X type & Rover 75 comparison... - Page 2

tourerfogey · 26th March 2008, 13:18

One way of looking at this is..

..the X type is Jaguars 'baby' 'entry level' model.
..the 75 was Rover's flagship model.

Not sure that this should make any difference when comparing the two but to some people I think it does.

Sancho · 26th March 2008, 14:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourerfogey

One way of looking at this is..

..the X type is Jaguars 'baby' 'entry level' model.
..the 75 was Rover's flagship model.

Not sure that this should make any difference when comparing the two but to some people I think it does.

Absolutely. A 75 would sit somewhere between an X type and an S type in the Jaguar line up. It was, after all, an attempt to compromise between the 600 and 800 sizes.

I would personally expect the x type to handle and go better and the 75 to be more comfortable and better equipped - which seems to be the way this thread is heading.

Bartonrover · 26th March 2008, 15:05

I have had my 75 (Diesel 2.0 Conn SE) since '99, originally my company car. Three years ago I had an X type (new company car - Diesel 2.0 SE). I really did dislike the Jaguar and refused it at a knock down price when I left the company a year later. It was certainly more responsive than the 75 and the paint finish was excellent but I found the seats were like leather deck chairs and gave me back ache (I weigh less than 12 stone); the real wood dash looked like plastic; the plastic interior trim looked like smooth plasticine and the touch sensitive sat nav was a huge irritation, complicated and potentially very dangerous; the various interior trim components looked like they had been designed by a collection of individuals and lacked the comprehensive theme of the 75. The choice of exterior colours was not good either. No contest!

Incidentally my old 75 also has excellent paintwork (metallic) - a later (pearlescent) model was rather prone to pitting, scratching and chipping.

Telferstr · 26th March 2008, 18:15

Having owned 3 Rover 75s, 1 Classic SE saloon, 1 Club SE saloon and 1 Club SE Tourer, all fitted with the basic 1.8 engine. I now have a 2005 S-type Jaguar with 2.5 V6 engine with 5 speed manual gearbox Which I have owned now for the past 18 months, and I'll try and give my honest impressions of the 2.

Performance. Naturally the Jaguar with the 210 bhp engine gives a livelier performance than the Rover 1.8, but I never found the Rovers to be particularly under powered.

Economy. On average the Rovers were all in the same area of 34/35mpg, achieving 37/38 on some longer trips. . The Jaguar is running in the region of 27/29mpg, and on long distance trips can achieve 32mpg. this being achieved with carefull use of the loud pedal.

Steering The Jaguar has sharper steering than the 75. I put this down to the fact that it is a rear wheel drive and therefore the front wheels are being asked to do only one function rather than two as on the 75 with the job of powering the vehicle as well.

Ride Comfort. The Jaguar is a very smooth running machine indeed though the 75 saloons also had very good suspension performance. I found the Tourer slightly firmer which gave it a better handling feel than the saloons. On balance, and being fair, I would say the Jaguar is just that bit better in this department.

Cabin Equipment. In general both are very comfortable cars, though I my wife and I both found the 75s seat more comfortable than the S-type.
All our 75s had cloth covered seats, against the Jaguar with leather, but I think the main difference is due to the actual shape of the seating.
General equipment is good on both but the storage areas available in the Jaguar are not as good as the 75. ie door pockets are very narrow and of not much use, no built in cup holders in the rear seat cushion and I miss those front cup holders that glide out of the dash on the 75. No storage in the rear seat arm rest, no shelf in front of the passenger seat, or that handy shelf above the light switch on the drivers side of the 75. The Jag has a small coin storage shelf further down the dash on the drivers side. There is no built-in left foot pedal rest as in the 75. The drivers information areas are equal apart from the outside temperature in the S being shown well down in the centre dash area beside the cabin temperature, which makes it difficult to read. On the 75 it is right in front of the driver. Wiper action is similar with 6 speed intermittent function, but lacks the stop facility when stationary in traffic.
So the Rover is a better package when it comes to the interior specification and in my opinion is also slightly roomier than the S-type.

Boot Area.The floor areas are of similar size but the Jaguar boot is more shallow and therefore cases have the be laid flat which restricts capacity somewhat.

LOOKS I must say that I like the looks of the S-type, especially the revised facelift of late 2004 for the model year 2005 which in my opinion improved the overal look of the S-type. I loved the 75s looks also, but hated what they did to it when the facelift came along. I think MG Rover Lost the Plot when carrying out this exercise.

Reliability. As mention before in other posts, I had virtually no trouble at all with any of my 75s, a slight problem with the Number plate lights on the second saloon but tightening of the bulb holder clips solved that problem. With the Tourer a loose connection on the temperature sender unit causing the engine cooling fans to engage now and again, by taking the terminal off and refitting making sure of a good connection cured this fault.
The Jaguar has been reliable also but has needed the Steering Rack to be replaced to cure a scraping sound when full left lock was applied. Also one of the twin horns was raplaced due to its failure. The Rubber Door Seal on the drivers door split, level with the door lock catch area at about 2 years old, never had that on any car before. Also about the same time the oil seals on both output shafts of the diff started to leak and these were replace with new seals. All of these items were covered by the manufacturers three year warranty. From this evidence, the Rovers performed better when considering warranty repairs etc. However the Jaguar has performed very well in all other respects.

Tyre Wear. Tyres seem to be lasting reasonably well and should give around 25000/30000miles for front and 35000/40000 miles for the rears.

My ideal car would possibly be the S-type platform with the 75 body with a restyle update by Richard Woolley the designer of the 75, along with the usual high level of the 75 equipment and fittings etc.

So there are my basic impressions and no doubt others will come to mind, which I will add from time to time.
I did note that this tread started off as an X-Type/75 comparison but hope you don't mind me putting in the S-type as well and hope you find it of interest.
Regards,
Telfer.

GreyGhost · 26th March 2008, 18:32

Thanks Telfer that looks like a very honest opinion of the differences between 75 and S Type. Having ridden as a passenger in the S Type I have a similar opinion of the cabin, not having driven one I can't comment on other aspects. This is, as far as I am concerned the proper comparison, unlike the penchant for comparing the X Type with the 75. They are just not in the same class. IMHO

Darren · 26th March 2008, 21:51

Interesting reading the responses to my comments yesterday - obviously all just my humble opinion but very interesting nonetheless. Just wanted to say I am not blindly saying that all the Rover & MG Rover stuff was/is great as I owned a very late TF with extremely low miles that had a head gasket let go at under 12k (despite careful warm up treatment etc) and had amazingly thin paint on it. Despite that my ex enjoyed the car - and in it's defence it drove pretty well. Not a patch on my sunny day car which is a humble 1989 MX5 that is just hilarious to drive (particularly in the wet!) mind you.

Now what I really fancy is a 260 as my daily car and to keep a roadster for the rare sunny (!) day. I have owned many TR7 V8's over the years and miss the noise and thump...

Darren

kookiemg · 26th March 2008, 22:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren

Now what I really fancy is a 260 as my daily car and to keep a roadster for the rare sunny (!) day. I have owned many TR7 V8's over the years and miss the noise and thump...
Darren

...I have contributed to this thread...so please excuse the mini moment of cheekiness...

http://www.the75andztclub.co.uk/foru...ad.php?t=11338

...could this be the one...?

Oh further comparison...... I also had the use of an 02 S-Type 3.0 at the same time as my 3.0 X-Type...there was NO comparison...the S-Type was superb!!

Darren · 27th March 2008, 11:48

Now that's a beauty !!

kookiemg · 27th March 2008, 16:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren

Now that's a beauty !!

You know it makes sense...!!

pondweed · 27th March 2008, 18:11

as hinted before.... S type although larger, is a better comparison as it was bespoke designed as a Jaguar; ditto the 75 was 75 from day 1. The X type will never escape from being a trendily niche marketed mondeo chassis in drag, however appealing. The fact that the Mondeo Diesel is so darn superb means it can't really fail.

26th March 2008, 15:05	#13
Bartonrover Gets stuck in Rover 75 CDT & V6 saloons in Wedgwood Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: North Norfolk Posts: 782 Thanks: 2 Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts	X Type and the 75 I have had my 75 (Diesel 2.0 Conn SE) since '99, originally my company car. Three years ago I had an X type (new company car - Diesel 2.0 SE). I really did dislike the Jaguar and refused it at a knock down price when I left the company a year later. It was certainly more responsive than the 75 and the paint finish was excellent but I found the seats were like leather deck chairs and gave me back ache (I weigh less than 12 stone); the real wood dash looked like plastic; the plastic interior trim looked like smooth plasticine and the touch sensitive sat nav was a huge irritation, complicated and potentially very dangerous; the various interior trim components looked like they had been designed by a collection of individuals and lacked the comprehensive theme of the 75. The choice of exterior colours was not good either. No contest! Incidentally my old 75 also has excellent paintwork (metallic) - a later (pearlescent) model was rather prone to pitting, scratching and chipping.

26th March 2008, 18:15	#14
Telferstr Posted a thing or two Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross 3. 1.5 Petrol 6 Speed Manual Gearbox. Great fan of the Mk1 75 which I had 3 Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Inverkip, Scotland. Posts: 1,223 Thanks: 23 Thanked 68 Times in 44 Posts	Jaguar S-Type v Rover75. Having owned 3 Rover 75s, 1 Classic SE saloon, 1 Club SE saloon and 1 Club SE Tourer, all fitted with the basic 1.8 engine. I now have a 2005 S-type Jaguar with 2.5 V6 engine with 5 speed manual gearbox Which I have owned now for the past 18 months, and I'll try and give my honest impressions of the 2. Performance. Naturally the Jaguar with the 210 bhp engine gives a livelier performance than the Rover 1.8, but I never found the Rovers to be particularly under powered. Economy. On average the Rovers were all in the same area of 34/35mpg, achieving 37/38 on some longer trips. . The Jaguar is running in the region of 27/29mpg, and on long distance trips can achieve 32mpg. this being achieved with carefull use of the loud pedal. Steering The Jaguar has sharper steering than the 75. I put this down to the fact that it is a rear wheel drive and therefore the front wheels are being asked to do only one function rather than two as on the 75 with the job of powering the vehicle as well. Ride Comfort. The Jaguar is a very smooth running machine indeed though the 75 saloons also had very good suspension performance. I found the Tourer slightly firmer which gave it a better handling feel than the saloons. On balance, and being fair, I would say the Jaguar is just that bit better in this department. Cabin Equipment. In general both are very comfortable cars, though I my wife and I both found the 75s seat more comfortable than the S-type. All our 75s had cloth covered seats, against the Jaguar with leather, but I think the main difference is due to the actual shape of the seating. General equipment is good on both but the storage areas available in the Jaguar are not as good as the 75. ie door pockets are very narrow and of not much use, no built in cup holders in the rear seat cushion and I miss those front cup holders that glide out of the dash on the 75. No storage in the rear seat arm rest, no shelf in front of the passenger seat, or that handy shelf above the light switch on the drivers side of the 75. The Jag has a small coin storage shelf further down the dash on the drivers side. There is no built-in left foot pedal rest as in the 75. The drivers information areas are equal apart from the outside temperature in the S being shown well down in the centre dash area beside the cabin temperature, which makes it difficult to read. On the 75 it is right in front of the driver. Wiper action is similar with 6 speed intermittent function, but lacks the stop facility when stationary in traffic. So the Rover is a better package when it comes to the interior specification and in my opinion is also slightly roomier than the S-type. Boot Area.The floor areas are of similar size but the Jaguar boot is more shallow and therefore cases have the be laid flat which restricts capacity somewhat. LOOKS I must say that I like the looks of the S-type, especially the revised facelift of late 2004 for the model year 2005 which in my opinion improved the overal look of the S-type. I loved the 75s looks also, but hated what they did to it when the facelift came along. I think MG Rover Lost the Plot when carrying out this exercise. Reliability. As mention before in other posts, I had virtually no trouble at all with any of my 75s, a slight problem with the Number plate lights on the second saloon but tightening of the bulb holder clips solved that problem. With the Tourer a loose connection on the temperature sender unit causing the engine cooling fans to engage now and again, by taking the terminal off and refitting making sure of a good connection cured this fault. The Jaguar has been reliable also but has needed the Steering Rack to be replaced to cure a scraping sound when full left lock was applied. Also one of the twin horns was raplaced due to its failure. The Rubber Door Seal on the drivers door split, level with the door lock catch area at about 2 years old, never had that on any car before. Also about the same time the oil seals on both output shafts of the diff started to leak and these were replace with new seals. All of these items were covered by the manufacturers three year warranty. From this evidence, the Rovers performed better when considering warranty repairs etc. However the Jaguar has performed very well in all other respects. Tyre Wear. Tyres seem to be lasting reasonably well and should give around 25000/30000miles for front and 35000/40000 miles for the rears. My ideal car would possibly be the S-type platform with the 75 body with a restyle update by Richard Woolley the designer of the 75, along with the usual high level of the 75 equipment and fittings etc. So there are my basic impressions and no doubt others will come to mind, which I will add from time to time. I did note that this tread started off as an X-Type/75 comparison but hope you don't mind me putting in the S-type as well and hope you find it of interest. Regards, Telfer. Last edited by Telferstr; 26th March 2008 at 19:48..

26th March 2008, 13:18	#11
tourerfogey Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	One way of looking at this is.. ..the X type is Jaguars 'baby' 'entry level' model. ..the 75 was Rover's flagship model. Not sure that this should make any difference when comparing the two but to some people I think it does.

26th March 2008, 18:32	#15
GreyGhost Banned 180+ Sport Auto Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Bedford Middle Level Posts: 17,787 Thanks: 0 Thanked 18 Times in 5 Posts	Thanks Telfer that looks like a very honest opinion of the differences between 75 and S Type. Having ridden as a passenger in the S Type I have a similar opinion of the cabin, not having driven one I can't comment on other aspects. This is, as far as I am concerned the proper comparison, unlike the penchant for comparing the X Type with the 75. They are just not in the same class. IMHO

26th March 2008, 21:51	#16
Darren Regular poster MG ZT Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Ashford Posts: 33 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Interesting reading the responses to my comments yesterday - obviously all just my humble opinion but very interesting nonetheless. Just wanted to say I am not blindly saying that all the Rover & MG Rover stuff was/is great as I owned a very late TF with extremely low miles that had a head gasket let go at under 12k (despite careful warm up treatment etc) and had amazingly thin paint on it. Despite that my ex enjoyed the car - and in it's defence it drove pretty well. Not a patch on my sunny day car which is a humble 1989 MX5 that is just hilarious to drive (particularly in the wet!) mind you. Now what I really fancy is a 260 as my daily car and to keep a roadster for the rare sunny (!) day. I have owned many TR7 V8's over the years and miss the noise and thump... Darren

27th March 2008, 11:48	#18
Darren Regular poster MG ZT Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Ashford Posts: 33 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Now that's a beauty !!

27th March 2008, 18:11	#20
pondweed This is my second home Waiter, Waiter! I seem to have a Roomster in my drive... Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Sussex Posts: 3,268 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	as hinted before.... S type although larger, is a better comparison as it was bespoke designed as a Jaguar; ditto the 75 was 75 from day 1. The X type will never escape from being a trendily niche marketed mondeo chassis in drag, however appealing. The fact that the Mondeo Diesel is so darn superb means it can't really fail.