I'm not a fan of either. I think the emblem is hideous too. The round Jaguar was much nicer.
Printable View
I'm not a fan of either. I think the emblem is hideous too. The round Jaguar was much nicer.
The XJ looks like it's getting a mouthful of krill, and the rear is confused.
XF for me, is a relatively well thought out design, and I have no need for the more-expensive XJ.
Not that I really need an XF, for $80,000 I could get a base 911, a loaded M3 or CTS-V, or any number of thing a lot more interesting and pretty than these two Jags.
Best to buy these used...2-3 yrs old...they will depreciate scary fast....even worse possibly than Aston Martin's.
[quote=Dino Scuderia;941346]Maybe mechanically...but I didn't like the XJ looks in person.
The overall styling of both isn't really that appealing to me.
82k or 111k for these? Are you kidding me? No friggin' way.[/quote]
What would you have?
[quote=f6fhellcat13;941359]The XJ looks like it's getting a mouthful of krill, and the rear is confused.
XF for me, is a relatively well thought out design, and I have no need for the more-expensive XJ.
Not that I really need an XF, for $80,000 I could get a base 911, a loaded M3 or CTS-V, or any number of thing a lot more interesting and pretty than these two Jags.[/quote]
XK.
Although I have only seen the new XJ at CIAS, I have seen quite a few XF-R's in person, and IMO they are strike a near perfect balance between style and subtle. Not too boring like an S-type but not too noticeable that you make a fuss every time you pull out of your driveway. and 510hp and those gorgeous wheels dont hurt either:cool:
I see XFs all day. They seem to be quite popular. But i have to agree, car butts aren't Jaguars strengt when it comes to Limousines. The XF's looks a bit bland (not bad, but, well, not exciting at all), while the XJ's lacks about everything that's substantial for a car's rear (except the rear lights ;)). But if you ignore the rears,both are basically good looking cars.
I would vote XF-R simply because I'd have no use for the better interior of the XJ, but would appreciate the sportiness of the XFR. The price difference helps out too. I guess it comes down to what you're looking for from the car.
Edit: Not to be contentious, but was the CTS-V considered?
[quote=wwgkd;941409]
Edit: Not to be contentious, but was the CTS-V considered?[/quote]
This was more to discuss the novelty of cars from two different classes having such similar numbers. But to answer your question: No, not for a second.
The XJ is pointless because the XF is so good.
After a (standing) experience in both cars, I have to say the difference in luxury and refinement is much larger than what the price suggests. The XFR may be faster and perhaps more interesting to drive fast, but the XJ is just perfect for everyday top quality rides. Despite being a fan of the XFR, it isn't exactly a car you would bring to the local track, or either something you can really push to its limits on every day roads.
XJ for me, plus I think it's even better looking (especially in the flesh).
Hai your car driving is very smooth handle Safety drive for your future.[IMG]http://greenrent.de/smileycool.ico[/IMG]
I think both of these cars are close and the ultimate decision probably lies in how much you prioritise performance. My choice would be the XJ but I'll admit the XF would most likely be better handling.
I'd go for the XF-R version....Elegantly designed.
Of the two, I would rather have the XF-R. I hate the new XJ. The back end looks like a Maserati - in a bad way. Even when considering the XF, I would rather have the normal XF diesel or XF S. I think they have more class.
Diesel Jag is like a supermodel with a beard.