Anyone know about Jaguar X-Type engines?

Izi · 9 Nov 2012 at 14:03

I am looking at the X-Type and it appears that the petrol versions are really cheap. £2k can pick up a pretty nice one.

Are there known issues with the petrol engines?

breadturbo · 9 Nov 2012 at 14:19

Make sure to get a manual, had one for 3years from new and it went through an auto gearbox per year. the v6's are based on the mondeo st200 lump i think.

p1RATE · 9 Nov 2012 at 14:23

the reason the petrols are cheaper is purely due to fuel consumption + insurance.

i think all of the x-type engines are ford based?

danza · 9 Nov 2012 at 17:58

Transfer box on 2.5 and 3.0 cars can go (500 quid plus afaik), and apparently they can rot like it's going out of fashion. Don't think there's too much to worry about engine wise, but I'd avoid an auto for sure.

Izi · 9 Nov 2012 at 18:02

Thanks for the info guys.

Are the diesels generally a better car / engine? They seem to be nearly double the price, which is what got me asking.

MORE SPEED · 9 Nov 2012 at 19:06

Most of the suspension, brakes and engines (diesels) are straight from the mondeo afaik.

mattyprice4004 · 9 Nov 2012 at 19:07

Diesels suffer the same DMF and injector issues as the Mondeo, be careful.

[TW]Fox · 9 Nov 2012 at 19:23

Izi said:
Thanks for the info guys.

Are the diesels generally a better car / engine?

No, not at all. They don't do any decent diesels - they are all noisy, unrefined and not particularly powerful 4 pots. About as wafty as a transit. Go for the 3 litre V6.

Third Opinion · 9 Nov 2012 at 19:48

Are they not Ford Engines?

[TW]Fox · 9 Nov 2012 at 19:49

Third Opinion · 9 Nov 2012 at 19:50

Diesels will be terrible then lol

Izi · 9 Nov 2012 at 21:10

[TW]Fox;23135159 said:
No, not at all. They don't do any decent diesels - they are all noisy, unrefined and not particularly powerful 4 pots. About as wafty as a transit. Go for the 3 litre V6.

I can only see 2.0 and 2.5L v6's - whats the reason you are suggesting the bigger engine, simply for umph?

danza · 9 Nov 2012 at 21:19

Neither the 2.0 nor the 2.5 are very economical. The 3.0 is not much worse and is a much better engine. Buying any petrol other than the 3.0 is pretty stupid tbh. There are plenty of them about, too.

[TW]Fox · 9 Nov 2012 at 21:27

Izi said:
I can only see 2.0 and 2.5L v6's - whats the reason you are suggesting the bigger engine, simply for umph?

It's hardly any more thirsty yet delivers usefully more power. The only downside is that IIRC they are AWD only which of course increases the chance of a big bill and will use a bit more fuel/tyres.

Izi · 9 Nov 2012 at 21:31

I can't see any 3.0L V6 X-types.

Either way, you are right. Both do about 30mpg so 2.5L it is.

[TW]Fox · 9 Nov 2012 at 21:33

Izi said:
I can't see any 3.0L V6 X-types.

There are 91 of them on Autotrader starting at £1295 for a grotty pile of crap and rising to £11k for an overpriced estate at a Jag dealer.

Izi · 9 Nov 2012 at 22:19

Ah just none in my area.... oops.

Bennie-Mac · 9 Nov 2012 at 23:39

[TW]Fox;23135955 said:
It's hardly any more thirsty yet delivers usefully more power. The only downside is that IIRC they are AWD only which of course increases the chance of a big bill and will use a bit more fuel/tyres.

The 2.5V6 is also 4wd, unless the later models did away with it?

danza · 10 Nov 2012 at 10:23

Yeah, the 2.5 is AWD only.

Do not buy a 2.5 over a 3.0. You have probably 95% of the running costs but 30 odd bhp less. The 2.0 will be a bit cheaper without the AWD system, but nowhere near enough for it to justify the lack of performance.

Buy the 3.0 and expand your search further to find some.