2010 Jaguar XJThe XF, Jaguar's mid-sizer, was a... leap.... forward in design, luxury, and gimmicks when it debuted (no more J-gate shifter!). It not only made the S-Type look like a slob, but made people relegate the S to the "end of the bad days" section of history with Jag's unfortunate X-Type. The XJ, on the other hand, has been the picture of restrained aristocracy - as opposed to performance, value, or extravagance - in the luxury segment for quite some time, its lines slowly evolving but never really breaking the mold.

2010 Jaguar XJWell, all that has just changed, for better or for worse. Never the sales leader, the newest XJ is one of this year's debuts that needs to be super-dee-super (much like Saab's 9-5); looking at the photos, well, it is and it isn't.

The bottom line is this: the exterior comes off like a photoshopped XF. The front end takes the XF's face and makes it smoother and more elegant, which happens to be a big bonus. Also, it doesn't appear to slope back as much, creating a blunter, more aggressive demeanor when partnered with the mean - and better-executed than the XF - headlights. For anything else positive, other than the decent albeit "looks like SOMEONE used to work for Audi" roofline, you'll have to go inside; right now we're sticking to the exterior, where things go from good to bad in a real hurry.

T2010 Jaguar XJhe award for biggest "Just say NO" idea goes to the c-pillar. What were they thinking? Whether it's painted metal or just black composite, I guess the idea was to give the illusion of the rear windscreen wrap-around. If that was indeed the case, the chrome trim around the side windows quickly put a stop to that idea. Also, why would they want the rear windshield to appear wider than the panoramic roof? For the sake of appearing out of balance, obviously.

The rest of the rear three-quarter view seems rushed and stolen, with Audi A6 written all over it. The taillights look like a cross between those of the Lancia Thesis and the Maserati Quattroporte, while the trunk is just plain, bland, and boring. The leaper is ok, but a car as significant as this should say J-A-G-U-A-R across the back in tastefully-sized chrome letters, telling you what it is instead of giving Pictionary-esque hints.

2010 Jaguar XJThat said, the good stuff is on the inside. The interior is gorgeous, fresh, and everything the newest big Jag needs to be. The layered dashboard is different, while still keeping with Jaguar's traditional door-to-door wood paneling theme. Does the dash's wraparound wood remind me of a Buick Lacrosse? Sure, but it works (if Jaguar thinks Buick's design is good enough to adapt to its range-topper, what does that say about the new Lacrosse interior?).

The raised center vents are reminiscent of a Pagani, and the attention to detail regarding the trim is top-notch, even if some of the baubles are bound to cause future problems (is that ambient lighting in the vents?). Lastly, when 30 percent of the rear doors are covered with slabs of wood, you know the car is ritzy. While the exterior is meh, the interior is what convinces me that it's a Jag.

2010 Jaguar XJWe can all tell that the latest XJ is a 90-degree turn off the path its predecessors laid out for it, but is it enough? It will certainly grab attention for being the radical departure that it is, even if it inherited more than its share of flaws trying to be like the rest of the luxury gang; but will it be able to compete with the A-Team of big-lux sedans? For performance, quality, and the rest, we'll just have to wait for the reviews.

What we know is this: at $72,000 and change, the entry-level model with the 385HP 5.0-liter V8 seems to be priced just right; but a $15,000 hike for the 470HP supercharged V8 model? That seems like a bit of a gouge. And if you want the 510-horse "special order only" Supersport (it seems as if interior traits aren't the only item worth taking from GM) it'll take $112,000+ from you. For a supercharged V8 that's pushing it. It seems as if Jaguar still hasn't quite figured out its pricing and its targets just yet. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

By Phil Alex

2010 Porsche Panamera - Carscoop

Phil Alex was born in Rhode Island in 1985. He graduated with degrees in Finance and German from Wofford College in 2007 and has had an obsession with cars and travel. Currently he resides near Japan's international airport in Narita. He makes no apologies for his articles and welcomes all feedback, as long as it is adamantly worded. If for any reason you are inclined to vent some more, check out more of his posts on the Examiner here.

2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ2010 Jaguar XJ


61 Comments

  1. Anonymous » July 10, 2009  

    I think I agree with most of this review. Your Saab 9-5 "review" was horrible, but this makes up for it a bit, Phil.

