Jaguar XF - Was it that good in hindsight?
Discussion
I have had 2 XF - S Portfolios. both ex JLR cars and between the two put around 170,000 miles on them.
Preceding car was an A5 coupe 3l sport, form new and the XF was replaced by an S7.
Good:
Presence
Handling, especially in sport
Reasonably economical - both delivered around 35 mpg in a mix of town and motorway, around 40 on the motorway
Interior - I was a fan - something different to the bleak 5 series and the dark but well screwed together Audis
Sound - the Meridien / B&W system was superb - better than the B&O in the A5
Refinement - quiet and little wind noise
Performance - it's not a 535d, but it felt as quick and agile as a 530d I had for a week as a demo car (toying with idea of going into car scheme)
Bad:
Both ate turbo actuators. Covered under warranty although I had a battle with the second as it was on an extended warranty and "only the turbo is covered sir..."
Sat Nav - 2001 called and wanted it's tech back
Trim - it looked fab, but as others have said, built to a price - I had to remove a door panel to fit a damaged wing mirror, and the build was pretty poor
Narrow boot aperture, but many sporty saloons are the same
I would have another but it would need to be the estate, and i live rural so the rear wheel drive would require winters. On summers, I got stuck on a damp cricket pitch (long story).
Argleton said:
Max_Torque said:
How anyone with an XF manages with the satnav i'll never know! Literally a £15k Japenese supermini has a better, more intuitive, more useable system, let alone anything of comparable cost from the Germans.........
Yes, but think of the budgets. Toyota vs Jaguar.I think that answers it.
I've no idea if Jaguar satnavs are crap or not because I've never used one but if they are surely a better off the shelf system from somebody else ought to have been installed instead?
The navi on Gen 1 and Gen 1.5 XFs was bought in ( from Denso I think ) as opposed to Kevin from Stirchley frantically inputting data from an old A-Z :-)
The criticisms seem to stem not from the nav itself but more from the response of the touch screen and and the appearance of the graphics.
The criticisms seem to stem not from the nav itself but more from the response of the touch screen and and the appearance of the graphics.
jw2000 said:
LOL, I never understand people who gripe on about Sat Nav in cars
Well, call me old fashioned, but i kind of prefer the thing i'm spending a signifcant sum of my hard-earned on to actually work!For a lot of people, especially the sort of people who buy cars in the XF segment, decent electronic feature content is actually more important, and more likely to get a sale than how fast the car is, or how it handles. So whilst personally i'd never buy an Audi because they handle like an elephant on a skateboard (R8 excepted), lot of people do buy them because the stuff in them works, and works really well. IMO, Jag missed a trick here, got all caught up in stupid things like revolving airvents and rising knobs, and didn't spend enough time and money making sure the basics were good and worked well, or at least were class average at worst.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 19th May 13:53
V88Dicky said:
We ran a nearly new at the time, 5.0 as our family car for over five years. I thought it was a solid, comfortable and reliable car with a decent amount of shove when prodded.
Replaced last year with an XE S 380, which is better in every respect, other than space obviously.
Nevertheless, our XF was still a good car.
Out of interest, what was the MPG like on both of those models?Replaced last year with an XE S 380, which is better in every respect, other than space obviously.
Nevertheless, our XF was still a good car.
Max_Torque said:
jw2000 said:
LOL, I never understand people who gripe on about Sat Nav in cars
Well, call me old fashioned, but i kind of prefer the thing i'm spending a signifcant sum of my hard-earned on to actually work!For a lot of people, especially the sort of people who buy cars in the XF segment, decent electronic feature content is actually more important, and more likely to get a sale than how fast the car is, or how it handles. So whilst personally i'd never buy an Audi because they handle like an elephant on a skateboard (R8 excepted), lot of people do buy them because the stuff in them works, and works really well. IMO, Jag missed a trick here, caught all caught up in stupid things like revolving airvents and rising knobs, and didn't spend enough time and money making sure the basics were good and worked well, or at least were class average at worst.
Edited by Max_Torque on Tuesday 19th May 13:33
Or if he’s saying it in a sinister way, like a psychopath would say they can’t understand other people having feelings or thoughts that don’t compute with their own.
BUG4LIFE said:
J4CKO said:
XFR has always been on my lift of next possible car, my default choice is an M3/M4, anyone driven both ?
Do you have the same concern about the tensioner issue, or doesn't that put you off an XFR?There doesn't appear to be a range of specialists that are known to sort this issue [as a preventative measure] as there is with the rod-bearing problem on the E9X M3, for example. XFR's are really good value for money, so I'd certainly look at buying one and then get the tensioners sorted, if there was a range of recommended specialists to do the job.
I remember you mentioning a CLS55 as a potential future car for you to mate. One of those is on my list too, together with an E55.
The XFR really appeals and faults wise, the M4 has the Crank Hub and dying turbos, the latter probably wont kill the engine, but the former can.
Be later this year anyway, think the M4 is perhaps more sporting in intent, I like the M135i but it feels hobbled by its chassis despite being fast enough, need to drive a few, trouble is, its difficult to drive all the options to the point where you are sure you want to spend the next few years driving it.
t? 
racezimmer said:
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).
I'm sure they were and are good cars. For me though, I've never liked the styling inside or out. Far too Germanic in its appearance. Much prefer the S-Type visually or the x358.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).
Court_S said:
Matty3 said:
Run a 3 litre XF Sportbrake as my daily - bought new put 100k miles on - absolutely brilliant with no problems - still love it!
Agreed, those original headlights were rancid. Can’t believe they went into production. Joey Deacon said:
I have looked at these a few times, but don't the 2.7 and 3.0 diesel engines have an issue with diesel diluting the oil during failed DPF regens and killing the engine?
Only if you are doing short runs, which is bad for any diesel. Best way to satisfy yourself though is to keep an eye on the oil level (can be done from a read-out on the dash) and if you see it going up do an oil and filter change.TBH though the problem is not nearly as pronounced as on some other JLR products and there seems to be some cross-contamination of info.
mikeyb1987 said:
V88Dicky said:
We ran a nearly new at the time, 5.0 as our family car for over five years. I thought it was a solid, comfortable and reliable car with a decent amount of shove when prodded.
Replaced last year with an XE S 380, which is better in every respect, other than space obviously.
Nevertheless, our XF was still a good car.
Out of interest, what was the MPG like on both of those models?Replaced last year with an XE S 380, which is better in every respect, other than space obviously.
Nevertheless, our XF was still a good car.
The XE is doing 30-32 average and well over 40 on a good run.
Max_Torque said:
jw2000 said:
LOL, I never understand people who gripe on about Sat Nav in cars
Well, call me old fashioned, but i kind of prefer the thing i'm spending a signifcant sum of my hard-earned on to actually work!For a lot of people, especially the sort of people who buy cars in the XF segment, decent electronic feature content is actually more important, and more likely to get a sale than how fast the car is, or how it handles. So whilst personally i'd never buy an Audi because they handle like an elephant on a skateboard (R8 excepted), lot of people do buy them because the stuff in them works, and works really well. IMO, Jag missed a trick here, got all caught up in stupid things like revolving airvents and rising knobs, and didn't spend enough time and money making sure the basics were good and worked well, or at least were class average at worst.
Edited by Max_Torque on Tuesday 19th May 13:53
The moment I see anything unnecessary such as that I start wondering both how much of the R&D and component budget went into those when it could have been spent improving the quality or reliability of something more essential within the car instead and just how much that theatre is going to cost me when it goes wrong.
Matty3 said:
Not only did they look challenging - the lighting level was dismal too - ran a 3 litre pre facelift prior to the Sportbrake.
I take it you didn't have the Xenon version of the headlights? Everyone who has passengered in mine at night has commented on how good they are.Main beam also are like floodlights.
As for the Sat Nav in the pre-facelift cars it is indeed a bought-in Denso unit that is no worse than its contemporaries, bearing in mind we are talking about 13 years ago when the decision was made to use it. It was good enough for Volvo at the time too. Sorry, but anyone judging a 13 year-old design car on tech comparing it to something even 3 or 4 years younger hasn't got a clue. Think how long you keep your phone for example.
Edited by Evercross on Tuesday 19th May 20:36
Evercross said:
Matty3 said:
Not only did they look challenging - the lighting level was dismal too - ran a 3 litre pre facelift prior to the Sportbrake.
I take it you didn't have the Xenon version of the headlights? Everyone who has passengered in mine at night has commented on how good they are.Main beam also are like floodlights.
I’ve had three facelifts over 7 1/2 years. Two top of the range 3.0 diesels then an XFR-S. The later has had engine problems sorted under extended warranty. That aside they’ve been fab cars. I’ve taken all three down to the Großglockner. They’re epic tourers but when you want to push on, the chassis is still pretty damn good. And a much much better car than all the beemers I’ve had.
Edited by fatboy b on Tuesday 19th May 21:00
300bhp/ton said:
racezimmer said:
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).
I'm sure they were and are good cars. For me though, I've never liked the styling inside or out. Far too Germanic in its appearance. Much prefer the S-Type visually or the x358.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).
Max_Torque said:
How anyone with an XF manages with the satnav i'll never know! Literally a £15k Japenese supermini has a better, more intuitive, more useable system, let alone anything of comparable cost from the Germans.........
Normally a lack of understanding of how it works is the case.Gassing Station | Jaguar | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff