2005 Jaguar Xk8 Convertible 2-door 4.2l Navigation, Backup Beepers, Alpine 52k on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Audi E-Tron vs. Jaguar I-Pace and Tesla Model X: How they compare on paper

The all-electric crossover segment is suddenly heating up. Tesla was first to market with its Model X, and the California-based automaker has a several-year head start on the rest of the field. But now it has competition, with the Jaguar I-Pace already hitting dealerships across the globe and the just-announced Audi E-Tron hot on their heels. We decided to see how Audi's new entrant compares with its British and American rivals, so we downloaded their spec sheets (at least those that are available) and dumped them all into the spreadsheet you see below. As you'll soon find out, there are lots of similarities between these three electric crossovers, but each has a unique selling point or two with which to entice buyers. View 24 Photos Performance Note that we're using the Tesla Model X 75D for this comparison, since that's the model that is closest in price to the Jaguar and Audi entries. If you really want the fastest and most powerful electric CUV available, you're going to want to look at Tesla's ludicrous P100D model, but you'd better be willing to just about double the price you see in the chart above. With that out of the way, these particular electric crossovers are all pretty quick. The Jaguar boasts the quickest 0-60 time, but in the real world, that half-second advantage over the 75D won't amount to much. The Audi is a full second behind the Jaguar, and a little over a half second slower to 60 than the Tesla. A 5.5-second 0-60 time, though, still means the E-Tron will be able to squirt away from traffic lights quicker than the rest of the morning commuters. As far as battery capacity, Audi leads the way with 95 kWh, which is 5 more than the Jag and a whopping 20 more than the Tesla. Until we get estimated range figures, though, we won't know what the extra capacity means in the real world. In other words, stay tuned. View 74 Photos Exterior and interior dimensions The Jaguar is the smallest of these three 'utes, inside and out. The Tesla Model X is the largest. Does that make the Audi just right? Maybe, but only if you don't need a third row — the Model X is the only one of this trio that offers seating for six or seven passengers (depending on whether the buyer opts for a second-row bench or individual chairs). A smaller size may be a boon for drivers who often have to fit into tight spaces, but those slinky dimensions mean the Jaguar's cargo capacity is well behind that of the Audi and not even close to the cavernous Tesla. Tesla Motors Inc.

Junkyard Gem: 1995 Jaguar Vanden Plas

Sold in Europe as the Daimler Six, the 1995 Jaguar Vanden Plas had all the luxury bling that mid-1990s high-rollers needed. This one now resides in the imports section of a self-service wrecking yard near Denver, just like any ordinary Jetta or Lanos. The Vanden Plas name started out in Belgium in 1870, eventually ending up as a British Leyland brand via the Austin Motor Company. 2009 was the last year that luxo-Jags were slugged with the Vanden Plas name. Ford owned Jaguar by this time, of course, but the engine in the XJ6 series remained a traditional Jaguar straight-six. This one is a 4.0-liter rated at 245 horsepower. After 1997, the Jaguar sixes were gone from the XJs, replaced by V8s. The MSRP on this car was $62,200, which amounts to about $102,000 in inflation-adjusted 2017 dollars. It costs real money to keep a car like this running correctly, and once maintenance corners start getting cut... well, the end is near. You should feel fear when you see this. This car is battered and many parts have been yanked by junkyard shoppers, but try to imagine it when it had that new Jag smell. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Built in the proud new spirit of Jaguar.

Jaguar solution to keyless start could save lives

UPDATED: An earlier version of this story indicated the Jaguar keyless start function was meant as a safety feature, when in fact, it is meant as a convenience one and will not work as described if automatic stop/start is not engaged. Today, The New York Times published an article about more than two dozen deaths related to drivers accidentally leaving their cars running, closing their garages and later succumbing to carbon monoxide that flooded their homes. The reason has been identified as "keyless start" features, or proximity entry and push-button start, where owners don't need to physically handle a key or fob to gain entry into the vehicle or start it. It is the latest, and deadliest, issue raised with this system after those related to security and simple inconvenience (for instance, leaving the car at a valet or car wash with the fob in your pocket). From my personal perspective, The New York Times had a rather harsh "evil carmakers" tone throughout the article. This is not a matter of a known faulty component, as with the GM ignition switch recall. This has as much to do with user error where people leave their car without pressing the "off" button and without noticing the engine is still running. About half of the cars in question are produced by Toyota and Lexus, brands that have offered keyless start longer than most. They are also brands with high rates of elderly owners, who seemingly made up a majority of reported deaths and injuries. One fire department in Florida even started a campaign alerting those in the area of the dangers of leaving your car running when it noticed a correlation between an increase in cars equipped with keyless start and calls related to carbon monoxide poisoning. I see several contributing issues at play, most of which go well beyond this particular issue. First is insufficient training of owners by dealers and/or owners not paying close enough attention during this training. Cars are complicated, but you should at least know how basic functions work. Second, woefully inadequate driver training in this country. Third, and with apologies to the AARP, insufficient testing of elderly drivers and/or insufficiently low standards for elderly drivers. If you don't know you have to shut the car off or cannot hear that an engine is running, perhaps you shouldn't be driving. Fourth, re-examining keyless start systems.