RE: Jaguar XK/XKR (X150): PH Buying Guide
Discussion
Effjay said:
I've had mine mapped and it's now at 575bhp, a smaller supercharger pulley would take it over 600. My torque curve is completely flat from about 2500 right to the redline now. In stock form the power does tail off abut in the higher revs.
A remap on a 5.0 XKR has given you 575hp?! An extra 72hp with no physical mods?Seems remarkable. Could you tell me who did this and how you know it's now 575hp please?
threadlock said:
A remap on a 5.0 XKR has given you 575hp?! An extra 72hp with no physical mods?
Seems remarkable. Could you tell me who did this and how you know it's now 575hp please?
Evolve did it. Well respected guys, especially in the BMW scene. They have a 5.0 F-Type running around 650bhp I think. My car had multiple runs on their dyno. And it feels substantially stronger than a standard 5.0 XKR in the higher revs, which is what I wanted to achieve.. I only have about 30lb/ft more peak torque, but this is maintained right to the redline, whereas torque drops off substantially on the standard XKR at higher revs.Seems remarkable. Could you tell me who did this and how you know it's now 575hp please?
It's worth noting that all of the supercharged 5.0 Jag engines are identical, with the power differences coming from software (there are some slight differences in exhausts between various models, but nothing which should give massive power differences).
Effjay said:
Evolve did it.
Thanks!Effjay said:
It's worth noting that all of the supercharged 5.0 Jag engines are identical, with the power differences coming from software (there are some slight differences in exhausts between various models, but nothing which should give massive power differences).
I didn't know this. Assumed the change would have involved the supercharger pulley on the 540+ hp engines in the XKR-S and F-Type R. I've read that the gearboxes on those cars are slightly different from the one in my XKR.They are really good - I have a 5 yr old 5.0 Portfolio coupe (non S/C) which still goes like stink and yet gives 23-30mpg. Normally people buy these as weekend cars and so the running costs are relatively low. The only downsides are a few low rent interior dashboard plastics and (on my black car) easily scratched paintwork.
threadlock said:
Lozrington said:
delta0 said:
How do the rear seats cope with child seats or kids?
They don't, unless the kids are either very small, or mute. They're seriously uncomfortable for kids
Can anyone comment on differences in character between 4.2 and 5.0, N/A and S/C? Which is the sweetest-revving of them all?
Thinking about treating myself to a nice upmarket GT at some point, but something tells me the XK (however much faster and more glamorous) wouldn't feel different enough to my 535i shed and that I want a DB9 instead - prettier, manual option, and that V12...
Thinking about treating myself to a nice upmarket GT at some point, but something tells me the XK (however much faster and more glamorous) wouldn't feel different enough to my 535i shed and that I want a DB9 instead - prettier, manual option, and that V12...
RoverP6B said:
something tells me the XK (however much faster and more glamorous) wouldn't feel different enough to my 535i shed and that I want a DB9 instead - prettier, manual option, and that V12...
I test-drove an XFR from about the same age as the XKR I ended up buying. It was cheaper and had four doors = practical win.It felt nowhere near as special as the XK although doubtlessly they are competent cars. The seating position is comfortable... but just like the sensible saloon car upon which they're based. In the XKR you're cocooned in a low-slung, reclined position with a letterbox windscreen and a long bonnet. Feels totally different. I recommend you at least sit in one before dismissing them (mine's available in Sussex if you want!).
I too considered the DB9. Leggy examples were available for the same budget as my XKR so I went to Harwoods Aston Martin in Chichester for a look. In comparison the DB9 had smaller rear seats and half the boot space. It's slower with worse fuel consumption. But the arguments weren't just about practicalities, although I had to dismiss the AM for purely practical reasons. The DB9 felt 'old'. The sat-nav's interface was ancient and the switchgear felt a lot less sophisticated. The XKR is bristling with technology, with the variable dampers, the active differential etc. together with the dashboard screens, cooled memory seats and so on. And as a daily proposition the DB9 felt unsuitable. I kept reading stories from AM owners who'd had problems and consequential bills that would ruin the ownership experience for me, whereas the XKRs need only regular servicing and seem generally very reliable. AM owners seem to accept a level of unreliability that I'd find intolerable. I concluded that DB9s are probably fantastic weekend cars and there's no doubt they're very special (in a handbuilt, characterful way)... but that wasn't what I wanted.
In a sliding scale from predictable every-day usage to temperamental special occasion cars I'd go with this:
Porsche > Jaguar > Aston Martin
In a scale from characterful through to soul-less "perfection" I'd say:
Aston Martin > Jaguar > Porsche
I'm happy with the middle ground that my XKR occupies.
I had a 5L S/C up until Feb last year, it had been remapped, full miltech exhaust (development exhaust for production) smaller supercharger pulley, i had the dyno readout showing 594.5 HP, top speed of 174 mph which it achieved very easily! Nice car, loved it, but too twitchy for me in the wet, it loved going sideways! swapped to R8 V10, different animal altogether, Jag was a fantastic comfortable cruising car, quality was ok, after service was pretty poor imho, i would have anotther though, when i am older!!
Hi RoverP6B, re your question:- Can anyone comment on differences in character between 4.2 and 5.0, N/A and S/C? Which is the sweetest-revving of them all?
I test-drove cars with both variants of the 4.2 and 5.0 Litre engines before I made my decision. Below is a cut & paste of the full comment I sent in to Alisdair when he was putting his guide together..
POWERTRAIN
“I drove 4.2 Litre XK and XKR variants but the moment I sat behind the 5.0 litre V8 in the 2009-onwards car I knew it was the engine to have. The 510 bhp in the supercharged V8 of the facelifted XKR can almost be a too much in road use; if you have left the gearbox in auto-mode then the additional 100 bhp of the XKR can cause it to self-change down a gear or two as you exit a corner and re-apply the power. Now, the supercharger spools up some more as the engine revs rise and delivers an additional whack of power you didn’t really ask for as you head towards the next corner. The gearbox is otherwise excellent and will flatter the driver who adopts a smooth driving style. You can put it in sports mode and hustle but most of the time it suits the character of the car better to leave it in auto and enjoy the smooth powertrain. This is a Grand Tourer, not a sports car – buy the F-Type if that’s what you prefer.”
The gearbox is the 6 speed XF unit and is excellent for general road work. The Autocar road test of the XK at the time concluded that the normally-aspirated XK is the sweeter road car. A view I also came round to. I found the 5.0 Litre engine to have a flatter torque curve then the 4.2 and as a result performance is more "effortless". The N/A 5 litre has more power and torque than the supercharged 4.2 engine did.
The 5-0 Litre engine also coincided with the facelift of the interior as well, which is another reason to go for a 2009 or later car. That said, the 4.2's are now very good value for the money. Also note that at new the coupe was cheaper than the convertible and the XK cheaper than the XKR. In my case, I found I preferred the N/A engine over the S/C one (the power/torque is more usable for road work) and I also prefer coupes over convertibles anyway. Decision made and that choice also (just) came within my budget. I don't hanker for the R but each to their own on this point. I'd strongly recommend you try both first because I think one's personal driving style comes in to this choice..
I test-drove cars with both variants of the 4.2 and 5.0 Litre engines before I made my decision. Below is a cut & paste of the full comment I sent in to Alisdair when he was putting his guide together..
POWERTRAIN
“I drove 4.2 Litre XK and XKR variants but the moment I sat behind the 5.0 litre V8 in the 2009-onwards car I knew it was the engine to have. The 510 bhp in the supercharged V8 of the facelifted XKR can almost be a too much in road use; if you have left the gearbox in auto-mode then the additional 100 bhp of the XKR can cause it to self-change down a gear or two as you exit a corner and re-apply the power. Now, the supercharger spools up some more as the engine revs rise and delivers an additional whack of power you didn’t really ask for as you head towards the next corner. The gearbox is otherwise excellent and will flatter the driver who adopts a smooth driving style. You can put it in sports mode and hustle but most of the time it suits the character of the car better to leave it in auto and enjoy the smooth powertrain. This is a Grand Tourer, not a sports car – buy the F-Type if that’s what you prefer.”
The gearbox is the 6 speed XF unit and is excellent for general road work. The Autocar road test of the XK at the time concluded that the normally-aspirated XK is the sweeter road car. A view I also came round to. I found the 5.0 Litre engine to have a flatter torque curve then the 4.2 and as a result performance is more "effortless". The N/A 5 litre has more power and torque than the supercharged 4.2 engine did.
The 5-0 Litre engine also coincided with the facelift of the interior as well, which is another reason to go for a 2009 or later car. That said, the 4.2's are now very good value for the money. Also note that at new the coupe was cheaper than the convertible and the XK cheaper than the XKR. In my case, I found I preferred the N/A engine over the S/C one (the power/torque is more usable for road work) and I also prefer coupes over convertibles anyway. Decision made and that choice also (just) came within my budget. I don't hanker for the R but each to their own on this point. I'd strongly recommend you try both first because I think one's personal driving style comes in to this choice..
Thanks for the information.
threadlock said:
the DB9 had smaller rear seats and half the boot space. It's slower with worse fuel consumption. But the arguments weren't just about practicalities, although I had to dismiss the AM for purely practical reasons. The DB9 felt 'old'. The sat-nav's interface was ancient and the switchgear felt a lot less sophisticated. The XKR is bristling with technology, with the variable dampers, the active differential etc. together with the dashboard screens, cooled memory seats and so on. And as a daily proposition the DB9 felt unsuitable. I kept reading stories from AM owners who'd had problems and consequential bills that would ruin the ownership experience for me, whereas the XKRs need only regular servicing and seem generally very reliable. AM owners seem to accept a level of unreliability that I'd find intolerable. I concluded that DB9s are probably fantastic weekend cars and there's no doubt they're very special (in a handbuilt, characterful way)... but that wasn't what I wanted.
Well, considering that the only times I use four seats are when my wife and sons are with me, and that the four of us only just fit into a 5-series, I'm not bothered about unusable rear seats. Thinking of getting a big AMG Merc or possibly a Bentley Arnage as the family barge next. Since neither of my cars has any satnav at all, let alone variable dampers, active diffs, memory seats etc, I'm not bothered overmuch about technology - the simpler the better as far as I'm concerned. I'm also used to BMWs being a pain in the arse reliability-wise... I suppose it'll depend on how many cars I feel able to run, what the running costs look like and so on (and whether the Aston will bottom out then appreciate rather sooner than the Jag). The XK did always look like a very nice car to me, a very good middle-ground between a sensible quick saloon and the outright exotic GT - and I think Jaguar missed an opportunity by not replacing it directly.andybu said:
Hi RoverP6B, re your question:- Can anyone comment on differences in character between 4.2 and 5.0, N/A and S/C? Which is the sweetest-revving of them all?
I test-drove cars with both variants of the 4.2 and 5.0 Litre engines before I made my decision. Below is a cut & paste of the full comment I sent in to Alisdair when he was putting his guide together..
POWERTRAIN
“I drove 4.2 Litre XK and XKR variants but the moment I sat behind the 5.0 litre V8 in the 2009-onwards car I knew it was the engine to have. The 510 bhp in the supercharged V8 of the facelifted XKR can almost be a too much in road use; if you have left the gearbox in auto-mode then the additional 100 bhp of the XKR can cause it to self-change down a gear or two as you exit a corner and re-apply the power. Now, the supercharger spools up some more as the engine revs rise and delivers an additional whack of power you didn’t really ask for as you head towards the next corner. The gearbox is otherwise excellent and will flatter the driver who adopts a smooth driving style. You can put it in sports mode and hustle but most of the time it suits the character of the car better to leave it in auto and enjoy the smooth powertrain. This is a Grand Tourer, not a sports car – buy the F-Type if that’s what you prefer.”
The gearbox is the 6 speed XF unit and is excellent for general road work. The Autocar road test of the XK at the time concluded that the normally-aspirated XK is the sweeter road car. A view I also came round to. I found the 5.0 Litre engine to have a flatter torque curve then the 4.2 and as a result performance is more "effortless". The N/A 5 litre has more power and torque than the supercharged 4.2 engine did.
The 5-0 Litre engine also coincided with the facelift of the interior as well, which is another reason to go for a 2009 or later car. That said, the 4.2's are now very good value for the money. Also note that at new the coupe was cheaper than the convertible and the XK cheaper than the XKR. In my case, I found I preferred the N/A engine over the S/C one (the power/torque is more usable for road work) and I also prefer coupes over convertibles anyway. Decision made and that choice also (just) came within my budget. I don't hanker for the R but each to their own on this point. I'd strongly recommend you try both first because I think one's personal driving style comes in to this choice..
I don't think it does.I test-drove cars with both variants of the 4.2 and 5.0 Litre engines before I made my decision. Below is a cut & paste of the full comment I sent in to Alisdair when he was putting his guide together..
POWERTRAIN
“I drove 4.2 Litre XK and XKR variants but the moment I sat behind the 5.0 litre V8 in the 2009-onwards car I knew it was the engine to have. The 510 bhp in the supercharged V8 of the facelifted XKR can almost be a too much in road use; if you have left the gearbox in auto-mode then the additional 100 bhp of the XKR can cause it to self-change down a gear or two as you exit a corner and re-apply the power. Now, the supercharger spools up some more as the engine revs rise and delivers an additional whack of power you didn’t really ask for as you head towards the next corner. The gearbox is otherwise excellent and will flatter the driver who adopts a smooth driving style. You can put it in sports mode and hustle but most of the time it suits the character of the car better to leave it in auto and enjoy the smooth powertrain. This is a Grand Tourer, not a sports car – buy the F-Type if that’s what you prefer.”
The gearbox is the 6 speed XF unit and is excellent for general road work. The Autocar road test of the XK at the time concluded that the normally-aspirated XK is the sweeter road car. A view I also came round to. I found the 5.0 Litre engine to have a flatter torque curve then the 4.2 and as a result performance is more "effortless". The N/A 5 litre has more power and torque than the supercharged 4.2 engine did.
The 5-0 Litre engine also coincided with the facelift of the interior as well, which is another reason to go for a 2009 or later car. That said, the 4.2's are now very good value for the money. Also note that at new the coupe was cheaper than the convertible and the XK cheaper than the XKR. In my case, I found I preferred the N/A engine over the S/C one (the power/torque is more usable for road work) and I also prefer coupes over convertibles anyway. Decision made and that choice also (just) came within my budget. I don't hanker for the R but each to their own on this point. I'd strongly recommend you try both first because I think one's personal driving style comes in to this choice..
Well, I'm saying that based on finding & reading a very comprehensive article on the XK150 product life-cycle in Jaguar World Magazine, published June or July 2014, from memory. (I'm not at home as I type this so can't pull the magazine off the shelf & re-check). If I find I'm wrong when I get home then I'll post again.
My brother's wife bought an XKR convertible new in 2010 and ran it until 2014, doing about 60,000 miles in it. In that time it was fault free. It was a marvellous thing; charismatic and with more than enough power for any situation on the road. The rear is snug at best, but their 5 and 7 year old children fit into it without complaining. In fact, they liked the car.
Nice old thread
I owned an old XK8 for over 13yrs, replaced it in Oct 2018 with an XK Dynamic R, first white car I've ever owned.
There were only 5 in the UK with the interior trim I wanted (red quilted sport seats)
I have (in a 380 mile round trip) managed 31 mpg, verified by brim-to-brim to brim fulls, but that was taking to easy with son and dog in car
Some pics
Stuff/Mods done so far
Full detail and paint seal
New Michy PS4S's
4 wheel alignment
wortec discs with ebc red pads
DTUK transmission flash (made a real difference)
Trying to stick to the speed limit!
Rear seats, I bought them mainly or luggage, but being a short@rse at 5;'6" my son of 5'7" can sit behind me.
Well worth the money and wil be keeping until I'm well into retirement...53 at the mo
I owned an old XK8 for over 13yrs, replaced it in Oct 2018 with an XK Dynamic R, first white car I've ever owned.
There were only 5 in the UK with the interior trim I wanted (red quilted sport seats)
I have (in a 380 mile round trip) managed 31 mpg, verified by brim-to-brim to brim fulls, but that was taking to easy with son and dog in car
Some pics
Stuff/Mods done so far
Full detail and paint seal
New Michy PS4S's
4 wheel alignment
wortec discs with ebc red pads
DTUK transmission flash (made a real difference)
Trying to stick to the speed limit!
Rear seats, I bought them mainly or luggage, but being a short@rse at 5;'6" my son of 5'7" can sit behind me.
Well worth the money and wil be keeping until I'm well into retirement...53 at the mo
XJR500bhp said:
Those brakes from the swallows boys?
Yes they fitted them for free as mine was the first in the world (to wortec's knowledge) to have them on an XKR. Saved me over 20kg in unsprung too Been using Swallows for over 14yrs now and they've always done brilliant by me, also helps that they're just 6 miles away!. Weirdly even being the UK's exclusive distributor, they couldn't get preferential pricing to match a US forum group buy of 10+ on Wortec's
I just wish they'd fix their entrance drive as my car always get's filthy going in/out, so even if they wash it at the end of a service, it's covered in mud again by the time I leave their place and join the A38
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff