Poor old Jaguar X-Type

Status
Not open for further replies.
martinweston said:
But Jag DIDNT make money from it....
Click to expand...

Exactly. Due in part because of the image it gained by people holding opinions such as yours.

And me? No, im not below the poverty line. I'm a Business Analyst with a salary classed by the UK as top 25%. I use loans to purchase the car / bike's I want - living off credit. But, i have property investment.
Click to expand...

Nice job title :D

You've no need to defend your car purchasing - personally I'd rather do it your way than buy a new X-Type every single time. I was simply making a point - its lunacy to use the 'poor mans' term.
 
martinweston said:
But Jag DIDNT make money from it....

As above, "poor man" is a commonly used idiom, not taling about an actual man...

And me? No, im not below the poverty line. I'm a Business Analyst with a salary classed by the UK as top 25%. I use loans to purchase the car / bike's I want - living off credit. But, i have property investment.
Click to expand...

oooo get you.. Go buy a proper rich mans jag and stop messing about with sub £30k ones. :o
 
Ev0 said:
Only say as a friend has an XF and I doubt he'd have paid 60k for a car.

Although as he's in the forces I think he gets a good discount.
Click to expand...

Jag are currently offering XF 3.0D Luxury with Nav, Leather, Electric memory seats, Bluetooth and 19 inch wheels for £33900. Absolutely great value.

Poor mans XJ, mind.
 
[TW]Fox;15643326 said:
Jag are currently offering XF 3.0D Luxury with Nav, Leather, Electric memory seats, Bluetooth and 19 inch wheels for £33900. Absolutely great value.

Poor mans XJ, mind.
Click to expand...


+ forces discounts and I reckon it's a pretty nice car for a young officer!

btw you working down here or having to move away for the new job?
 
[TW]Fox;15643257 said:
I appreciate that. I just think its an utterly ridiculous term.

Because it seriously affects car companies and it makes the people who use it look rather daft.
Click to expand...

It is only a ridiculous term if used incorrectly OR the figurative is ignored and instead it is translated literally, which is clearly happening here because actual £ figures are being used.

The "poor man's whatever" has been around for some time, long before Jag and Porsche etc starting making bargain-basement vehicles, allowing the common man to get a foothold on the marque ladder.






I kid, I kid :D
 
We've been over this before Gentlemen. "Poor Man's XYZ" does not equal "Let's all point at the owner and laughed at him because he is poor. LOL!", but more describes that car possibly being purchased as a way to buy into a prestige marque without paying the prices usually associated.

Like or not, but many low end "affordable" models in Prestige marques are going to have this stigma attached. It's not helped when the car in question is based on a Mondeo Platform. I'm not knocking the decision, but it is what blokes will talk about down the pub whilst pretending to know about cars, then It'll get passed around as fact to anyone who would have considered buying one. "Don't buy that. Poor man's Jag, it's a posh Mondeo, innit".

In my mind it works both ways though. How many original A-Classes were sold because people genuinely wanted a pointless, badly built MPV thingy. I bet the number perils in comparison to the number of people who bought an A-Class because it was a Mercedes Benz ;)
 
So to sum up, OP tells us X-types are good value for money now. Nobody really disagrees.

'Poor-man's ....' debate ensues and everybody (I think) agrees it's a phrase and not to be taken literally as poor men can't afford cars. It simply refers to the lower end, more affordable models of a typically pricey manufacturers cars.

To save anyone reading through the above.
 
Wow, they are cheap :eek:

Am I right in assuming that being Mondeo-based, the reliability will be largely on par? I.e. that they'll be *generally* cheaper to service/repair than a BMW for instance?

I can see myself in a 3.0 V6 Sport :cool:
 
[TW]Fox;15643389 said:
I dunno, maybe about the time you understand my point is that its a badly named, ridiculous term :)
Click to expand...

It's a term that has existed probably longer than cars have, it's only viewed as ridiculous by people who have difficulty understanding its meaning as far as I can see.
 
[TW]Fox;15642673 said:
....

2) They did a nice 2.5 V6 and 3.0 V6 in AWD form. Lovely. If you wanted a diesel, they did one of those as well. Sure, it was a Ford 4 pot and 4 pot .....
Click to expand...


Any idea what the Rover I mean S type D lumps are like? I remember that Clarkson liked it in that Top gear epp where he done the ring.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom