X150 XKR 4.2 vs 5.0: Opinions and advice required
Discussion
Hi folks,
Currently thinking about getting an X150 model XKR and would greatly appreciate everyone's thoughts on how the 4.2 and 5.0 versions compare.
Is the face-lifted 5.0 model dramatically better than the 2006-2009 4.2 version? Clearly the 5.0 has considerably more torque and power but 510 bhp seems almost a bit overkill for what is a luxury sports GT - unless of course the rest of the car has really well adapted for the new power plant.
After selling my 500 Chimaera I'm looking for a much more modern and dare I say it practical replacement that has a really well judged balance between performance, handling and frankly effortless wafting. Whilst the idea of the 5.0l appeals greatly, it would be a shame if all that extra power came at the expense of the car being a fully rounded.
I've no interest in constantly going sideways or sending out huge palls of tyre smoke where ever I go, but fabulous and every-day usable performance is very much on the want list!
Anyone have experience of both engines? Would I always regret not getting the more powerful car, or conversely is it possible that the vast power and torque of the 5.0l could actually compromise the overall roundness of what will be my main car?
After chopping and changing cars quite a lot recently I'm searching for a keeper now, and this means that what ever I get has to do everything really well rather than simply make me giggle at the brutal acceleration and exhaust note for the first few months a la Chimaera.
I'm assuming that the 5.0 is the real deal but I thought I'd check here first.
Opinions and advice greatly appreciated.
Cheers
TD
Currently thinking about getting an X150 model XKR and would greatly appreciate everyone's thoughts on how the 4.2 and 5.0 versions compare.
Is the face-lifted 5.0 model dramatically better than the 2006-2009 4.2 version? Clearly the 5.0 has considerably more torque and power but 510 bhp seems almost a bit overkill for what is a luxury sports GT - unless of course the rest of the car has really well adapted for the new power plant.
After selling my 500 Chimaera I'm looking for a much more modern and dare I say it practical replacement that has a really well judged balance between performance, handling and frankly effortless wafting. Whilst the idea of the 5.0l appeals greatly, it would be a shame if all that extra power came at the expense of the car being a fully rounded.
I've no interest in constantly going sideways or sending out huge palls of tyre smoke where ever I go, but fabulous and every-day usable performance is very much on the want list!
Anyone have experience of both engines? Would I always regret not getting the more powerful car, or conversely is it possible that the vast power and torque of the 5.0l could actually compromise the overall roundness of what will be my main car?
After chopping and changing cars quite a lot recently I'm searching for a keeper now, and this means that what ever I get has to do everything really well rather than simply make me giggle at the brutal acceleration and exhaust note for the first few months a la Chimaera.
I'm assuming that the 5.0 is the real deal but I thought I'd check here first.
Opinions and advice greatly appreciated.
Cheers
TD
It's been too long since I drove a 4.2 XKR to be able to compare them really. I've got a 5L XKR, if you like torque and I assume from your name that you do, then it provides torque in tidal waves. I didn't drive the NA version, I'd assume that it is more than quick enough for any practical purpose. Is 500+BHP more that you need for a comfy GT? possibly but does anyone really need a big comfy GT? The chassis seems more than capable of handling it. The traction control seems setup to allow plenty of scope for playing but keeps you on the road. The harder you press on the better it feels, but keeping to sensible speeds then becomes the issue. Mostly 500+ BHP just means you catch up with the next traffic jam more quickly.
Most of the time I find I'm barely touching the throttle, but it's still very fast and the car is very fluid.
If you can stretch to a 5L, go for it and enjoy yourself. You're a long time dead.
[ Edited: to deal with even more typos than I normally make, no doubt there are still loads ]
Most of the time I find I'm barely touching the throttle, but it's still very fast and the car is very fluid.
If you can stretch to a 5L, go for it and enjoy yourself. You're a long time dead.
[ Edited: to deal with even more typos than I normally make, no doubt there are still loads ]
Edited by a8hex on Monday 19th October 09:02
I have a 4.2 XKR and at no point in the 2.5 years I've owned it so far do I feel like I've had to "settle" for it, despite my original budget not stretching to the 5.0. It's a glorious thing, very very quick but feels very well balanced for it.
I'd also say the 4.2 looks much nicer than the 5.0, I don't like the front end of the 5.0 cars personally and the interior feels a little fake bling, for my taste.
The only thing that would tempt me out of mine would be a 5.0 XKR-S, but that'll be a few years down the line yet.
I'd also say the 4.2 looks much nicer than the 5.0, I don't like the front end of the 5.0 cars personally and the interior feels a little fake bling, for my taste.
The only thing that would tempt me out of mine would be a 5.0 XKR-S, but that'll be a few years down the line yet.
8bit said:
I have a 4.2 XKR and at no point in the 2.5 years I've owned it so far do I feel like I've had to "settle" for it, despite my original budget not stretching to the 5.0. It's a glorious thing, very very quick but feels very well balanced for it.
I'd also say the 4.2 looks much nicer than the 5.0, I don't like the front end of the 5.0 cars personally and the interior feels a little fake bling, for my taste.
The only thing that would tempt me out of mine would be a 5.0 XKR-S, but that'll be a few years down the line yet.
Looks wise I can't argue - I also find the newer version front end a little unresolved and perhaps a bit OTTI'd also say the 4.2 looks much nicer than the 5.0, I don't like the front end of the 5.0 cars personally and the interior feels a little fake bling, for my taste.
The only thing that would tempt me out of mine would be a 5.0 XKR-S, but that'll be a few years down the line yet.
Guess I just need to get my act together and test drive both models to see how they stack up.
Thanks for the input so far.
TD
I have a 2007 4.2L XKR Coupe and a 5.0L XK Convertible.
Both lovely cars with similar performance. Comfy and fast with nice seats. Love them both.
When Jaguar announced they were discontinuing the XK I bought an XK Dynamic R with a view to selling my old XKR but I didn't want to part-x my beloved XKR just in case I didn't like the new one.
Anyway, after 8 months I sold the XK Dynamic R. Too brutal, loud and hard. Not really what I wanted. A staggering car without doubt but having the suspension setup from the XKR-S meant it was no longer a comfy sports cruiser.
I still have my original two.
The non-supercharged 5L XK gives lovely even power delivery and I think it looks pretty without the bonnet vents.
The 4.2L XKR is something special. I love to drive it and it's great value given it's potential selling price. I love the J-Gate. The pop-up gear selector in the new cars feels more like a video game. The J Gate provides a real gear stick!
One dealer told me they had some 5L owners looking to go back to a 4.2L so he was keen to buy mine. He had buyers waiting!
So, in my opinion, all the XK's are great and whatever you buy you'll love it.
My XK's are always admired in a nice way. People love a 'classic' shaped Jag!
Good luck with your hunt.
Both lovely cars with similar performance. Comfy and fast with nice seats. Love them both.
When Jaguar announced they were discontinuing the XK I bought an XK Dynamic R with a view to selling my old XKR but I didn't want to part-x my beloved XKR just in case I didn't like the new one.
Anyway, after 8 months I sold the XK Dynamic R. Too brutal, loud and hard. Not really what I wanted. A staggering car without doubt but having the suspension setup from the XKR-S meant it was no longer a comfy sports cruiser.
I still have my original two.
The non-supercharged 5L XK gives lovely even power delivery and I think it looks pretty without the bonnet vents.
The 4.2L XKR is something special. I love to drive it and it's great value given it's potential selling price. I love the J-Gate. The pop-up gear selector in the new cars feels more like a video game. The J Gate provides a real gear stick!
One dealer told me they had some 5L owners looking to go back to a 4.2L so he was keen to buy mine. He had buyers waiting!
So, in my opinion, all the XK's are great and whatever you buy you'll love it.
My XK's are always admired in a nice way. People love a 'classic' shaped Jag!