    I agree with the dumb idea of the black c-pillar... It kinda throws off the whole beautiful flow of the car. While a few of the styling cues may have been "borrowed" from audi/maserati, I think the exterior is beautiful. Very modern and powerful looking. And the black c-pillar won't even be a bother if one opted for the black painted exterior (That's what I would get anyway).

  2. Anonymous » July 10, 2009  

    Finally, Carscoop quit the whinging histrionics about Jaguar's media standards and brought out the kosher of high resolution pictures for readers' enjoyment.

    The exterior is meh? Carscoop should do a side by side comparison with the 7er and the S-class to see which ones have the "meh", box-like, overweight, boring Teutonic design. Ian Callum said he wanted the Jaguar leaper on the back to be instantly recognisable as a Jaguar, and the words "J-A-G-U-A-R" emblazoned on the back of the XF was merely a stopgap measure to enable people to recognise this as the new Jaguar design language. So before commenting, maybe read some press reviews first?

    Ok most of the comments from the backseat critics on the web seem to be "great front, ugly rear". That was my initial reaction, but after looking at the design as a whole, the rear is starting to grow on me. First, because it evokes comparisons to the Maserati Quattroporte and Bentley, classically swooped rearlamps that gels perfectly with the long line coming up the side of the body. Second, you just have to look at the fat, swollen wheelarches of the S-Class and its awkward rearlamps, the incoherent, overly large Citreon C5 rearlamps of the 7 series, and the boring Bauhaus design of the A8 to realise that this XJ's rear is of true aristocratic polish. Ok maybe the XF rear on this XJ would give it a more sporty stance, but hey do you really want the same sausage different size boring Bauhaus design hack job that Audi is pulling over the A3, A4, A5, A6, A8 ad nauseum? At least Jaguar tried something different and in my eyes it outclasses its German rivals. As for the black painted C-pillar, I'm not a big fan of it, but it gives the glasshouse a sense of space. In any case, it probably won't be a problem instructing the dealers to repaint it a body colour.

  3. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    thank you for the jag pics carscoop. youre back with a vengence!!! LOL

    RE XJ

    At first glance the c-pillar seems a play of shadows and light. then upon noticing what it really is, it does appear kinda weird.

    i think the reason for it is to make the rear look lighter, as it is quite heavy and massive and tall. it also fools the eye on first impression giving it a "different" profile from other cars when it isnt. yes it's cheating...

    what bothers me most though is the use of XJ.
    if this is such a radical departure, why continue with the same name? Yes i understand the marketing, blah blah...
    But the S-type was easily replaced by the XF; the XJ-S by the XK...

    The XK moniker of old referred to the engine, right?
    Is that the same reasoning for the old SJ?

    It's as if Ferrari would keep on making Daytonas or Lamborghini Miuras.

    These are not Corollas; theyre not appliances on wheels.

    The XJ was the XJ - a classic; and that's the way it should stay. This new one should be called something else.

    And why can't these Jags look like cats on the prowl in profile? Now theyre all too tall, big and fat. Very non-jaguar-like i find...

    -jorge

  4. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    oh!
    Did you say something like Buick's interior???
    LOL LOL
    Really?

    Sorry. Buick wishes!

    -Jorge

  5. emjayay » July 11, 2009  

    The whole dashboard/console is a really untraditionally Jaguarlike retro-future design. The dash is a wood-free pod floating in front of a wood tub extending from door to door. Not necessarily a bad thing, but clearly outside any Jaguar tradition, unlike the exterior, which is more of a futuristic spin on the tradition. The only traditional bit is the wood plank on the doors with a round speaker stuck in it, kind of like the old planklike instrument panels with round guages cut into them.

  6. ChikaBebe » July 11, 2009  

    OMG! this car is awesome! i wish i have like this

  7. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    Also, has anyone else realized that in the photo with the model, you can see her nipple through the dress? Jus sayin... I like this car. ^_^

    -Sever

  8. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    No problem with the C-pillar. Very different. The design will grow on you even if it hits you at first, probably the reason for incorporating it. You need to take the risk as a designer.
    The front...is where the problem lies, for me,
    the hood is designed traditionally, old world, and the thin head lamp design does not look proportionate to that, they do not complement.
    For sliver like head lamps look to the Honda Civic, they do it best. The hood shoud be minimalistically designed or low slung.

