Hello all,

I'd like to have your attention to the new web site I recently found.
It's: Jaguar XJ x350 : La plus belle berline au monde and it's basically in French
but available in English either...

Hope you'll find it helpful... ;-)))

 

Never cared to speak, or read, the French language, or eat snails.

 

http://www.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3...3mH95yJpS88BiU

"now look here my good man....."
I can't find the switch for the english version of that page.

 

Sort of my point old man

 

Why I bought mine when I did. I've always thought the low flat bonnet and low flat boot gave all the XJ range a lovely look and when the last of that line was about five years old and had been replaced by the new awful wedge shaped thing with the 'gaping fish' front I thought I'd better move or I'd never have one.

I bought a couple of wheels at a Jag sales rally a few years ago and the guys helped me carry them out to the car and after we'd loaded them (loads of other Jags of all marques around the place) one of them stood looking at it and remarked that they're a 'bloody lovely' looking car.

 

Lawson: 1 Callum: 0

 

Spoken like a true 'Murican there, Wingrider!

 

 

I generally agree with this opinion, except I think the trunk/boot could be an inch or two higher. The X308's trunk/boot was even lower, which I thought unattractive and somewhat less practical (reduced trunk space). Studebaker coupes from the early 1950s had this problem also - didn't get fixed until the Gran Turismo hawks came along.

 

The X350/X358 is already a large car (larger than previous models).
In fact, it's more or less as large as a Mark 10.


Hard to say which is more beautiful. They both are! (Age difference first to last: 48 years)

And of course, the Mk10 never played Pink Floyd, whereas all of the XJ's STILL DO.
https://myjaguarxjx350.blogspot.com/...elcome-to.html

 

Oh its easy for me to say which is more beautiful, and I don't think it's just "grass is greener" envy. While the XJ has direct lines back to 1968, the 4 Headlight style motif and other cues, it did not have the "wider than tall grill" that the 1968 XJ brought to the line. My brother has eleven Jaguars in his stable. I have owned 5 - an 87 XJ-S, and 94 XJS, a 98 X308 Vanden Plas, a 2006 XJ8L and current 07 VDP. They are all beautiful cars and have added immeasurable joy to my life -as well as immeasurable headaches, but nothing worthwhile comes without a price.

But a Mark X has been on my bucket list for ages. It will probably have to stay there, for the kind of example I dream of is at odds with the bank account that I live with, and never the two shall meet, I suspect. My dad owned a 61 Mark IX, and that created the fascination and lifelong Jaguar fans in me and my brothers. He was smart enough to find a career that supports Jaguar ownership at a proper level. He has TWO Mark IX's - one was to be a parts car, but was too good to break apart. He has quite the collection, with the "most interesting" award going to a high-end XJ-13 replica with a modestly worked 5.3 V12 providing ~450 HP - in a car that weighs about 2100 lbs soaking wet with a Porsche gearbox and the most amazing exhaust manifolds I have ever seen to get twelve outlets out the back in a super cramped space. But he lacks a Mark X, and the Mark IX restores were very draining, both emotionally and financially, so I have been unable to convince him to grab a Mark X (or two)

Here is a Mark X that I have pics of and I have no other knowledge of it. I have pics of the Vanden Plas with them to show the style provenance. THAT Mark X. Long, LOW, WIDE and just... mmmm. The veneers, that buttery leather... Sorry... drifting off to dreamland again. THIS is why I say that the X351, while being a beautiful car in its own right, simply isn't an XJ - Jaguar could have prevented a million disagreements, discussions, arguments and knock down BRAWLS (ok, maybe only in my family) by just naming it something else. Sure, it took the place of the XJ for Jaguar, but can we just call it an XG, or JX, or ANYTHING else and save the battles? I guess the point is moot since there is no XJ at present and the new one will REALLY need a new name to avoid being more polarizing than politics! At least the X350 had proper staggered headlight sizes. As much as I love the look of X308's those identical sized quad headlights always puzzled me. Geoff Lawson must have had an extra martini at lunch before allowing that to happen. It's an interesting look, but does not have any connection to Jaguar style over time.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Until they don't.

Sorry about the rear seat area photo. I needed to snap a new one with matching perspective and the light is all wrong at 11 am. I couldn't wait until this evening to capture a properly lit photo. No patience, lol. Here are the dimension numbers - Chris Mills is spot on in his observation about size, even if the X looks impossibly low and wide, it's actually well under a LWB X350.

Surprised at the weight? Cars in general had less mass from safety equipment and extra options. Luxury cars were the exception. My 69 Lincoln Mark III COUPE was 5250 lbs

The SWB most closely apes the Mark X - But SWB & LWB straddles the Mark X's numbers overall.



Here again is the Mark X by itself. As it should be.

 

Ooh la la, merci. (we are all supposed to be french here, if only to annoy Wingrider)
We forget the electric windows that sound like meat grinders, the 15mpg, the D1/D2 (start in 2nd if the Queen is in the back) coz the BW8 wasn't that smooth.
But that's the thing. The X350 is a completely current car, technologically. And things like Burl Walnut or styling are timeless luxury in a modern concept.
...until 2009 :-)

For anyone who thinks different:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ro4DrewXHE

We also forget that on the Mk10, all those window surrounds are brazed & chromed, the body joints lead-filled, whereas from the XJ6 it was clips & visible joints. But such is modern life.

 

They are indeed, beautiful cars like all the XJs before them bar the XJ40 series. My problem with the two I had was the short life of the suspension bushes, meaning constant visits to the local specialist and an hour's ride on a freezing cold bus back to our village. I am no doubt spending a lot more money on my XE with warranty due to the depreciation. I expect this is far higher than the repair bills I was paying. I may go back to an X350, probably an X358 and one as late as possible. My XE looks good, and it gives me excellent service, but the interior looks like that of an Audi !!

 

If you Google 'Jaguar Bertone B99' you'll see what we could have had ...

 

If I had to lodge a singular complaint about the X350, it would be that the front/rear clips are, proportionally shorter in relationship to the full length of the car; fitting of course for a modern car that's efficient in design, but perhaps lacking some elegance. "Stumpy" - People who are NOT car freaks (they actually exist, even if I try not to associate with such types) have said "I thought your car was a 7 Series BMW. Oh, the humanity! I do get it from a proportional view - The X350 has the taller look with shorter hood and rear deck, but not QUITE as stumpy as a large BMW. Some might say it adds "athleticism" to the look. Nice try. Jaguars are suppose to look taught, and are all about stance and tension. Personally, I would love to have seen about 1 to 1.765" additional length in the front overhang. Approximately.

I even got out my calculator once to see if it was real or imagined, and analyzed total length vs. wheelbase as a number and a percentage (I know... too much free time, and yes, there are an extra 8 inches or so in an X308 outside the wheelbase, compared to the closes x350, a SWB model. I like to use those pic to show how the X350 is like and X308 + 25%

Slight exaggeration of proportions due to the X350 being slightly higher elevation on the street, but yep. And that's a SWB X350. I prefer LWB to overcome the perception of tall humpback whale, but then the LWB accentuates to stumpy front/rear clips. Sigh - perfection is hard to achieve. Sir William did it once in his lifetime - E-type. The rest were all striving for and getting damn near.

My next door neighbor is a nice guy, but a damn idiot. When I got the Vanden Plas, he kept saying how much more he liked the look of it from my XJ8L. Repeatedly, EVEN after I patiently explained that it is exactly the same body and trim as the XJ8L, the ONLY difference being the wheels and the words "Vanden Plas" on the back. To which he gave me that look. The one that says "does not compute" and repeated how much nicer this one looks. Jeeesh! I quit.

And for all the things I love about X308's -forgetting the four same sized headlights for the moment -> Lawson's folly, Quelle folie! <- for Wingrider - -the squared off roof at the back. Painful reminder for me that the X300, X305 and X308 bodies are XJ40's with new front & rear clips. They look great, but that roofline gives away the aging platform under it all. The X350 made perfect sense: World class, leading edge engineering and design, with XJ continuation styling - retro is a return to something. This was keeping something. I still wonder how the Bertone B99 Concept might have faired vs. the X351. It was quite the sexy number. The rear doors were WAY too short on the concept and it may have ruined the look by stretching, but I guess we will never know.



More shots of this here: https://www.caricos.com/cars/b/berto...r_b99_concept/

Don't get me started on US Bound Series I,II & III XJ's and how they ALSO had 4 same sized headlamps - the sealed beam lamps, per US regulation (we hate any type of lighting innovation and we just. won't. have it.) Those XJ's got larger chrome bezels around the outer lamps and smaller around the inner/high beams. Great visual trick. It had me fooled for years.

All these things are quibbles - and would never occur to me if I wasn't devoted to the marque. I don't get upset that the 1986 Hyundai Excel sedan was 7.1 inches linger than the 3 door, though both ride an a 93.7" wheelbase. It's not important to me. I went to a great care show in Virginia in 2013, sponsored by JCNA, and featuring a dinner talk with Ian Callum, I believe Norman Dewis was present, and some heavenly Jaguars, D-Types, E-types galore, even an XJR-15. One thing I saw that sticks in my head: A restored Mark IX - that won it's class. The levers that open the rear quarter windows were wrong. Whoever recreated, fabricated, imitated, whatever did not include the cross hatched pattern on the finger pad. It was all wrong. Small detail, yes. But in my minds eye, I was a little kid again, with my brain set to "input" mode. This is the item:


The photo is a Mark II but the part is the same. Without the cross hatching its missing something to can see, feel and remember. Part of the magic. Anyway, sorry for my extended ramblings, but if not on Jaguarforums, then where?

One more - This is me - the little guy on the left, and my Jaguar collecting brother on the right. Behind us is my Dad's 1961 Mark IX in a green that we STILL argue about.

There were no Indians scattered on dawns highway, bleeding. But there was a Jaguar, and it jumped up right into these two young boys fragile eggshell minds. And it's still there.

And the Mustang in the background is exactly where it belongs in the presence of the Mark IX. In the background.

 

John, This is one of my favorite posts ever! My grandad had a Mark X when I was very little and I think it imprinted me somehow. I LOVED the tables in the back and could not fathom why every car did not have these. I even remember how it smelled. It never occurred to me how similar it is to our X350s.

Also the Mark X in the photos is stunning.

Also my grandfather hated the car because it was a nightmare to keep running.

 

I never caught it before - That B99 concept was an XE sized car, NOT XJ Sized.

"The B99 is a compact four-door saloon, which at 4.5m long and 1.95m wide is about the same size as a current E90 BMW 3-series."

That's 177 Inches long - The SHORT XE is 183.9 in XEL is 188.5 but the B99 is a couple inches wider (what is the metric stuff? Too "complicated" for us 'muricans - decimal based... how illogical!)

Whatever the size, it looks like someone at Jaguar studios was looking closely at it when face-lifting the F-Type:

 

Mais, Oui, Monsieur Mills!

 

Oops a francophone. Cavalier D’aile will have a heart attack.
But do you speak a design language?

 

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that the B99 was necessarily going to be marqued as the new XJ; I was rather bemoaning that it would still have maintained a unique 'Jaguar' look (as an XJ, XF, XE ... who cares) which we have now lost. It seems to me that Jag have now gone away from having a clearly identifiable look to the much more general look ... 'is that a Jag, or is it (eg) a Vauxhall (Opel) ?'

The days of the unique styling to a make, eg the DS19 Citroën, or the P5 and P6 Rovers, or Mercedes are long gone, sadly.