They’re Not Always Bad Luck: 2017 Jaguar XE vs 1978 Mercury Cougar

Good morning, Autopians! It’s Friday, Friday the 13th to be precise, so in that spirit we’re looking at – you guessed it – black cats. Which one of these would you avoid, if it crossed your path? That’s what we’re here to find out.

Yesterday we went back to basics, with a couple of just plain ol’ used cars. I always read the comments before I check the poll results, just to see if I can read the room and guess what the results will be. Honestly, I thought this would be a closer match; there were a lot of Saturn fans (or apologists?) in the comments. But no; the Subaru ran away with it.

For my money, real or imaginary, it’s the Saturn Vue all the way. But that’s just because I don’t like Subaru, and have no desire to own one. I’d make an exception for an XT or a Brat, but not some run-of-the-mill wagon.

All right, I admit it: there’s no common thread between today’s cars except the fact that they’re both painted black, and both named after cats. And Ford, I suppose. What is this, rocket surgery? Let’s just look at the cars.

2017 Jaguar XE 25T – $10,500

Engine/drivetrain: Turbocharged 2.0 liter dual overhead cam inline 4, eight-speed automatic, RWD

Location: Valencia, CA

Odometer reading: 98,000 miles

Operational status: Runs and drives great

I can’t imagine, if you asked a group of British car enthusiasts, that any of them would say the whole British Leyland thing was a good idea. Not only did the individual marques lose a lot of their identity being all mashed together under one corporate overlord, not only did quality suffer across the board, but after the whole thing came crashing down, the former British Leyland members that survived were sold off piecemeal, and suffered further at the hands of their new owners. Jaguar survived, but didn’t exactly thrive, under Ford’s stewardship, and still hasn’t quite gotten its mojo back under its new owner Tata. I was only peripherally aware of this car’s existence before I found it for sale.

It’s a good-looking sedan, rear-wheel-drive as a Jaguar should be, with none of that transverse Ford V6 nonsense of the X-Type that preceded it. It is a Ford engine, however, a 2.0 liter EcoBoost four, backed by a ZF eight-speed automatic. It sounds like a pretty robust drivetrain, but you have to go all the way back to 1949 to find the last Jaguar with only four cylinders; it feels like this should have an inline six. It runs and drives well, and is just shy of 100,000 miles.

This is not your Uncle Albert’s Jaguar on the inside, that’s for sure. Where once there was wood, chrome, and Connolly leather, now we find a generic cockpit full of plastic, paddle shifters, and, William Lyons protect us, a touchscreen. Worse than that, it has one of those awful rotary gear selectors. You can take Jaguar out of Ford, but apparently you can’t take all of the Ford out of Jaguar. At least it’s in good condition inside.

Depreciation is always hardest on luxury cars, and this is no exception. This car originally cost $37,500, which means it has lost seventy-two percent of its value in seven years. By contrast, the humble Toyota Camry of the same year seems to have lost around 30 percent. This car is actually a few grand cheaper than a couple of Camrys I found with more miles on them. Does that make it a bargain, though?

1978 Mercury Cougar – $8,995

Engine/drivetrain: 351 cubic inch overhead valve V8, three-speed automatic, RWD

Location: Eugene, OR

Odometer reading: 70,000 miles

Operational status: Runs and drives great

The Mercury Cougar didn’t quite have nine lives, but it had quite a few. This is from its “big-ass personal luxury coupe” period, in the late 1970s, with huge overhangs, gaudy trim, and a lazy cast-iron V8 with pathetic horsepower figures but gobs of torque. It was the sister model to Ford’s Thunderbird during this time, in two-door form anyway; four-door and wagon Cougars were also available, based on the Ford LTD II.

The seller doesn’t indicate which big lazy V8 is under this car’s aircraft-carrier-deck-sized hood, and the VIN decoder I found online was only mildly helpful. The engine code used by this car – H – indicates a 351 cubic inch engine, but Ford offered two engines with that displacement. Whichever one it is, it runs well, but that vacuum (or PCV?) line hanging off in space over the left-hand valve cover doesn’t inspire much confidence.

Speaking of missing information, this ad talks about the fabulous “retro” interior in this car, and then doesn’t show us any photos. With only 70,000 miles on it, it should be in good shape, but the fact that there’s no photo of it is worrisome. Are they hiding something, or just lazy?

It also appears to be suffering from “freshly-washed syndrome,” a sneaky, underhanded way of making a car look shinier than it is. I don’t think the car is in bad shape, so why the wet look? It is for sale from one of those mildly sketchy-looking dealerships. Maybe they photograph all their cars wet.

Once again, we have two cars that nobody in their right mind would cross-shop. But that’s the danger when I do these theme days; I needed two black cars named after cats, and these were the two that caught my eye. Hopefully one of them catches your eye, as well.

(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)