"Chris Clarke" (shiftsandgiggles)
10/21/2013 at 13:52 • Filed to: None
0
7|
"Chris Clarke" (shiftsandgiggles)
10/21/2013 at 13:52 • Filed to: None | 0
| 7 |
Not that you can see it in the pic, but the plate is "JAG XF".
First order of fail is redundancy. Why re-badge a good looking car, when Jaguar already took the time to label it sufficiently.
Second order, why advertise that you bought the cheapest/entry level model?
Jagvar
> Chris Clarke
10/21/2013 at 13:57 |
|
It may be Jaguar's least expensive car, but that doesn't necessarily make it something to be ashamed of. That's like saying don't advertise that you have an ATS because it's not a CTS.
Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
> Chris Clarke
10/21/2013 at 13:58 |
|
a cheap jaaaaag is still a jaaaag, but I get the point. I would never get a vanity plate of which there is already labels on the car, lol.
Milky
> Chris Clarke
10/21/2013 at 13:59 |
|
But its so pretty though ....
RX
> Chris Clarke
10/21/2013 at 14:03 |
|
How about MAC 12C on a McLaren 12C?
EL_ULY
> Chris Clarke
10/21/2013 at 14:04 |
|
Love me some XF action. Im glad JAAAAAAG made a proper mid sized sedan that could compete in my favorite class. I'd take it over a E60 for sure.
|
Chris Clarke
> Milky
10/21/2013 at 14:04 |
|
Its fantastic looking, that's why I thought the plate kinda took away from it.
|
Chris Clarke
> Jagvar
10/21/2013 at 14:07 |
|
First off, its not a Cadillac, its a Jaguar. Everyone can see its a Jaguar, everyone knows its a nice car. I wouldn't turn down XF, I wouldn't announce that I own one, and if I had the means to get a Jag, I would do myself a favor and buy a proper one.