Thanks for the video. For those interested, I’ve owned all models since 1998. The 4.0L timing chain had plastic guides and these failed in time. There is a common upgrade to aluminium ones (standard on 4.2) and it’s essential this has been done if buying a 4.0L. This engine also suffered from corrosion to the cylinder linings if high sulphur fuels were used. If the timing chain has been done and the bores checked, the engine is just as reliable as any. I had no issues with the 4.2 and now have a (2013) 5.0L now, which has proved very reliable. All models can suffer from electrical problems which are usually traced to poor battery performance. Fit a new battery and keep it on a conditioner and you’ll have no probs. Older cars can have water ingress probs but that’s due to neglect. All models are very rewarding to own.
What a superbly encyclopaedic and truly attractive review! I tried both versions 6 years ago and bought a x 100 XKR 4.2 convertible from 2004, because whilst lt is a real homage to the E Type it is a far better car. It’s also hugely better than a DB7 and far prettier than an x150. The Ford parts work well and in 6 years of ownership, only the hydraulics of the roof opening have needed repair and the gear selector a replacement: apart from that, only routine servicing has been required. I drive it most days and the reaction to it is always uniformly delightful.Prices are of the x100 are at last starting to rise perhaps unsurprisingly.
Aesthetics is a major factor when comparing. Many favour the original X100 stylish exterior and interior over the later X150. The sales figures speak for themselves. The X100 was far more popular and sold in greater numbers worldwide.
I have both an X100 and an X150. The 2002 X100 XKR is a convertible whereas the 2010 X150 XKR is a coupe. About the only thing these two generations have in common is that they're both Jaguars and they're both called XKR. I love my 2002 'vert for its obvious heritage to the XKE. Its shape is derived from the E-type from the curvaceous front end and elongated oval grill to its upswept rear end. It is gorgeous in both contertible and coupe versions and that covers its highlights. It jiggles like a bowl of jello, it is petrifying in the handling department at any brisk rate of speed, its ride is punishing when compared to the X150. I love mine for the reasons stated, but ever since I bought my X150 over 8 years ago, I almost never have driven my X100 because it just doesn't measure up to the quality of the X150. Putting aside the massive power difference, the experience of driving the two cars is completely different. The X150's ride is taut and controlled, firm but quite comfortable unlike the X100's which is harsh, not easily controlled at speed. My 4.0L X100 has had every repair known to mankind, everything broke since I've owned it including the plastic tensioners, wheel bearings, transmission faults, electrical faults etc.... while my X150 which will pass 190,000 miles this or next week has been the most reliable automobile I have ever owned in over 52 years of driving. It has been to the track dozens of times, and outside of repeated defective water pumps, is completely reliable so long as you have a fully charged battery. It is and will be the best car I have ever owned as well as the most competent. My advice would be that if you're going to buy an X100, buy it for the passion you have for the model, but DO NOT test drive an X150 prior to purchase. You'll not be able to get over the differences that Jaguar made to the newer platform. The X150 is just so solid and enjoyable to drive that although I think the X100 has a classic look that seems to transcend its age, the X150 while handsome (in a DB9 kind of way), just begs to be driven and driven both hard and soft, it's equally comfortable. There is no comparison
I own a '00 XKR (4.0 Coupe - Dark blue with the tan interior) and I must agree with pretty much everything you wrote. It inherited tons of things from the E-Type, from the body looks to the bonnet styling, the wheel wells to the terrible handling. BUT...that so very unique leather smell once you open the car, the spitfire veneer dash, even the damn radio antenna looks so effortlessly stylish while you just drive around! I fitted it with an Adamesh Stage 1 exhaust and god knows how I love rolling down the windows and floor the throttle in every single tunnel, but seriously the best part is just opening the garage and look at it! It was meant to be a classic the day that it was born and the only car of its generation (2000-2020) that compares in that field is perhaps the Maserati Granturismo (even though the Jag has a way richer heritage to it). I look at the interior of the XJS, the X150 and they just don't have that X100 finesse... I don't wanna drive it fast (I'm petrified just like you so perfectly put it...), I just wanna purr around in it and enjoy it with my eyes and ears every single time!
I'm old school, I love the design of the X100 the most. Especially the first version before they added all the chrome trim. Usually the first version best represent what the designer wanted, and later facelifts are usually made from the perspective to make it seem fresh and modern again. But rarely do they add to the overall design. There are exceptions, of course :) Regarding space, I'm 184cm tall (just above 6ft), and I have no trouble with leg- or headroom in my -98 XKR Coupe. And if I move the passenger seat forward, my 8 year old daughter can comfortably sit in her child seat in the rear. But with that said, it is a two person car. Driver, and a passenger in either the front or the rear passenger seat. Just don't rule out the rear seat for a kid, it's very doable. I read somewhere that the later versions of the X100 got different, thicker seats. Haven't tried a later model myself, but that could be a reason why some find them lacking space. Quality wise, well it's a Jag :) The upside is that many parts can be very cheap, like brake parts if you don't have the Brembo package. Other parts can be a bit more expensive of course. I've had my car for 13 years now and there's plenty of things I've had to have fixed over the years, despite (or perhaps because of) not driving it very much. But when I do go for a drive in it, it always manages to put a big smile on my face.
As an X100 owner (4.2 XKR) I love the looks and the veneer Spitfire’s wing dash. Especially with the three dials in the middle like mine, not the screen like this has. The X150 may be dynamically better, and much more advanced, and I know some prefer the looks but something about the X100 just seems classic which I enjoy. As a correction, I believe the 4.0 was a Mercedes box in the R. Here says it’s a Mercedes ZF. The 4.0 XK8 was five speed ZF, the R had the Merc box. Then as noted for the 4.2 both the 8 and R used a six speed ZF.
A well sorted X100 is a delight to drive, and just feels like a late E Type but better - it drives like a Jaguar. The X150 is faster for sure, but somehow the effect doesn't percolate into the cabin.
I like the classic look of the X100 with the wood dash and I prefer the shape of the car. I’m sure the X150 is technically the better car but it doesn’t look like my idea of a Jaguar, it’s just not such an attractive car.
I have just bought a 4.2 2006 with 70,000 the best car I have ever and as you said the base car is absolutely mine is a metallic Gray and the interior is beautiful I thank you love you downloads on the XK 4.2 your sincerely Mr David Payne.
The bonnet of the X100 with its E type feel just looks great. However, I have been leaning towards the X150 for many of the reasons you highlighted. I am selling my 1980 MGB, a wired wheeled romantic car when a picnic basket is tied to the rack on the boot, but just can't take all the problems anymore. I'm going with the X150. Thank you so much for the comparison video !
This as a comparison vid is immaculate. As someone who loves the style of both of these cars, this eye opening comparison has swayed me hugely toward the new one because like you I appreciate many of the characteristics the old doesn't have. I'm 6ft so I didn't know the X100 was so cramped, and I love the hatch style boot etc. Great vid and thank you
Thank you for the insightful video. Love both cars but leaning towards the last years of the X100 based on the old world dash design and more retro / E type exterior . Your points on the X150 are well noted though and could possibly steer me in that direction. Will keep you posted...
The X100 has lots of carry over parts from a XJS which is over 30 years old. You can feel alot of chassis flex and scuttle shake from the X100 convertible chassis compared to the X150 which was built from the ground up to be a convertible.
In the US market, the 5.0l engine wasn't introduced until M/Y 2010, then in M/Y 2011 there was a slight revision to the tail lights from incandescent to LED. Then M/Y 2012 was the final revision with the facelift front bumper cover, led driving lights and side blades being replaced. If in the market for a 5.0 x150, the 2013+ supposedly do not have the timing chain tensioner issue. Great comparison video!
I’ve watched all your Jag videos and here you did a great job showing the progressive differences and the overlaps of the XK/8. It’s hard to follow without a map. Thanks. Now I have to watch it again and write up a chart, including the NA & R. Unless you already have one to share or a link to one somewhere.
Before video, really thinking about the convertible 2008ish XK because of price, but starting to consider an XK8 because I can get one for well under $15k US, where as the XK is $17k-30k. Worried about rust issues on the XK8 living on the east coast of the US. I did see pics of a 2003 XK8 with a tape deck, which actually is something I would love, as I have a bunch of tapes from the 90s that I never listen to, and it would give me a reason to listen to them. Additionally, I saw an XK8 on the road, it did put a smile on my face seeing it, and made me really start thinking about getting one. I'm in my mid 30s btw, for reference. Definitely need to just go out and test drive the different versions.
I have enjoyed every one of the videos from this series and it confirms why I bought the 4.2 xkr. I agree with all of your points on that model. Thank you for the great content.
Good stuff! Agree with most of your analysis/comments. I prefer the classic look and interior feel of the 2004 XKR (vert)-and own one, over the XKR (150), although really like the extra leg room in the newer model. The performance and reliability of the 4.2 L engine is great, although the base 5.0L engine is very good. It's obviously a personal/budget choice in the end. The great thing is these are fantastic cars that will leave a smile on your face every time you drive them. 😎
I have a 2012 normally aspirated XK Artisan special edition. As a continental touring car it is just amazing. It took the luggage for two on a three week tour via northern France, Germany and Austria down into Italy and back via southern France, bring us back complete with four cases of wine. Fast, reliable and comfortable with a full leather interior and the high back seats makes it an ideal GT.
Thank you ! I seem to be homing in on my bucket list car as being a 2008/9 4.2 XKR, preowned by someone who cared. With a budget of ideally no more than £18K I think it might be out there. I would prefer the J gate gear selector and I'd have to accept that the infotanment system/screen is a bit pants. I will let you know because with your help my search for my ideal weekend cruiser with a V8 burble is ongoing. Cheers
I have one of the last 2002 4.0 Xkr convertibles. Most of the 4 litres will be sorted now. The issues were mostly chain tensioners, water pumps and nikasil liners. Different superchargers too so the older ones make more noise if you like that kind of thing. If looked after like anything then they are as reliable as the the later 4.2 engines.
I love my 52 plate 4.2 xkr, I'm 6' 1" and 330lb but the space in the front is more than adequate and I can still fit a loaf of fresh bread on the rear seat. But that's about all.
Yes, the 4.0 has a couple plastic bits, camchain guide and water pump. And does seem to spring non serious leaks. But they are all very solid. Forget nikasil liners, was 20 years ago.
As you said during the making of this video, the 150 was holding its price better. Well as noted, now in 24, the XK100, and in particular the XKR 4.2 value is climbing. İt's in fact cheaper to buy the earlier 150s 07/09 etc. However, from a pure aesthetic view, and a general conversation and admiration the XK100 wins hands down. İt's beautiful inside and out. The XK150 , particularly inside is just the same as every other modern car. No character. I'm sure that by 2030 every single version of the xk100 will be valued higher than any of the XK150's despite the amazing performance of the later 150s.
The Snug Cabin of the X100 is what I actually like better. The X150 feels a bit like sitting in a bathtub as a kid. I set out to buy the 2013 XKR-S and drove a few. But it just didn't really clicked as i was hoping for. I then went and testdrove a X100. And even tho the first one was a pretty crappy example, i just liked it more right from the start. As the market in switzerland and the surrounding countries is pretty empty for the 2003 and newer , i just wait until a good one pops up and will get that i think.
100 k subs Brother.. very happy for you . Fantastic comparison , Jags are in my blood if you recognize my name... still driving my 07 XKR 171k miles and planning on lots more....
with the 2009 5.0 you missed one out, it had the side blades but a later version in 2010 had the new round gearbox controller and a fully revised interior with the new screen, same as the final version, but still with the side blades. that's the one I've got
Hands Down. Early Body Styles are THE NICEST COUPES to Grace Any Highway on ANY Continent. In my humble opinion. I will Always have a Jag Coupe in my collection! Simply Outstandingly Stunning! Since the Inception of this Body Style it has always been one of my favorites. The newer ones look cookie cutter. The dash is Fugly and they really bastardized a Superior Design. Sorry to have to state that.
I think you should mention the X-100’s terrible often hidden rust issue, and the 4.2 X-150’s A/C “duckbill” issue - hard and expensive to fix. I’m on my 2nd X-150 XKR - by far the best cars I’ve ever owned. Greta Channel, I’m not meaning. Just my thoughts…. X
X100 all day, every day. Superior styling- classic Jaguar cues, and the interior is lovely. The X150 car looks corpulent, the front headlights NEVER looked right- they are awkward in appearance. The X150 interior isn't special- I don't like it personally. Finally- take a look at the worldwide sales figures- the X100 was far more successful- which says it all really.
Love my 2000 XKR (X100) and it's E-Type visual heritage. If I could have only one, this would be it but it would be great to have one of each. I'm average size so it has never seemed cramped and quiet comfortable. Spouse did notice your low fuel indicator was illuminated when you were driving the X100 in the beginning of the video. 😉 Very enjoyable video. 🍸
In an ideal world you would have the exterior of the X100 XKR coupe with the interior and mechanicals of the X150. In a perfect world you would have the body of the X100 over F-Type 5.0 with supercharged V8.
I see the nose is different over the years, but but what about the body itself? what about the frame and chassis? Are they the same, or did they change that over the years? did the overall size change?
I've been so tempted by either an XK150 or an Aston Martin V8V for some time. For around £30K I could get into a decent Aston that is almost depreciation proof. However, maintenance and running costs are much higher and it would be something like a 2006-2008 car. The XKR would be newer, cheaper and easier to run and just as quick, although the V8V is more of sports car and has the edge on looks and rarity. The one concern for me is depreciation. Jaguars historically depreciate heavily. Great for the used buyer, but I don't want to spend £25K on a really clean car and then see it hemorrhage money. In this respect, the V8V has stayed stable now for years. Decisions, decisions!
@@HSGAutomotive Thanks for your reply. I wonder what's driving that. Perhaps it's because Jaguar never actually replaced the XK (F-Type is a different beast) and people are looking to find a good long term car to enjoy. Could be the WFH situation in that some people don't need a commuter car any longer and can splash out on something more interesting.
Thank you for a great video! When looking for a x150 non R what would you say is the sweetspot regarding miles? When is a 4.2 considered to be a high mileage car and is there specific things to look after in a high mileage 4.2 ? Thanks!
As long as they've been looked after, 120k+ is still viable if you're on a budget. Mine had 95k on the clock and I moved on from it at about 101k, with the most significant issue it had being new rear brake lines as they corroded through. Generally go for the lowest miles you can afford really, but anything under 100k and you should be fine either way
Thank You for the Video ! I am big fan of the X100, reminds me so much of the XJ220 also. Is the old 4Litres V8 Supercharged the most reliable,having no Variable Valves , and with the 5G-Tronic ?
It is important to realize Jag had a LOT of problems with the early ones. I drive a 1997. It has 85K on the clock. I try and keep up with it. Yes, at times it is like a whiney wife. But the rewards are worth it. I have toooo many toys. But..... LOVE them all! During this Pandemic.... they were my recreation. Now the fun has stopped due to Salt Brine. Come on Spring!
The 150 sounds more like a growling Jaguar. Like, the real deal Jaguar. By the way, looks like GT7 is starting pre-orders including a 25th Anniversary edition.
I'd say better on both personally, especially depth since the F-Type can't go back much. I dailied my XKR for 9 months or so and weighed a lot more back then and had zero issues on driving room
I’m considering trading in my 2021 Mazda 3 that I’ve had since new with about 36k miles on it for a 2007 XK convertible with about 26k miles on it. Trying to convince myself it’s a good move haha. This video is helpful
@@razor281 If you do take the Maserati route, I’d recommend looking into the GranTurismo as well. Better gearbox than the 3200/4200 era, and similar to a DB7 on price and panache.
What do you recommend out of the following? A Jaguar XK 4.2L 2007 or a Porsche Cayman 2007 2.7 987 ?? Both start around 10-15k on autotrader (for a decent one) and I can only see benefits to both 😅
Jag is more to my taste, but it depends what you want from the car. Cayman will give you more fun when pushed hard as a pure sports car, the XK is more about looking and feeling good, effortless torque, cruiser vibes with performance when wanted.
@@HSGAutomotive what about taking running costs and casual maintenance into account? I’d assume the Jag would be a better car for everyday use🤔 I’m in my mid 20s and have around a 10k budget and love the look of both, I am ultimately siding with the Jag but like to keep options open. (Found your channel very insightful for this btw 👍🏻)
@@wattsy944 The Jag is bigger, more comfortable and has more usable space, and mine was my daily so it definitely suits the role. Averaged 23 mpg in my experience and the only reason why I moved on from it was needing more rear seat space. If that isn’t an issue then it literally does everything else you’d want from a GT. Early Cayman’s do have some expensive issues which can occur, but the XK certainly isn’t an immaculately reliable car. Main difference is that the Jag mostly has minor electrical or cooling gremlins, and Porsche parts are more expensive. If you were set on a Porsche I would actually recommend a 996 Carrera over the Cayman, as it offers the same ability but will be worth more when it comes to selling it.
So I cant speak to the XKR versions but I do own both a '98 XK8 and a '08 XK and unless the R versions of these cars came with a completely different suspension than their standard versions I really think you have it wrong as far as handling goes. The older X-100 is more of a sports car than the X-150. The X-100, true it rides a bit softer over the bumps, simply kills the X-150 in the curves. The X-150 has made me feel as though my brain was sucked to one side of my head in a curve and never have I felt out of control. It rides lower and does what a sports car should in a corner, it pulls the body down and hugs the corner. Neither have much body roll to speak of but the X-150 on the other hand rides higher with more of a sedan type car feel to it and in a corner lifts up throwing its weight outward and has a tendency to float around a corner giving one the feeling that you took the corner too fast and if you hit a small bump , would launch the car into a sideways roll over. The older car wins in every aspect of sports driving in my opinion where the newer model only slightly wins on quickness going straight. The only track that the X150 would be a better handling car would be the drag strip when all you have to do is keep it in a straight line. The lower center of gravity and the way the suspension works when throwing either of these heavy cars around, the X-100 is the winner in my book. And I drive both these cars on a daily basis. I might also note that this is the only time I have been moved to actually comment on a video. Go take both cars out into some hard corners and you will see. One other thing to add is the space feels so much more in the newer version only because you sit so much higher, front to back and side to side is pretty close to the same, though you may have more leg room when you raise the seat in the X-150 which just makes it feel that much worse taking the turns.
Both of those base models mentioned have indeed been driven on the channel too, and yes there is a significant difference in the R models comparison shown here
When I had all the bushings in the front, and the front shocks, replaced on my '98 XKR, it made a world of difference to the handling. They wear out, and even on a low mileage car they are old if you still run the originals. Rubber doesn't age well. So I'd take the videos description of the X100 handling characteristics with a grain of salt :)
Good reviews, thanks, both very different cars aren’t they. I have an XKR 100 and my neighbour has a 150, I’d say mine’s closer to a DB7 and his is closer to a 911 997, it’s more brutal and in your face, in an ideal world I’d have both but I don’t have the space and we can drive each other’s!
@@HSGAutomotive Thanks for getting back. I live on the coast so was thinking the 150 would make more sense but perhaps less in that than I thought. Your videos are very helpful.
I really love my XKR from 2001. However, it is not really a reliable car. Although the mileage is about 127 K (KM, not miles). I have had everything that is mentioned in blogs. So, till now it cost me unreasonably much to keep it on the road.
Aside from semantics which internet forums would doubtless waste entire days on, a hatchback trunk allows entry to the car through it without opening any inner compartment. The X150 is not a hatchback, it has a hatchback. Likewise with the Aston Vantage.
What mileage for a Jag XK is considered too much?? Obviously depends on how it’s been treated but around what would you start to assume it’ll cause more problems to what it’s worth ?
The highest I would buy is around 100k miles personally, but if you buy one before that, you can easily run them up around 200k miles if cared for. I wouldn't trust someone else's car with those miles though, you can't vouch for how it was treated.
I think the early X100s are timeless!
Thanks for the video. For those interested, I’ve owned all models since 1998. The 4.0L timing chain had plastic guides and these failed in time. There is a common upgrade to aluminium ones (standard on 4.2) and it’s essential this has been done if buying a 4.0L. This engine also suffered from corrosion to the cylinder linings if high sulphur fuels were used. If the timing chain has been done and the bores checked, the engine is just as reliable as any.
I had no issues with the 4.2 and now have a (2013) 5.0L now, which has proved very reliable. All models can suffer from electrical problems which are usually traced to poor battery performance. Fit a new battery and keep it on a conditioner and you’ll have no probs. Older cars can have water ingress probs but that’s due to neglect.
All models are very rewarding to own.
Brilliant comment 👏
Now have a hot cup of coacoa and go back to sleep..
The X100 4.2 is a country mile ahead of the 4.0. An X100 8 or R, from 2003-2006 - that's what you want.
What a superbly encyclopaedic and truly attractive review! I tried both versions 6 years ago and bought a x 100 XKR 4.2 convertible from 2004, because whilst lt is a real homage to the E Type it is a far better car. It’s also hugely better than a DB7 and far prettier than an x150. The Ford parts work well and in 6 years of ownership, only the hydraulics of the roof opening have needed repair and the gear selector a replacement: apart from that, only routine servicing has been required. I drive it most days and the reaction to it is always uniformly delightful.Prices are of the x100 are at last starting to rise perhaps unsurprisingly.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed!
Aesthetics is a major factor when comparing. Many favour the original X100 stylish exterior and interior over the later X150. The sales figures speak for themselves. The X100 was far more popular and sold in greater numbers worldwide.
My dream would be all the x150 underneath with a x100 interior (-the old computer) and body
I have both an X100 and an X150. The 2002 X100 XKR is a convertible whereas the 2010 X150 XKR is a coupe. About the only thing these two generations have in common is that they're both Jaguars and they're both called XKR. I love my 2002 'vert for its obvious heritage to the XKE. Its shape is derived from the E-type from the curvaceous front end and elongated oval grill to its upswept rear end. It is gorgeous in both contertible and coupe versions and that covers its highlights. It jiggles like a bowl of jello, it is petrifying in the handling department at any brisk rate of speed, its ride is punishing when compared to the X150. I love mine for the reasons stated, but ever since I bought my X150 over 8 years ago, I almost never have driven my X100 because it just doesn't measure up to the quality of the X150. Putting aside the massive power difference, the experience of driving the two cars is completely different. The X150's ride is taut and controlled, firm but quite comfortable unlike the X100's which is harsh, not easily controlled at speed. My 4.0L X100 has had every repair known to mankind, everything broke since I've owned it including the plastic tensioners, wheel bearings, transmission faults, electrical faults etc.... while my X150 which will pass 190,000 miles this or next week has been the most reliable automobile I have ever owned in over 52 years of driving. It has been to the track dozens of times, and outside of repeated defective water pumps, is completely reliable so long as you have a fully charged battery. It is and will be the best car I have ever owned as well as the most competent. My advice would be that if you're going to buy an X100, buy it for the passion you have for the model, but DO NOT test drive an X150 prior to purchase. You'll not be able to get over the differences that Jaguar made to the newer platform. The X150 is just so solid and enjoyable to drive that although I think the X100 has a classic look that seems to transcend its age, the X150 while handsome (in a DB9 kind of way), just begs to be driven and driven both hard and soft, it's equally comfortable. There is no comparison
Now that's an expert analysis. Thank you!
I own a '00 XKR (4.0 Coupe - Dark blue with the tan interior) and I must agree with pretty much everything you wrote. It inherited tons of things from the E-Type, from the body looks to the bonnet styling, the wheel wells to the terrible handling. BUT...that so very unique leather smell once you open the car, the spitfire veneer dash, even the damn radio antenna looks so effortlessly stylish while you just drive around! I fitted it with an Adamesh Stage 1 exhaust and god knows how I love rolling down the windows and floor the throttle in every single tunnel, but seriously the best part is just opening the garage and look at it! It was meant to be a classic the day that it was born and the only car of its generation (2000-2020) that compares in that field is perhaps the Maserati Granturismo (even though the Jag has a way richer heritage to it). I look at the interior of the XJS, the X150 and they just don't have that X100 finesse... I don't wanna drive it fast (I'm petrified just like you so perfectly put it...), I just wanna purr around in it and enjoy it with my eyes and ears every single time!
I'm old school, I love the design of the X100 the most. Especially the first version before they added all the chrome trim.
Usually the first version best represent what the designer wanted, and later facelifts are usually made from the perspective to make it seem fresh and modern again. But rarely do they add to the overall design. There are exceptions, of course :)
Regarding space, I'm 184cm tall (just above 6ft), and I have no trouble with leg- or headroom in my -98 XKR Coupe.
And if I move the passenger seat forward, my 8 year old daughter can comfortably sit in her child seat in the rear. But with that said, it is a two person car. Driver, and a passenger in either the front or the rear passenger seat. Just don't rule out the rear seat for a kid, it's very doable.
I read somewhere that the later versions of the X100 got different, thicker seats. Haven't tried a later model myself, but that could be a reason why some find them lacking space.
Quality wise, well it's a Jag :) The upside is that many parts can be very cheap, like brake parts if you don't have the Brembo package. Other parts can be a bit more expensive of course.
I've had my car for 13 years now and there's plenty of things I've had to have fixed over the years, despite (or perhaps because of) not driving it very much. But when I do go for a drive in it, it always manages to put a big smile on my face.
As an X100 owner (4.2 XKR) I love the looks and the veneer Spitfire’s wing dash. Especially with the three dials in the middle like mine, not the screen like this has. The X150 may be dynamically better, and much more advanced, and I know some prefer the looks but something about the X100 just seems classic which I enjoy.
As a correction, I believe the 4.0 was a Mercedes box in the R. Here says it’s a Mercedes ZF. The 4.0 XK8 was five speed ZF, the R had the Merc box. Then as noted for the 4.2 both the 8 and R used a six speed ZF.
A well sorted X100 is a delight to drive, and just feels like a late E Type but better - it drives like a Jaguar. The X150 is faster for sure, but somehow the effect doesn't percolate into the cabin.
I would love the exterior of a black X100 with the mechanicals of a 5.0L X150.
I like the classic look of the X100 with the wood dash and I prefer the shape of the car. I’m sure the X150 is technically the better car but it doesn’t look like my idea of a Jaguar, it’s just not such an attractive car.
You are wrong. The x150 is better design especially from rear.
@@S-u-p-a Stupid comment. There is no right or wrong. Aesthetics are a purely subjective and personal perspective.
@@S-u-p-a he is not wrong to have an opinion .... might not be the same as yours but that doesn't mean he's wrong!
I've just bought a 2001 X100 XKR 4.0L and i love it.
I own a xk100 , when you drive this beauty, you feel like you are James bond , really . It is amazing timeless beauty.
That’s fantastic. I have made it my ambition to own one! Happy motoring
Looking at both of them, I would settle for the X100 over the X150.The X150 tail lights make it look like a cheap Japanese car.
I have just bought a 4.2 2006 with 70,000 the best car I have ever and as you said the base car is absolutely mine is a metallic Gray and the interior is beautiful I thank you love you downloads on the XK 4.2 your sincerely Mr David Payne.
Enjoy!
The bonnet of the X100 with its E type feel just looks great. However, I have been leaning towards the X150 for many of the reasons you highlighted. I am selling my 1980 MGB, a wired wheeled romantic car when a picnic basket is tied to the rack on the boot, but just can't take all the problems anymore. I'm going with the X150. Thank you so much for the comparison video !
My pleasure, hope you enjoy it if you do get one!
I prefer the look of the X100 with the 4.2 update.
This as a comparison vid is immaculate. As someone who loves the style of both of these cars, this eye opening comparison has swayed me hugely toward the new one because like you I appreciate many of the characteristics the old doesn't have. I'm 6ft so I didn't know the X100 was so cramped, and I love the hatch style boot etc. Great vid and thank you
My pleasure bud, glad it helped out 👍
Thank you for the insightful video. Love both cars but leaning towards the last years of the X100 based on the old world dash design and more retro / E type exterior . Your points on the X150 are well noted though and could possibly steer me in that direction. Will keep you posted...
Which one to buy? The heart goes for thje X100, the head goes for the X150.
The X100 has lots of carry over parts from a XJS which is over 30 years old. You can feel alot of chassis flex and scuttle shake from the X100 convertible chassis compared to the X150 which was built from the ground up to be a convertible.
For style it’s the x100 for me. I have one. If you want the aluminium chassis though, the x150 is a decent car.
In the US market, the 5.0l engine wasn't introduced until M/Y 2010, then in M/Y 2011 there was a slight revision to the tail lights from incandescent to LED. Then M/Y 2012 was the final revision with the facelift front bumper cover, led driving lights and side blades being replaced. If in the market for a 5.0 x150, the 2013+ supposedly do not have the timing chain tensioner issue.
Great comparison video!
The only real problem I have with the X100 is the rust problems.
I’ve watched all your Jag videos and here you did a great job showing the progressive differences and the overlaps of the XK/8. It’s hard to follow without a map. Thanks.
Now I have to watch it again and write up a chart, including the NA & R. Unless you already have one to share or a link to one somewhere.
Nice one, glad it helped out. And no I haven’t done that
Watched again. Just as good the 3rd or 4th time.
Before video, really thinking about the convertible 2008ish XK because of price, but starting to consider an XK8 because I can get one for well under $15k US, where as the XK is $17k-30k. Worried about rust issues on the XK8 living on the east coast of the US. I did see pics of a 2003 XK8 with a tape deck, which actually is something I would love, as I have a bunch of tapes from the 90s that I never listen to, and it would give me a reason to listen to them. Additionally, I saw an XK8 on the road, it did put a smile on my face seeing it, and made me really start thinking about getting one. I'm in my mid 30s btw, for reference. Definitely need to just go out and test drive the different versions.
I have enjoyed every one of the videos from this series and it confirms why I bought the 4.2 xkr. I agree with all of your points on that model. Thank you for the great content.
My pleasure bud, glad you enjoyed!
Good stuff! Agree with most of your analysis/comments. I prefer the classic look and interior feel of the 2004 XKR (vert)-and own one, over the XKR (150), although really like the extra leg room in the newer model. The performance and reliability of the 4.2 L engine is great, although the base 5.0L engine is very good. It's obviously a personal/budget choice in the end. The great thing is these are fantastic cars that will leave a smile on your face every time you drive them. 😎
I have a 2012 normally aspirated XK Artisan special edition. As a continental touring car it is just amazing. It took the luggage for two on a three week tour via northern France, Germany and Austria down into Italy and back via southern France, bring us back complete with four cases of wine. Fast, reliable and comfortable with a full leather interior and the high back seats makes it an ideal GT.
Thank you ! I seem to be homing in on my bucket list car as being a 2008/9 4.2 XKR, preowned by someone who cared. With a budget of ideally no more than £18K I think it might be out there. I would prefer the J gate gear selector and I'd have to accept that the infotanment system/screen is a bit pants. I will let you know because with your help my search for my ideal weekend cruiser with a V8 burble is ongoing. Cheers
I have one of the last 2002 4.0 Xkr convertibles. Most of the 4 litres will be sorted now. The issues were mostly chain tensioners, water pumps and nikasil liners. Different superchargers too so the older ones make more noise if you like that kind of thing. If looked after like anything then they are as reliable as the the later 4.2 engines.
Nice one
I love my 52 plate 4.2 xkr, I'm 6' 1" and 330lb but the space in the front is more than adequate and I can still fit a loaf of fresh bread on the rear seat. But that's about all.
Yes, the 4.0 has a couple plastic bits, camchain guide and water pump. And does seem to spring non serious leaks. But they are all very solid. Forget nikasil liners, was 20 years ago.
Fantastic honest, down to earth and very informative review. Thank you
As you said during the making of this video, the 150 was holding its price better. Well as noted, now in 24, the XK100, and in particular the XKR 4.2 value is climbing. İt's in fact cheaper to buy the earlier 150s 07/09 etc.
However, from a pure aesthetic view, and a general conversation and admiration the XK100 wins hands down. İt's beautiful inside and out. The XK150 , particularly inside is just the same as every other modern car. No character.
I'm sure that by 2030 every single version of the xk100 will be valued higher than any of the XK150's despite the amazing performance of the later 150s.
I have a 2010 XKR - the interior is almost identical to a friends XKR-S. I actually prefer the earlier X150 shape, the face lift is too fussy to me.
The Snug Cabin of the X100 is what I actually like better.
The X150 feels a bit like sitting in a bathtub as a kid.
I set out to buy the 2013 XKR-S and drove a few. But it just didn't really clicked as i was hoping for. I then went and testdrove a X100. And even tho the first one was a pretty crappy example, i just liked it more right from the start.
As the market in switzerland and the surrounding countries is pretty empty for the 2003 and newer , i just wait until a good one pops up and will get that i think.
100 k subs Brother.. very happy for you . Fantastic comparison , Jags are in my blood if you recognize my name... still driving my 07 XKR 171k miles and planning on lots more....
Yeah only a hundred or so more peeps now for the big one :)
@@HSGAutomotive Awesome Man , you deserve it !
with the 2009 5.0 you missed one out, it had the side blades but a later version in 2010 had the new round gearbox controller and a fully revised interior with the new screen, same as the final version, but still with the side blades. that's the one I've got
Hands Down. Early Body Styles are THE NICEST COUPES to Grace Any Highway on ANY Continent. In my humble opinion. I will Always have a Jag Coupe in my collection! Simply Outstandingly Stunning! Since the Inception of this Body Style it has always been one of my favorites. The newer ones look cookie cutter. The dash is Fugly and they really bastardized a Superior Design. Sorry to have to state that.
I think you should mention the X-100’s terrible often hidden rust issue, and the 4.2 X-150’s A/C “duckbill” issue - hard and expensive to fix. I’m on my 2nd X-150 XKR - by far the best cars I’ve ever owned. Greta Channel, I’m not meaning. Just my thoughts…. X
X100 all day, every day. Superior styling- classic Jaguar cues, and the interior is lovely. The X150 car looks corpulent, the front headlights NEVER looked right- they are awkward in appearance. The X150 interior isn't special- I don't like it personally. Finally- take a look at the worldwide sales figures- the X100 was far more successful- which says it all really.
Initial thought: X150 XKR
Final thought: X150 XKR
But then I did buy one!! 😉
Love my 2000 XKR (X100) and it's E-Type visual heritage. If I could have only one, this would be it but it would be great to have one of each. I'm average size so it has never seemed cramped and quiet comfortable. Spouse did notice your low fuel indicator was illuminated when you were driving the X100 in the beginning of the video. 😉
Very enjoyable video. 🍸
Less fuel, less weight, more speeeeeeed ;)
Love this channel gained a subscriber for sure I’m binge watching the comparison reviews now great content
Haha nice one bud, glad you're enjoying the content
In an ideal world you would have the exterior of the X100 XKR coupe with the interior and mechanicals of the X150.
In a perfect world you would have the body of the X100 over F-Type 5.0 with supercharged V8.
Really great! Thank you very much. Alfons
I see the nose is different over the years, but but what about the body itself? what about the frame and chassis? Are they the same, or did they change that over the years? did the overall size change?
I've been so tempted by either an XK150 or an Aston Martin V8V for some time. For around £30K I could get into a decent Aston that is almost depreciation proof. However, maintenance and running costs are much higher and it would be something like a 2006-2008 car. The XKR would be newer, cheaper and easier to run and just as quick, although the V8V is more of sports car and has the edge on looks and rarity. The one concern for me is depreciation. Jaguars historically depreciate heavily. Great for the used buyer, but I don't want to spend £25K on a really clean car and then see it hemorrhage money. In this respect, the V8V has stayed stable now for years. Decisions, decisions!
XKR values are on the up recently, especially in the case of the 2011 and onward cars which most directly rival the AMV8 values.
@@HSGAutomotive Thanks for your reply. I wonder what's driving that. Perhaps it's because Jaguar never actually replaced the XK (F-Type is a different beast) and people are looking to find a good long term car to enjoy. Could be the WFH situation in that some people don't need a commuter car any longer and can splash out on something more interesting.
@@j4r4lly22 I suspect so, and as I mentioned in the video those are the cars with all of the final updates, and generally the lowest mileage
The XK100 is Jaaag. The XK150 is Jaaap..
Thank you for a great video! When looking for a x150 non R what would you say is the sweetspot regarding miles? When is a 4.2 considered to be a high mileage car and is there specific things to look after in a high mileage 4.2 ? Thanks!
As long as they've been looked after, 120k+ is still viable if you're on a budget. Mine had 95k on the clock and I moved on from it at about 101k, with the most significant issue it had being new rear brake lines as they corroded through. Generally go for the lowest miles you can afford really, but anything under 100k and you should be fine either way
Thank You for the Video !
I am big fan of the X100, reminds me so much of the XJ220 also.
Is the old 4Litres V8 Supercharged the most reliable,having no Variable Valves , and with the 5G-Tronic ?
It is important to realize Jag had a LOT of problems with the early ones. I drive a 1997. It has 85K on the clock. I try and keep up with it. Yes, at times it is like a whiney wife. But the rewards are worth it. I have toooo many toys. But..... LOVE them all! During this Pandemic.... they were my recreation. Now the fun has stopped due to Salt Brine. Come on Spring!
The 150 sounds more like a growling Jaguar. Like, the real deal Jaguar. By the way, looks like GT7 is starting pre-orders including a 25th Anniversary edition.
Six grand!? Wow! I'll take four thanks.
Cheapest here in Oz £26,000 GBP for a 2001, £38,000 GBP for a 2009 4.2L and , £47,000 GBP for a 2010 5.0L 🙄
Are you local to Devon as I am sure i know these roads?
These were both reviewed in Glastonbury, so within a couple hours of Devon
Which one has the most legroom? Looking to buy one any day now but I’m 6’3 with longer legs
How does the legroom and wideness of the seat in the X150 compare to the first F type? My dad has an f type and I find the seats to be a little narrow
I'd say better on both personally, especially depth since the F-Type can't go back much. I dailied my XKR for 9 months or so and weighed a lot more back then and had zero issues on driving room
@@HSGAutomotive helpful. Thanks for the reply!
I’m considering trading in my 2021 Mazda 3 that I’ve had since new with about 36k miles on it for a 2007 XK convertible with about 26k miles on it. Trying to convince myself it’s a good move haha. This video is helpful
Are the AM DB7 cramped as well? I'm 6'2 and I've been looking at getting one of my heroe cars lol and the DB7 v12 is one of them
I actually haven’t driven one yet so I can’t say for sure, but given that it shares a lot with the X100 generation, I would guess so yeah.
@@HSGAutomotive ok thank you, I see you have a Maserati coupe 4200 review as well I'll check that out.
@@razor281 If you do take the Maserati route, I’d recommend looking into the GranTurismo as well. Better gearbox than the 3200/4200 era, and similar to a DB7 on price and panache.
