-
6 Attachment(s)
Jaguar XFR
A new 5L AJV8, more aggression, and a supercharger.
510 bhp and 460 lb-ft of torque. 0-60 mph in 4.7 seconds.
This cat's got teeth.
[URL="http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2010-jaguar-xfr/1273505/"]More shots.[/URL]
[URL="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/09/detroit-preview-jaguar-xfr-arrives-early/"]More info.[/URL]
The XFR will be shown at the NAIAS.
-
I'm suprised that Jag made the engine bigger instead of cranking up the boost, or the supercharger equivalent.
Jag, please don't do factory rice!
Needless to say, aside from the styling, do want.
XFR > M5
-
Jaguar's should be available with manuals. And shouldn't be restricted to 155mph.
Other than that it's fine I guess.
-
[QUOTE=Ferrer;861147]Jaguar's should be available with manuals. And shouldn't be restricted to 155mph.
Other than that it's fine I guess.[/QUOTE]
don't know about manuals (even if I prefer manuals).
don't care about the 155 mph.
not so sure about the new air intakes on the lower part of the front, and the exhausts seem to be a little too far from the body.
other than that, I will take mine as that of the pics, but with different colors for the interiors, thanks.
-
[QUOTE=Ferrer;861147]Jaguar's should be available with manuals. And shouldn't be restricted to 155mph.
Other than that it's fine I guess.[/QUOTE]
Manuals, Yes. Top speed, no. I'd bet that less then 3% of XFR owners will be pushing their cars past 125. There is hardly enough room anywhere for that not to mention 155! And past that, I'm not to sure there's many places at all you could go past 155.
-
[QUOTE=Soloracer;861149]Manuals, Yes. Top speed, no. I'd bet that less then 3% of XFR owners will be pushing their cars past 125. There is hardly enough room anywhere for that not to mention 155! And past that, I'm not to sure there's many places at all you could go past 155.[/QUOTE]
maybe you are underestimating the bhp.
with even just 115 bhp I can easily see more than 100 mph in a short space, and with 150 bhp (and six gears) those 125 mph are achievable in the same space.
I don't care enough about the top speed, but at the same time I bet more than the 3% (quite a lot more) will push the car at 125 mph, at least here. I can easily see anonymous diesel sedans on the highway during an everyday trip (ok, perhaps in Italy there are some issues with [I]speeding[/I], that's nothing new)
-
[QUOTE=Ferrer;861147]Jaguar's should be available with manuals. And shouldn't be restricted to 155mph.
Other than that it's fine I guess.[/QUOTE]
Snap judgement form Ferrer - I'll wait till a road test but I missed the fact there would be no manual - sloppy. Spot on there man.
250 km/h is not fast enough for you though? Where are you going to hit those speeds? I'd say the vast majority of Jags are sold in North America and Great Britain where speeds like those are highly illegal and as previously mentioned what Jaguar owner is gonna take it beyond 200 or 230 say?
Anyways I don't care about limiters because I assume that for the right price (probably a low one) they can be defeated so meh.
-
[QUOTE=f6fhellcat13;861136]
Jag, please don't do factory rice!
Needless to say, aside from the styling, do want.
XFR > M5[/QUOTE]
This is no more rice than an Audi RS6 or BMW M5...what [I]are[/I] you on about?
It looks very tasteful IMO...come to Daddy!:cool:
[QUOTE=Kitdy;861158]I'll wait till a road test but I missed the fact there would be no manual - sloppy. Spot on there man.[/QUOTE]
There are no manual XFs, period. It would massively change the character of the car, and I'm not sure if that's what Jaguar want. Besides: Apart from us "hardcore" enthusiasts, who's going to buy manual XFs? <2% of customers?
I heard that BMW were going to make M5s available in the 'States with manual 'boxes. Anyone know if that's happened yet?
[QUOTE=Kitdy;861158]250 km/h is not fast enough for you though? Where are you going to hit those speeds? I'd say the vast majority of Jags are sold in North America and Great Britain where speeds like those are highly illegal and as previously mentioned what Jaguar owner is gonna take it beyond 200 or 230 say?
I think he just means the principle of limiting the top speed.
