Guys,

Just wondering if any of you were also worried that the F-type might mean the beginning of the end for the XK. The main complaint I keep hearing from reviewers is the lack of space in the XK's back seat, that the design is aging and that Jag should just do away with it. Nooo I say. Those tiny back seats are what allowed me to convince my wife that we would be able to fit our 2 kids (5 and 7) and all go for a top-down Sunday drive. Which we did today for the first time, and they are now the coolest kids on the block, their words. It may be a niche but the only other 4 passenger convertibles that remotely compare performance wise, are way less sporty (E550 Vert, S5 Vert, etc), or way more expensive (911 vert, Maserati GranTurismo, Aston, etc).

The rarity of the XK on the road and its timeless style will surely ensure the car's desirability for years to come, even if they do halt production, however I would really hate to see Jag 2+2's disappear entirely...

If you agree, say it loud... Jaguar, Keep The XK Alive!

 

No, I don't think Jaguar is going to kill the XK, but they might make it more GT than it already is, something, perhaps, similar to the Bentley Continental. I hope they don't go that route though.

 

I prefer the xk than the F type myself in style. You see we compare the F to the xk saying there is 400 kg less but then we are saying the f type is heavy in the end...F type sounds more for the asian market to me. The xk is great now and it will be great as a 4 seaters like a panamera too. What ever they do, it will be fine.

 

The F-type will not kill or replace the XK because it's simply not practical enough. There's virtually no storage space, so no weekend trips, no golf clubs, none of the things the XK can do. I believe the XK will grow in both size with a larger more usable back seat and in luxury to compete more directly with Bentleys, and Maseratis, and Astons as well as the Mercedes and BMWs with which it is already competitive. The F-type will evolve into a world class sports car but its appeal will be limited to 2 seat sports car buyers, a very limited market. The XK's appeal will be to a broader, probably a little older buyer, who still wants performance but not at the cost of comfort or usability.

 

From what I've heard this will be the case. But what worries me is what will be the price of the new XK? Look at the huge price tag of the F-Type + Jag now charging a fortune for equipment that came standard on the XK.
The all new XK could be the same price of the Aston Martin DB9, a very silly move...I expect most current XK owners bought their cars as they where great value for money, especially compared to rivals like the DB9.

 

If the price is the same between an XK and an Aston Martin DB9 then Jag will lose, even with me. A lot of the DB9 is hand built which is [part of] why it has such a price tag...

If they stopped making the XKR I would go to the DB9...

The Bently Continental GT's rear seats aren't much more functional than the XK's. The seats themselves are bigger, but with the driver/passenger seat at a normal position there still is no room for your legs even in that car. Go take a look at one at a dealership..

.

 

From what I read, the next gen XK will grow in size and price. It really could use a larger back seat in the coupe version.

 

XK's should have NO back seat at all imho. Want a larger car..........go buy a van. The car is almost tooooo big as it exists. It needs to get smaller like a SL550.

 

I agree that the XK does not need to be any larger. The driver seating room is great for me at 6'1". The XK8 I had prior to this was very uncomfortable - no leg room or head room (thankfully the coupe which I had contained about another 1/2 inch over the convertible). The XK coupe has plenty of leg and headroom. It feels much wider and a little longer than the XK8 (I haven't compared specs). I don't want the XK any bigger at all even at the expense of the comfort of backseat passengers.

 

Spoken like a man without small children! (lol) Thank God I have those back seats or I guess I would have to go out and buy a van! (Shudders)

I like where the rest of you see the XK going in terms of a larger GT with back seat usability.

 

I like the current size. Shorter front overhang would be nice. It's impossible to gauge where the front of the nose is on the XK.

 

Err thats what the F-Type is?

Whats the point of having two cars the same in the Jaguar family? It makes sense for the XK to get slightly bigger now that the F-Type is here, the XK has always been a GT, the size helps it ride more comfortably and eat miles on a long journey...GT = Grand tourer

 

I don't think the F-Type will ever replace the XK. They are two slightly different animals for two different customer types.

The longer and larger XK is the Papa Bear; whereas the smaller F-Type is the Cub.

>> The XK is Jaguar's high-line GT car at the upper end of the luxury, performance, and cost spectrum. This car also competes directly with the higher end Aston Martin's, the Mercedes-Benz SL, Ferrari, etc..

>> The F-Type is Jaguar's sporty compact car at the middle to slightly higher end of the luxury and performance spectrum. This car competes directly with the likes of the Porsche Cayman, Porsche Boxster, Mercedes-Benz SLK, etc..

 

The F-type will have a bit of identity crisis. The Boxer/Cayman starts at 50K. The F starts nearly 40 percent higher. The V8 will sticker over 100K by the time you pay for some basic options. That is 911 Carrera S territory.

I hoped that the F-type would come in at a starting price to compete with the Boxer/Cayman. That is not going to happen so, it better compete with the 911.

Albert

 

iMotorTimes - Jaguar F-Type Vs. Porsche 911: Which Is The Ultimate Everyday Supercar? - iMotor Times

It does compete with a 911. I envision the XK becoming more like a CL Mercedes and become more of a GT car than it is...look for prices to start at 90k and go from there.

 

With a more catty reference, the XK is King Mufasa, and the F-Type is Simba. King Mufasa is killed and Simba eventually becomes king....

 

I found it interesting that one comparo between the 911 and the F-Type decided that for the money, the F-Type would be the better car to live with for the money and would be the author's choice.

That does little to cement F-Type's reputation as a true sports car. In fact, "better to live with" is exactly the opposite of the spirit of a true sports car. That's how I'd justify buying a GT!

 

I remember critics lambasting the Honda S2000 because it had no mid-rpm power and one had to drive it about 4000 RPM to get anything out of it... That was the whole point and what made the car cool; driving around 7000 RPM like a 4 wheel Ninja.

It's going to take some time before the critics "get it" with the F Type. Some will right away, others are out to make statements for better or worse.

 

I think critics said the same thing about the Mazda RX-8 (ok, the engine had additional problems like flooding and oil consumption), which to me was one of the most fun to drive cars under $30k new.

 

That is exactly right. People like to scan the spec sheets of uncompromising sports machines but, when it comes to putting their monies out, they tend to default to more "livable" models.

Example; 1993 twin turbo RX-7. When it hit the market, auto journalists were praising its "true sports car" nature to high heavens. It was beautiful and, in stock form it blew away all other high priced sports cars, Porsches, Ferraris, Vettes, all. Yet, very few ever sold. Why? It had cramped quarters, no cup holders, hell, I could not even find a storage nook for my tiny garage door opener. The ride was again uncompromisingly too stiff for the public. I have had 2 of them, one (highly modified) still in my garage and still nothing on the roads that can touch it.

Albert