Re: Observations on July R&T Comparison Test ( (archive)

It isn't R&Ts fault Jaguar wasn't intelligent enough to give them the rightr car. Jag really does seem to have a very poor understanding of marketing. By the way, my recollection is the X was supposed to have 30/70% front rear power distribution. I guess they thought their little old ladies target market didn't want to hang their tails out.
What gets lost on the typical reader of these comparison tests is how R&T (and other journals) are at the mercy of the manufacturer providing the sample car. In this case, Jaguar provided an all-option spec car with a MSRP way above it's selling point. This is a severe disadvantage in a comparison test because price is one factor of success. On the other hand, performance is another factor, so the Sport Package would be a must, otherwise the testers would complain of undersized all-season tires' lack of grip.
Had R&T been provided a 3.0 with the Sport Package for a total of $37,000, I'll bet the X-Type would have placed in the top 5, rather than 11th.
Also, R&T prefers rear-wheel drive dynamics for dry road handling. Hence the BMW 3-Series and Infiniti G35 as top picks. To their credit, they did mention the rain/snow advantage the X-Type would have over the RWD competitors in real world circumstances.

Follow Ups:

Re: Observations on July R&T Comparison Test ( Vivian 13:35 6/10/2002 (4)
- Re: Observations on July R&T Comparison Test ( Anthony 17:16 6/10/2002 (0)
- Re: Observations on July R&T Comparison Test ( Marco 15:26 6/10/2002 (2)
  - Re: Observations on July R&T Comparison Test ( steve miller 22:21 6/10/2002 (1)
    - Re: Observations on July R&T Comparison Test ( Marco 00:55 6/11/2002 (0)

[ Follow Ups ] [ X-Type Message Board ] [ Msg. Board FAQ ]

Questions, comments, or problems, please visit the Roadfly help desk.