[QUOTE=Kitdy;861158]Anyways I don't care about limiters because I assume that for the right price (probably a low one) they can be defeated so meh.[/QUOTE]
QFTMFT. Although if only a tiny proportion of XF owners are going to take it that fast, why limit at all?
Another thing to remember is that this is the "R" model: The one Jaguar want driving enthusiasts to buy...so [I]maybe[/I] things like manual gearboxes and speed limiters should matter more...?
-
I'm not sure on this. All these newer Jags seem to have lost thier former appeal. Here in the US, Jags are heavily marketed to a younger audience. This makes it seem as if Jag is losing luxury appeal. But this is coming from a complete marketing standpoint.
-
[QUOTE=LTSmash;861165]I'm not sure on this. All these newer Jags seem to have lost thier former appeal. Here in the US, Jags are heavily marketed to a younger audience. This makes it seem as if Jag is losing luxury appeal. But this is coming from a complete marketing standpoint.[/QUOTE]
well, they declared they want to change completely Jaguar as we knew it, and the XF is the first step.
I don't think Jaguar is loosing its luxury appeal, but surely it's aiming to younger owners (since the older ones who were previously buying the cars were enough)
-
[QUOTE=LeonOfTheDead;861166]well, they declared they want to change completely Jaguar as we knew it, and the XF is the first step.
I don't think Jaguar is loosing its luxury appeal, but surely it's aiming to younger owners (since the older ones who were previously buying the cars were enough)[/QUOTE]
Well, they haven’t lowered their pricing really; so they haven’t lost luxury appeal in price strategy. But, from the few marketing classes I've taken, I've learned that advertising to a younger market can reduce luxury appeal over time.
-
[QUOTE=LTSmash;861169]Well, they haven’t lowered their pricing really; so they haven’t lost luxury appeal in price strategy. But, from the few marketing classes I've taken, I've learned that advertising to a younger market can reduce luxury appeal over time.[/QUOTE]
yeah I see, but in this case they are not creating smaller cars for younger drivers (which, with the A and B-Klasse, is what happened to MB), just creating new cars of the same kind but that can appeal to younger buyers.
I think it van work, and since the heritage and classic look and philosophy for Jaguar wasn't working, I guess they didn't have another choice but to change completely.
-
[QUOTE=LeonOfTheDead;861151]maybe you are underestimating the bhp.
with even just 115 bhp I can easily see more than 100 mph in a short space, and with 150 bhp (and six gears) those 125 mph are achievable in the same space.
I don't care enough about the top speed, but at the same time I bet more than the 3% (quite a lot more) will push the car at 125 mph, at least here. I can easily see anonymous diesel sedans on the highway during an everyday trip (ok, perhaps in Italy there are some issues with [I]speeding[/I], that's nothing new)[/QUOTE]
Maybe your underestimating the weight effect...
My point is that Jag owners typically (minus the vintage Jag owners) are not the speeding type, their more of the looking good, comfy car type with a sporty appearance...
-
Dont just consider age. The baby boomers are a more youthful bunch at their age than any other generation prior. Having a more youthful car may be to Jaguar's advantage.
Even though they have reached that age, today's old people don't want old people cars as much as prior generations.
-
[QUOTE=Soloracer;861175]Maybe your underestimating the weight effect...
My point is that Jag owners typically (minus the vintage Jag owners) are not the speeding type, their more of the looking good, comfy car type with a sporty appearance...[/QUOTE]
first of all, the weight is not that much overall, even considering 500 kg more than the car mentioned (Fiat Croma), it still has 350 bhp more than it, so I guess it's very fast. and the other XF (presumingly with a very similar weight) are already way faster than my car.
about the Jaguar owners not speeding: the few X-Type owners are exactly like those driving 3-Series or A4, and they are not famous for being good drivers when it comes to speed. S-Type drivers are about the same, even if there aren't enough to stereotype them.
XJ drivers are even rarer, but surely they drive quite relaxed.
Usually XK drivers are quite good.
perhaps not over there, but here the bigger the car you own, the stupider way you drive. especially when it comes to german cars, but tbh there is an exception. when the car is the top of the line, like an AMG (Audi Sx are excluded by their own owners I have to say), they seem to drive like if they don't need to demonstrate that is the [I]uber[/I] model, so they are not that bad.
so, I suppose an XFR owner would use those 500 bhp and run at about 125 mph more than occasionally, even if maybe less than how the 3.0 diesel owners would do.
I wouldn't say they can't because of the roads or lack of space. cars even if heavier than some years ago are faster and faster, as I told you I could reach almost that speed on a country road near home with a much simplier and less powerful car, without considering highways or other bigger roads of course.
not saying there is the possibility so they will do, I'm not into speeding (not that much at least) nor I encourage it, just saying if someone ever wanted, I can prepare a long list of roads in which to drive at so high speeds.
risking your life of course.
-
[QUOTE=Clivey;861162]This is no more rice than an Audi RS6 or BMW M5...what [I]are[/I] you on about?
It looks very tasteful IMO...come to Daddy!:cool:[/QUOTE]
I can see it being a bit overly-aggressive for a Jag - the hood vents are a bit too protrusive maybe is what I see - the rear end is great (I don't like the headlights on the XF and headlights are critical to me) though it makes me think Aston.
[QUOTE=Clivey;861162]There are no manual XFs, period. It would massively change the character of the car, and I'm not sure if that's what Jaguar want. Besides: Apart from us "hardcore" enthusiasts, who's going to buy manual XFs? <2% of customers?[/QUOTE]
Indeed but it'd be nice, wouldn't it? Ferrer (I think) and I speak not in this case in business sense but enthusiasts perspecitve. I wonder if there will be a semi-auto - I think that would suffice on an XFR.
[QUOTE=Clivey;861162]I think he just means the principle of limiting the top speed.[/QUOTE]
Well I can't argue with that I suppose. I think it'd be more logical to limit top speed if at all to a more "reasonable" speed such as 150 km/h - a speed at which there isn't really a justifiable reason to travel faster on public roads in my eyes. I think even this speed is excessive and should preferably not be driven at all but if so on empty highways in straight lines.
EDIT: Nice to see you around here Clivey - post interesting as usual. Been a while though eh man?
-
[QUOTE=Clivey;861162]This is no more rice than an Audi RS6 or BMW M5...what [I]are[/I] you on about?
[/QUOTE]
It's more normal coming from the Germans, Jags are supposed to be classy.
I'm not being inconsistent, I tend not to like supersedans (German especially).
-
[QUOTE=Kitdy;861201]Well I can't argue with that I suppose. I think it'd be more logical to limit top speed if at all to a more "reasonable" speed such as 150 km/h - a speed at which there isn't really a justifiable reason to travel faster on public roads in my eyes. I think even this speed is excessive and should preferably not be driven at all but if so on empty highways in straight lines.[/QUOTE]
I guess they choose to limit the cars to 155 mph for aero issues, since after that speed aerodynamic begins to be quite critical, so it's a sort of safe bet.
for the record, speed limit in Italy is 130 km/h (about 81 mph), but the average speed on the third lane is actually 140 km/h
limit the cars to 150 km/h and I can already see the insurrection ;)
-
[QUOTE=f6fhellcat13;861205]It's more normal coming from the Germans, Jags are supposed to be classy.
I'm not being inconsistent, I tend not to like supersedans (German especially).[/QUOTE]
the S-Type R wasn't that much different, or even the XJR variants though.
about the XJR, as the Maserati Quattroporte, it may seem underpowered compared to the Germans, but it's fair enough so it's really [I]tolerable[/I].
on the other hand, the S-Type R was perfectly in line with what the Germans were offering when it came out.
-
[QUOTE=LeonOfTheDead;861206]I guess they choose to limit the cars to 155 mph for aero issues, since after that speed aerodynamic begins to be quite critical, so it's a sort of safe bet.
for the record, speed limit in Italy is 130 km/h (about 81 mph), but the average speed on the third lane is actually 140 km/h
limit the cars to 150 km/h and I can already see the insurrection ;)[/QUOTE]
140 would be nice I gotta say - 120 is what the going rate on the majors are here and the police essentially will not ticket you at 120.
However, a bit higher than that and things get serious - 150 in Ontario and the max penalty is a roadside vehicle seizure, a 10k fine, and (I think) 6 month licence suspension. I think that is a good way to deal with speeding frankly - I will not go 150 that's for sure.
-
[QUOTE=LeonOfTheDead;861209]the S-Type R wasn't that much different, or even the XJR variants though.
about the XJR, as the Maserati Quattroporte, it may seem underpowered compared to the Germans, but it's fair enough so it's really [I]tolerable[/I].
on the other hand, the S-Type R was perfectly in line with what the Germans were offering when it came out.[/QUOTE]
I agree, I do not like the S-Type R. The XJ-R and QP manage to be quite classy because they look good but are, at the same time, quite understated.
-
Where exactly is the umm... shifter?
-
[QUOTE=baddabang;861231]Where exactly is the umm... shifter?[/QUOTE]
It's that round dial right under the start engine button. That's how Jag does it now. And while i haven't tried one, it does seem like a good idea since it doesnt take up space for no reason.
-
[QUOTE=LeonOfTheDead]
perhaps not over there, but here the bigger the car you own, the stupider way you drive.[/QUOTE]
fail.
[QUOTE=LeonOfTheDead]I wouldn't say they can't because of the roads or lack of space. cars even if heavier than some years ago are faster and faster, as I told you I could reach almost that speed on a country road near home with a much simplier and less powerful car, without considering highways or other bigger roads of course.
not saying there is the possibility so they will do, I'm not into speeding (not that much at least) nor I encourage it, just saying if someone ever wanted, I can prepare a long list of roads in which to drive at so high speeds.
risking your life of course.[/QUOTE]
^ yeah, are you familiar with this organization known as the police. they have a relatively large impact on the issue of speeding. in fact they can restrict your ability to drive permanently if you disobey their rules. which to an enthusiast of high performance driving such as yourself, you might as well be dead.
-
so this 5 liter supercharged engine produces a whopping 625 NM. Wow. A week earlier Jaguar presented a 3 liter turbo engine, producing 600 NM (and probably 50% less fuel consumption). That version of the XF is also limited at 250 kph. May reason win....
-
[QUOTE=henk4;861266]so this 5 liter supercharged engine produces a whopping 625 NM. Wow. A week earlier Jaguar presented a 3 liter turbo engine, producing 600 NM (and probably 50% less fuel consumption). That version of the XF is also limited at 250 kph. May reason win....[/QUOTE]
Too bad there's no FWD XF, eh? :)
Though they did try to increase the power and torque, if they left the 4.2 in it it would have been much more redundant.
-
[QUOTE=henk4;861266]so this 5 liter supercharged engine produces a whopping 625 NM. Wow. A week earlier Jaguar presented a 3 liter turbo engine, producing 600 NM (and probably 50% less fuel consumption). That version of the XF is also limited at 250 kph. May reason win....[/QUOTE]
A good point henk, but probably more importantly, which is more rewarding to drive?
I also suspect that the diesel's boost is considerably higher than this ones and the engine is also probably heavier.
Off topic, my question to you is how is power delivery with your new sequential turbo C5? I've always heard diesels have lots of low-end torque and are good for low-engine speed grunt yet they have turbochargers which can delay high end throttle response. Does the mid- and low- end torque make the power surge more linear in a turbo diesel than say a turbo gas car? Is there a lot of turbo lag in modern diesels or a car like yours?
-
[QUOTE=Clivey;861162]I think he just means the principle of limiting the top speed.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. A Jaguar shouldn't be limited, even if you never exceed 100mph. It's just wrong.
Limiting cars is german thing, don't want germanness in a Jag.
[QUOTE=henk4;861266]so this 5 liter supercharged engine produces a whopping 625 NM. Wow. A week earlier Jaguar presented a 3 liter turbo engine, producing 600 NM (and probably 50% less fuel consumption). That version of the XF is also limited at 250 kph. May reason win....[/QUOTE]
It's also quite a lot slower and won't sound as nice.
-
[QUOTE=Kitdy;861273]A good point henk, but probably more importantly, which is more rewarding to drive?
I also suspect that the diesel's boost is considerably higher than this ones and the engine is also probably heavier.
Off topic, my question to you is how is power delivery with your new sequential turbo C5? I've always heard diesels have lots of [B]low-end torque and are good for low-engine speed grunt[/B] yet they have turbochargers which can delay high end throttle response. Does the mid- and low- end torque make the power surge more linear in a turbo diesel than say a turbo gas car? Is there a lot of turbo lag in modern diesels or a car like yours?[/QUOTE]
(Referring to the text in bold): Most small diesels with single turbos (like mine) unfortunately suffer from massive turbo lag until about 2,000 rpm.
This is the single characteristic that irritates me most about my car. You can pull-up to a junction, wait for a gap and decide to pull-out...but if you don't manage 2k rpm straight away, you have virtually no power at all (it's as though the car is towing a 5-ton weight). This means when you go to pull away from rest in a diesel, you have to rev it a little before engaging the clutch. If you don't, it's as though you've stalled in the middle of the junction as the car "bogs down".
This is most frustrating when you approach a junction at around 10-mph in second, because on one hand the gearbox won't let you change to first, but on the other, you have no boost in second. This means you have no choice but to depress the clutch pedal, give the engine some revs and feed the clutch back in just to ensure you have some boost to play with...
...otherwise you only have what feels like 10% of the engines' power and torque behind you.
I hope my turbo never fails!
The point I'm trying to make is: Smaller modern diesels don't have good "low-down torque", but once the turbocharger is "on-boost", you have lots of the lovely stuff from about 2,000-4,000rpm. This is why you'll hear motoring writers complementing diesels on "mid-range grunt" or similar.
-
I have to agree with Clivey completely on single turbo diesels.
-
See I woulda thought it'd take longer for the turbo to wind up - 2,000 rpm is still pretty low rpm to me - maybe I'm thinking too much from a gasoline car standpoint.
Great summary there Clive many thanks.
Do diesels idle lower than gasoline cars?
-
The turbo spools at a lower speed (2000) not because it is idling lower, but because it doesn't have as high a top speed.
A turbos max flow rate is dependant on size, and with the lower max revs of a diesel the turbo is smaller, allowing it to build pressure at a lower engine rpm.
-
[QUOTE=Kitdy;861302]See I woulda thought it'd take longer for the turbo to wind up - 2,000 rpm is still pretty low rpm to me - maybe I'm thinking too much from a gasoline car standpoint.[/QUOTE]
Consider that most diesels have their redline at 5k rpm. 2k rpm is nearly half way through that rev range.
In a petrol car, the equivalent would be revving the car to about 3k rpm just to get enough power to move...!
The disadvantage of trying to compensate for lack of displacement with turbochargers, I'm afraid!
[QUOTE=Kitdy;861302]Great summary there Clive many thanks.
Do diesels idle lower than gasoline cars?[/QUOTE]
No worries mate, and yes: Diesels do idle at lower revs, too.
-
[QUOTE=Soloracer;861245]fail.
^ yeah, are you familiar with this organization known as the police. they have a relatively large impact on the issue of speeding. in fact they can restrict your ability to drive permanently if you disobey their rules. which to an enthusiast of high performance driving such as yourself, you might as well be dead.[/QUOTE]
I never got a ticket in my 5 years of license, nor I do intend to get one, I just described the way cars are driven here, not the way I drive.
[QUOTE=henk4;861266]so this 5 liter supercharged engine produces a whopping 625 NM. Wow. A week earlier Jaguar presented a 3 liter turbo engine, producing 600 NM (and probably 50% less fuel consumption). That version of the XF is also limited at 250 kph. May reason win....[/QUOTE]
1 Supercharger Vs 2 Sequential Turbos + direct injection, an unfair comparison! :)
EDIT: I saw even the new petrol engine has DI, still, it's a[I]first[/I] in their petrol engines while in diesel engines it has been a [I]must[/I] since almost 15 years I would say
Even if a diesel always produces more torque regardless of the technology adopted, it's the only thing it can give you.
with the same tech the fuel consumption of petrol engines will be heavily reduced, and they would still perform better. you know better than me that having more torque doesn't mean something as a given fact.
and providing a diesel engine that could deliver the same kind of performance of this new 5.0 V8 (which we know is going to be faster perhaps on track, even if the car won't likely see a track period) the fuel consumption would drop, and the emissions raise.
but for everyday driving, yeah, props to the new diesel rather than to this one :) (even if it's probably heavier)
[QUOTE=Kitdy;861273]Off topic, my question to you is how is power delivery with your new sequential turbo C5? I've always heard diesels have lots of low-end torque and are good for low-engine speed grunt yet they have turbochargers which can delay high end throttle response. Does the mid- and low- end torque make the power surge more linear in a turbo diesel than say a turbo gas car? Is there a lot of turbo lag in modern diesels or a car like yours?[/QUOTE]
low end torque as said by Clivey can be frustrating, as driving a smaller petrol engine perhaps, you have to rev a little.
with variable geometric turbos the situation is much better know, and with two turbos (sequential or not) I guess there are no issues at all.
[QUOTE=Kitdy;861302]See I woulda thought it'd take longer for the turbo to wind up - 2,000 rpm is still pretty low rpm to me - maybe I'm thinking too much from a gasoline car standpoint.
Great summary there Clive many thanks.
Do diesels idle lower than gasoline cars?[/QUOTE]
even if the red line in a diesel is between 4500 and 5000 rpm, you would change gear at 4000 at most, because the trust disappears quite quickly, and the noise is, well, noise.
My diesels both idle at about 850/900 rpm
-
[QUOTE=Clivey;861316]The disadvantage of trying to compensate for lack of displacement with turbochargers, I'm afraid![/QUOTE]
And I guess that's even more evident the smaller the engine is.
It's not like normally aspirated diesels ever made decent power though.
-
[QUOTE=Ferrer;861355]It's not like normally aspirated diesels ever made decent power though.[/QUOTE]
I wonder what sort of mileage you'd get with a naturally aspirated diesel engine in a car. It'd be weak yes but the mileage difference of adding a turbo is what piques my interest.
-
[QUOTE=Ferrer;861355]And I guess that's even more evident the smaller the engine is.
It's not like normally aspirated diesels ever made decent power though.[/QUOTE]
MB 2.2 liter was good for 86 bhp in the old E-Klasse, don't remember the torque figure
-
[QUOTE=Kitdy;861369]I wonder what sort of mileage you'd get with a naturally aspirated diesel engine in a car. It'd be weak yes but the mileage difference of adding a turbo is what piques my interest.[/QUOTE]
Well probably better. Then again modern turbo petrols sometimes get (officially that is) better fuel consumption figures than it's normally aspirated counterparts so who knows...
[QUOTE=LeonOfTheDead;861376]MB 2.2 liter was good for 86 bhp in the old E-Klasse, don't remember the torque figure[/QUOTE]
The old W124 had a 3 litre 4vpc normally aspirated diesel with 150bhp. That's the most powerful N/A diesel ever installed in a passanger car, AFAIK.
-
[QUOTE=Ferrer;861379]Well probably better. Then again modern turbo petrols sometimes get (officially that is) better fuel consumption figures than it's normally aspirated counterparts so who knows...
The old W124 had a 3 litre 4vpc normally aspirated diesel with 150bhp. That's the most powerful N/A diesel ever installed in a passanger car, AFAIK.[/QUOTE]
without the turbo, diesel's efficiency drops substantially.
even if the mileage can seem better, the performance are highly mortified, and the emissions very high too.
that 3.0 liter wan't so bad, considering the first 3.0 liter turbo from BMW was good for 184 bhp (again regardless of the torque).
probably the difference was more evident on the road than on the sheet.
-
Basically, the main reason you'd drive a diesel is that it's cheaper to run than the equivalent petrol.
My choice was also influenced because the 1.6 Diesel C4 is just as quick as the petrol - as long as you have the boost...and the ECU can easily be remapped so the engine then produces 140BHP.
It has more torque than the petrol, but the petrol is a lot more responsive.
In most other cars, I'd rather have a petrol of the equivalent price because of the enhanced drivability, but the C4s weight (1,270 kg) would crush a 1.6 N/A petrol.