My father has always had a thing for Jaguars. He has almost bought one a few times in the past, most recently a few weeks ago. A friend was trading in a 2005 XK8 for a 2007, and he offered to sell it to my father for whatever the dealer offered. I suggested that he pass. The 2007 is an all-new car that should be far superior to the 2005.

The old man was in town again this past weekend, so we stopped by the Jaguar dealer to check out the new XK. As luck would have it, they had a 2006 and a 2007 convertible parked next to each other, so it was easy to compare the styling and interiors. We then took the new convertible for a test drive. My impressions follow.

Styling

The new XK, with nearly the same length and a wheelbase lengthier by half a foot, has much tighter proportions than the old one. The lamps front and rear now extend well into the fenders, further reducing apparent overhang. The exterior shape, though generally similar, is also edgier. The front end resembles that of recent Astons. I also see a bit of the first Lexus SC in the side view of the front fender. The fully automatic top now stows beneath a flush metal cover rather than a fussy boot. As a result of these changes, the new XK looks much more current.

Doesn't matter. My father prefers the classic, more fluid styling of the old XK. He also likes how the urethane fascias are smaller and the cutlines are consequently less obvious on the old car, though collision repairs are likely to be more expensive as a result.

Between the new coupe and convertible, my eyes prefer the latter. Though both are the same length, the coupe's roofline makes the rear fender appear overly long. I prefer the tighter proportions of the new Aston Martin V8. Of course, that car lacks even a rudimentary rear seat, and it'll cost you about 50 percent more.

The standard wheels are seven-spoke 18s. They are the best in terms of design, and look good on the XK in photos. But the salesman said they look too small on the car, so the dealer has ordered no cars without optional wheels. The $1,200 ten-spoke 19s (included in the Luxury package) look good with black or charcoal, but not so good on the blue car I drove. I generally prefer a wheel with a smaller, even number of spokes. The 20s have five pairs of spokes, and owing to their size look best on the car. But they're $5,000. Worse, even though the 19s are included in the Luxury Package, the 20s are $5,000 with or without this package. How about a $1,200 credit, Jaguar?

Inside the updates have a similar effect. The elliptical slab of wood extending the entire width of the instrument panel is gone, victim of a much more prominent, more nav-friendly center stack. The instrument cluster now sticks up above the rest of the instrument panel. The new interior is very nicely executed, putting it on par with competitors, even ahead of them in style and ambiance, but it is also much less distinctive. So again my father prefers the old one.

Fits on these early cars are shockingly poor. On the first car I sat in (but not the one I drove) the right door latch was sticking, causing a scraping sound when the door was opened. The gap at the leading edge of the hood also got wider from left to right. In general panel gaps are substantially wider and less even than they should be. An XK inside the showroom also had a loose piece of plastic trim around a seat track.

Accommodations

The old XK has uncomfortable seats and an oddly high, Miata-like driving position.

The highly adjustable seats in the new XK are much more comfortable. A Luxury Package, fitted to nearly every car at the dealer, adds vertical adjustment to the lumbar, a cushion length adjustment, and adjustable side bolsters. The side bolsters are fairly small, but adjusted to fit they perform a decent job holding one's torso in place during aggressive cornering. This package also includes a leather covering for the instrument panel, which improves the interior ambiance. Cost? The salesman felt it was a bargain, but $3,300 still seems steep to me.

The improved seats are positioned much lower, giving the new XK the same moderately low driving position you'll find in other recently designed premium 2 2 convertibles (BMW 650, Lexus SC). The windshield header no longer intrudes into one's forward view, yet the instrument panel remains reasonably low. On the downside, it's no longer easy to rest an elbow atop the door. If you want to do that, best raise the seat an inch or two.

The rear seat remains a joke. With the front seats positioned for the average adult, there's absolutely no rear legroom. Scoot a front seat forward six inches, such that the front passenger's knees are up against the dash, and there's enough room for another adult to squeeze into the back. In short, the rear seat is best used for toddlers and luggage.

You will often need it for luggage with the convertible. Though the trunk in the coupe is nearly as large as that in last year's car, that in the convertible has lost at least a third of its volume. Blame the more neatly stowing top.

Oddly, the coupe's trunk is accessed via a hatch, but the rear seat does not fold to expand it. Seems a rear structural member is in the way. But then why bother with a hatch?

On the Road

The revised 4.2-liter DOHC V8 gains a handful of horses, for a total of 300 at 6000 rpm. Paired with a six-speed automatic (no manual is offered), it provides brisk but not quite thrilling acceleration. With 360 horsepower in the competition, this could be a deal killer for some.

The XK's all-aluminum structure yields a curb weight about 100 pounds below the BMW's (coupe to coupe), but this isn't enough to compensate. The convertible fares a bit better, because it weighs only 90 pounds more than the coupe (vs. 200 pounds with the 2006), while BMW adds 400 pounds in taking the roof of its car. Even so, Jag desperately needs a larger, more up-to-date V8.

The exhaust has been tuned to produce a richer, throatier song. A bit muscle-car-ish, like that of the BMW 6. But, also as in the BMW, the sound is still refined enough to pass muster.

As in the old XK, the steering is moderately light yet feels precise and provides better feedback than you'll find in most premium cars. Sadly, the new suspension isn't nearly as good as the steering. Drive the new XK aggressively, and you'll discover a disturbing lack of composure in turns where the pavement is less than glass smooth. Despite the auto-adjusting shocks, damping is inadequate. As a result, the car bobs and floats a bit--which is a bit much.

Even over smooth asphalt the new XK doesn't readily rotate and lacks the balanced feel of a BMW. Instead, the large convertible understeers and the tires squeal much too readily. It might be about 100 pounds lighter than the old XK, but it feels larger and heavier. (The lower driving position has an effect here.) Worst of all, it's not easy to bond with the car; driving a BMW is much more intuitive. When I reviewed the old XJ, I asked for handling more in tune with the car's styling. What I've got with the new car is sportier styling, but a less agile-feeling car than also fails to feel planted.

Update: I'd only previously driven the 650Ci coupe. Now I've also driven the big BMW convertible, and IT'S A PIG! You can feel every one of the ragtop's extra 400 pounds. Handling is still balanced, but there's no agility to speak of, and the car simply feels massive. At least when comparing convertibles the Jaguar is the better handler. So I'm bumping it up a star, to four.

On the other hand, ride quality is smooth and quiet for a convertible riding on low-profile rubber. You'll feel a slight kick now and again, and perhaps a touch of jitteriness over very patchy roads, but nothing approaching harshness.

The all-aluminum structure if definitely stiffer than the old car's conventional steel structure, but, like that of the XJ sedan, doesn't feel as rock-solid as those of German competitors. This might be less a matter of the structure itself than how rigidly various bits (such as the doors) are attached to it. Or, given the minimal weight gain, it might actually indicate the need for a stiffer structure.

With the top down, buffeting is minimal, especially with the optional wind blocker in place. Top up, noise levels are higher than in a steel-roofed car, but still easily bearable.

Last Words

I much prefer the styling of the new XK, but those who've loved older Jags might mourn the loss of some distinguishing details. The new interior is considerably roomier and more comfortable, at least up front. Unfortunately, performance is at best adequate, both in a straight line and around corners. The upcoming supercharged XKR will be quicker, and hopefully will also take turns with more aplomb. The XK8, however, should be considered a tourer. If you want a sports car with similar styling, best find the extra cash for an Aston.

My father, poor misguided soul, continues to favor the previous XK. Ultimately, either XK will be bought based on how it looks, and he much prefers the classic, more distinctive styling of the old car. One definite advantage: a 2003 with under 20,000 miles (many of these cars aren't driven much) will set you back less than half the price of a new 2007.

I recommend the new XJ with reservations. If you love the styling, and this is your top priority, then the rest of the car is easily good enough to satisfy you. But if you're looking for a premium coupe that handles like a sports car in addition to looking good, then the new XK falls short, and I would not recommend it to you. Luckily for Jag, I don't think many prospective buyers are seeking a sports car. They want a good-looking, comfortable tourer, and that's what the new XK is.

A note on Jaguar XK Reliability

I cannot practically cover reliability within the context of this review. However, many people are interested in such information, so I've started collecting my own data. Results, once they are available, will be posted to my site, www.truedelta.com, with updates every three months.

Unlike other sources, TrueDelta will clearly identify what difference it will make if you buy an XK rather than another vehicle by providing "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats (among others). You will be able to specify the number of years, annual miles, and types of repairs to include in Jaguar XK reliability comparisons.

Before I can report results, I need data on all cars--not just the XK--from people like you. To encourage participation, those who help provide the data will receive free access to the site's reliability information. For non-participants, this access will cost $24.95.

For the details, and to sign up, visit www.truedelta.com.

A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.

Some of my reviews of related vehicles:
Jaguar XK8 review (2003)
BMW 6-Series review
Cadillac XLR review