When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
To me young means social media influencers and clout-chasing.
On interior trim - aluminum and carbon fiber, unlike wood, is harder to passably fake. That is, I like real wood panels in a car, but aside from maybe Bently or Rolls Royce nobody does them this way anymore. Some of my classic BMW and Mercedes have real wood interior trim parts, I have been in a modern BMWs and Mercedes and it is all fake plastic that made to look like wood (and you have to be an aging Boomer with going eyesight not to notice the fake mile away). At the upper range you have wood veneer in epoxy instead of an actual wood. I would rather have lesser, but non-fake finish than fake wood or IKEA-like veneer on everything.
Personally, I prefer aluminum because - a) it is unlikely to be fake plastic b) it is more durable than fake plastic finishes c) it is light.
I have been in a modern BMWs and Mercedes and it is all fake plastic that made to look like wood
Personally, I prefer aluminum because - a) it is unlikely to be fake plastic b) it is more durable than fake plastic finishes c) it is light.
I prefer the aluminum as well and would gladly swap with someone. Mine's currently wrapped in Dark brushed aluminum vinyl wrap that can be removed. If I ever see an ad from someone who wants to swap for my burl wood, I'll jump on it. Wood is so old fart, but this old fart doesn't like it and Jaguar goes nuts with it.
Regarding your comments about modern Mercedes wood being cheap plastic - not true. I recently had a dispute with MB US over some faded wood. They had a TSB regarding a series of cars (VINS) that had wood that wasn't treated with UV protection and caused fading. Since the car was CPO, I had to argue that it should never have been certified since wood condition was one of the checks. Can't speak to BMW though.
I've had three XKs, not counting my current 2010 XKR. I guess I'm in the camp of finding the lowest mileage car you can afford. I'd rather have a 2010 with 20,000 miles than a 2014 with 50,000.
I'm opposite that ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^.
Way I figure, if a car has low mileage it COULD be because it would never run right enough to be trusted on the road for more than a few miles. A goodly sum of miles but not outlandish would mean that it was a trusted vehicle that evidently hadn't let the owner stranded.
Plus, the 2012+ look newer.
I've had three XKs, not counting my current 2010 XKR. I guess I'm in the camp of finding the lowest mileage car you can afford. I'd rather have a 2010 with 20,000 miles than a 2014 with 50,000.
How about a 2010 XK with 10,800 miles? The main reason for the low miles, is I find that when I take the car out for a long drive every few months, it's like purchasing it for the first time. It's just so much fun! It also helped that it only had 4,500 miles when I purchased it 6 years ago. Still has the original tires, although the dealer replaced all the rotors under warranty and I changed out the OEM pads to ceramic. Car still smells new. No repairs either. Of course if you don't drive it, nothing breaks!
How about a 2010 XK with 10,800 miles? The main reason for the low miles, is I find that when I take the car out for a long drive every few months, it's like purchasing it for the first time. It's just so much fun! It also helped that it only had 4,500 miles when I purchased it 6 years ago. Still has the original tires, although the dealer replaced all the rotors under warranty and I changed out the OEM pads to ceramic. Car still smells new. No repairs either. Of course if you don't drive it, nothing breaks!
Well if you're giving it away Bocatrip, let me be the first to offer to take it off your hands and prove you right!
Can't miss something that the factory never made.
The wood steering wheel was available only in 2007 and never with Rich Oak veneer, which was unique to the 2009 XKR Portfolio.
I knew it was an optional accessory for 07, but it remains readily available for purchase in walnut and poplar for all models up to 2015.
Was the wood shift knob optional, or did the rich oak just not come with it?
You have wood on the doors near the window controls on a first gen! I so want!.... My 2010 has that in walnut, but the 07 XK is silver plastic. IIRC the 2nd gen will not fit the 1st gen door. Not sure where I saw that, but you have given me hope!
The 2008 and 2009 Portfolio models came from the factory with a unique design polished aluminum and leather shift knob, regardless of the interior trim - either Rich Oak veneer or Spun Aluminum.
