Jaguar XFR

[henk4]

I wonder what a normally aspirated diesel with modern technology could do.

I think the last one available was the SDI Golf. It produced 75 BHP from 1.9 liter, ECE was 5.4 liter, The 90 BHP TDi did 5.1....

[Ferrer]

I think the last one available was the SDI Golf. It produced 75 BHP from 1.9 liter, ECE was 5.4 liter, The 90 BHP TDi did 5.1....

That didn't have common rail though (altough niether did the turbocharged variant).

[henk4]

That didn't have common rail though (altough niether did the turbocharged variant).

the pump jet VAG engine were most of the time more frugal than the CR diesels. They were phased out because of the noise and the difficulties to meet emission standards.

[henk4]

Dutch prices for the new XF versions
XF 600 NM :72000 Euro, 0-100 5.9 secs, ECE 6.7 liter/100km
XF 625 NM :138000 Euro 0-100 4.9 secs ECE 12.5 liter/100km
(Another prime example of the law of diminishing returns)

[ruim20]

Dutch prices for the new XF versions
XF 600 NM :72000 Euro, 0-100 5.9 secs, ECE 6.7 liter/100km
XF 625 NM :138000 Euro 0-100 4.9 secs ECE 12.5 liter/100km
(Another prime example of the law of diminishing returns)

Almost twice the price for a second less from 0 to 100 and a different noise, i don't believe it's worth it in this car, and the diesel suits it so much better.

[Ferrer]

Dutch prices for the new XF versions
XF 600 NM :72000 Euro, 0-100 5.9 secs, ECE 6.7 liter/100km
XF 625 NM :138000 Euro 0-100 4.9 secs ECE 12.5 liter/100km
(Another prime example of the law of diminishing returns)

Uh yes, because torque is everything.

[henk4]

Uh yes, because torque is everything.

no it is not, but it does help a lot.

[Ferrer]

no it is not, but it does help a lot.

I'm sorry Pieter but I can't agree with you here.

Saying the diesel Jag is better because you get better bang for buck is completely missing the point of a Jag.

[henk4]

I'm sorry Pieter but I can't agree with you here.

Saying the diesel Jag is better because you get better bang for buck is completely missing the point of a Jag.

if the point is money, yes, then I am missing the point
btw, I can't remember the day where my revcounter showed me the number where my engine develops maximum power, but everytime I drive I notice when I am at maximum torque...

[Pando]

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?

In the good ol' days ALL M5s were fitted with manual boxes, and personally I think that's the way it should be. With the 535 available with an automatic transmission there just wasn't a need for an automatic M range. A driver's car can't be automatic, period.

Only because of the gearbox I have no interest what so ever in the XK-range among others and that is a shame, same goes for this creation. Anyone can rant all day about how fast the gear changes are or how convenient it is in traffic, but in a car that is supposed to be the least bit exciting a manual box is a must.

Automatics are wanted and probably needed too for people using the car to get from point A to B but as long as I find a hint of excitement in driving a car I'll avoid them like the plague. But if that day comes sportiness would most likely be a con instead of a pro and again cars like these lose their points...

...for me. So if they want to continue building automatic XFs, that's great - but any attempt to make them exciting results in immediate failure. Oh, and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

[wwgkd]

if the point is money, yes, then I am missing the point
btw, I can't remember the day where my revcounter showed me the number where my engine develops maximum power, but everytime I drive I notice when I am at maximum torque...

That may be because you have a lot of torque, but not much power. It's the opposite in something like an S2000.

[henk4]

That may be because you have a lot of torque, but not much power. It's the opposite in something like an S2000.

I can assure you that any S2000 driver will be more in the max torque rev range than around max power.....

[Ferrer]

In the good ol' days ALL M5s were fitted with manual boxes, and personally I think that's the way it should be. With the 535 available with an automatic transmission there just wasn't a need for an automatic M range. A driver's car can't be automatic, period.

Only because of the gearbox I have no interest what so ever in the XK-range among others and that is a shame, same goes for this creation. Anyone can rant all day about how fast the gear changes are or how convenient it is in traffic, but in a car that is supposed to be the least bit exciting a manual box is a must.

Automatics are wanted and probably needed too for people using the car to get from point A to B but as long as I find a hint of excitement in driving a car I'll avoid them like the plague. But if that day comes sportiness would most likely be a con instead of a pro and again cars like these lose their points...

...for me. So if they want to continue building automatic XFs, that's great - but any attempt to make them exciting results in immediate failure. Oh, and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

+1

I can assure you that any S2000 driver will be more in the max torque rev range than around max power.....

There's no such thing as max torque in an S2000.

To reach max power just leave it in first. All the time.

[Ferrer]

XFR is child of XF?

It's the "I want to eat my german opposition for breakfast" version of the XF.

[Ferrer]

Oh, sorry for my English.

Don't worry I was just trying to be a bit funny.