Jaguar XJ Facelift

[Ferrer]

Welcome everyone to the new Hyundai XJ.

Judge yourself...

[Rockefella]

Disgusting.. absolutely terrible. It looks like a Dodge Charger from the front, has ugly looking wheels, and a cheap interior.

-1

[McReis]

Agreed. Jaguar is dead. No matter how good the XK may be, Jaguars don't look like Jaguars anymore, and that's enough said.

[jorismo]

What's with the big black hole at the front? Ruining the whole front of the car...

[Cotterik]

argh!

[bmwpower]

Jaguar has levelled the looks down, the curves make the car look smaller and less sophisticated then the older more agressive lines it used to have.

[Coventrysucks]

Agreed. Jaguar is dead. No matter how good the XK may be, Jaguars don't look like Jaguars anymore, and that's enough said.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Jaguar were at the forefront of contemporary, modern design.

They were "leaping", if you'll excuse the pun, ahead of the competition.

Somewhere along the line, they got so far forward, apparently, that they ended up producing cars that looked as if they should be in the '50s and '60s, full circle if you will.

Now Jaguar are reasserting themselves as the company that is pushing the boundaries.

The XK is the first of this new way of thinking, and is fairly conservative compared to other marques, but is almost revolutionary for a Jaguar.

The next step, pushing Jag further forwards, will be the XF, and unlike the C-XF will still be fairly conservative.

The next model after the XF will incorporate some of the ideas and themes that were explored in the C-XF, but hadn't been included in the production car.

The whole idea is that a Jaguar shouldn't be attempting to look like a MkII or an E-Type anymore; it should look radical and cutting edge.

I also think the notion that replacing the front bumper somehow transforms the car from one of the best looking in the segment to a "Hyundai" is nothing more than a convenient way of avoiding the requirement to engage brain.

[Ferrer]

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Jaguar were at the forefront of contemporary, modern design.

They were "leaping", if you'll excuse the pun, ahead of the competition.

Somewhere along the line, they got so far forward, apparently, that they ended up producing cars that looked as if they should be in the '50s and '60s, full circle if you will.

Now Jaguar are reasserting themselves as the company that is pushing the boundaries.

The XK is the first of this new way of thinking, and is fairly conservative compared to other marques, but is almost revolutionary for a Jaguar.

The next step, pushing Jag further forwards, will be the XF, and unlike the C-XF will still be fairly conservative.

The next model after the XF will incorporate some of the ideas and themes that were explored in the C-XF, but hadn't been included in the production car.

The whole idea is that a Jaguar shouldn't be attempting to look like a MkII or an E-Type anymore; it should look radical and cutting edge.

I also think the notion that replacing the front bumper somehow transforms the car from one of the best looking in the segment to a "Hyundai" is nothing more than a convenient way of avoiding the requirement to engage brain.
New isn't always good. BMW's are cutting edge when it comes to design, yet they look like a dog turd.

However I agree with most of your post.

[ruim20]

Not that good, the front bumper looks like it's on the wrong car, the bumper lower line reminds bmw, the side hot air exaust doesn't look like it's on the right car either, i'm sure that with so many pencils, pens and computers in the world that small details like thoose could have been redesigned.

[derekthetree]

New isn't always good. BMW's are cutting edge when it comes to design, yet they look like a dog turd.

However I agree with most of your post.

New isn't always good. BMW's are cutting edge when it comes to design, and they look like the dogs dangly bits.

However I agree with most of your post. ;)

WRT the jaguar they are trying too hard with making their older designs look more modern by gaffer taping ugly bits on.

but give them a while and if they can make the new s type look like the xf concept and truly give us a modern jaguar, they will do very well

[Mr.Tiv]

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Jaguar were at the forefront of contemporary, modern design.

They were "leaping", if you'll excuse the pun, ahead of the competition.

Somewhere along the line, they got so far forward, apparently, that they ended up producing cars that looked as if they should be in the '50s and '60s, full circle if you will.

Now Jaguar are reasserting themselves as the company that is pushing the boundaries.

The XK is the first of this new way of thinking, and is fairly conservative compared to other marques, but is almost revolutionary for a Jaguar.

The next step, pushing Jag further forwards, will be the XF, and unlike the C-XF will still be fairly conservative.

The next model after the XF will incorporate some of the ideas and themes that were explored in the C-XF, but hadn't been included in the production car.

The whole idea is that a Jaguar shouldn't be attempting to look like a MkII or an E-Type anymore; it should look radical and cutting edge.

I also think the notion that replacing the front bumper somehow transforms the car from one of the best looking in the segment to a "Hyundai" is nothing more than a convenient way of avoiding the requirement to engage brain.

As much as I agree with what you have said, there. I must say that I would be content with them looking like MKIIs and E-types.

These days, it seems that everything that is cutting edge in terms of styling is quite ugly. BMWs are a good example and so is the C-XF, in my opinion. I welcome a change, but I think that the dierection it seems they'll be going in isn't attractive.

As for this, it looks fine, but I preferred it in it's previous garb.

[aNOBLEman]

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Jaguar were at the forefront of contemporary, modern design.

They were "leaping", if you'll excuse the pun, ahead of the competition.

Somewhere along the line, they got so far forward, apparently, that they ended up producing cars that looked as if they should be in the '50s and '60s, full circle if you will.

Now Jaguar are reasserting themselves as the company that is pushing the boundaries.

The XK is the first of this new way of thinking, and is fairly conservative compared to other marques, but is almost revolutionary for a Jaguar.

The next step, pushing Jag further forwards, will be the XF, and unlike the C-XF will still be fairly conservative.

The next model after the XF will incorporate some of the ideas and themes that were explored in the C-XF, but hadn't been included in the production car.

The whole idea is that a Jaguar shouldn't be attempting to look like a MkII or an E-Type anymore; it should look radical and cutting edge.

I also think the notion that replacing the front bumper somehow transforms the car from one of the best looking in the segment to a "Hyundai" is nothing more than a convenient way of avoiding the requirement to engage brain.

I agree with all of your post. I quite like how this looks. It is a nice, simple design and is a nice evolution of the previous generation. I also like how the interior is nice and simple looking, not all clutered as many car's interiors are getting to be these days.

[092326001]

Cars are becoming uglier and uglier, it's a sad truth

[Ingolstadt]

For a Jaguar, that's a little obscene. but it still look better than the 7 ant the S.

[scubasteve87]

looks ok, but as long as it keeps the jag driving dynamics, that's what makes the car fun, and with the new aggression i'd be interested in seeing it wearing its full xjr guise, but my money in the segment would be purchasing the maserati quattroporte or audi a8

[Ingolstadt]

looks ok, but as long as it keeps the jag driving dynamics, that's what makes the car fun, and with the new aggression i'd be interested in seeing it wearing its full xjr guise, but my money in the segment would be purchasing the maserati quattroporte or audi a8


Me too, Quattroporte or A8. BUT, ain't Quattroporte sized A6 but charges the money of A8 ?

[Ferrer]

Me too, Quattroporte or A8. BUT, ain't Quattroporte sized A6 but charges the money of A8 ?
No. The Quattroporte is only 1cm shorter than the A8. And it's much better than the Audi.

[Ingolstadt]

They don't seem that huge thou. I remembered sitting by the road side, and a F355 zooms by, followed by a Quattroporte tail gating it. I bet A8 couldn't do that.

BUT I HATE QUATTROPORTE's INTERIOR (The dash, and that greenish light)

[carsnut]

Cars are becoming uglier and uglier, it's a sad truth

Agreed:D But there are some exceptions too;)

[h22a]

Well the current XJ looks good(slightly high ride height) but i think this revised design will have its pros and cons. I do sell jags and the response ive been getting is what i expected, the existing jag owners who have been with the product for quite some time find it to flashy and essentially dont like it, where as newer cutomers like the fact jag are finally moving away from its traditional/elegant image and opting for a sportier look. Either way the car has no issue selling as it is and with the changes it well only appeal to a larger audience.

[Ingolstadt]

I always had the impression that Jaguars are slotted between the likes of Merc/BMW/Audi and Bentley. It always had a more 'upmarket' feel when compared to the German Trios, but when their product doesn't improve much, whereas the competition had gone wayy ahead, it's not long before I'd slot it slightly above the Accord, or Camry. :)

[h22a]

Have you had a chance to drive one ingolstadt? Jaguar has always sustained a level of luxury that is quite different to what the german luxo's offer. The interior design of current XJ's are so much more classy and ambient compared to the typical bland style of german interiors. I know this is personal preference but the XJ implements classic/classy design with new technologies. I wouldnt go as far as saying their in same field as bentley, but their closer to that benchmark than bm,merc or audi. As you can see im very biased.

[Ingolstadt]

I've never driven one, but sat in one. And i agree, it does portrait a sense of 'upper market' feel than the average germans, but when you bring everything into consideration, you'll start to wonder whether it's a wise choice. The same goes when i recently sat in a Mercedes E-Class 320 (which i never bother to) what i felt? as a rear passenger? The camry buyers were smart asses. It feels almost the same, albeit with shorter space for my legs, and the NVH levels are almost the same. Ok, of course it'll smoke a Camry in no time if it wishes, and the wallowy handling of a Camry doesn't help, but when 90% of the time is slow city speed cruising and traffic jams, i don't see a reason in getting the E-Class compared to a Camry if WYPIWYG is what everything counts. Anyway, I'd get the E-Class if i'm a rich bloke, but i'd pretend not listening to people's query if they mentioned Camry. :)

[Ferrer]

I've never driven one, but sat in one. And i agree, it does portrait a sense of 'upper market' feel than the average germans, but when you bring everything into consideration, you'll start to wonder whether it's a wise choice. The same goes when i recently sat in a Mercedes E-Class 320 (which i never bother to) what i felt? as a rear passenger? The camry buyers were smart asses. It feels almost the same, albeit with shorter space for my legs, and the NVH levels are almost the same. Ok, of course it'll smoke a Camry in no time if it wishes, and the wallowy handling of a Camry doesn't help, but when 90% of the time is slow city speed cruising and traffic jams, i don't see a reason in getting the E-Class compared to a Camry if WYPIWYG is what everything counts. Anyway, I'd get the E-Class if i'm a rich bloke, but i'd pretend not listening to people's query if they mentioned Camry. :)
I've been a passenger in a Jaguar XJ8 4.2 LWB, and I have to say of all the cars I have been in, it has no rival when it comes to luxury. I don't think a Toyota or a Honda comes even remotely close. Perhaps the C6 or the Thesis (which sadly I haven't been in, and are terribly underrated cars especially the Lancia), would be close rivals when it comes to luxury.

[cerbman]

It might look better in a more appropriate colour.

[-What-]

Clearly this car is only a temporary update until Jaguar unleashes a completely fresh design.

I'll wait until I see the car in person before I foolishly call "death" on the Jaguar brand.

[IWantAnAudiRS6]

I don't really see what the problem is? :confused:

Sure, it's not quite as beautiful as the Series III or the 1995-2002 XJ. But remember that the XJ40, the Sovereign with the square headlights in particular, wasn't the best-looking car.

However, there is a sense of traditional, as well as new, Jaguar in this car. I like it- even if it does remind me slightly of a 300C at the front.

If you're that bothered, don't buy it and wait for the next generation. Jaguar have had poor sales with the current XJ because it was too similar to the old XJ. So, a slightly more diverse direction may well be welcomed by customers. Sad it may be, but it's business.

[Ferrer]

I don't really see what the problem is? :confused:

Sure, it's not quite as beautiful as the Series III or the 1995-2002 XJ. But remember that the XJ40, the Sovereign with the square headlights in particular, wasn't the best-looking car.

However, there is a sense of traditional, as well as new, Jaguar in this car. I like it- even if it does remind me slightly of a 300C at the front.

If you're that bothered, don't buy it and wait for the next generation. Jaguar have had poor sales with the current XJ because it was too similar to the old XJ. So, a slightly more diverse direction may well be welcomed by customers. Sad it may be, but it's business.
For me the problem lies with the front bumper, which looks cheap and nasty. As for the rest of it it hasn't changed enough to make me have a different opinion, it's good but not as good as the previous one or the Series II original XJ.

[t0p5ecret]

If anything I think the air intake at the front gives it a more aggressive sportier look, I think its more the sides of the bumpers that don't match the lights and bonnet, the side of the front bumper from the 3/4 view looks very square, compared to the lights and bonnet. I would like to see this in an R guise though.

[Mäusekino]

For me the problem lies with the front bumper, which looks cheap and nasty. As for the rest of it it hasn't changed enough to make me have a different opinion, it's good but not as good as the previous one or the Series II original XJ.

i think also that it looks a bit nasty and overdone, cause the current xj was a car of luxury & style and not a sportscar, although it drives more handsome and comfi at the same time than its predecessor. what i like to know is, if that new optic is just the xjr ones or if even the xj6 will have. if that's the fact i'd rather have the pre-facelift version that they build untill the end of '06

http://www.carpages.co.uk/jaguar/jaguar_images/jaguar_xj_18_01_06.jpg
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=231564&d=1172679704

[MadMax13]

Wheels look cheap and the front end looks like a big gasping face from "Cars"...