The only way that could be better is if they put the steering wheel on the correct side Still drool-worthy
Yezwhat? First, it's not a clone - there's no commonality between the companies or the cars. Sure, Ian Cullum headed the design teams, but he also did the RS2000 and the Nissan R390, so you couldn't exactly call him a one-trick pony. Secondly, if you take the price difference into account, I think you'll find the XK to be a good match for the Vantage, so it's not quite inferior. If you think the XK150 looks much like the Vantage or Vanquish, or cheap and tacky, I suppose it just goes to show you can't please everyone. The awards it's won disagree, I think. Technically Jaguar's heritage has been 8 convertible sports cars, 3 racing cars, 1 supercar, and 25 fast saloons traditionally aimed at dentists, doctors, and bank robbers. So a Jag should technically be a fast saloon, or a fast but comfortable sports car. For the fast saloon, you have the fast and modern XF with space-age interior and up to 500bhp. For the sports car, how is 4.2-5.0L/300-500bhp in a 1600kg convertible not exciting enough for you?
Come on man, you can't deny the design similarities between the XK and an aston. It's a great looking car for a good price point, but there are definite similarities between it and an aston.
I agree they're not polar opposites, sure, but I wouldn't call one a clone of the other; you're looking at two easily recognisable and quite different sets of design cues, not to mention the fact the Jag is about twice the size of a Vantage...