JAAAGGGSS
What do you recommend out of the following? A Jaguar XK 4.2L 2007 or a Porsche Cayman 2007 2.7 987 ?? Both start around 10-15k on autotrader (for a decent one) and I can only see benefits to both 😅
Jag is more to my taste, but it depends what you want from the car. Cayman will give you more fun when pushed hard as a pure sports car, the XK is more about looking and feeling good, effortless torque, cruiser vibes with performance when wanted.
@@HSGAutomotive what about taking running costs and casual maintenance into account? I’d assume the Jag would be a better car for everyday use🤔 I’m in my mid 20s and have around a 10k budget and love the look of both, I am ultimately siding with the Jag but like to keep options open. (Found your channel very insightful for this btw 👍🏻)
@@wattsy944 The Jag is bigger, more comfortable and has more usable space, and mine was my daily so it definitely suits the role. Averaged 23 mpg in my experience and the only reason why I moved on from it was needing more rear seat space. If that isn’t an issue then it literally does everything else you’d want from a GT. Early Cayman’s do have some expensive issues which can occur, but the XK certainly isn’t an immaculately reliable car. Main difference is that the Jag mostly has minor electrical or cooling gremlins, and Porsche parts are more expensive. If you were set on a Porsche I would actually recommend a 996 Carrera over the Cayman, as it offers the same ability but will be worth more when it comes to selling it.
The prices are a bit out. Just shows what has happened to prices in the last couple of years
So I cant speak to the XKR versions but I do own both a '98 XK8 and a '08 XK and unless the R versions of these cars came with a completely different suspension than their standard versions I really think you have it wrong as far as handling goes. The older X-100 is more of a sports car than the X-150. The X-100, true it rides a bit softer over the bumps, simply kills the X-150 in the curves. The X-150 has made me feel as though my brain was sucked to one side of my head in a curve and never have I felt out of control. It rides lower and does what a sports car should in a corner, it pulls the body down and hugs the corner. Neither have much body roll to speak of but the X-150 on the other hand rides higher with more of a sedan type car feel to it and in a corner lifts up throwing its weight outward and has a tendency to float around a corner giving one the feeling that you took the corner too fast and if you hit a small bump , would launch the car into a sideways roll over. The older car wins in every aspect of sports driving in my opinion where the newer model only slightly wins on quickness going straight. The only track that the X150 would be a better handling car would be the drag strip when all you have to do is keep it in a straight line. The lower center of gravity and the way the suspension works when throwing either of these heavy cars around, the X-100 is the winner in my book. And I drive both these cars on a daily basis. I might also note that this is the only time I have been moved to actually comment on a video. Go take both cars out into some hard corners and you will see. One other thing to add is the space feels so much more in the newer version only because you sit so much higher, front to back and side to side is pretty close to the same, though you may have more leg room when you raise the seat in the X-150 which just makes it feel that much worse taking the turns.
Both of those base models mentioned have indeed been driven on the channel too, and yes there is a significant difference in the R models comparison shown here
When I had all the bushings in the front, and the front shocks, replaced on my '98 XKR, it made a world of difference to the handling. They wear out, and even on a low mileage car they are old if you still run the originals. Rubber doesn't age well. So I'd take the videos description of the X100 handling characteristics with a grain of salt :)
Good reviews, thanks, both very different cars aren’t they. I have an XKR 100 and my neighbour has a 150, I’d say mine’s closer to a DB7 and his is closer to a 911 997, it’s more brutal and in your face, in an ideal world I’d have both but I don’t have the space and we can drive each other’s!
Ahah nice one, and yeah they are very different given the single generation change
@@HSGAutomotive cheers - and it’s a Hell of a lot more reliable than my E60 M5!
Really instructive. Is another major difference between the two that the X150 has an aluminium body while the X100 is steel?
It is indeed, although in practice they can both suffer from corrosion so there isn’t a massive advantage under normal driving conditions
@@HSGAutomotive Thanks for getting back. I live on the coast so was thinking the 150 would make more sense but perhaps less in that than I thought. Your videos are very helpful.
Being a 5ft 7 short ar$e would that free up leg space in the rear for small kids? Either model
I’d imagine some, but even with the seat fully forward to get my niece and her boyfriend in the back was extremely difficult
@@HSGAutomotive fortunatly my kids are 9 & 5 so quite smalj
The 4.0 S/C has a five speed Mercedes gear box, the N/A has a ZF. Those are two different boxes!
I really love my XKR from 2001. However, it is not really a reliable car. Although the mileage is about 127 K (KM, not miles). I have had everything that is mentioned in blogs. So, till now it cost me unreasonably much to keep it on the road.
100 all day long
Hi there my friend cat help noticing that most of these car assessments has the fuel light flashing
And?…lol
I really want one of each 😍😂
Go for it, haha
what makes the x150 a hatchback and not a fastback?
Aside from semantics which internet forums would doubtless waste entire days on, a hatchback trunk allows entry to the car through it without opening any inner compartment. The X150 is not a hatchback, it has a hatchback. Likewise with the Aston Vantage.
What mileage for a Jag XK is considered too much?? Obviously depends on how it’s been treated but around what would you start to assume it’ll cause more problems to what it’s worth ?
The highest I would buy is around 100k miles personally, but if you buy one before that, you can easily run them up around 200k miles if cared for. I wouldn't trust someone else's car with those miles though, you can't vouch for how it was treated.
I am X100 convertible owner
X150???
Look that bad design 😭
Give me earlier one any day. I would still prefer a manual. God help me and children who love stealing cars. They can't drive manuals.
Why do you always rev the tits off the cars on all your Vlogs - it’s a bit JUVENILE…..
XK100's are by far wavy the best! XK150? Japanese wanna be lookalike... XK8's are classic whilst XK150's will not never be... Ugh! Mark my Words...