MG & Rover - XPower Forums banner

1 - 2 of 2 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter #1
Jaguar S-Type 2.5

When Jaguar's revised S-Type was launched last month, the spotlight was firmly fixed on the super-quick new R model. With its ***-bashing performance, the company was rightly proud of its achievement.

But in the showrooms, it's more likely that this hot model will only be given a cursory glance before most buyers move on to pore over the new entry-level version – a 2.5-litre V6. At £24,950, this is the most accessible way to experience the retro charm of the S-Type, and this Jag is also cheaper and better equipped than its direct rivals from *** and Mercedes.

When our test car arrived, it certainly didn't look like the under-wheeled model which appears in the adverts for the new entry-level version – in fact, it was mistaken more than once for the range-topping supercharged R thanks to its bodykit and big wheels, part of the optional (£2,500) Sport package. But despite the looks, this car has the same 201bhp engine as the standard model, so it's no performance machine.

The figures show it'll hit 60mph from a standstill in a reasonable 8.2 seconds, but it's less than sprightly on the road. Below 4,000rpm it feels seriously underpowered, but as the needle swings past this point it suddenly perks up and discovers a turn of speed. This means you need to stir the gearlever vigorously to maintain any sort of pace, and keep the engine spinning at the top of the rev range – harming both economy and refinement. We would recommend you stretch to the far superior 3.0-litre model. Tom Barnard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,419 Posts
Don't know much about Jags these days. Went round the local Lincoln Jag dealer and I wasn't particularly impressed. You have to spec the car up with loads of extra's to equal that of the Rover 75.

Also one word about the comic "AutoExpress", I would have thought the nearsest competitor to the "S" type in the above article is not *** or Mercedes. No it's the ZT 190. However, it probably wasn't compared because the MG is a faster and better car and most importantly is cheaper. Pity they didn't mention this point.

The editor of this so called motoring mag needs to have his eyes tested in making such a blatant mistake. Still he won't get rich if he is relying on my pocket, never bought this lousy magazine yet.

Jim
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top