A new baby Jag?

Bosses at the British firm’s parent company, Tata, have confirmed that a BMW 3-Series rival – designed to sit below the XF and replace the X-Type – is already under development.

An interpretation of the XF’s rectangular mesh grille and swept-back headlights would give the front end the new Jaguar family look. At the back, more rounded edges to the boot, boomerang tail-lamps and pronounced curves over the wheelarches create a distinctive and muscular stance. Under the skin, the plot thickens, though. Our sources have revealed that Jaguar is working on an all-new aluminium rear-wheel-drive platform for the X-Type replacement, with the aim of making it the lightest, best-handling car in its class.

Read Article

isaacu - 7/22/2010 10:06:47 AM

+2 Boost

This new X-Type, going by the 'matured' pictures is 'ready to go!'.

Jaguar must launch in 2011. And must launch with two diesels - six-cylinder and four cylinder versions. 'Petrols', always take care of themselves.....

isaacu

LexSucks - 7/22/2010 11:06:02 AM

+5 Boost

Glad they didn't decide to rebadge a ford, add $15,000 to the price, and call it a Jaguar. The Last X-type was a joke. Seems that the Indian Management is doing a great job with this historic marque.

Blindcorner - 7/22/2010 12:40:35 PM

+1 Boost

Why the hell is this CAR (or any other) being referred to as a "baby"? What's the logic here? If I buy one and take good care of it, feed it the best gasoline formula, and give it lots of love is it one day going to grow up into an XF or XJ? No, wait! Could it be that is was designed for affluent babies?!

"I'm sorry officer I didn't mean to hit that pedestrian. Although I'm an eperienced driver of over 15 years my car is just a baby and doesn't know any better". Ridiculous and cute it is not!

SHOWTIME - 7/22/2010 2:48:28 PM

+2 Boost

LOL

AtoB - 7/22/2010 5:04:28 PM

0 Boost

L.O.L. I see your point. Who wants to drive something that is a watered down version of something greater. This car should have a personality all to it's own.

synx - 7/22/2010 8:51:30 PM

0 Boost

Blindcorner - I understand what you're saying but I think that most people's idea of a typical Jag is an XJ.

The x-type in the picture above looks like a smaller version of the XJ - hence the "baby" notation.

I guess it kind of devalues the car but I only meant it in an affectionate way.

AtoB - Who said anything about the proposed x-type being a watered down version of anything? Obviously an XJ has more features than the x or XF, being much more expensive, but the term "watering down" implies that only the basics are left. From those pics and from what we've seen from the XF and XJ, this car will have a personality of its own and will not just be a niche filler.

Oh and looking at the relative number of BMW 7(or 5)-series (adult) and 1-series(baby)around, plenty of people want to drive something that is "a watered down version of something greater".

Spectator - 7/22/2010 4:50:39 PM

+2 Boost

Yes please. I'd like mine in British Racing Green if you dont mind.

Larrybel2000 - 7/23/2010 9:00:05 AM

+1 Boost

I Like it.

Larry B.
Key West

LexSucks - 7/23/2010 1:01:53 PM

+1 Boost

The car makes the 3-series look like crap.