I'm opposite that ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^.
Way I figure, if a car has low mileage it COULD be because it would never run right enough to be trusted on the road for more than a few miles. A goodly sum of miles but not outlandish would mean that it was a trusted vehicle that evidently hadn't let the owner stranded.
Plus, the 2012+ look newer.
Also, some parts deteriorate with age not mileage (eg bushes) so a low mileage car may still have upcoming issues. I don't think there is a hard and fast rule - condition is all that matters really, not the year or the mileage. Plus, for me, the absolutely critical factor is the service history. Not just stamps in the book, but invoices, documentation and so on.
Having gone through this decision process when considering what to buy ended up with me looking for the latest model which closely fit my budget. Mine was to go for a 2012 back in 2014 with low mileage. Now if I were looking in 2020 I would guess I would go for a 2015 with the lowest mileage I could find. Now if you have financial constraints it make the process harder as it will put you back into the 2010-2012 model's with 30-50K miles. That being the case then the service records start to play into the equation. Then again if you are a DIY'er you can look at some of the higher mileage cars. Whatever you do just buy one as it's an experience you'll cherish forever. Life is short.
Looks are way to subjective. I'm not a fan of the knob gear selector. I don't know why, I just don't like it on any car, not just the Jag. Enough so that I would steer clear of the newer models. Weird right?
Not weird at all, I keep waiting for someone to come up with a Hurst shifter stick on for these ridiculous rotary knobs. It would sell.
...............I keep waiting for someone to come up with a Hurst shifter stick on for these ridiculous rotary knobs. It would sell.
HEY!!!
Ya know, when I first got mine I thought it a bit weird. NOW, however, I feel like the ridiculous stick-type shifter is antiquated and pedestrian. You know, gauche and uncool.
Although the original 4.2 was right "out of the box" when introduced in 2006, the same was not true for the 5.0 litre. The original engine has proved less troublesome than the later one but that being said, we don't see many reports of serious issues on our forums.
More important than YEAR is the PO. Future reliability depends to a great extent on how well the vehicle has been maintained. Not just scheduled maintenance but keeping on top of the little things that go wrong. A Jaguar from a mechanically sympathetic and enthusiast owner is worth the search.
When I last changed, I specifically wanted the final model year to benefit from development and build specification. The one I have now is the eighth I looked at but maybe I'm too picky!
Graham
Thanks for the smile! Aren’t we all.
and a completely unbiased viewpoint: early model 2007, fully loaded. ;-)
:-). I enjoy driving mine so much I’ve done road trips to Maine for pleasure as well as Boston for Business. And I am constantly given compliments everywhere I go.
Originally Posted by barnsie
I don't know how typical I am, but I went for the 4.2 SC car, 2008 MY. I could have afforded to buy one of the earlier 5.0 SC cars (2010 on?) but I made my decision on the basis that the 4.2 engine had had years of development and so was maybe more reliable overall. I'd heard the word 'bulletproof' from more than one source. I have no idea if this is true or not but it was my thinking at the time. I accept that the 2008 4.2 XK-R is not as fast as the 2010 5,0 XK-R but it is plenty fast enough for me, so that didn't influence me too much. I do prefer the looks of the front end of the 5.0 models but I am happy enough with how mine looks in Lunar Gray with Ivory interior. If money was no object, I'd go for the very last model they made, hoping that by then, any problems had been ironed out in production. Not suggesting this as a course of action to anyone - just saying what my own thinking was, right or wrong.
IMO, the best year to buy is 2014-15 for the following reasons.
1. In 2014 the Dynamic R package came out which included a fully loaded XKR at an incredible price. It included dynamic pack, suede steering wheel, quilted performance seats, performance exhaust, black pack, speed pack, metal foot pedals, and vortex rims with over size Perrelli rubber. This package made the XKR equal to an XKR-S less the XKR-S body kit.
2. 2015 was the final year of this icon. A final fifty version is extremely rare.
3. You get a version of the car which has most of the bugs already dealt with and the latest options available.
4. Because I own one, lol.
