I was thinking about buying a convertible and my requirements are
1- Safe (Anti-roll bars are a MUST)
2- Nice interior
3- seats 4 adults (No one is taller than 5'7")
4- Stylish

I figured the Jaguar XK will be perfect so I test drove a 2007 XK. Oh my lord the rear seats have NO leg room. Why? They are comfortable and nice but no leg room.....

Why does BMW 3 series convertible, Mercedes CLK, & Volvo C70 offer a lot more legroom?

Any other cars that I should consider from my fellow car enthusiasts? I am looking to spend under $25K

 

The XK series is a 2+2, it is not a four seater for adults. If you need a four seater look at a Benz, BMW or Volvo. they will seat four adults.

 

IMO, the Maserati Gran Turismo is the best looking GT that can comfortably seat 4 adults. It's what I was originally looking for before I picked up my XKR. Don't think you can find one for $25k yet though.

 

Those cars are intended for those with mistresses who have grown children, and will soon get on your payroll. The XK is decidedly a coupe, the rear seats are a place to hang your jacket (XK even makes the accessory) or the girlfriend's infant seat- when dropping it off to to daycare.

Have you noticed all the extra stuff folks carry around when they have a minivan or suv- this is the inverse of that.

 

I think the category is somewhat moot now. If I want to 'grand tour' with 4 folks, I want to do it in a Range Rover with 4 doors. I dont want to feel like a cab driver in my own sports coupe- thats the reason you bought it in the first place, to escape that drudgery.

Some have criticized Jaguar for having what little space they have back there, saying it takes away from true sports. But I find the space indispensable for jacket, overcoat, briefcase, or her purse. Other car owners like corvette, f-type have to get that stuff out of the trunk; sometimes while its raining.

 

I'm thinking there were additional benefits in having the back seat. Possibly for insurance purposes in having a GT 2+2 designation as opposed to a 2 seat "sports" car. We and I bet Jaguar recognize it's not a viable seat but they did it for some reason otherwise they could have just made a seat delete package for extra storage.

 

I'd heard it was to reduce import taxes, and reduce insurance costs.

 

The Vantage is pretty much an XKR, but they don't have any rear seats. They are also more expensive and slower than the XKR.
So, two small seats are better than an upholstered nothing. XKRs are not made to compete with Saloon cars.

 

This sums it up. An XJ is also a fine choice, but a Range Rover is hard to beat. Better turning radius than any Jag.

 

I don't feel the Vantage and XKR are comparable cars. DB9 and XKR are closer in size and utility.

 

If those cars strike your fancy then get them, all the hand-wringing over the XK backseat room doesn't change the facts. Seems to be a rhetorical question or an opportunity for you to sound out the fact that this car doesn't work for you.

These cars are not in the same class as the Jag. The XK will compare directly to the BMW 650 (similar back seat to XK) and the Mercedes SL500/550 (a little cubby bench that can hold some stuff).

If you are looking to regularly transport 4 adults this is not the right car for you! If you are OK with 2 in the front and 1 sprawled in the back maybe.

 

Jeremy Clarkson disagrees with you.

 

E class Mercedes does a great job of a real 4 passenger convertible. A lot of thought into making that model a real usable year round convertible with plenty of storage and seating. Nice chrome/stainless touches and engine options up your HP desire.

It's not a Jag though. If you fancy a Jag, you just do and little things become inconsequential in the decision.

 

When I see him in person we will discuss this. I think he is totally wrong.

 

Good point, so does the Audi A5/S5.

 

I am not here rambling... I just wanted to confirm what my short test drive proved... The back seats aren't useable for adults. I wanted to make sure fellow owners agree with me.

BTW, the interior is just world class. I love the leather trimmed dash and wooden steering wheel. It also drove phenomenal despite only being 4.2 NA V8.

I just thought in my mind that the XK was a cheaper version of Bentley Continental GT convertible. I genuinely believe if Jaguar aimed at that market; the XK will still be in production next to the F-type. The sad thing is that figuring out a way to squeeze 10-12" of leg room is easy. Heck, make the trunk (boot) smaller.

 

Gotcha, I read the post as informational, there is no leg room as you stated! If you are asking a question there is much debate in a previous thread you can read, you can also see the pictures of an entire normal sized family in an XK:

https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/x...rtible-180741/

 

You are exactly right; Jaguar was intending a 4 seater replacement for the XK. The problem is the roofline. Even Lord Ian Callum believes the Jaguar sports car is "fundamentally an egg shape and not a cube" no way to get that iconic rear shape without compromising the rear headroom- which is the real problem. They also had other manufacturing priorities, the XE, F-Pace and now electric.

 

It certainly isn't a family car but for 15 minutes or so you can fit two people in the back but just one fits more comfortably and means you don't have to compromise the driving position.

The secret seems to be to move the passenger seat all the way forward, insert adult on the back seat with feet in the foot well then move the passenger seat back until the rear passenger squeals. That should leave both front and rear seat passengers with 'sufficient' space.

 

If you have a convertible and it isn't raining the process is even easier. Open top, passenger steps into back fully upright and sits down. Then proceed with your foot crunching procedure.