Jag X-Type 3.0

MarkyMark

MarkyMark

MarkyMark

Soldato
Joined
9 May 2003
Posts
3,062
Location
Midlands
Hey all,

I'm looking to replace my tired Rover 75 Diesel with a 3.0 Jag X-Type. Main reasons being they are still comfortable for the driving I do (motorway mainly) and come with the added bonus of being 4wd (Will be driving to Poland once a year at Christmas where they have real snow :)). I know the fuel consumption is going to increase (from my current 42mpg to around 25/26mpg) but since the majority of my miles will be company miles (on a milage allowance) i'm too worried.

So what's the point of the thread? It's not to sit here and gloat and wait for all the replies to go "hey good choice". What I want is actually the low down on how good or bad they really are. My main concern is reliability. I need to get where I'm going and be fairly sure I'm going to get there. With a top budget of £5k is there anything i've overlooked from other manufacturers i.e. Audi Quattro, Mercedes E Class etc. From what i've read from user reviews the 3.0 X-Type doesn't seem unreliable, but can anyone here confirm or dispute this?

Any other buying tips would also be really appreciated, and of course, what to avoid. All the ones i'm looking for are manual gearboxes and to be honest I'd prefer to keep it this way......unless they are crap......but i'll wait for your views on this :)

So there you go.......go nutts!
 
The 3 litre is ok for the most part, I'm not sure weather it suffers the same tappety rattle the 3.0 V6 in the Mondeo can, I imagine so given they are the same engines. I don't think it suffered the same gearbox issues the S-Type did with it's autobox, and if you have a manual that could never be an issue anyway. I believe they are pretty solid on the hole, I don't think they are as good as a 3 series really, but then the price reflects this, it's much easier to find nice examples for your budget and you get 4wd.
 
Isn't there a potential expensive issue with part of the 4wd system? Remember reading that somewhere before.

Otherwise, the Mondeo base and engine mean they have the same common faults and general reliability - that is to say not many and pretty good respectively :)
 
iaind said:
Isn't there a potential expensive issue with part of the 4wd system? Remember reading that somewhere before.

Otherwise, the Mondeo base and engine mean they have the same common faults and general reliability - that is to say not many and pretty good respectively :)
Click to expand...

Hmm 4wd faults.....sounds expensive already :p I'm guessing at this rate then I should be reading up on Mondeo's too to see what their engines are like :)

EDIT: Thanks for the replies everyone :)
 
The ST220 is faster than the 3.0 litre X-Type, since it doesnt have a power sapping 4wd system, I also think it's better looking but the interior is not as nice as the Jags of course.
 
Well all ST220's seem to make a fair bit more power than the quoted figure, mine made 241bhp totally unmodified at a RR we did last year, I don't know if this is true of the Jags or not, I expect so, so they should be fairly similar yea. But I believe the ST220 is a bit faster generally.
 
Moeks said:
Well all ST220's seem to make a fair bit more power than the quoted figure, mine made 241bhp totally unmodified at a RR we did last year, I don't know if this is true of the Jags or not, I expect so, so they should be fairly similar yea. But I believe the ST220 is a bit faster generally.
Click to expand...

Same old same old though, 241 to what kind of baseline? Might as well pull a figure out of thin air :p
 
Well the Mondeo had the Duratec V6 with 201bhp and the Duratec ST with 222bhp. The 3.0 in the Jag is 231bhp so I'd expect the performance to be similar to the ST220 when you take the 4wd system into account
 
Well we had other cars making book figures near enough, so I'm fairly happy that it was reasonably accurate. Fox's 530i made 232bhp iirc, so bang on really, well up by 1bhp if you like.
 
Moeks said:
The ST220 is faster than the 3.0 litre X-Type, since it doesnt have a power sapping 4wd system, I also think it's better looking but the interior is not as nice as the Jags of course.
Click to expand...

That makes sense, both the transmission losses and the higher weight of the jag. I remember TopGear magaine trying one against a 330i and a Merc 320 years ago. They noted how the jag's performance above 60mph was very inferior to the others. they were manual. It was speculated that the 4wd was the main reason.
 
Last edited:
I could show you my rolling road readout if you like :p ...but no, I don't have a link stating they make 20 more bhp, most actually don't quite, more like 12-16 more, mine happened to read 21-22 over standard though. It is well known they make more than 220 though, 232-236 is a pretty 'normal' figure for a stock ST220 it would seem from reading around a lot.
 
Last edited:
Same here, and i've seen at a dyno day an ST220, unmodified, put out above book (239) :eek:although other cars did not show so much above, such as my 330i which came in at 232.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom