Miatas have more trunk space than my XKR! The F Type is a big car - Jag did some non sensical things to make it so big and heavy. If they really wanted a sports car then they should have kept the weight in the Cayman or at least Carrera range.

The XKR is heavy - yes - but it is a GT car so it gets more grace.

 

I was told the new XK would be a 4 door like the Panamera. That's what they told me. Everything they have told me about future Jag stuff has come to pass.

Of course, designs can change. The new XK is being designed now. When we will see initial images nobody (except those at Jag involved) knows.

The XK replaced the XJS. The F Type is replacing the XK in many ways and is Jag's true sports car. The next gen XK will be pure GT.

 

Here is an artist's rendition on what the new X whatever might look like.

 

a 4 door XK does not sound likely. that would be stepping on the XF.

an XK with a more useable rear seat sounds probable (more along the lines of necessary)

 

I just hope its not too big to have a convertible... like the MB CL.

 

My worst fear is that many people think like you.
It already seems evident from the way all new Jags look that they are actively moving towards rather than away from being yet another boring generic BMW/Audi/Mercedes clone.

The oblong front grill shape that Jag lifted directly from Audi and are now using on everything was in my opinion an especially big mistake.
The oval grille used on D and E-types and 1996-201(5?) XKs is not only uniquely identifiable to Jaguar, but also speaks of an illustrious racing heritage that Jag now seem almost embarrassed about. On a practical level, the oval grille also allows for a much vertically slimmer nose which intrinsically looks much more light, aerodynamic and elegant. The new oblong grill shape forces a flat tall front, which would make any car look more bulky and also like the same anonymous box as everything else on the road.

Jag stole Ian Callum from Aston for a reason: he led Aston to make the most uniquely stylish and uncompromisingly drop-dead gorgeous car shapes. Looking at all the cars after the 2006+ XK, Its very clear that Jag (or he) have sadly chosen a road if not diametrically opposite to that ethos, at least a massive compromise to it. At this point it seems clear to me that the current XK shape will be the last truly uncompromised and timeless pure car shape from Jag, so will in time naturally come to be considered a true classic. It will stand for the most elegant and the best Jag moment since the E-type, never to be seen again, because just after 2006 Jag became completely mass-market centric. Everyone thinks the F-Type is the spiritual successor to the E. I'm not so easily convinced about that. It seems to me that title is far more suited by the 2006+ XKR. I for one don't see anyone appreciating or even remembering the F-type in a couple of decades, but I do think the XK will be, especially an R.

 

That grille shape that everyone likes to lambast appears to come from the Series III E-Type and Series I XJ6.

I happen to think the current XJ is one of the most striking and distinct sedan designs ever. Jaguar is going in a great direction with their styling, IMO!

 

I'll give you the Series 1 XJ6 but the Series 3 E-type grille is definitely still an oval in my book.

The XJ series is all about being a big soft luxurious 4 door saloon. That equates to the current XJ and (sortof) XF ranges. A tall square grill does look appropriate for those types of cars, but IMHO never for Jaguar 2 Door GT or sports car such as the XK or F-Type.
Early XK's such as the 120, 140 and 150 get a free pass as their grilles are tall but narrow, sort of oval on its side :-)

 

Oval, sure, but still getting a more squarish look that is less symmetrical (top/bottom) at least versus the earlier E-Types. But I suppose you're right, not much inspiration from that in the current models. My bad!



vs.

 

Now tell us what you really think of the F-Type and Jaguar's design direction Just kidding, and I share these views and frustrations.

Completely changing the design language, and eliminating the clever parcel shelf upholstered to look like a seat, does not make it an XKE successor, and you can find more XKE influence in models from other manufacturers. But in reality, if Jaguar designed the F with more XKE influence it would have looked a lot more like the current XK/R, and they naturally needed to differentiate it from that model. After 2015 Jaguar won't have a car that's visually reminiscent of the XKE any more, and maybe it's only us old farts that will miss that. Oh well, F comes after E, so a successor it must be. Buyers of two seaters will consider it on its own merits, and reviewers are quite taken with its muscle car ability to vaporize the rear tires and its raucous exhaust. Others have managed that with a lot more cargo space, and I'm sure that is costing them sales every day.

 

Well, I never looked in the trunk of a Miata

I agree that the weight should have been kept significantly lower for the F-type. As to its size; I also think that the XKR is graceful and justifiably heavy going with its GT heritage. The F-type is within a couple of inches to the 911 and the Vette in length but, a couple of inches wider. There were already plenty of negative views, judging from pictures, that the car was too small, looking like a Miata. If nothing more, from a marketing standpoint I think it would have been a mistake to make the F-type much smaller but, certainly wish they would have made it weight less. Hard to see why they could not when the car weights nearly the same as the limousine sized XJL.

Having said that, unless someone takes the F-type to the track and run it up to competitive speeds, most of us will not be seriously bothered by the weight.

Albert

 

Back in 2011, while i was working in JLR Russia, i've saw a photo of an early prototype of new XK. It was 4 door car, looking like a panamera. What a shame

 

This is a huge part of why I left BMW... The last real driver's ar BMW made in my and many other's opinion is the 2002 Z3 platform. Specifically the M Roadster and M coupe. For many of the reasons in design you mentioned. Everything else looks like a honda or Kia nowadays.

There is a reason the E Type is the only car in the Art Museum!

 

Not look like a british car? Thats exactly why I didn't get a BMW M6 or Audi RS7, they all look the same.. The XK just has this little bit of quirky british charm, that I admit I didn't understand at first but now love it. Just as the Italians have their persona the british have theirs. The German persona is over engineer the personality out of everything and make it work flawlessly and without flavor. Go drive an R8, if you close your eyes its like a RS5.

Which is great for, but character counts for something, and Jags have it.

 

That's right. I know for me - I have an E class that runs flawlessly with 140K miles on it but its paid for. It's boring, quiet, comfy and underwhelming in every way with decent acceleration and good on gas.

When I get into my XKR, I'm looking for an experience. My current XKR gives me just that!

 

Exactly! I'm buying a Range Rover Sport to drive around daily, get dirty, carry friends, car parts and whatever else. The Jag is special, not a plebeian luxury/sport vehicle

 

Just thought I'd throw this out there to drag out the "British look" argument.

In my opinion this is what Jag could and should have made the F-Type look like and then it would have actually deserved the name:

http://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/imag...-melange_9.jpg

 

YES!

with a TT straight 6 at that

 

This is exactly what the sales manager told me that the new XK was going to look like.

BTW, I would not buy an XK that looks like that whether new or used!!!

 

A buddy just bought a 2014 750ix; the car drives itself (for better or worse). Not an engaging car at all, but the interior is wow with craftsmanship and overall is very high quality. I would not buy one. I am looks first, which is not its strong suit.