Saw the new Jaguar XK....it's a homerun, not a grand slam but a definite HR....

Pictures do this car absolutely no justice ladies and gentlemen. Based on pictures I thought this car was a big disappointment except for the interior which looked superb.

But the truth is in the flesh, not photos. The only cars that have more presence than it are Ferraris, Lambos and perhaps the Vanquish. It's low and sleek, just like its namesake. Aggressive but smooth. Very, very appealing.

The DB9 is officially very overpriced now. This particular XK, in black with most options, I saw was $84,700 and it was gorgeous, from every angle. New DB9's are at least $150K and aren't any more beautiful. In fact, since I can't stand that obscene Aston grille I think the Jag is more beautiful, even inside.

Everything else in this class, except for the Gransport, maybe, is utterly outclassed and surpassed....all the MBs and BMs can fahgetaboutit!

In fact, the dealership had a few MBs in the lot, a new red SL in fact, and the Jag made it look thoroughly pedestrian, thoroughly.

For $100K nothing comes close, really. Maserati's new coupe better be gorgeous. I wouldn't even think about a Porsche compared to this for the $80K. And this was the regular coupe, not the convertible.

Bravo Ford and the boys from Conventry, and Ian McCallum especially. Superb job. Although you have stolen all of Aston's thunder.


Forza,


Cavallini

 

I compare them because they have the same mission, same assembly, just different engines, which is arguably worth the price differential but my point is clear.

The XK is certainly closer to the DB9 than the DB9 is to any Ferrari in terms of performance.

I have no idea what of an 88 Taurus you see in this car. LOL. I'm sure you're joking and I just missed the punch line.


Forza,


Cavallini

 

At first, from the photos I saw, I thought the previous XK was more beautiful. The new model looked bland and rather uninspired in pics. But in the flesh it is sensational. It's not a Ferrari by any means, and definitely not a Lamborghini but it is head and shoulders above every Jag since the classic E-type. Even the front lights, which I thought were boorish from photos, I actually like, don't love, but like. It's sleek and forceful yet somewhat understated. To me this is what Jaguar's should be. Ferrari's and Lambo's are the flamboyant extroverts, in look and sound.

If you think it's undistinguished what could you possibly think of a 645, the monstrosity that it is, or the handsome but bland MBs of all shapes, numbers, letters and sizes?

I think the DB9 is arguably more attractive but $70K more attractive? I think not. The AMV8 may be better looking. I'll have to see one in the flesh to decide.

I saw a DB9 Volante on the road a few weekends ago and was very unimpressed. I was expecting more presence, more strength and character and it had rather little. It was handsome, of course, but not forceful, not neck-breaking.

This new XK is not quite neck-breaking but it has a great deal of forte, character and attractive power. Perhaps it's a color sensitive car and you saw it in the wrong color.

In black, however, there are very, very few cars that are more striking. It may not be the same in argento or grigio ingrio, or whatever the Jaguar equivalents to those colors are. Personally, however, I doubt color will make that much difference to such a strong, sleek line.


Forza,



Cavallini

 

Maybe. But the Jag is so much lower, wider and longer than the Taurus that any small similarities are forgotten.

This reminds of the pictures people posted of a Buick saying the Maserati QP looked like the Buick. In photos there was a slight resemblance. But in the flesh there is absolutely nothing in common between these two cars other than 4 doors. The QP is a work of art. It reminds of this new XK in some ways, with is subtle forcefullness and strength. The Buick is a Buick.

I think people see these early shots and can't forget the apparent similarities of a car with another car. Then when they see the car in the flesh their eyes can't digest and compute the differences. They only see what they saw on internet photos.

Or they decide they don't like a car based on an internet photo and cling to their dislike despite what they see in the flesh.


Forza,


Cavallini

 

I don't know what you guys see. All I can say is that if you don't like that line you must not like anything other than Astons, Ferraris, Lambos, the Maserati QP and Gransport, and maybe the 997s because nothing else is even close to this car.

I will agree they could have made the front and rear lights more distinct but that would have completely stolen Aston's thunder, especially with the AMV8 just starting out. Does anyone know how that's doing in sales btw.

Less than amazing front and rear lights definitely won't stop me from buying one.


Forza,


Cavallini

 

Perhaps. But it's just a theory, an attempt to understand what he's seeing in this particular car. I know when I saw it from a distance I thought, "Hmmm, that looks a lot better than the pictures."

Then as I approached it I thought, "I wonder if those front lights look so buggish and boring."

When I was five feet from it I thought, "Ohhh, I was way off." LOL. "This baby is sharp." And I literally forgot about the front lights. And when I viewed it from the front, it all fit together.

Also, for me the ultimate test of a car's presence is what happens when you look at other cars immediately after viewing the particular car. Ten feet from the Jag there was a brand new, red SL, a 99 or 2000 Silver Arrow SL, and a new red Boxster, along with assorted MB and Jaguar sedans.

After being in the Jag's presence for a few minutes, everything else looked boring, the way Ferrari's make Porsche's look like VWs, though not as much as they used to. And I wasn't thinking. This was simply gut, visual reflex. And I was a serious skeptic. In fact, I had written it off as another Ford fiasco. LOL. Imagine that. I eat my words and thoughts. LOL


Forza,


Cavallini

 

For that money, I don't see another option, except for the Gransport perhaps. I'd never look at a Porsche for the same money, as superb as the 997s are, even to the eye, I wouldn't take a C2 over this XK. Then again, I've never really liked Porsche's, except for the CGT. Respected them, yes. They've become very impressive in this 997 iteration. But I'll never want one enough to own one, other than the CGT.

What would you take for the same money, or even $100K?


Forza,



Cavallini

 

Aura, I totally agree with this change. It seems logical. In the flesh, however, the lack of follow-through of that line through the headlights isn't as pronounced as it is in pictures.

And thanks for reminding me of the MB in that price range. I often think of the SL first for some reason when I think of MBs in that range. Great choice. I'm sure you're enjoying the big 12.


Forza,


Cavallini