RE: Jag XE: 75 per cent aluminium and over 75mpg
Discussion
Dan_1981 said:
loudlashadjuster said:
Frimley111R said:
Guesses on real world mpg? 50 - 55?
Diesel 4-pot: 43 MPGPetrol 4-pot: 37 MPG
Same as every other car in the sector, basically. NEDC be damned
My SAAB 1.9tdi regularly returns 55mpg at 75mph.
chungasarnies said:
Go on then - why is it so much worse than before? Those I know with 320EDs say they're great (this is not to say I don't hope the XE ups the game)
Floating and wallowing suspension when pushed, and excessive body roll when cornering with any degree of enthusiasm. You can specify better dampers as an option. Numb steering. Absolutely no feel whatsoever. You can specify better steering as an option.
Some woeful material quality. Silver plastic trim on centre console around the iDrive controller is worn visibly already just from things brushing it in general day to day use. Silver plastic coating on gearknob is also pitted and marked (and neither of us wear rings). You can specify better interior trim as an option. The plastic around the climate control panel creaks, and visibly moves if you even lightly press it. 80s Citroen style.
Average build quality. First creaks and squeaks started materialising from about 10,000 miles onwards.
Comically soft paint. Front of the car looks like it's done 100k+ - peppered with chips and marks.
Niggling faults - clonking front suspension, FEM body control module failed at 3 weeks old, wiring fault causing spurious bulb failure warnings, heater blower motor became noisy and the car periodically reports a headlamp levelling system failure on start up which disappears next time you cycle the ignition. No fault has ever been found.
Poor refinement - engine is plain loud, and the wind noise from the A-pillars is irritating
It does a genuine 53 mpg in mixed driving, well over 60 on a sub 80 mph motorway cruise, and performs really well for daily use. It's also very comfy with a fantastic driving position.
The E90 I had before was a far better drive though.
Edited by Limpet on Tuesday 29th July 11:03
Edited by Limpet on Tuesday 29th July 11:28
Dan_1981 said:
loudlashadjuster said:
Frimley111R said:
Guesses on real world mpg? 50 - 55?
Diesel 4-pot: 43 MPGPetrol 4-pot: 37 MPG
Same as every other car in the sector, basically. NEDC be damned
My SAAB 1.9tdi regularly returns 55mpg at 75mph.
My Evo would return 40 MPG at 70 MPH. That has nothing to do with the overall figure returned though, which was barely into the 20s.
My C-Class (NEDC overall 64.2 MPG!) will cruise showing instantaneous consumption of over 50 MPG, but the overall figure reported by the (optimistic) OBC is 38 MPG. Interestingly, the live MPG tracking chart in the car only reads up to 50 MPG, which should tell us everything we need to know about Mercedes' expectations for real-world consumption compared to the NEDC figure!
Point is, manufacturers game the NEDC test so well nowadays that the gap between the 'official' MPG and the real-world is getting ever greater. There are fundamental limits on how little fuel it takes to haul 1650-1800 kg around at normal speeds, hence why most cars will with similar size/weight and with similar EURO5/6 engines in terms of output will effectively return the same MPG when looked at as a group. Check places like Fuelly if you don't believe me.
Yes, there are always parsimonious heroes that post pictures showing 60+ MPG over a run, but that isn't the way most people drive every day, and indeed in some cases (living in a hilly place, requirement to do a lot of cold starts/short journeys etc.) it would be literally impossible to match.
My subjective opinion from experience is that M-B are pretty poor at getting anywhere near the official figure, VW/Audi slightly better and BMW probably about the best, but even then will probably be 40-50% off the official figure for some people like myself who have to deal with a lot of the challenges to good economy I mentioned previously. Interestingly, this applies most to the most "efficient" engines - the 4-pot diesels - with the petrols and particularly the higher ouptut V6s & V8s returning figures much closer to their NEDC figures.
I really hope the XE has competitive engines, mainly because it will unlock the BIK user chooser market for them and help to firm up demand/residuals which in turn will help private lease/PCP rates.
We can debate whether this kind of thing being important at a car's launch is a tragedy, but it's vitally important in today's market when up against slick finance deals from M-B, Audi & BMW, underpinned by their superior EU energy label CO2 figures.
Yes, the NEDC test needs overhaulling, badly. Until then, manufacturers are really just engaged in an arms race to work round the NEDC cycle and Jag need to be competitive.
Frimley111R said:
Guesses on real world mpg? 50 - 55?
Based on my experience with the 3.0D XF, I would say that depends a lot on your usage.On long motorway journeys I easily get above the claimed MPG. And I assume that is how a lot of people use it.
In any stop and go scenario the economy is horrible ... compared to what it claims and what some German rivals actually can do. This seems mainly down to a combination of weight and the gearbox. (The later I am willing to forget, as it is absolutely superb otherwise.) In the winter the diesel takes a long time to get into proper operational temperatures, during this time it is rather thirsty. So short trips do hell to the fuel economy.
Beside that, the rest really depends on your right foot. If left in auto and cruising around B roads at a constant speed, it will do what Jaguar claims. Drop a gear and have some fun, and it will become a very thirsty beast indeed.
I am a bit afraid the XE might have the same image problem as the X-Type did. However, my two biggest criticism of the XF are that it is too heavy and too big. It is actually a lot bigger than it looks, in fact the longest car I have ever owned. The problem is that once you ignore economy and have some fun, there is no way of escaping the fact that you drive a big, heavy saloon. Which is a shame, because the drive train and breaks and steering are amazing.
Now, the idea of a smaller, lighter version, that is still offering all the every day commute practicalities, sounds very tempting to me.
But I am caution, and prefer to wait and see. The X-Type and particular S-Type were not what I would call drivers cars. Comfortable, yes. Sporty, no.
loudlashadjuster said:
Sigh.
......
You can sigh all you like, I regularly see 55mpg means just that, regularly. Sometimes I see above that, and sometimes below. ......
I've checked my history and over the past 34394 miles it's averaged 53.10 mpg. Hardly a one off.
My original point was not to disagree with you but to question that the figures you provided seem awfully low even 'real world' especially for new fancy engined cars that are designed to return high MPG, when my 6 year old Vauxhall(?) engined Saab regularly and easily returns better.
Oh and your Evo - I think it was broken if you could get anything near 40mpg from it, most I ever saw in mine was 28, and that was on a long careful cruise.
Given that Jaguar surprisingly make some of the best drivers cars in the market coupled with their rejuvenated mojo this should be an exciting proposition.
Personally I do not think that it will suffer the same fate as the X-Type but the telematics, interior and build quality all need to be top notch. Get that right along with the driving dynamics and it will be hard to beat.
Regards,
MyCC.
Personally I do not think that it will suffer the same fate as the X-Type but the telematics, interior and build quality all need to be top notch. Get that right along with the driving dynamics and it will be hard to beat.
Regards,
MyCC.
Limpet said:
The plastic around the climate control panel creaks, and visibly moves if you even lightly press it. 80s Citroen style.
A friend has a 320d and I noticed this as well when I was hsaving a poke about in the cabin which was suprising.His is a factory spec one with no options and whilst its OK to sit in, I didnt find it anything special.
BMW trade a lot on their brand these days. They are not quite the ultimate driving machine that they used to be either as BMW have noticed that Audi make their cars handle 'OK' and they still sell regardless, so why bother spending any more money to be the 'best' when the buyers couldnt care less as long as the BIK is low.
Dan_1981 said:
I've checked my history and over the past 34394 miles it's averaged 53.10 mpg. Hardly a one off.
In over 113,00 miles in my Aero 2.0 petrol convertible, I have averaged just over 40mpg on the 60 mile round commute to work (mixed dual carriageway, A and B roads) through Sussex with 43.0mpg regularly through the Summer - including some 'spirited' top down driving.
I could probably eek more than 55mpg out of the OH's diesel when I use it, if it wasn't for queueing traffic in the mornings.
Anyhoo, perhaps fuel consumption changes slightly when you have to pay for it yourself, I guess most Jag XE's will be leased as company cars and won't see anywhere near the headline figure?
Coincidentally I also have a SAAB 9-3 TiD and average 47mpg. These newer cars with newer engines don't seem to be able to improve that very much at all. They are bigger of course but also have much more advanced engines, stop/start, better aero (maybe?), etc. This Jaguar will maybe do 55mpg average I suspect, about the same as its competitors. I still see very little evidence of new cars achieving significantly improved fuel consumption in the real world.
cookie1600 said:
In over 113,00 miles in my Aero 2.0 petrol convertible, I have averaged just over 40mpg on the 60 mile round commute to work (mixed dual carriageway, A and B roads) through Sussex with 43.0mpg regularly through the Summer - including some 'spirited' top down driving.
I honestly have no idea how you've managed that. My parents had the same car for 11 years (a final shape 2.0l Aero 9-3) and the most my Mum (now 69) could manage was about 29mpg! That was a mix of A and B Roads and longer journeys.loudlashadjuster said:
Interestingly, this applies most to the most "efficient" engines - the 4-pot diesels - with the petrols and particularly the higher ouptut V6s & V8s returning figures much closer to their NEDC figures.
This only makes it even more galling that V6 & 8s are being pushed-out of model ranges by MPG worries and what are, basically, nonsense politics.My 1.6 HDI C4 only ever gave me the claimed "combined" MPG figure when driving on the Motorway, at a steady 70 with a light foot. My current straight six petrol BMW however easily matches it's claimed figures.
09dfearon said:
quite embarrassing for jaguar then....
What? Not in the slightest.What you've just said is, my large executive saloon doesn't perform as well as my small executive saloon which weighs less and takes up less road space.
How is that bad for Jaguar?
Generally relevant comparisons should be between two cars in the same class. Expecting a car in the class above to be anything other than more luxurious is folly.
Looking forward to seeing what this is like - my C-Class Coupe AMG Sport Edition has been real disappointment from the 'driving' stand point, so far. Comfortable motor, but the list of (to my mind easy to resolve) flaws, is long. Dim witted 7G tronic gearbox, steering that weights up (and down) inconsistently, floppy suspension (even in sport) when cornering, utterly bloody retarded auto start/stop...for me, at least 2 of those could be resolved with better software.
Fingers crossed, come on Jag!!!!
Fingers crossed, come on Jag!!!!
zeppelin101 said:
What? Not in the slightest.
What you've just said is, my large executive saloon doesn't perform as well as my small executive saloon which weighs less and takes up less road space.
How is that bad for Jaguar?
Generally relevant comparisons should be between two cars in the same class. Expecting a car in the class above to be anything other than more luxurious is folly.
Currently in stock I have 3 jaguar xfs all 3 of which were part exchanged by their owners for German equivalents. 2 of the previous jag owners complained of poor Mpg, dpf problems (consistently) and one owner who was sick to the back teeth of jaguar telling him that the glove box not opening was his fault! I have owned and sold many 5 series and must say its a better all rounder also, better performance, better economy, much better reliability and better feel. This is comparing 3.0 to 3.0. The navigation/ climate system in the jaguar is distracting, slow and fiddly to use when driving and the gearbox is slow to react and numb feeling. Not saying the jaguar is bad but it really is not as good! This is very likely to be the same with the xe. I was comparing the 3 series as its a lower model and still drives better than the XF. If this was a comparison against an Xjl vs 7 series I would be much more complimentary to the jaguar as they have done a great job there! What you've just said is, my large executive saloon doesn't perform as well as my small executive saloon which weighs less and takes up less road space.
How is that bad for Jaguar?
Generally relevant comparisons should be between two cars in the same class. Expecting a car in the class above to be anything other than more luxurious is folly.
RacerMike said:
I honestly have no idea how you've managed that. My parents had the same car for 11 years (a final shape 2.0l Aero 9-3) and the most my Mum (now 69) could manage was about 29mpg! That was a mix of A and B Roads and longer journeys.
I reset that Sunday and get the same, week in, week out (+/- 5%) with a visit to the ermmm 'maximum speed limit officer' a handful of times every day. The OBC figure is backed up by my wallet and regularity of driving the same route. ASDA 97 RON is the best.Back on topic, I quite like the look of the shots I've seen, will we get a rag-top then?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff