I've never liked the latest generation XK, it has some nice features, more power, the way the top stores, paddle shifters, and the roll protection. But the lines just left me cold. I liked the E the E like XK, and the new F which is wicked cool. Now if I could just figure out a better way to fix the butt of my XK I'd call it a day.


Appreciate the write up, nicely done!

 

Interesting thread. I've found that the new model is more comfortable for my 6-3, 225# frame, and has many practical advantages, but practicality isn't one of the reasons I bought my XK8 in the first place. I do like the shape of the new car tremendously but feel Jaguar really let the design down in the details--lights front and rear, spoiler, etc. A lot of visual clutter that detracts from rather than adds to the overall effect. Of course I wouldn't dare say this in the XK forum. OTOH, I do think the latest revisions (2012-) improved the details a bit. They fixed the XF headlights at about the same time.

 

Marsden,
I'm about the same size as you (6'-2 1/2"-220lbs) and there is definitely more leg room in the newer model as I don't feel my right knee brushing up against the keys or the bottom of the dash as in my 2002. But, the seats in the 2002 just fit the contour of my back more comfortably, so far. Maybe after fiddling with the dozen or so adjustment buttons more extensively, I'll find a more comfortable position. I think both series are beautiful, and there is no denying the wonder of the 5.0L engine, but my 2002 still brings a smile to my face every day when I walk out to it. I also think the interior will hold up better than in the newer model. It just doesn't seem as fragile. Time will tell.

 

Okay, new comparison update.

So today, I spent about 3 hours in each car. I drove the 2010XKR up to near Bakersfield and back in the morning. When I got home, I hopped into the 2002XKR to pick up my niece in Beverly Hills, went to inspect a kitchen remodel in Pacific Palisades, back to the valley for lunch with my niece, aunt and uncle, back to Beverly Hills to drop off my niece at her grandparents, and then back to the valley, all-in-all about 3 hours of driving.

Observations:
2010 has amazing power and poise, very controlled suspension over dips and bumps, much more of a one piece feel than the 2002.

2002 has a more luxurious ride, more cushy, more GT, less sports car, much more comfortable ride.

2010 translates much more road noise from the tires. Now this may be due to the fairly worn rear Hankook tires, which I will replace next week, but as it is right now, there is so much noise on any surface other than glass like roads that headphones are recommended.

2002, although a convertible is quieter at this point with new Nexen tires.

2010 has wind noise around windshield and front windows, some rattles, a dashboard that has a mismatched color panel over passenger airbag, two large air pockets due to adhesive failure, disconnection of leather at top edge of dash due to adhesive failure and too little leather stretched around dash board as well as no staples. 2010 should have a foldable rear seat to accept longer packages but doesn't, so limited size of storage. 2002's trunk is cavernous, 2 sets of golf clubs and groceries to boot.

2002 going over bumps, humps, dips....always feels like many parts of the suspension are loose (they're not), not solid. Does not feel like an independent suspension even if it is, feels more like a live axle. Though it rides softer and more luxurious feeling than the 2010, but, when going around curves at any rate of speed but especially at higher rates of speed, always feels like rear end has a mind of its own, and the front end wants to fight you on the turn in. 2010's turn in is precise, concise, easier to control.

Throttle is much smoother and more linear in 2002, 2010 has much too much power in the first 1/2" of throttle pedal.

Brakes in the 2010 are very spongy which I bet is due to previous owner not using OEM pads. I believe this because my mechanic once subbed aftermarket pads for OEM on my 2002 thinking he would save me some money, and the first time I drove it I commented to him that these did not feel as firm as my previous OEM pads, and he admitted having substituted others. They came off the next day.

Much prefer the 2002 wood steering wheel with leather trim at 3 and 9 o'clock positions. You are typically grabbing the wood part of the wheel, much better tactile feel than the clammy, sticky all leather of the 2010.

Hate the fact that in order to change radio stations on the 2010, you have to go from home screen on the display to audio to press small computer screen buttons which are barely visible. Love the built in bluetooth capability of the 2010.

Lots of things to love about both, some not to love on each as well.
2010's strongest points (so far):
510 ponies rarin' to go at any provocation.
Tight suspension, very well balanced
Beautiful lines on the coupe

2002's strongest points:
What a body!
fine engine (no match for the 5.0L, but certainly capable)
sense of style, magnet for compliments like no car I've ever owned
More fun to drive because of it's livelier suspension faults
Topless driving!!!!

 

It's great to read the comparisons and glad that even though the x100 is approaching classic status that it can still hold its own.

And a typically British car owner assessment of the suspension: what most people would call a problem we call character.

Thanks for sharing your experience.

 

It more than holds its own. I actually think I prefer it. Either way, the fact that I'm comparing a 12 year old 150,000 mile example to such a much newer lower miled example is testament to how good the X100 is.

 

This thread is making me feel pretty good about choosing to get an older x100 and install the twin screw to up the power to the more modern level.

Best of both worlds.

 

Was the 2010 XK neglected/abused, or do you instead suspect build quality issues under Tata ownership? From your description it sounds as if the interior is falling apart at just four years old....

 

The interior is not abused and the previous owner kept it in the garage but neither was it maintained at the level that I would keep my cars. The dash issue is most definitely a manufacturing problem. First, it has happened to so many owners that there's no doubt that it is a Jaguar problem. Secondly, it's easy to see how and why it's happening, with raw edges of the leather lifting, adhesion failure, and far too little overlap of the leather.

 

Very interesting comparison. I really enjoy my '06 but have thought about the newer generation of XKR. Your comment about the suspension on the X100 models feeling like it's not all tied together does bother me when going over bumps. I did drive a '07 XK and liked the deeper note of the exhaust. I don't really like a thunderous exhaust system but wish my R had a little more throat to it. I actually drove a BMW M3 vert and passed on it because it was too loud when the top was down. I like listening to David Gilmour's guitar versus the sound of a loud exhaust.

 

Mike,
I had another 4 hours in the 2010, today. There is no question that the engine and suspension are much improved and tight as a drum. But!!! The 20" wheels with the low profile tires transmit so much road noise and create a much less enjoyable cruising ride. I like both. The power is simply intoxicating and nearly impossible to keep under 80mph on the freeway in the 2010XKR. The 2002's ride is much more comfortable on the open road but less so in the twisties.

The interiors are a matter of taste, however, the bubbling, "shrinkage" problem of the leather dashes of the 2010, including mine, is a real issue. It's nearly a $5000.00 replacement cost from Jaguar. Over the next couple of weeks as I have some cosmetic upgrades done to the 2010, we are going to tackle some potential solutions to this problem, it makes me not want to drive the car, it bothers me so much. On the other hand, except for the bit of cracking on the console arm rest on the 2002, which I can replace with OEM leather for $75.00, the rest of my interior including the dash, seats, carpet.....appear nearly new, this after 150,000 miles and twelve years. And this car sits out in my driveway every night, sometimes covered, most times not, for the past 5 years.

I would not have bought the 2010 if I had to give up the 2002 to do so. The X100, especially those of the later years like yours, are exceptionally good cars even in comparison with the newer ones. Different feeling, different capabilities, different enjoyments, but exceptional none the less.

 

I really do enjoy the '06. I like the body style and get a lot of compliments on the classic styling. I must admit when I bought the car four years ago I was a little worried about the reliability of the car but have been really pleased that I haven't had any problems with Miss Kitty. Yes, I'm knocking on wood and pulling my four leaf clovers out to spread around the car. In all honesty this forum was one of the main reasons I went with Jag versus Porsche or BMW. I don't drive the car as much as I'd like to but it does give me goose bumps every time I punch it on a on-ramp to the freeway. I can only imagine what 500 plus ponies feels like. Maybe I need to get the AVOS Keene Bell option---that will have to wait if it happens at all. I may get the bug to move into a 5 liter XKR after retirement in a few years.

 

I recall reading that the x150 XKs are supposed to have a more rigid frame so that could surely account for some of the driving characteristics you report. However, don't forget that you are also comparing a convertible to a coup and we know that even the x100 XK Coups have been reported to be noticeably more rigid than the Convertibles.

To each his own, but I have never owned a Convertible before and that is one of the reasons that I bought my XK Convertible. I wanted a car that I could drive around in in a leisurely manner enjoying the fact that it is a convertible. I even went down and drove for miles and miles along the beach in the Florida Panhandle in my Convertible, something that I have always wanted to do.

It sounds like your x100 model is more than holding its own, particularly as you note that it is a 12 year old car with 150,000 miles.

That is one of the things that has impressed my about these vehicles. When well cared for the ones that are well over ten years old are thought to be practically new cars by the people who see them. Many people who see my 2001 think that it is a new car that I just bought.

 

The 5.0L supercharged engine is simply so powerful that it really is scary (scary fun) punching it. Our 4.0 or 4.2 liter engines are certainly quick, but you don't fear for your life when you step on it. The suspension of the newer XK/XKR's feels much more controlled and much tighter than than the suspension of the X100. But, the ride in the X100 is much plusher and more comfortable. The 20" wheels with the extremely low profile tires that are on my 2010 transmit noise, road irregularities, and triggers rattles and loose fitting interior parts. I don't have rattles in my 2002, and it's a convertible whereas the 2010 is a coupe. I don't have a wrinkled dash in my 2002 but I do in my 2010. And I can't tell you how annoying it is to have to change screens on the nav display to be able to change a radio station instead of just pressing a button or twisting a dial.
There is also a lot of reflection on the windshield, you'd think it was a headsup display. And my 2002 gets compliments every single time I drive it.

Ahh, but press the gas pedal of the 5.0L, and most of the shortfalls are forgiven. Use the paddle shifters to downshift and the rev-matching, crisp, instant downshifts are as quick as a manual transmission and much smoother.

I am not as enamored with the 2010 as I am with the 2002, there are too many flaws. But, it's growing on me, and once all of the issues are solved as well as the cosmetic and performance enhancements are complete, maybe then I'll enjoy it more. The drivetrain components are spectacular, the rest is a work in progress.

The 2002 (or any other X100) was a great car for its run and remains a terrific car even in comparison, better in many ways in my opinion.

I'm lucky to have both and be able to enjoy them everyday.

 

Okay, so I got my 2002 XKR convertible back last evening after 5 weeks of it being in the shop as the result of running over a very large object, maybe a ladder or a truck bumper one night on a dark stretch of the 101 freeway between Santa Barbara and Ventura. During these weeks I drove my 2010 XKR coupe almost exclusively and have gotten much more used to it. Needless to say, getting back into the 2002 last night was quite revealing.

First, sliding into that flat, puffy, soft pillow of a seat in the 2002 as opposed to the heavily bolstered, hard, and confining seat of the 2010 was quite a shock; I didn't remember it being so soft and squishy. Secondly, I have to say, the first gen XK/XKR is simply more beautiful any way you look at it. What a gorgeous automobile we have, curvaceous, classic, simply spectacular! With regards to ride, my 2002 XKR feels (in comparison) like a big floaty '60's Buick in comparison to the taut, muscular ride of the 2010. That said, the 2002 is a more luxurious cruiser GT type ride than the nervous firmness of the 2010 riding on 1/2" of rubber on 20" wheels. Part of that luxurious ride is related to the smooth, easy shifting Mercedes transmission's ability to glide through the shifts without disturbing you. But the sporty, quick shifting, punctuated shifts of the 2010's 6 speed with paddle shifter definitely makes it feel sports car like as opposed to GT. The suspension of the 2010 and its ability to swallow bumps, dips, lumps, humps, holes....is something to behold and not an experience anyone with a first gen XK/XKR can have with the faulty front suspension inherent in the model, there is just no comparison.

And finally the engines. I love the smoothness and the linear progression of power on my 2002's 4.0L, commensurate with how much pedal pressure there is. But, the power of the 5.0L with the paddle shifters, rev matching.....is phenomenal, brutal power, brutal delivery. Gas pedal is too sensitive, delivering too much too soon in terms of pedal travel, nonetheless, nothing short of incredible power at your fingertips. Exciting!

Two very different automobiles, two distinct personalities, and I love both. Now if I could just put the body and the interior of the first gen on top of the suspension, engine, and tranny of the second gen, I'd be a very happy man. Come to think of it, I am a very happy man, I have both of them to enjoy for their very different assets. I'm blessed.