. I don't see hardly any sign of rust yet. Seems to be wearing well. Paint job is a little rough. Lots of pits in the hood. Interior needs a little work. Will have questions when I get to that. But, it still turns heads.

One other comment. Not so much on the car, but on this forum sight. I am amazed at how everyone contributes and how much information there seems to be. I think that speaks volumes about Jaguar and the owners of their cars.

 

As Jeremy Clarkson said on Top Gear, we are 99.8% genetically identical to mice, but it's the 0.2% that makes us different. It's the same way with the Mondeo and the X

 

I know this is an X-Type appriciation thread but I have to agree with your comment about this forum. I have been a member of a lot of forums but this is about the best forum that I have ever seen. It speaks well for both Jaguars and their owners.

Mark

 

Sorry for spouting mis-info. I did quite a bit of reading in the week b4 buying my Jag and I swear I read that Jaguar never had a FWD and didn't want the X to be the first. Anyway, the link posted by aluni2350 <http://aronline.co.uk/index.htm?x400storyf.htm>
appears to set the record straight.

A good read, thanks!

 

I would say with timely oil changes and using high-quality oil and other maintenance (preferably of the preventative nature) there is no reason for the Jag X-type engine to last beyond 200k. Wheel bearings, CV joints, and other wearables will come into play with this kind of mileage though.

The engine block is Ford (that was R&D'd by Porsche when they were coming out with the V6 Cayenne). Ford had bought the plans. Heads are Cosworth and intake FI, etc is Jaguar.

Heck, I had a 84' Porsche 944 with a 2.5L 4-cylinder that engine design dates back to the late 1960's that had 220k on it when I sold it with nothing other than a valve job done, and that was because of faulty timing belt broke on me and bent 7 out of my 8 valves. Other than engine was untouched.

 

Thanks for the info. I haven't seen much written on the life expectency of these engines. I think I read somewhere that the block is made up of 60% aluminum. Not sure what the alloy is really called. I'm not that knowledgable about aluminum blocks. I never really got a good impression over them, but I did have a 1988 Ford Ranger with 165,000 miles when I sold it. It had a 2.3L 4 cyl. which I think was aluminum. I believe this was actually a Mazda motor. It had 8 plugs, ran great and got great gas mileage. It seems funny that some motors seem indestructable and other don't hold up at all.

With what I have learned so far, I would say I need to worry more about the Transfer Case. Not too woried. I'll deal with it when it happens. I will change fluid a couple of times this summer. Car is just too nice to let little things make me get rid of it. Again, thank you for the info. Have a pleasant week.

 

Hey no problem! Whereabouts in WI are you?

The other materials may be nickel, tin, and silicon though not sure. These are common substances that are added to Aluminum alloys.

Yes, for sure change the T-case fluid. Search for some posts regarding this there has been a great deal of info exchanged on this topic and to aid in changing the T-case fluid.
Take care!

 

I haven't chimed in on this site in a long time, but I will for this thread. I was a very active member a while back, and I STILL have my xtype. I have over 100k miles on it, and have never been left stranded or had any mechanical breakdown of any kind. Regular oil changes and tuneups, nothing major. I had a check engine loght ONCE in almost 7 years of ownership (sensor replacement only) I have a 2.5 with a manual transmission. I also owned a 996 Porsche carrera 4, which is why I wasn't on these forums so much.

I still love my xtype and don't plan on replacing it with anything other than the new Jaguar entry level car in 2013! I just hope they have to give me my manual transmission.