Hi all, aside form the obvious, metal/alum, what are the pros/cons of each model? I've been enamoured with the earlier XK but the last XK have been around long enough for me to start loving the shape also. Ragtop would be the incarnation for me.

 

There is very little to compare between these two. The aluminium body car is entirely new in every way - except that the basic engine/transmission unit is the same. In every other respect it is a different cat, and a much, much better cat. The "X150" is well engineered, very reliable, beautifully finished, very fast, gorgeous to look at, a superb long-distance cruiser, surprisingly economical...negatives? it requires full battery voltage at all times because of the amount of electronics. Once you understand that, caring for it is simple. When not in use a permanently-mounted battery maintainer (CTEK being the best one) is plugged in. result: zero problems.

 

You should wait for member tberg to chime in as he owns one of each and loves them both for different reasons.

IMHO, the x150 is the better car in all objective ways, but the x100 has the more pleasing shape and more of the Jaguar soul.

The best advice is to drive both and then pick.

 

Depending on your budget if you should decide to go with the XK over the XKR; I would look seriously at an 08, 09 or even a 10 if your budget allows. Study the threads on this forum and I think you will see why I say that.

 

I've owned both. They are completely different cars. If you want something classic Jaguar then the 2006 and older is the way to go. If you want something modern, refined and high performance then the current 2007 and newer XK series is the way to go.

 

I do have both and love them for different reasons. Look, as far as driving abilities, there is simply no comparison; the newer model is quicker, handles much better, and has a superb suspension that when going over bumps, humps, dips, and potholes feels as taut and controlled, and of one piece as anything I've ever driven. (I have a 5.0L coupe not the 4.2L of the 2007).

My 2002XKR converible has the 4.0L engine as opposed to the 4.2L of the 2006, however everything else is pretty much the same as the 2006. The first generation XK/XKR is simply one of the most beautiful designs ever. Not a single day ever goes by when I'm driving it, that I don't get compliments. It is lower, more svelte, more sensual and more reminiscent of the XKE than the 2007. Its suspension is sloppy and feels like eight different pieces are moving when going over bumps, but it's a great cruiser on the freeway with a smoother ride on 18"vs the 20" wheels of my 2010.
I also love the traditional Jaguar interior better than that of the newer model.

While the touchscreen/nav system of the newer model is better in navigation mode and has bluetooth, I HATE IT!!! because in order to change a radio station or air conditioning setting or anything else, you are constantly having to change screens to do anything instead of having simple radio or HVAC push buttons. The newer model also has problems with dash leather shrinkage which the good old molded dashes of the previous model look perfect even after 19 years.

Where the newer model excels is in its driveability, its great supportive seats, its feeling of solidity, its more muscular if less sexy looks.

One other consideration if considering a convertible. The 1996-2006 convertibles have a top that stacks in front of the trunk and the tonneau must be put on manually. The disadvantage is that the cover is not done automatically. The advantage (besides the very traditional look) is that the trunk is cavernously large, capable of easily swallowing two sets of golf clubs, luggage and a week's worth of groceries. On the newer models, the top is very neatly folded into the trunk, looks sleeker, has the automatically covered top but cuts more than 50% of usable trunk space.

Both are great automobiles and destined to be classics down the line. Driving each of them presents two very distinct experiences.

Hope this helps with your decision.

 

As tberg says, the X150 is far more sophisticated, with far better performance. However, I do like the lines of the X100; it's sleek, where the X150 is a bit more brutal. On the whole, being a performance-oriented person, I prefer the X150 (particularly as mine's a 5.0 XKR, whereas my X100 was a 4.0 XK8). But I still like the X100.

I'd echo his comments on convertibles - if you want a 'vert, definitely the X150.

 

I have owned 2 x100's ( 1997 and 2000) and 2 x150's (09 and currently '10). There is really is no comparisons between the two, the new models are head and shoulders above the earlier cars in quality, luxury and reliability. They are just superior automobiles in my opinion. Both are superbly good looking!

 

This may sound odd but the color makes a big difference. My 99 X100 in Sapphire was a stunning car. My 08 in Radiance is perfect for me but, the wife misses the older Jag for the color. As for performace/reliability the X150 is hands down the winner. Get a new a car as you can afford.
Dave

 

We have both! my wife a 2000 XK conv. and I have a '07 coupe...........they drive completely different; the '07 feels so much lighter and stiffer(which it is!).
As for styling, my coupe has the best **** in town!
My wife's is Platinum and my coupe Radiance............they are both loved!
I think the '07 is the best Jag we have ever owned; the worst driver, a '38 SS100 but gorgeous to look at.............



Adrian

 

I'll bet i have an nicer **** than you,

 

Hey Brittania
I essentially have the reverse of yours and your wife's cars, I have the Carnival Red 2002 convertible (which is essentially the same color as Radiance), and the Silver 2010 coupe. I like both of their "*****."