'06XKR here. The only thing I like about the new ones is the paddle shifter...much better and faster than the "J" gate. While I'm on that subject, does anyone have any evidence as to whether or not constantly using the manual gear selector effects the longevity of the transmission?

 

The 97-06 XK is a Masterpiece.

 

I have always agreed the '98-2006 are instant classics, in the spirit of the E type. I gave my wife the choice and it was a no-brainer for her based on the interior alone. The new ones are racier with the aluminum panels and all, but the wood dash of ours made it a simple choice for her.

Upon reflection, all the true classics have one thing in common, curves. Old Ferrari's, Maserati's, Shelby Cobras, mid-year Corvettes, Jag E Types, and the '98-2006 Jags all have those curvaceous lines.

 

Sorry to not know this, but are the new ones a dual clutch or still a traditional torque converter automatic? If a torque converter, the paddle shifters are simply a trendier way to move the cable than a column or console shift lever, meaning the transmission will shift when it wants to, and be further buffered by the torque converter (as a true manual guy whose daily driver is a Corvette, I am trying to avoid saying it's just pretend!).

 

Both old and new style look smashing and unique compared to most other cars out there. However, when the 1996 style came out it was truly revolutionary. The 2007 style is more evolutionary. Our generation XK8/XKR still turns heads more than most other cars out there even today.

Doug

 

The second generation XKs are undoubtedly beautiful cars, but to me, and I believe many others, they just don't have that classic XK Jaguar look from the XKE that I always felt that the first generation captured so well That being said, I can certainly understand that they needed to update the looks of the model after so many years of the same basic styling.

 

When I was looking for my XK8, I saw a 2010 XKR in the showroom of the local Jag dealer. What impressed me the most was that for the modest price of $96K, they throw in driving instruction by real-live race drivers on real-live race tracks. Now that's classy. However, the 510 ponies and driving lessons notwithstanding, I'm still a fan of the pre-07 styling.

 

To quote and second-the-motion some of our member's posts... here is to share my side..

Can i disagree with you on this one? I have an '04 XKR & it drives almost the same as the '08 XKR that i have also test drove. They share almost the same type of CATS suspension, superchargers, limited 155mph topspeed...just different on the torque.

Maybe, but lets try to compare this in terms of average car target sales per year.. the first 3-4 years since the release of the 1997-2000 XKs may nowhere be near as the target sales in the newer models so we could understand that since human taste in artform do not lie, then maybe the 97-05 jag xk8/xkr is a much admireable car, making the previous model the number one selling sports GT in Jaguar company history.

I agree with you on this. Before i got my '04 XKR, i seriously tried to consider the newer model. I think the rear on the coupe of the '07 XK is just plain gorgeous...but the front....the front......the front...... i read on numerous forums that the nose looks just like a fish...like Nemo (Disney) while the previous model looks like a shark.

Notice how the headlights of the '07 XK are like sad droopy eyes.

Spot On! Cheers to the late chief/head designer Geoff Lawson (1944-1999) for a wonderful job! Even the XJ220 and the prototype XK180 which he designed are timeless piece of sculptures on wheels.

True - True!!! You almost forgot the Alfa Romeo 8C! It was stated at TopGear that Art + Car = Alfa Romeo 8C. The '97+ XKs are so aesthetically sculpted. Geoff LAwson said in an interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz1VUEFDnTc) that they sculpt the car, they dont just construct the car.

& that the new designer Ian Callum, designer of the '07 XKs was quick to blame US/UK car regulations that hindered his ability to design what he really wanted on the XK. (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-136839230.html) It meant he was dissatisfied with the end results..

Even the height of the '07 XK is a little higher than the '97 XK by 2.5 inches, longer by 1.2 inches and wider by 2.5 inches making the '97 model a much sleeker car.

Bottom line, to each his own. Call me old fashioned ( i love wood on cars though i get fascinated by the look of a carbonfibered dash) but the '97 XKs has that perfect symmetry look to it on almost any angle.

HAIL GEOFF LAWSON!!!!!

 

At the risk of deviating further from the original topic of the thread, what really grabs me about the first gen besides the overall brilliance of the design is the attention to detail that goes beyond that. For example, it is a subtle point but do any others notice/appreciate the seam lines that are created between the hood and front fenders and, to a lesser extent, the trunk and rear fenders? The shape of the hood curves inward from windshield towards front grill, thus the seam creates a nice curve that mirrors the overall curve of the fenders. Compare that with the new XK where the hood line is perfectly straight and situated over the top of the fender. It must have been more work and expense to create the lines in our generation and the detailing of the seams between these various body panels is one of the subtle but beautiful features of the first gen.

Doug

 

I love them both but for different reasons.The question that was asked is which is better and the answer is the 07-present.It like which is better a 65 XKE or a 2006 XKR,the XKR is better but the style of the XKE is the one I prefer.

 

I too love the classic lines of the earlier edition...and its not about the money. As a matter of fact the next Jag will be a 1969 Series 2 Coupe. For the money of a used newer Jag (probably less) I can have a re-built, made to daily drive, Jag that will be beautifull and very unique.

 

Great Observation Doug! I have never read or heard anyone speak about how the lines and the curves flow over the front hood. In fact, this is one of the reason why it was love at first sight for me. I just love looking at the front view with an angle of a couple of steps to the left or right..

 

They really carried the XKE styling into the 1997 design very sucessfully. It was the first thing I thought of when I first saw it. It was the nose cowl opening that really jumped out at me, coupled with the agressive stance of the rear wheels and quarter panels that sold me. But the thing that I appreciate more and more every year is the interior. The wood, the leather, the comfort of the seats. They just don't make them like that any more.

 

I think there is a vast majority of the "old" owners here - that could be a part of the poll result (so far :-)). Who buys a new car is rarely involved in discussion forums about cheaper options of repairs - who can afford a new Jag is probably able to pay what the dealer tells him... And a few "new" owners are real fans so they join the group.

I vote for the classic. I don´t need that extra power and the look of the "old" is timeless...

 

As a (structural) engineer, I tend to notice little details like this that other people may not. For example, the first time I bought a non-American car was when I bought a 1979 Toyota Supra. I was playing around with interior air vents for the heating/ac system and noticed that tiny rubber pads had been installed on the inside surface (that you don't see) strictly to address possible rattles.

The next best thing to the looks of the first gen XK8/R exterior is the interior. As much as I was sold on considering buying a used XK8/R based on the exterior looks, the first time I looked at the inside of one basically closed the deal. There was nothing else around that came close to the styling and quality of the interior, especially since I was looking at convertibles and, once inside, it was virtually impossible to realize that you were in a convertible and not a couple due to the quality of the finishes.

Doug

 

Had a 2000 XJR, never bought a XK8 due to conertible top stowage and ugly fenders/wheel-tire gap in rear. I love the XK, particularly the exhaust note.

 

I like both but prefer a Jaguar to look like a Jaguar not an Aston Martin.

 

I am fortunate to own one of each at least temporarily. No doubt my 99 is a beautiful looker I think it has a nicer interior if you notice as they get newer they start showing less wood trim and in my mind that is what makes the car. Overall the interior is much more elegant. Mechanically I think the 07 and newer 4.2 litre engine is more reliable especially when you consider that the earlier 4 litre engines have the cam chain tensioner issue which is very expensive to fix and if not fixed could blow the motor.

 

I think that about says it.
97-06 was love from first site. '07 on is damn sexy, but with a little more make-up on and tries too hard -- not quite the effortless natural beauty.

And the wood interior... part of the experience of a Jaguar is the gorgeous wood grain interior. I don't care if carbon fibre is the IT thing, sporty, or whatever. It sometimes pays to stick to what makes you you, even if that's not in style now.

 

Heres some pics of the 2012 XKR-S