A front-wheel-drive "Jaguar" is never a proper Jaguar. Neither this nor the E-Pace are real Jaguars. They are posers.
Jaguar X-Type 3.0 specs
| Price in US | $33,995 - $36,495 |
| Car type | 4-door saloon |
| Curb weight | 1555-1617 kg (3428-3565 lbs) |
| Dimensions | 4.67 m (184 in) long, 1.79 m (70 in) wide, 1.43 m (56 in) high |
| Wheelbase | 2.71 m (107 in) |
| Introduced | 2002 |
| Origin country | United Kingdom |
| Gas mileage | 16.0-8.3 l/100 km (15-28 mpg US / 18-34 mpg UK) |
| Views | 12.3k |
| Submitted by | Mental |
Lap times
| Track | Time |
|---|---|
| Winton (National Circuit) | 1:48.80 |
Performance
| 0 - 60 kph | 3.6 s |
| 0 - 80 kph | 5.5 s |
| 0 - 100 kph | 7.7 s |
| 0 - 120 kph | 10.8 s |
| 0 - 130 kph | 12.4 s |
| 0 - 160 kph | 19.0 s |
| 0 - 180 kph | 25.3 s |
| 1000 m | 28.4 s |
| 60 - 100 kph (4) | 8.2 s |
| 60 - 100 kph (5) | 12.6 s |
| 80 - 120 kph (4) | 8.2 s |
| 80 - 120 kph (5) | 12.7 s |
| 0 - 60 mph | 7.1 s |
| 0 - 100 mph | 19.8 s |
| 1/4 mile | 15.2 s @ 90.1 mph |
| Top speed | 250 kph (155 mph) |
| 18m slalom | 59.8 kph (37.2 mph) |
| Lateral acceleration | 0.86 g (8 m/s²) |
| 100 kph - 0 | 37 m (121 ft) |
| 70 mph - 0 | 53 m (175 ft) |
Powertrain specs
| Engine type | V6, DOHC, 24v |
| Displacement | 3.0 l (183 ci) |
| Power | 231 ps (228 bhp / 170 kw) @ 6800 rpm |
| Torque | 284 Nm (209 lb-ft) @ 3000 rpm |
| Power / liter | 77 ps (76 hp) |
| Power / weight | 145 ps (143 bhp) / t |
| Torque / weight | 178 Nm (131 lb-ft) / t |
| Efficiency | 17 PS per l/100 km |
| Transmission | 5 speed manual / automatic |
| Layout | front engine, all wheel drive |
X-Type 3.0 competition
hostboy 3y ago @TypeF173
I'm sorry, I meant to say it was built on the front-wheel-drive platform. The X-Type itself wasn't front-wheel-drive (at least for the US market, they were all 4WD), but it was built underneath the Mondeo. Which basically means it wasn't really a luxury car. You can try comparing an X-Type to a Lexus ES, an Acura TL/RL, or an Infiniti J.
It just didn't have the sophiscation of other Jaguar models of its time. Even the S-Type had quality flaws, but at least it had RWD + sporty intentions (akin to a Lexus IS/GS or an Infiniti G/M). It wasn't some old man's car dressed up as a youthful entry-level luxury sports sedan, no, the S-Type was AWESOME.
The X-Type, meh. It's just a slightly classier father of the MKZ(ephyr).
The X-Type is what could have been the Mercedes-Benz CLA-Class of its day. It really made the brand more accessible to the lower-class, and that's what I like about entry-level premium cars. It's basically the British Acura Integra/TSX.
Did I just mention every Acura sedan? I honestly do not know which one to compare this Jag to... it's insane.
DavidC Surrey 2y ago @hostboy
I disagree with you. I've owned an X-Type 3.0 Sport since it came out in 2001. The manual is significantly quicker than the automatic. I almost didn't buy mine because the only test car they had was the auto box. Of all the many cars that I've owned over the years this has been the best all-rounder. Quite sporty (0-60 was 6.5 seconds on the manual) but even the sports suspension was a little bouncy for my taste so I had that corrected. Mine is "fully loaded" as they say, with satnav voice control premium sound etc. sports exhaust and I still own it today 20 years later. Can't quite part with it. I've had several other cars as well in its lifetime including my current Audi RS5 but the X-Type still draws me with its lovely ride, comfort, "just right" size, big boot, adequate performance for most situations and is definitely the best car I've owned for driving in snow/ice. Bear in mind that ALL the cars I have owned since 1987 have been 4 wheel drive.
