RE: The ?15K Jaguar XFR: You Know You Want To

RE: The ?15K Jaguar XFR: You Know You Want To

Author
Discussion

Vee12V

1,329 posts

159 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
ST270 said:
Who agrees that the pre-facelift XF looks better than the post facelift? The deeper set lights seem to give the original instant recognition whereas the later models' narrow lights seem a bit generic?
With you.

jamieduff1981

8,022 posts

139 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
ORD said:
30mpg? Why do people bother to buy fast cars and then drive them like hypermiling anoraks?

I would expect at best 20mpg from a car like that in normal mixed usage.

Lovely car at a very good price. It's had an easy life from the sounds of it.
Sorry to disappoint you! I could force it to use that much fuel, but it would require driving around holding on to low gears artificially to do so. If you're ever in my neck of the woods, you're welcome to come out for a little run in it smile

jamieduff1981

8,022 posts

139 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
steve-5snwi said:
I do like theses but isn't the sv8 a slightly better bargain even though it's not quite the same car.
That depends on the buyer. The SV8 does come cheaper, but you're 20% down on power and torque, and the suspension and dynamic abilities of the R are a big step forward too.

johnwilliams77

8,308 posts

102 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
giveablondeabone said:
That they are exceptionally expensive cars to run and whilst they are in family hatchback territory to buy they are most certainly not when it comes to running costs. Especially if you are gonna look after it properly.

And that cost still rules them out for most. Most people (the market) are aware of this, hence the depreciation.

Surprised I actually needed to spell that out to be honest.
Have you owned one? Interested in the running costs you have endured!

j.edwards31

2 posts

98 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
Love these. Owned one for 9 months, bought for 20k with 55k miles and was mapped to 560bhp although I never checked it - certainly felt like it! Had to sell due to now having a 60 mile commute each way rather than 6 miles. Couldn't justify 22mpg on a near 30k/annum commute.

Went through a couple sets of rear tyres, and replaced the discs and pads all corners for under £900. Had the common issue with the boot lid harness becoming faulty over time due to opening the boot lid a lot, meaning the number plate lights don't work! About £100 to fix. Jaguars fixed price servicing was actually pretty reasonable at £325 (I think) for a service.

Insurance was £700, which for a 25 year old I thought was fantastic. An astonishingly fast car, that will pretty much out pace anything accelerating from 50mph, sketchy in the wet, but handles very well for its size. Can't wait to move closer to work so I can buy another one...

ST270

663 posts

181 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
fatboy b said:
ST270 said:
Who agrees that the pre-facelift XF looks better than the post facelift? The deeper set lights seem to give the original instant recognition whereas the later models' narrow lights seem a bit generic?
Not many with you on that one.
One or two so far, i just like how the bonnet follows the contour of the lights shape - gives a good presence

ORD

18,086 posts

126 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
jamieduff1981 said:
Sorry to disappoint you! I could force it to use that much fuel, but it would require driving around holding on to low gears artificially to do so. If you're ever in my neck of the woods, you're welcome to come out for a little run in it smile
No offence, but you simply cannot be right. Are you relying on the OBC?

In my experience across lots of petrol cars, 30mpg is an OK average for a 4 cyl petrol car with half the power of the XFR but a similar weight. My wife's 320i averages 32mpg, has 181bhp, weighs less than the XFR and is produced by BMW (a marque with far more concern for fuel economy than Jaguar). It also uses a turbo, which is more efficient than a supercharger.

I can absolutely guarantee that it will not do 30mpg if driven remotely hard. Perhaps sitting on a motorway, assuming it has a very long top gear.

ORD

18,086 posts

126 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
This looks much more like what I would expect (and is actually quite impressive): http://www.fuelly.com/car/jaguar/xf/2009/nillamb/304554

philmots

4,630 posts

259 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
ST270 said:
fatboy b said:
ST270 said:
Who agrees that the pre-facelift XF looks better than the post facelift? The deeper set lights seem to give the original instant recognition whereas the later models' narrow lights seem a bit generic?
Not many with you on that one.
One or two so far, i just like how the bonnet follows the contour of the lights shape - gives a good presence
I prefer the facelift front slightly but don't like the back, and how the lights look when on.

But, what I love about the classic XFR is you can't mistake it for anything else. The facelift cars with the horrible 2.2d look no different.

ST270

663 posts

181 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
philmots said:
ST270 said:
fatboy b said:
ST270 said:
Who agrees that the pre-facelift XF looks better than the post facelift? The deeper set lights seem to give the original instant recognition whereas the later models' narrow lights seem a bit generic?
Not many with you on that one.
One or two so far, i just like how the bonnet follows the contour of the lights shape - gives a good presence
I prefer the facelift front slightly but don't like the back, and how the lights look when on.

But, what I love about the classic XFR is you can't mistake it for anything else. The facelift cars with the horrible 2.2d look no different.
Exactly, it has a real identity!

Porkamoo

23 posts

224 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
ORD said:
No offence, but you simply cannot be right. Are you relying on the OBC?

In my experience across lots of petrol cars, 30mpg is an OK average for a 4 cyl petrol car with half the power of the XFR but a similar weight. My wife's 320i averages 32mpg, has 181bhp, weighs less than the XFR and is produced by BMW (a marque with far more concern for fuel economy than Jaguar). It also uses a turbo, which is more efficient than a supercharger.

I can absolutely guarantee that it will not do 30mpg if driven remotely hard. Perhaps sitting on a motorway, assuming it has a very long top gear.
I have an XKR, same engine but a bit lighter and I average 17.5mpg, most I have seen at a steady 80ish on the motorway is 25mpg. I really can't see how you could achieve 30mpg in a heavier car.

J4CKO

41,287 posts

199 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
ORD said:
jamieduff1981 said:
Sorry to disappoint you! I could force it to use that much fuel, but it would require driving around holding on to low gears artificially to do so. If you're ever in my neck of the woods, you're welcome to come out for a little run in it smile
No offence, but you simply cannot be right. Are you relying on the OBC?

In my experience across lots of petrol cars, 30mpg is an OK average for a 4 cyl petrol car with half the power of the XFR but a similar weight. My wife's 320i averages 32mpg, has 181bhp, weighs less than the XFR and is produced by BMW (a marque with far more concern for fuel economy than Jaguar). It also uses a turbo, which is more efficient than a supercharger.

I can absolutely guarantee that it will not do 30mpg if driven remotely hard. Perhaps sitting on a motorway, assuming it has a very long top gear.
My CLS has averaged 20.7 according to the computer over the time I have had it, I saw 30 mpg once at a 50 mph crawl, I got my son to take a photo of the readout.


Now I don't own an xfr like Jamie does but my logic suggests it should be similar based on power and weight, but if I can use his figures rather than my own for the man maths then I am happy.

I think a lot of it with economy is driving style and journey type, obviously the car makes a big difference but experiences can be different, my driving style and usage would probably get me similar to the Mercedes.

ant leigh

714 posts

142 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
My CLS has averaged 20.7 according to the computer over the time I have had it, I saw 30 mpg once at a 50 mph crawl, I got my son to take a photo of the readout.


Now I don't own an xfr like Jamie does but my logic suggests it should be similar based on power and weight, but if I can use his figures rather than my own for the man maths then I am happy.

I think a lot of it with economy is driving style and journey type, obviously the car makes a big difference but experiences can be different, my driving style and usage would probably get me similar to the Mercedes.
With spirited driving I am seeing below 20mpg and my average mpg is only around 22mpg based on 10 miles commuting every day and some urban driving.
However on a long run with at least 90% motorway miles and driving at around 70 then I get 33mpg which is surprisingly good. Not sure what the relative CD is compared to other similar cars?

Overall though don't regret trading up a 3.0D for it for 1 second, you only live once and I figure we might be the last generation that have a chance to get into a V8



carlpea

381 posts

138 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
In my facelift XFR I've managed 330 miles on mainly motorways (50 - 80mph) from the 55 litre tank, so assuming there is some in reserve that's roughly 28mpg.

Don't forget the 8 speed is theoretically geared for 325mph!

Hedgetrimmer

570 posts

256 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
Hi this is my car. Many thanks for the kind comments. The car is exceptionally fuel efficient for such a large and powerful barge from experience. It has been an exceptional car and in reality the Maserati has big shoes to fill.
Carl

philmots

4,630 posts

259 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
I was browsing through the touch screen earlier and I found another trip computer that I must of reset when I bought the cat that keeps counting seperate to the one I reset every fill up..

I was surprised to learn that over 1200 miles it's averaged 19 mpg, according to the computer anyway.

In reality they shouldn't cost much more to run than a normal car. Servicing is cheap, brakes available cheap, only real expensive things are tyres, tax and obviously fuel. Even that's not that bad, what's more annoying is the small tank.

ArthurDaley

32 posts

156 months

Saturday 27th August 2016
quotequote all
Am i alone in finding the 16k 5.0l XJ a more appealing prospect? Roomier, more subtle looks & presumably fractionally more fuel efficient thanks to the aluminium body. It'll even give you a massage. If I drove my peri-shed X308 more than three times a year I'd be chopping it straight in!

Edited by ArthurDaley on Saturday 27th August 23:03

harmy2010

39 posts

158 months

Sunday 28th August 2016
quotequote all
ORD said:
No offence, but you simply cannot be right. Are you relying on the OBC?

In my experience across lots of petrol cars, 30mpg is an OK average for a 4 cyl petrol car with half the power of the XFR but a similar weight. My wife's 320i averages 32mpg, has 181bhp, weighs less than the XFR and is produced by BMW (a marque with far more concern for fuel economy than Jaguar). It also uses a turbo, which is more efficient than a supercharger.

I can absolutely guarantee that it will not do 30mpg if driven remotely hard. Perhaps sitting on a motorway, assuming it has a very long top gear.
I have a 2013 XFR, on the motorway it will go over 30mpg allday long doing sub 80mph. Obviously if you put your foot down then it will go straight to low teens. It is still a big old V8 so economy is relative to how heavy you right foot is. Motorway=plus 30mpg town=14-20mpg(depending on traffic conditions)

the earlier cars are not as good as it has the 6 speed auto. The newer ones have the 8 speed which helps the economy. Fuel economy is not the main priority on the list when buying a super saloon but at the same time these cars are made to eat up the miles so its a nice bonus. if you want a car to murder down a b road then there are plenty of other cars that tick that box better then the Jag, although it is not half bad if you hustle it.

fatboy b

9,492 posts

215 months

Sunday 28th August 2016
quotequote all
ArthurDaley said:
Am i alone in finding the 16k 5.0l XJ a more appealing prospect? Roomier, more subtle looks & presumably fractionally more fuel efficient thanks to the aluminium body. It'll even give you a massage. If I drove my peri-shed X308 more than three times a year I'd be chopping it straight in!

Edited by ArthurDaley on Saturday 27th August 23:03
If you want a big car then the XJ is perfect. Too big for my needs though. I'm currently keeping a close eye on the ads for a end-of-run XFR.

Edited by fatboy b on Saturday 3rd September 13:57

disco666

232 posts

145 months

Saturday 3rd September 2016
quotequote all
ArthurDaley said:
Am i alone in finding the 16k 5.0l XJ a more appealing prospect? Roomier, more subtle looks & presumably fractionally more fuel efficient thanks to the aluminium body. It'll even give you a massage. If I drove my peri-shed X308 more than three times a year I'd be chopping it straight in!

Edited by ArthurDaley on Saturday 27th August 23:03
No, I'm with you.
I love the XF, but it does look a little generic, whereas the XJ just oozes class.
The estate would be tempting, but it will be another XJ next (to replace the X350 XJR, my second).
Just need to decide if the R or the Supersports would suit me better (better ride?)

I keep hoping that Jag will do a coupe version as they did many years ago, if the new S class coupe sells well for Mercedes they just might!