Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My god, you are arguing with someone that just vehemently agreed with you....
Who's arguing?
I'm not up-to-date with all the reliability rankings out there.
I was merely asking where you saw that Jaguar "have been consistently ranked high in reliability".
Ah I see, so now you are being selective? So by your logic we stop counting BMW 3-series, Mercedes C-class and Audi A-4, for example? I mean they are all entry-level models in the same class as well.
Although the X-type didn't reach Jaguars expectation for sales volume, it was the best selling Jaguar of all time by volume, at over 350,000 made (source: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...-x-type-early/). Unlike some in the peanut gallery, I actually owned a 2005 X-Type 3.0 VDP and it was a great car and fantastic in the wet or snow. The only thing it lacked was more power. Jaguar talked about installing a 3.0 supercharged engine and it would have been a truly monumental car if it had happened. The Achilles heel of the X-type was the transfer case, which would have needed re-engineering to support an SC 3.0 and Jaguar were not up for the expenditure.
I can't comment our your last statement, as I have never owned a BMW. However, the reality is that Jaguar have been consistently ranked high in reliability. Agreed, nothing is perfect, but their engines and drive trains are well proven (example the 4.2L AJ8 in my 2009 XF Supercharged was first seen in the X308/XJ8 in 1997 but if has been refined over the years and has a very good track record).
As much as you would like me to, I'm not claiming the X-Type wasn't a real Jag. I'm saying the market thought it wasn't. Lots of motoring magazines labeled it as a "Dressed up Ford Contour". The reputation stuck.
Looks like every brand at some time has come out with models that are rejected for not being the “real thing”. Porsche 914, 944 and even 928. I throw Boxster into it. The C-class, especially the CLA. I guess any affordable version of luxury cars are deemed not to be the real thing.
Sales have nothing to do with my point. I am sure Porsche 924 sold well too. Oh, I do know that the CLA and C-class are different. When you build a Mercedes to steal sales from Honda Accord, you are not doing your brand a favor.
Sales have nothing to do with my point. I am sure Porsche 924 sold well too. Oh, I do know that the CLA and C-class are different. When you build a Mercedes to steal sales from Honda Accord, you are not doing your brand a favor.
The C Class is actually a really nice car. Not sure about the CLA, but the C is definitely an entry-luxury car.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