  9. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    This is tastelessly done car.
    It is good for dentists, brokers, top clerks, etc.
    Well in this groups good taste always was the great problem. Plus philistines.
    Yes...this is Buick!

  10. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    OMG! This car is horrible... it has the nose of an XF with the back of a Bentley/coreean... i totally hate it! there`s another ruined legend...

  11. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    This is not a Jaguar anymore. They should just change the name to Tata. Only Ford is laughing...all the way to the bank.

  12. emjayay » July 11, 2009  

    In the rear I see a relationship to 50's Jaguar tradition in the tapering sides, slopey shape, and slightly inboard taillights. The rear window and blacked out areas at the sides is clearly the opposite of any tradition. And hard to justify. They must have been thinking something, but what? Something somehow relating to the past would be some kind of rounded window shape cut into the roof, not glass between lines drawn across the roof shape. If they wanted it to go to the side windows, why not actually run the glass all the way and just have it blacked out on the sides internally, an idea which has been used in all kinds of car windows since around the 80's?

  13. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    Reminds me a bit of the 1991 Mercedes S-Class... A giant leap in technolgy and a drastic change from the previous somewhat more elegant model. Its a grower. But for a car that Jaguar depends on, winning over traditionalists and enticing other customers away from BMWs and Mercedes is a bold step.

  14. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    Thanks for the pics, but I really prefer the previous rear of the car cuz this one has a lot of emptyness in it :{

  15. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    Jaguar has failed to instill into this XJ any of Jaguar's history. The lineup is boring, and this a non-starter compared to the past Jaguars that made Jaguar a true Jaguar. In the league this model wants to play I would consider it a last choice.

  16. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    Hi to Jay Leno!
    New Jaguar and JL are... = 2J.
    You know what I mean.
    It is terrible.
    Buy, buy Jaguar!

  17. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    If that C-pillar wraparound idea had a noise, it would sound like nails against a chalkboard!

  18. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    Ohhh the Humanity!

    Horrible, just horrible. Please please please bring back the "old" design...

  19. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    1991 S-Class look??? Are you insane?

    The W140 was a masterpiece, the last of the "real" M-Bs. Don't confuse this monstrocity with automotive greatness.

    Shame on Jaguar...

  20. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    Not a design I would expect from Coventry. I agree with the critics-I think a car's C-pillar should always be the same color as the A and B pillars,for a balanced and uniform look. The nose design is decent but not spectacular.(Man,that lady is tall! She practically dwarfs the car). Like Ferrari designers, apparently Jaguar's artists couldn't think of anything else aside from the criss-crossing air vent designs? There are so many distracting lines on the top side of the car. The interior photos however, are excellent.

  21. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    I'd much rather ride in, on top, over, glance at, and stare with utter beauty at the girl than this car.

    It's a mix between a new styled Buick and a Rolls on the rear. In others words Fugly.

    I will say however, the interior design is a nice touch. I'm a fan of the J-Gate and it's a unique design element ... a symbol of Jaguar, imo. So, I'm shocked that the India-based company that bought it would drop it.

  22. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    The Jag looks just fine.

    The roof treatment after playing with it in 'PS' seems to be a good call for Ian Callum and Group. You have to trust a guy who understands that the 1950 'Pinin Farina' designed Nash Rambler is one of the great post war automotive designs.

    It also looks good with the roof side sweep body colored and, or, the roof sweep body colored and the roof panel above the rear window darkened.

    The rear end treatment is clean and sophisticated if not particularly exciting, which leads me to believe that Ian's group decided on the Roof sweep body color abbreviation, do, to, windscreen marque identification. There are three ways we view cars live. When parked. When closing on a vehicle from behind
    (Windscreen). When observing a car through your side and rear view mirrors. Day and night, some cars are easily distinguished by their distinctive body development, component detail, light treatments and stance. For example, when a newer Maserati closes on you from behind you know it's something different, exotic, even if you don't know what it is. It has distinctive features and a certain stance even from the front. The roof sweep abbreviation does that from the rear for the new model XJ. Just a possible explanation for this treatment decision. The front has that 'Rear view' distinction in spades.