Good luck with your hunt.
I haven't driven a 5.0l but if I'm honest would have looked to get one with a bigger disposable budget.
Having said that the 4.2 is plenty powerful enough,I've never really give it much stick because it's not necessary to make good progress, so you could argue the 5.0 is too much I guess.
Having said that the 4.2 is plenty powerful enough,I've never really give it much stick because it's not necessary to make good progress, so you could argue the 5.0 is too much I guess.
I can't really comment on the XK's platform, but the 5.0 supercharged engine in the XF's platform (albeit with a few choice XKR-S and F-Type bits pinched) is definately overkill. The extra power is superfluous and also being a TVR owner (4.5 Cerbera) the Jag combination of unhelpful torque and an automatic gearbox means that you simply cannot get the foot all the way down at anything remotely close to legal speeds unless you're consciously driving on the paddles holding higher gears specifically to ride the torque. Usually it's a case of applying some pedal, the gearbox needlessly dropping a gear, break traction on one rear wheel, active diff instantly welds the diff solid spinning the other rear wheel, sudden yaw (much more violent than the Cerbera which is very predictable and controllable), apply corrective steering to check the car's sudden urge to headbutt a telegraph pole, followed by dangerously unhelpful intervention of electronic driver aids.
It's not the horsepower that's useless, it's the combination of torque and automatic gearbox. In that respect you can drive the Jag 5.0 very quickly if you take over everything manually but for general driving and considering how far my pedal usually gets pressed accelerating out of bend, overtaking people nursing a packet of flower seeds home from a day out at the garden centre 10 miles/2 hours drive away in Skoda Fabias and old men meandering home from a skinful at the pub in old Merc estates etc a 4.2 will go just as quick but using slightly more of the pedal travel.
The 5.0 is better on fuel in like for like driving, but not enough to pay a heap more for that engine. You get a 5.0 if you really want the power. You definately wont use the additional power over a 4.2 very often at all though. Arguably the 4.2 gives more opportunity to enjoy the soundtrack.
It's not the horsepower that's useless, it's the combination of torque and automatic gearbox. In that respect you can drive the Jag 5.0 very quickly if you take over everything manually but for general driving and considering how far my pedal usually gets pressed accelerating out of bend, overtaking people nursing a packet of flower seeds home from a day out at the garden centre 10 miles/2 hours drive away in Skoda Fabias and old men meandering home from a skinful at the pub in old Merc estates etc a 4.2 will go just as quick but using slightly more of the pedal travel.
The 5.0 is better on fuel in like for like driving, but not enough to pay a heap more for that engine. You get a 5.0 if you really want the power. You definately wont use the additional power over a 4.2 very often at all though. Arguably the 4.2 gives more opportunity to enjoy the soundtrack.
Hmmm, interesting!
These very helpful responses are encouraging me to listen to my heart rather than my head, and my heart is - I think - suggesting the 4.2 rather than 5.0 for a variety of reasons.
Cost obviously comes in to it, especially if I am ummmming and ahhhhing anyway, but there are other considerations including the fact that I'm not an immediate fan of the pop up gear selector or the front end. I test drove a 4.4 TDV8 Range Rover the other day and the pop up gear selector did not float my boat much then.
Can I perhaps extend favour here and ask you experts what I'd need to look out for on the 4.2 with regards to reliability? I did read that the suspension needs attention after about 65k miles. I'd rather buy a car with much lower miles but if there are no real problems to worry about then an immaculate 70k miler at a sensible price might well be an option.
TD
These very helpful responses are encouraging me to listen to my heart rather than my head, and my heart is - I think - suggesting the 4.2 rather than 5.0 for a variety of reasons.
Cost obviously comes in to it, especially if I am ummmming and ahhhhing anyway, but there are other considerations including the fact that I'm not an immediate fan of the pop up gear selector or the front end. I test drove a 4.4 TDV8 Range Rover the other day and the pop up gear selector did not float my boat much then.
Can I perhaps extend favour here and ask you experts what I'd need to look out for on the 4.2 with regards to reliability? I did read that the suspension needs attention after about 65k miles. I'd rather buy a car with much lower miles but if there are no real problems to worry about then an immaculate 70k miler at a sensible price might well be an option.
TD
My 4.2 is on 84k now. Admittedly i haven't done many miles in it because I'm always driving my daily but I've had it long enough to have found any faults.
Its all good so far. I had the gearbox oil service done which is advised and beneficial to the change quality. Not bad at around £300 so i guess you could look out for that.
Otherwise no issues and the Indie that did the gearbox said it looked a good car.
Batteries can be problematic if the car is left stood a long time without use so i use a Ctek and again no issues at all.
Incidentally I'm glad i didn't spend more either on a super low mileage one or a 5.0 because it would bug me even more not using it and getting my moneys worth!
Its all good so far. I had the gearbox oil service done which is advised and beneficial to the change quality. Not bad at around £300 so i guess you could look out for that.
Otherwise no issues and the Indie that did the gearbox said it looked a good car.
Batteries can be problematic if the car is left stood a long time without use so i use a Ctek and again no issues at all.
Incidentally I'm glad i didn't spend more either on a super low mileage one or a 5.0 because it would bug me even more not using it and getting my moneys worth!
I think I'd go with either a 4.2 XKR (advantages are proven reliability, port injection so no coking problems) or a 5.0 NASP (better fuel consumption, newer car). As previously stated the 5.0 XKR is a bit too much really, and from my experience of the two the XKR struggles more for traction than the XFR.
I actually don't know if I'd want to live with a 5.0 XKR all the time, the one I drove needed serious respect and caution on wet roads and the behaviour when it does break traction was quite alarming. It was fun but for a daily/regular sensible-ish car it was too full on for me.
I actually don't know if I'd want to live with a 5.0 XKR all the time, the one I drove needed serious respect and caution on wet roads and the behaviour when it does break traction was quite alarming. It was fun but for a daily/regular sensible-ish car it was too full on for me.
dme123 said:
As previously stated the 5.0 XKR is a bit too much really
I couldn't disagree more. After two years of owning a 5.0 XKR I'm totally accustomed to the power and could tolerate more of it. 
The (lack of) traction in the wet is comical - provided you keep the driver aids engaged - but in the dry the 503hp is very usable. Naturally, it's usable only for very short bursts if you're mindful of the speed limits but the chassis seems very able to cope.
There are myriad changes from the 4.2 to the 5.0 model, including the gear selector, active differential, active suspension, active exhaust (I think) etc.
The 4.2 is pretty robust. All the timing chain tensioner issues from the first generation AJ-V8 were sorted on the 4.2, and certainly by the time the X150 rolled out.
On S-Type Rs there's a coolant pipe in the engine valley which gets rather baked in the heat and will almost certainly fail at some point. The part isn't expensive but you need the supercharger out to replace it. I don't know for sure about the XKR but it's worth asking on one of the Jag forums if this defacto maintenance item is carried over to the XKR. I'd expect it is because it's more associated with the engine design than the car.
Suspension wise, most control arms etc are heavily shared between Jags of that period (X150 XK, X350 XJ, X202 S-Type, XF etc) and although admittedly not in the realms of Mondeo parts prices, if you shop around on the internet you can find OEM parts new for much less than the dealer prices you may have seen quoted previously. Rear lower control arms are an internet horror story favourite - they're usually quoted at £500 each, but you can buy them from Hatfield Jaguar's eBay shop for south of £200odd and contrary to what most people will tell you, you can replace individual bushes which cost around £30 each from Racing Green (I've done it).
So the point is that I wouldn't be overly concerned about a higher miler if it's in good cosmetic condition and is attractively priced. ZF6 gearboxes which all X150s have like their oil and sump/filter assemblies changed too at around 80k.
On S-Type Rs there's a coolant pipe in the engine valley which gets rather baked in the heat and will almost certainly fail at some point. The part isn't expensive but you need the supercharger out to replace it. I don't know for sure about the XKR but it's worth asking on one of the Jag forums if this defacto maintenance item is carried over to the XKR. I'd expect it is because it's more associated with the engine design than the car.
Suspension wise, most control arms etc are heavily shared between Jags of that period (X150 XK, X350 XJ, X202 S-Type, XF etc) and although admittedly not in the realms of Mondeo parts prices, if you shop around on the internet you can find OEM parts new for much less than the dealer prices you may have seen quoted previously. Rear lower control arms are an internet horror story favourite - they're usually quoted at £500 each, but you can buy them from Hatfield Jaguar's eBay shop for south of £200odd and contrary to what most people will tell you, you can replace individual bushes which cost around £30 each from Racing Green (I've done it).
So the point is that I wouldn't be overly concerned about a higher miler if it's in good cosmetic condition and is attractively priced. ZF6 gearboxes which all X150s have like their oil and sump/filter assemblies changed too at around 80k.
dme123 said:
I think I'd go with either a 4.2 XKR (advantages are proven reliability, port injection so no coking problems) or a 5.0 NASP (better fuel consumption, newer car). As previously stated the 5.0 XKR is a bit too much really, and from my experience of the two the XKR struggles more for traction than the XFR.
I actually don't know if I'd want to live with a 5.0 XKR all the time, the one I drove needed serious respect and caution on wet roads and the behaviour when it does break traction was quite alarming. It was fun but for a daily/regular sensible-ish car it was too full on for me.
I would say that the XKR has needed more of a recalibration of the right foot than anything else I've ever driven, but that doesn't take long. You soon get used to how smaller movements you need to use in normal traffic conditions or when you don't want the head restraint banging the back of your noddle. Perhaps a Merc like "I don't want to play today" setting on the traction control would be a useful option as the normal setting will allow some sideways kick before it steps in, which as you say is a little alarming the first time, but again you get used to it very quickly. I don't think I'd want to live with it everyday without the electronics, I must admit I've never even tried it without the TC engaged. But the more you press on the better the chassis seems to get, I don't think it has any problems coping with the umph and mine's the vert version.I actually don't know if I'd want to live with a 5.0 XKR all the time, the one I drove needed serious respect and caution on wet roads and the behaviour when it does break traction was quite alarming. It was fun but for a daily/regular sensible-ish car it was too full on for me.
It may be that I'm just a ham fisted oaf, but I positively despise new-car throttle mapping.
I would like to be able to have the suspension in Dynamic mode but with the accelerator pedal in Winter mode.
TVR is vastly superior in this respect - a nice long pedal travel and a very linear response to pedal inputs. Jaguar has made the mistake most manufacturers do and tried to create throttle response with a very aggressive curve on the throttle map.
It's front loaded normally - i.e. you get a lot of torque from a small movement of the pedal, then diminishing extra torque for increased movement of the pedal. In Dynamic mode it's even more front loaded making precise throttle control fairly tricky so you just avoid trying to balance the car on the throttle in corners.
The TVR set-up is very deliberate and extremely predictable and easy to drive playfully. The Jag initially feels easier to exploit but bites with little or no warning and hard at that.
I'd be surprised if the R-S engine's extra 39bhp really made that much difference over the standard 5.0s/c engine but the XFR-S could not use any more power at UK road speeds. Above 100mph it might be able to put extra power down safely but it will wheelspin its way through 1st, 2nd and often 3rd in the dry which takes you beyond any UK speed limit. It did that on the Pirelli P-Zeros it came with and it still does it on the Michelin Pilot Super Sports it's on now.
I would like to be able to have the suspension in Dynamic mode but with the accelerator pedal in Winter mode.
TVR is vastly superior in this respect - a nice long pedal travel and a very linear response to pedal inputs. Jaguar has made the mistake most manufacturers do and tried to create throttle response with a very aggressive curve on the throttle map.
It's front loaded normally - i.e. you get a lot of torque from a small movement of the pedal, then diminishing extra torque for increased movement of the pedal. In Dynamic mode it's even more front loaded making precise throttle control fairly tricky so you just avoid trying to balance the car on the throttle in corners.
The TVR set-up is very deliberate and extremely predictable and easy to drive playfully. The Jag initially feels easier to exploit but bites with little or no warning and hard at that.
I'd be surprised if the R-S engine's extra 39bhp really made that much difference over the standard 5.0s/c engine but the XFR-S could not use any more power at UK road speeds. Above 100mph it might be able to put extra power down safely but it will wheelspin its way through 1st, 2nd and often 3rd in the dry which takes you beyond any UK speed limit. It did that on the Pirelli P-Zeros it came with and it still does it on the Michelin Pilot Super Sports it's on now.
Valley pipe, yes an issue for all of them, I have found usually around 100K miles and 10 years old (both 4.0 XKR and 4.2 S Type. Suspension bushes fail as much with age as mileage, on the X100 I would recommend powerflex bushes.
You need to try both/all four before you buy. I regretted not getting an STR as I missed the low end torque of the R, I could have lived with the slightly worse fuel consumption. I averaged 29.8mpg on my 4.2 S type on mainly long journeys mixed motorway and country a/B roads. Got 26.8mpg out of my XKR on a return journey to Cumbria and back , about 21mpg with just a/b roads. A general rule of thumb is subtract 2mpg if it is an R and add 2mpg from 4.0 to 4.2 another 1-2mpg if 5.0
You need to try both/all four before you buy. I regretted not getting an STR as I missed the low end torque of the R, I could have lived with the slightly worse fuel consumption. I averaged 29.8mpg on my 4.2 S type on mainly long journeys mixed motorway and country a/B roads. Got 26.8mpg out of my XKR on a return journey to Cumbria and back , about 21mpg with just a/b roads. A general rule of thumb is subtract 2mpg if it is an R and add 2mpg from 4.0 to 4.2 another 1-2mpg if 5.0
threadlock said:
dme123 said:
As previously stated the 5.0 XKR is a bit too much really
I couldn't disagree more. After two years of owning a 5.0 XKR I'm totally accustomed to the power and could tolerate more of it. The (lack of) traction in the wet is comical - provided you keep the driver aids engaged - but in the dry the 503hp is very usable. Naturally, it's usable only for very short bursts if you're mindful of the speed limits but the chassis seems very able to cope.
There are myriad changes from the 4.2 to the 5.0 model, including the gear selector, active differential, active suspension, active exhaust (I think) etc.
k" several times when I didn't think I was pushing it too hard. It was fun but I would have liked a selectable mode for a much gentler throttle map. In these days of torque demand engine management systems it really would be easy enough to make use of far more than the first 25% of pedal travel in day to day use.jamieduff1981 said:
... but I positively despise new-car throttle mapping.
...
It's front loaded normally -
I'm not sure whether it is front loaded since it just seems to give and give and give more when ever asked too, at least at sane speeds. It could well be perfectly linear but it isn't ideal, it needs to be back loaded, 50% of throttle travel could comfortably give 25% of available poke and it would still be very fast and be less intimidating to drive....
It's front loaded normally -
Marketing people remapping throttle response seems to be an all too common problem. LadyB8 used to have a Honda Accord as a company car, a 94 model. This was an all round excellent motor in a not particularly Piston Heads way. It stayed in the family, after it came to the end of the lease my parents asked us to buy it for them. In her one everything was really linear in a way that Setright so approved of. At the end of the lease we got the dealer to send her a loaner to try out,
spoilt in every way. They'd remapped the throttle so it felt like it gave 90% opening in the first 10% of travel, consequently a short test drive, especially in traffic, would make you think it was much faster than the previous iteration. Then you tried to actually move on the open road and realised that it had nothing more to give. It wouldn't have be fun to discover while trying to overtake.
Gassing Station | Jaguar | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff