In Defense of Last XJ’s Staidness
Before the revolution
By Gunnar Heinrich
“DON’T be fooled by the fact that the styling of the latest Jaguar XJ is so evolutionary – for which read, if you will, staid [...] beneath the shape there’s little danger of the XJ being anything other than an excellent car.”
So wrote CAR magazine, the great defender of the scions of the British Automotive Empire. The year was 2002 and the “excellent” XJ in question was the rather unremarkable X350 generation XJ (2003-2007).
In those days, nearly a decade ago, Rover was still on life support, Bentley was busy unveiling the Continental GT, and Jaguar was part ‘n parcel of a London based subsidiary of FoMoCo called the “Premier Auto Group”.
Ford had strictly classical views for the marque and seemed to provide a development budget to match; that is to say, one that didn’t quite reflect decades inflation.
One thing that did seem to inflate with Jaguar was that the initial sticker shock when the company was bought in the 80s and the subsequent half-hearted maintenance of one of Britain’s finest cost Ford a billions of greenbacks.
But all that’s beside the point, really.
What matters is that what made the X350 so unremarkable wasn’t the “staid” styling but in fact that the quality did not match the look of heritage. The XJ had become a cheap imitation of its venerable, if quirky forebears.
And for all the ground made in technology and practicality (aluminum frame and new V8), Coventry’s quintessential Britishness – the heavenly Connolly leather scent, the cast iron feel of interior bright work, the heft to a door that didn’t feel like it was made from a recycled coke can – all were conspicuously absent in the new car.
Couple those lackings with staggering depreciation and the chorus of cranky car journalists who bemoaned the fact that the package looked to similar to its predecessor and its easy to see why the car faltered in the face of Teutonic competition.
But on that last point I’d like to counter it with this alternative: so what?
So what if the X350 looked so similar the X308 which preceded it.
That sedan was the most elegant post-war saloon yet built. What it lacked in space, it made of up in grace. And why not carry such eloquent design language forward? It was unlike anything else on the road in a market where there remain too many cars that look and feel like everything else.
And why can we forgive Porsche for the subtle evolution of the 911, an iconic shape if a simple descendant of the VW Beetle, and not Jaguar for evolving a sexy icon from the 60s?
Given that the 2010 XJ shared next to nothing with Jaguar’s glorious past, you can’t help but feel that the company has caved into a pressure that stemmed from a complete misunderstanding.
To be classic is to be timeless. Jaguar buyers get this which sets them apart from say, Lexus, Audi, Mercedes, or BMW buyers.
The X350’s shape, for all the saloon’s other pitfalls, had the aesthetic qualities of an excellent car.
About the Author: Gunnar Heinrich is publisher of Automobiles De Luxe online and is executive producer of the Automobiles De Luxe Television series on PBS member station CPTV.
Distiller | Oct 15, 2009 | Reply
Mhm. Wonder if the new strange XJ will really be more successful than the one above. I think the problem with Jaguar was not too much “britishness”, but not enough of it. Paired with decent German build quality, that is …
Gunnar | Oct 15, 2009 | Reply
Commendably, I think VW and BMW got it right with maintaining Bentley and RR’s unique British character – even if the two UK icons must share German sourced resources with their parent companies.
But hey, the House of Windsor itself is part of Germanic line.
Jim | Oct 15, 2009 | Reply
It was too bad for Jaguar that they finally build a car whose reliability is inline with its price and they are done in by styling. With the irony being that Jag stayed with the classic look based on market research, while trying to fix the X308 and predecessors packaging problems. Unfortunately to my eye the x350 ended up looking too much like a top-of-the-line Buick, while at the same time automotive fashion moved away from classical queues.
This said, a gently used and well tended X350 is on my shortlist of next cars, while a Bimmer would provide preferred driving dynamics, you need to sneak up on them, less you’re struck blind by the sheer ugliness of the design. MB would be a nice balance, but the E&S model years that are with in my budget suffer from dubious quality and reliability. A problem also shared by BMW to a smaller extent. We should also mention Lexus and Infinity, but we need not consider them beyond the fact they do provide the quality expected in a luxury car but lack in panache. So that leaves the Jaguar XJ…
I’m looking forward to seeing the new XJ in metal.
Gunnar | Oct 15, 2009 | Reply
From certain angles, you have a point about the Buick aspect, Jim.
Part of that image quandary is Jag’s choice of color palette – lots of pale blues, golden beiges, and there was even a maroon. You know, nothing that stirs the soul.
I’ve driven the X350 gen. Vanden Plas. The V8 was hands down the best aspect of the car. Exhilarating note and it hauled!
On engine basis alone the Jag makes for a more compelling choice than either the E65 7er or the W220 S-Class.
That said, a used Maserati Quattroporte would be far more desirable now, me thinks, and far more memorable tomorrow.
BTW, what happened to the 850Ci?
Jim | Oct 16, 2009 | Reply
Good point on the Quattroporte, that truly is a beautiful sedan, but avoid the early ones with the funky transmission. The funny thing is there is some Buickness in the Quat, as if the Maserati were a Buick show car before GM dumbed the styling down for production.
G, funny you should mention the color palette available on Jags, a few weeks ago I fiddled with Jags ‘build your own’ applet and noticed that British racing green was not among the choices. Sacrilege!
The Ci? I bid on it, what I felt was fair and somebody else wanted it more.
G | Oct 16, 2009 | Reply
I’m glad you said that there’s Buick in the Quattroporte. I’ve seen it for years. And good point about the funky, not-quite fully automatic early transmissions. I imagine they’re sportier on the boil, though.
BTW, there’s also Mazda in those Maser lines, too.
But may be, Jim, we’re really getting down to is in fact the route of your own predilections. What you’re really, secretly, truly interested in is to own the last gen. Park Ave.
Jim | Oct 16, 2009 | Reply
“But may be, Jim, we’re really getting down to is in fact the route of your own predilections. What you’re really, secretly, truly interested in is to own the last gen. Park Ave.”
LOL, The wife likes those, she thinks they look classy. The problem with Buick’s is that they may look OK in the drive, but in every other way the disappoint. Everything is soft and loose, the seats get uncomfortable after a hundred miles, the handling vague and the acceleration sedate. They’re Jags on Thorazine
On the motorcycle last weekend, I passed a late 70’s Fleetwood for sale near Laconia. I needed to be somewhere and couldn’t stop, but it look clean and the asking price was $3500 (I think). I’d rather an old boat like that, than any late model domestic luxury car. Put some new shocks and springs, replace all the suspension bushings. A comparison test Roller v Caddy.
Just call me Angel, Rockford.
Johnny Canada | Oct 19, 2009 | Reply
“Part of that image quandary is Jag’s choice of color palette – lots of pale blues, golden beiges, and there was even a maroon. You know, nothing that stirs the soul”.
Gunnar, that exactly nails it for me.