    We seem to be going back to 'Fast Back' era of the late sixties and seventies with all of these new 'GT' interpretations and four-door 'Coupes'.
    Practicality will prevent designers from returning to the real fastbacks of the late forties...to bad, those are some real classic designs.

    Phil's post on the new 'XJ' will not be filed under ... > 'Informed, carefully considered analysis'.
    I hate to keep picking on him (Denting him up), but he really needs to divorce his unsophisticated, uninformed prejudices from his comments if he is to appear credible. Phil! Drop the attack mode and develop a considered view mode. School yourself in design history and language and read some articles from some of the best writers in the automotive print and digital media business. Or do something else. Can't figure out why CARSCOOP gives you an audience.

    3Deuce27

  23. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    Hey looks like the retired dentists and the geriatric gang are out in force in these comments. C'mon, the old XJ design was nice and evergreen but sold only to those who were above 60, and that endless retro kitsch is one of the reasons why Jaguar is in such dire financial straits right now.

    Lots of haters comparing it Buicks (erm, must be the long-sightedness?) and even lusting for the J-gate of old. They tried it, it didn't sell, its time to move the design on. It isn't 1968 anymore guys, and this is a fantastic design, wiping the floor off the predictably coarsely designed Germans.

  24. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    Totally agree with 3Deuce27, Phil, your 2 micro-cents opinion certainly isn't worth its weight in anything: shallow, caustic, uneducated bias - basically grasping at straws to criticise without ANY knowledge of design language and history.

  25. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    Dear Phil,
    Please stop shooting down any competitors to bmw or benz. Its immature.

    Anyway, this car is beautiful! The interior is so innovative with all the neat little features and toys it has. The exterior is sleek, yet muscular. I love it. What's everybody's problem? The c-pillar isn't that bad. But if it bugs you that much, get it in black. Seriously, black is dead sexy anyways.

    Love,
    Garrett

  26. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    Beautiful. Car. The new class standard.

  27. Josh » July 11, 2009  

    Garrett - seriously, what's sleek about the exterior? Just look at the rear pillar, window and boot design. That's a frigging messs

  28. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    Lot of whiners here that act like the car took theirs out for a spin and threw up on the interior. Get over yourselves.

  29. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    well it's true it's... different ! that's what people say when they don't like something. Yet, i'm not saying i don't like it. i have quite mixed feelings about it. the front now is well known (as it was in the past with the previous design) and it is aggressive (probalbly a little bit too much for that kind of car) but the rear is.... odd. indeed it is a mix of many things and as a result you may be put off by it. i think they mixed ideas from a bentley Continental GT with a lancia thesis or citroen C6 but you also have the feeling there is something like a Daewoo from the 90s, and this feeling is very disturbing. we really need to see it real to make sure these impressions aren't right. well i hope.
    jaguar is really looking for something in design, but im not sure they know what they're looking for yet!

  30. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    Stick with finance, hopefully the author knows something about that subject Thank heavens the car does not resemble an Audi, and there is no GM in this car whatsoever.

  31. Anonymous » July 11, 2009  

    who said curry was hot?

  32. emjayay » July 11, 2009  

    I'm also seeing some Jaguar 50's influence in the round front fender edge and the slabby sides. That leading edge of the front fender shape is way pulled back from the grill, which is not Jaguarlike but does echo racing cars of the 50's. Previously Jaguar had hung onto the big chrome decklid handle idea over the license plate surround so long that it ended up showing up in some form on lots of other cars. Now it's gone, only vestigally represented by the slender chrome bar below instead of on the trunklid. In a lot of ways inside and out this XJ is like Jaguar of the 1950's decided to copy a lot of ideas from 50's American concept cars and then leap forward sixty years into the future. I'm not sure that's the best they could have done with the headlights, but I think it will look pretty cool in the flesh.

  33. Anonymous » July 12, 2009  

    It's nice hearing from people who think they're knowledge of design history makes their opinion any better than the next. Whether design is trying to apply a retro look to a modern audience or doing something different, in the end it's the world that decides if the car is appealing or not. I can't speak for everyone but the C-pillar stick's out like a sore thumb, regardless of what it's trying to accomplish. The front is great, the rear is speaking another language reminescent of a Bently. Regardless of unique treatments, they have to mesh and have uniformity with the design of the rest of the car. I believe that design harmony is broken by the second half and this car will be met with dissapointment to people in the market for it, and will look elsewhere. There are not other elements of the car that really match with it. Not to mention the lackluster curvature of the C-pillar. The rear end seems simplified and less curvacious compared to the rest of the car and like Jaguars have always been known for. Almost like an afterthought in design that falls short of inspiring.

  34. Dr Faustus » July 12, 2009  

    Styling is too reminiscent of the unloved (and unlovely?) Citroen C6 - for example see http://www.channel4.com/4car/gl/gallery/gallery/190/2

  35. Nordic » July 12, 2009  

    Weird back, but the front is excellent (aggressive but with some aristocratic style). It's a good evolution, and truly necessary. The old XJ was a true classic, but is time has come.

    And please Dr Faustus the car looks good, but don't compare it to the beauty of a C6.

  36. Anonymous » July 13, 2009  

    The blacked-out c-pillar is there because the rear window looked very narrow. Rediculously so. It wasn't particularly narrow in reality, but it gave the impression that the windscreen had been turned vertical.

  37. Anonymous » July 13, 2009  

    The C6 looks like a nissan, I don't see how it even compares to this muscular beauty.

    Dang it Phil! Why must you and your two first name's hate everything I love?!?! *cries*

  38. Anonymous » July 13, 2009  

    Alot of tacky emptiness in this car. Nothing that made it stand apart as Jag before. This looks nothing more than a mess of other cars. Like someone in a junkyard, pieced together different cars on a weekend project. Or a Nissan Maxima, and an Audi A6 crashed together.

  39. Anonymous » July 13, 2009  

    Beautiful car.. Maxima?! WTF, this guy must be blind!

  40. Anonymous » July 13, 2009  

    What he really should have referred to (as a supossed car-guy he claims to be) is the last Buick Riviera. That I can see.

  41. whatapisser » July 13, 2009  

    From the rear, it looks like a Kia Amanti had a drunken night's romp with a Lincoln MKS.

  42. Anonymous » July 13, 2009  

    It's beautiful- except for that black C-Pillar which is f*king retarded.

  43. emjayay » July 13, 2009  

    I don't think my or anyone else's knowledge of design history makes my opinion any better than anyone else's, and besides the only opinion I offered was something about the car probably looking pretty cool in reality. It's just design chat folks. In three posts I was trying to find historic Jag design cues that Ian and friends seemed to have been looking at, even if the overall look of the car doesn't obviously follow from previous XJ's. Here's another one: the central raised part of the hood, which is like a squared off version of the shape of the original XKE, which was there to clear the straight 6 engine. It has been repeated on the recent XK8 and XK, both of which obviously intentionally have a lot in common with the XKE. To continue harping on my other theme, of there being a lot of 50's - 60's American car stylistic ideas in there: In that period a lot of rear windows became like glass filling in between lines drawn across the roof from one side glass (door window frame) shape to the other, instead of appearing like a window shape cut into the roof. Ford, with the Lincoln Continental and Thunderbird wide blank C pillars, brought the wide metal C pillar back into fashion and it's been pretty much with us ever since. The new XJ is reviving the late 50's - 60's idea, only with a black panel instead of glass. Like I wrote above, I don't see why they didn't go with one big sweep of glass blacked out internally. You do need fat pillars today of course for reduced squashability in rollovers. Personally I've generally never liked the idea of just painting out metal with black to complete a shape (as is often done in the back end of rear door window frame area, either inside the frame or on the C pillar).
    I'm a little more concerned with the whole Mercedes CLS-like deal of the slippery roof shape at the cost of rear headroom. It's a damn limo. Passengers shouldn't be penalised for style. Well, not too much.
    But ultimately of course the XK isn't about entertaining Jaguaristas with clever design cues. It's about continuing the brand and selling cars, and this should do it. BMW kind of broke the mold of essentially conservative rich guy cars a few years ago, and I think they're probably ready for this new XK.

  44. Anonymous » July 14, 2009  

    I see the Nissan Maxima nose on an Audi A6 rear clip. Not exactly a classic design. Not a design that will hold as well as the previous generation.

  45. Anonymous » July 14, 2009  

    I think as a starting model its absolutely shrugs off the pipe and slippers chrome grille image from the previous gen XJ. Yes I can see this one again has a chrome frontage but not to the same level of ugliness. Bring on the R model.

  46. Anonymous » July 14, 2009  

    Those with goldfish-like memories will draw comparisons to Audi and their A6. The "sixthlight" rear side window is actually an XJ design trait that dates back to the XJ40 in the mid-eighties, and has been present on the XJ all the way up to 2003 with the discontinuation of the X308.

    As far as the interior, the reviewer nailed Jaguar's sporting intentions with the comparison to Pagani.

  47. Anonymous » July 15, 2009  

    IT IS A BIT SNOUTY GUYS.

    AND THERE IS SOME LINCOLN MKS IN THOSE REAR LAMPS.

    BLACK OUT PILLARS EXTEND THE HORIZONTAL PLANE OF THE THE REAR WINDOW. AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE REAR LOOK LESS MASSIVE.

    JORGE

  48. emjayay » July 15, 2009  

    Particularly given the simple rear end, imagine the front with about two less things going on below the "bumper" area. Now, isn't that better?

  49. Anonymous » July 15, 2009  

    A new name?
    Got it: XJ-C or XJ-XC?
    C-curry and turbo XC- extra curry. Add chips...

    LOL

  50. Anonymous » July 15, 2009  

    looks like a fancy hyundai.

  51. Anonymous » July 16, 2009  

    "A new name?
    Got it: XJ-C or XJ-XC?
    C-curry and turbo XC- extra curry. Add chips...

    LOL"

    Get out of your mum's basement and get a life. Retarded comments abound here.

  52. Anonymous » July 16, 2009  

    There are numerous retards here comparing this to hyundais and nissan maximas. C'mon go get your bargain basement Genesis if you want (and return it once you get retrenched), hyundai still does not have the brand cachet to go luxury. Don't get me wrong, they make decent cars, but are not ready for the luxury market as yet. A couple of years may make the difference. Anyway this doesn't look remotely like any hyundai, although you'll be sure to see some design cues on future hyundais inspired by the XJ's design.

  53. Anonymous » July 16, 2009  

    Very clever indeed to have the number plate wrong angled on the launch beauty shots! The car VX09 DPN has the front plate off angle in all the pics... :-/ http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FoXyvaPSnVk/SlfvCB10oEI/AAAAAAAB6Nc/VexJgGw-RvE/s1600-h/2010-Jaguar-XJ-91.JPG

  54. Anonymous » July 16, 2009  

    Now here is a proper review on the new Jag by Chris Paukert.

    No Biased, Sand box opinions offered.

    www.autoblog.com/2009/07/09/2010-jaguar-xj-we-get-hands-on-with-coventrys-new-big-cat/

    3Deuce27

  55. Anonymous » July 16, 2009  

    "It's nice hearing from people who think they're knowledge of design history makes their opinion any better than the next"

    Geez! Phil! (Or Phil like?)

    As a CARSCOOP columnist you need to sign your comments........

    Design knowledge or not, all things are subjective. Education/Knowledge only provides a basis for the rational subject discussion through language.

    Having an literate/educated, bias-less analysis, and not a mish-mash of biased opinion is the intent of some of the comments directed at Phil.

    Phil and some of the other 'Sand Box' commentators could start educating themselves on design here.... www.carbodydesign.com/

    And interesting Design discussion ...> www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/07/11/crank-up-your-design-radar/

    There are many sites that can enhance your Design understanding so that you can comment 'Literately'.

    Maybe, some, are expecting to much of Phil and CARSCOOP.

    Maybe CARSCOOP uses Phil to generate comments? Seems to work.

    3Deuce27

  56. Anonymous » July 17, 2009  

    Additions to the the above Links on Automobile Design and terminology.

    If you really have an interest in design, particularly Automotive Design, these Links are a lot of fun, and instructive, and will help you 'upgrade' your comments.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_design_terminology

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_design

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_body_style

    www.designertechniques.com/

    www.cardesignnews.com/site/home/

    www.designerspace.com/

    www.cardesignonline.com/

    www.designcouncil.org.uk/en/About-Design/Design-Disciplines/Automotive-Design/

    There a many more ... 3Deuce27

  57. Anonymous » July 17, 2009  

    Hyunadai & Kia's vehicles are looking better since they got rid of their Korean designers. We now know where those designers ended up - with Jaguar- looks like they've been there for quite a while

  58. Anonymous » July 18, 2009  

    'Hyundai'! An attempt at correct spelling might lend some credibility to your comments.

    'Hyundai' means .... Modern

    "Hyunadai & Kia's vehicles are looking better since they got rid of their Korean designers. We now know where those designers ended up - with Jaguar- looks like they've been there for quite a while"

    So much for your credibility.....>

    Most Asian auto manufactures hired Italian design firms to design their vehicles, later, most established California design studios.

    Hyundai original designs were from Giorgetto Giugiaro's ItalDesign. ...> www.thehyway.com/Hyundai_History.htm

    "Hyundai's designs have come a long way over the past few years, and much of the credit is due to the company's chief designer, Joel Piaskowski (above, front). But while the Korean automaker was reportedly shocked when its accomplished stylist resigned last month, the automotive community wondered what was in store next for the young talent. Car Design News now appears to have answered that question, indicating that Piaskowski is headed to California to lead Mercedes-Benz Advanced Design."

    "After serving for several years as a designer for General Motors, Piaskowski took on the role of chief designer for Hyundai/Kia North America, where he was responsible for such designs as the Genesis (both coupe and sedan), Santa Fe and Veracruz crossovers and Elantra compact sedan, as well as the HCD8, HCD9 Talus and HCD10 Hellion concepts. If the report is true, Piaskowski's new job with Mercedes will have him slip into the position vacated by Gorden Wagener when he was promoted to replace Professor Peter Pfeiffer as head of design, heading up Mercedes' new studio in Southern California."

    [Source: Car Design News, Photo by Jonathan Fickles/Getty


    Philip Zak replaces the talented Piaskowski at Hyundai's California design studio. Zak, recently head Stylist for GM's European auto design dept., and most recently involved in the new Opel and Saab designs.

    3Deuce27

  59. Anonymous » July 19, 2009  

    First I'll say that the XF looks like a Lexus and is not deserving of the Jaguar badge. So why make the same mistake twice?

    The car has some pluses and does have elemental design points that conjure Quattroporte. But it is too extreme a departure from the Jag standard and the brand is not going to be able to attract a new buying base with this car that will keep the cat alive.

    I'm inclined to say that this is the 9th life and it's going to be a short one for Jaguar.

  60. Anonymous » July 21, 2009  

    The XF may share some similarities to a Lexus GS from its side profile, but its the ends which clearly differentiate it as a superior design - the tight cohesive lines of the rising bootlid evoking Aston Martin and the stylized quad circles for headlamps, with the menacing bulge on the hood. A design success, for most people.

    Come on, it was the endless retro throwbacks that brought Jaguar to its knees. More of the same would only doom its sales to sentimental retirees who want retro. The XJ manages to reinterpret some traditional Jag cues with a thoroughly modernist streak. There is a real sense of occasion and excitement to the design.

  61. Anonymous » July 23, 2009  

    The new XJ is breath of fresh air in a sea of clinical German executive sedans and the sales figures will soon silence the doubters. There are many who want to and can afford to buy a Jaguar but haven't in the past because of the retro designs and unreliability. Those excuses have been dealt with. It may take a while to tempt them back into a new Jaguar but they'll be back because deep down inside they know that no Mercedes sedan (bar the AMG models), BMW (bar the M-Sport models) has the catchet of a Jaguar. Forget Lexus and Audi. Everyone slammed the last BMW 5 & 7 series sedans for their controversial looks but they still sold by the bucketload. I am confident that Jaguar's boldness will be rewarded and that it'll attract a new type of buyer to the brand just like Bentley did with the reborn Continental series. This is a car that'll do well and restore that reputation for distinction so lacking in the industry today. Bravo Jaguar!

Post a Comment