Jaguar XF - Was it that good in hindsight?

I recently found an old Jaguar feature from Evo magazine that was released in 2008 when the XF came out. It covered many years of Jaguar models and culminated in a glowing review of the XF. I remember press reviews at the time treated it like the second coming.

I had two of the facelifted version, both 2.2 sadly. I also know someone who has an early 3.0. I still like them, particularly the interior design, but my lasting impression is of a car which felt special on first acquaintance but began to feel a little veneer-thin after time. 20% too strong in bling and 20% too weak on genuine quality and luxury attributes such as refinement and ride quality.

What's the consensus on the XF after all these years? Particularly in light of the fact we've had 4 years with it's replacement (which I think is a dreadful, cynical product, FWIW).

The XF round here was either driven by JLR employees with all the kit on them, the only ones I saw privately owned where in a gold colour with a 70 year old behind the wheel.

I never owned one but did have a test drive in one a couple of years ago, a diesel of some description, I don't remember the engine now. I really liked the car they way it was styled and drove and the quality seemed good, unfortunately the one I drove had a wooden interior trim which really didn't appeal to me and I was won over by an A4 estate at the same dealer. If it had an aluminium interior trim I suspect I would have probably bought it.

I worked for a Jaguar dealer all through the XF's life.

A new Jag is always good copy for the UK motoring press. When it completely re-invented what a Jaguar should look like to almost universal approval but was also dynamically competitive with the best cars in its class it was hardly surprising that it got the reception it did.

Ironically it was Jaguar's existing customers that liked it least. The old-boy golf club S-Type types couldn't get on with it at all at first. Maybe it was a slap in the face to the 'traditional' customers that Jaguar weren't doing traditional any more.

Or maybe it was due to price .Whilst on paper a decent spec XF was only £3000 or so more than an S-Type, the old car was discounted out of the door whereas the new car was sold out for months with no discount. You'd get the old car brand new on the road for around £28000 whereas the new one would be firm at nearer £37000. Assuming that the cost of building them was similar then the profits for the manufacturer were self evident.

Either way there was a strong whiff of Cortina syndrome, and late model low mileage S-Types were in strong demand in 2008/9 whereas XF buyers tended to be new to the brand.

Peak Jag was probably 2010-2011. The X-Type was dead and buried, the XJ was all new, XF and XK were still fresh, engines were 3.0 or 5.0 only. Benefit In Kind? Pence per mile? Clutch pedal? Nothing for you here, sir!

But unfortunately that's not sustainable, imagine a BMW range that starts with a 530d! The 2012MY gave the XF 8 speeds rather than 6, the headlights it should always have had, better seats, audio and touchscreen. But it also brought back the 4 cylinder Jag in the 2.2 versions.

The OP had a 2.2 and seemed to be wondering what all the fuss about the XF was. You have to remember that whilst the 2012 car was far better than the 2008 original but the original was compared against the E60 BMW and W211 Mercedes. By the time the later car came along the world had moved on with an all new 5 series and an all new E-Class.

I have an XF. Had it for over 2 years now and love it. Yes it has flaws, not the sturdiest of interiors and some annoying faults (which may be down to the front getting damaged by some old dear in the first 6 weeks of ownership. As they have all be related to items in front of the radiator). But the way it gets down the road it sublime for a car of its size. I tested the E Class, 5 series and A6 and the Jaguar was just so much better IMO. I have the 250hp Petrol, I think it looks great on the outside. I will need a hybrid next to beat the taxman, I will be gutted when it goes.

Mine was great, apart from it had a buckled wheel that made it vibrate a bit on the motorway. Quite sensitive to interior spec IMO. I had black leather with aluminium and piano black dash. The pipe and slippers references I think are to beige leather and “wood” trim.

3.0 diesel was nice and brisk.

Good car. Only moved mine on because of 3 growing kids demanding more leg room.

The facelift Sportbrake was gorgeous and I nearly bought one but felt it was a bit mature (was 27 at the time).

I had a 2.2D 2013 XF sportbrake Portfolio.

Broke down soo many times in the 18months I had it swapped it for an Audi A6 3.0L Twin Turbo. Straight swap and better reliability.

XF drove like a dream when it worked.

LOL. The X-Type (so called posh Mondeo) tried to ape the walnut/leather/classy lines.

XF was the breakaway from that and all the better for it. So make up your mind.

My Father had two - one saloon, one sportbrake and both were handsome, well-appointed cars (the autobiography/portfolio S versions had extra leather etc that really perked it up). Both were the big diesel and drove immensely well despite the oil burner - the ride quality was a sublime mix of comfort and control.

Interior was faultless for both when he had them, the only niggles were a fuel cap solenoid that wouldn't open reliably, and a noisy interior grab handle - both fixed under warranty without quibble by the dealer.

Both were better than the Audi Q8 he replaced the last one with - the Q8's technology is understandably amazing by comparison, but the build and design quality is shockingly poor... Things like door seals, panel gaps going out, infotainment crashing, suspension rattles etc have all cropped up within the first 12 months.