So i just test drove a genesis 3.8gt and the 2.0 trubo. Then got in my car, and drove away. anybody who complains about eh x types comfort clearly hasnt had there back smashed by every pebble ont eh ground. i was actaully scared driving the genesis fearing i was going to die instead of int eh jag where it was cal and soothing and relaxing gental glide. So if your complaining about ride comfort please go test drive one today....you will clearly want the jag back.

 

I test drove the coupe a while back too and thought it handled like crap. Didn't get to try the GT but didn't really want to at that point. The sedan was supposed to be pretty good for the money. I remember it had some minor issues in the beginning but supposedly they worked the kinks out.

I've been wanting to replace my X for a few years, just for a change of pace and honestly, before anything goes wrong with it. But I just can't find anything I'd spend good money on that would serve me as well.

 

My '03 X rides like a metal shopping cart full of bricks on the salted-to-death-crappy-potholed-NY roadways, and like a supreme air-glide cushion on the rare repaved stretches of pristine macadam.

Like. Nicest car I've ever had the joy of owning.

 

I've driven the Genesis, and a fair amount of sports/performance vehicles. The X-Type has a rough ride, but not much of the handling/performance abilities to back it up or justify the harsh rides in comparison.

It isn't really a fair to say that the X-Type handles bad on bad roads, and handles like a dream on smooth roads. They're smooth roads - almost anything with a suspension in good condition should handle well on smooth roads. I mean...the road is smooth, what imperfections are there to upset the balance or test the limits and capabilities of the suspension?

Drive any late model BMW with conventional suspension and you'll get a nice smooth ride on good roads (obviously) and a firm, but not jarring, ride on the bad roads.

 

Based on my experience the x type has a more comfortable ride on smooth roads than a Cadillac CTS 4 which I drove yesterday from DC to Philly and overall is a more comfortable car than the C series 4 matic (circa 2007 model) which I used to own.

I also think the quality of tires has some bearing. Once I switched to the Conti ExtremeContact DWS, the ride is quieter and smoother than the Conti pro contact tires.

When it comes to smooth roads I guess the seats play a big role in the comfort and for me the seats on the x type are pretty decent. By comparison they are more comfortable than the CTS I drove yesterday

 

Yea i waent from hold on and being tensed up under the threat of dying ( the car would float under full throttle when turning) to simply calm and relaxing ride home int eh jag. SIgh...i really liked that genesis but the ride...maybe cuase it was a gt model and the visibility is odd for that car. Event the non-track turbo moel's handling wasnt that confident. good car to look at though

 

It's a freaking Hyundia, that's why it was crap.

The sour taste of poor quality lasts far longer than the sweetness of low cost.

 

but it s looks cool...haha
Yea im not to sure, its not as bad as the impala, its like try to navigate a boats....

But im unsure if so much power should be in a car that cant keep its compusure...it felt unsafe.

I went for a ride in my freinds rx7 last night and even though t hings were falling off it, the handlinh manners were very sharp and tight and even the ride wasnt too too bad. Hyundai wtf were they thinking when it came to suspension.

Now what do i look at hmmm?

 

I thought my X rode like crap, until I had the front and rear sway bar bushings replaced. I now rides well handles very well and is a joy to drive

 

In my experience the car that drives most similar to the x type is the Acura TL. Back in 2007, we already had a C Class so we didn't want another C and the E's were out of our range. We looked at the 3 series, A4 Infinity G and Lexus is 300. In the end it came down to the X and the Acura TL. The smell of the new leather and wood and the deep glossy paint job on the X made us buy it. But the handling and ride between the X and TL were very similar. The TL had superb audio and for the time the dash was very technically advanced. The jag dealer had to throw in the ACM... to make the deal.

But the new Acura TLs are just too ugly for me to bear. The Infinity G is too stiff for me.

I drove a CTS 4 recently and while the seats are not as comfortable, it's a decent mix if comfort and sportiness. The MSFT software isn't bad either. But for navigation I still ended up using my iPhone v the in car system. It wasn't as efficient in planning the routes.

 

How about a 2005 or newer X-Type 3.0 Sport? You obviously love the X, but have had a ton of issues with your 2002. Knowing what you know now versus what you knew then you can make a better buying desciosn and would have a very good chance of getting a reliable car that would be sportier than what you have now, cheaper to buy than what you have been looking at and still be good in winter? I can imagine that being a tough sell to the parents though, but you asked. Seems like everything you have been looking at is rear wheel drive. Do you plan on driving those through the winter?

 

i know i would love to get aother x...but my parents are now against alll european cars...which i try and argue and they just laugh at me.
I want rwd cuase for summer it would a bit of fun and joy to drive to the lake or beach and even on long roud trips with a friend. But winter yes i would drive it, but i would have snow tires, more weight int he back, and some other little things, or i would buya old beater such as a jee cherokee fromt eh 80's 90's.

 

My friend has a TL and I also find the handling similar, but I feel the X corners flatter, but the TL suspension is quieter. So it is a give and take situation, can't have both.

 

Don't try to compare too many cars handling against an RX7. It already has the advantage of near 50/50 weight distribution. What I find amazing is people that replace the rotary with the GM LS1/LS2 say the LS's are even lighter. If I ever find a clean conversion on a well preserved RX7, I'm buying it.

 

I've always wondered wouldn't a car lose it's 50/50 weight distribution the moment you sit in it? Also, doesn't the weight shift as you drive. I am a little rusty on my physics but you can't get 50/50 in motion unless you're actively balancing the force. Plus, center of gravity seems more important than 50/50 which will tend to move around as you're driving and cornering etc.

 

the ponitiac g8 has 50/50 weight balance with two adults in the front seats, now what classifies as an adult is up for discussion, the bmw 5 series also shares the chassis.

I hate physics, this brings in a few components such as vectors? anybody follow?

 

A car with 50/50 weight distribution wouldn't loose this balance with a passenger. Why? As the driver and or passenger are sitting midship and their weight is not enough to effect the the balance of the car.

 

The weight distribution has a tremendous effect on the way the car transitions and behaves during cornering. Physics still, applies, but you're not necessarily seeking 50/50 weight distribution while in motion, but you don't want a heavy front end pushing forward to understeer. Similarly, you don't want a tail heavy rear end to bring it out of line and oversteer.

Weight distribution more or less centers around yaw rate during cornering. Under cornering forces, you don't necessarily have weight transfer either, it's more appropriately load transfer. You're transferring forces and load, but weight remains the same in each corner.

 

As stated by others, passengers sit between the axels so have less effect on balance but they do increase the sprung weight. In the RX7's case, the engine is mounted completely behind the front axel, which was uncommon back in the 70's. 50/50 weight distribution is just another way of saying the center of gravity is actually, centered. The other battle is getting it lower. Again, something the RX7 already exhibits. All it ever really needed was more power but fuel economy held the rotary back. That said, props to the Japanese for working most of the kinks out of the Wankel.

 

While 50/50 does seem to be a holy grail and I know BMW makes a big deal about their 3 series having a 50/50 weight distribution. I've always felt there is no single measure that determines how a great a car will handle and a great handling car is a combination of factors that include things like aerodynamics (drag co-efficient), tires, body (stiffness and weight) and suspension and of-course engine and other such stuff. While a balanced center of gravity is good, it is equally important to have a lower center of gravity for better balance (at least according to me). How did I come to this belief? I was a huge believer in the 50/50 mantra. Had driven an M3 and thought it was superb handling...then I happened to drive a Carrera 4S. The Carrera was amazing in acceleration, braking and the way it handled twisted roads (i.e. Blue Ridge parkway). The problem is that the Carrera is rear heavy. It's not even close to a 50/50 weight distribution. In all honesty, the Carrera was just flat out different and better than the M3 in every way - even without a 50/50 weight. Later I found out Porsche's tend to be rear heavy - even the great 959. Even a lowly Jag XK that I rencently drove had great handling and feel. I doubt it's close to 50/50 either.

So in a nutshell, I am sure 50/50 is an important metric, but it isn't as important or there are other factors just as important when it comes to handling. After all we are talking about road cars here, not F1 driving...

But appreciate all the responses. I am better educated now