X150 XKR 4.2 vs 5.0: Opinions and advice required
Discussion
P700DEE said:
Valley pipe, yes an issue for all of them
Never read of an issue with this on an X150, only the X100s. Unless you know better?Reliability wise - what the others said, generally solid. Mine is on about 85k, never driven a brand new one so can't be certain but it doesn't feel like an old/high-mileage car to drive or to look at. The old adage seems to hold, if you look after it then it'll look after you.
As for 4.2 vs 5.0, a 4.2 may cost (for example) 25% less than a 5.0 but it's not 25% less car. That said, if I could stretch to a 5.0 XKR in my ideal then I probably would, but while that's not the case I'm no less happy with my 4.2 for it.
a8hex said:
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.
Hmm, I just realised that there is another question I should be asking and that is how the the newer 5.0 XK (not XKR) compares against the older 4.2 XKR.
If the new 5.0 XKR is too much of a nutter maybe the non supercharged version might be worth a look.
By the way, that was extremely hard for me to type. I can't believe I am actually considering the slower XK model when I could afford an XKR of the same age. That MUST be genuine proof that I am getting old - and the fact that I recently bought some rather nice sheepskin slippers.
Has anyone deliberately chosen the non supercharged version of the 5.0 XK for reasons unrelated to budget? If so what is the conclusion after having lived with the car for a while? Wish you had more poke or glad you did the grown up thing and went for the more everyday usable car?
TD
If the new 5.0 XKR is too much of a nutter maybe the non supercharged version might be worth a look.
By the way, that was extremely hard for me to type. I can't believe I am actually considering the slower XK model when I could afford an XKR of the same age. That MUST be genuine proof that I am getting old - and the fact that I recently bought some rather nice sheepskin slippers.
Has anyone deliberately chosen the non supercharged version of the 5.0 XK for reasons unrelated to budget? If so what is the conclusion after having lived with the car for a while? Wish you had more poke or glad you did the grown up thing and went for the more everyday usable car?
TD
jamieduff1981 said:
a8hex said:
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.
My previous car had an electronic throttle pedal, a Leon Cupra R. It had some sort of non-linear throttle mapping that I never got on with; correctly matching revs when changing gear never came naturally in a way that it did on cable throttle cars I had driven.When i eventually had the Leon remapped the mapping company offered a linear throttle option. This made the car subtly but very satisfyingly more natural and civilised to drive, as well as much, much quicker.
On the 4.2 XKR, obviously it's an auto so there's no clutch but the throttle mapping feels pretty natural to me, in that it's pretty linear up to about the last 20% and then it seems like a little more input gives more output than I'd expect.
TorqueDirty said:
Hmm, I just realised that there is another question I should be asking and that is how the the newer 5.0 XK (not XKR) compares against the older 4.2 XKR.
If the new 5.0 XKR is too much of a nutter maybe the non supercharged version might be worth a look.
By the way, that was extremely hard for me to type. I can't believe I am actually considering the slower XK model when I could afford an XKR of the same age. That MUST be genuine proof that I am getting old - and the fact that I recently bought some rather nice sheepskin slippers.
Has anyone deliberately chosen the non supercharged version of the 5.0 XK for reasons unrelated to budget? If so what is the conclusion after having lived with the car for a while? Wish you had more poke or glad you did the grown up thing and went for the more everyday usable car?
TD
I can't comment on the 5.0 XK, but a 4.2 XKR is perfectly useable every day. The auto box is a joy in traffic, it's not too loud as standard as to be tiresome, it's a lovely place to sit and the seats are comfy, even the standard 10-way ones I have. Visibility isn't bad at all for the shape of the car, rear parking sensors are standard and most have the optional front ones too. All have aircon and satnav and most have a heated front screen. Road manners are excellent, ride is firm and assured but refined. If the new 5.0 XKR is too much of a nutter maybe the non supercharged version might be worth a look.
By the way, that was extremely hard for me to type. I can't believe I am actually considering the slower XK model when I could afford an XKR of the same age. That MUST be genuine proof that I am getting old - and the fact that I recently bought some rather nice sheepskin slippers.
Has anyone deliberately chosen the non supercharged version of the 5.0 XK for reasons unrelated to budget? If so what is the conclusion after having lived with the car for a while? Wish you had more poke or glad you did the grown up thing and went for the more everyday usable car?
TD
As a comfortable, wafty daily that also has the bite to match the bark there's little else out there even in the same ballpark for money. 2.5 years on and I still look for excuses to take mine out, even if it is just nipping down to Boots etc. when it means getting it out of the garage and I could easily take my wife's car that sits on the drive.
Re valley pipe. Quite true it is a significant issue in the XJ8/R X308, X100 XK8/R, S Type 4.0 and 4.2 all of which are over 10 years old. The X150 XK and XK-R are just approaching or at that age , assuming the pipe is still there and goes up the V I would assume that this will also be an issue for the X150 cars long with X350/8 Xjs etc. Anyone confirm this or have Jaguar changed the design ?
TorqueDirty said:
Has anyone deliberately chosen the non supercharged version of the 5.0 XK for reasons unrelated to budget?
That had been my original intention. Mainly because I thought that the ride especially on the 20" wheels would be harsh. I really just took a test drive in the XKR in order to rule it out. I was also concerned about whether it would feel OK just pootling around gently in it. I was pleasantly surprised, the ride is really good, if not quite up to the level of my X300, it is far better than the MB E-Class 'Sports' we test drove when shopping for ladyB8. I also didn't find driving the car slowly difficult even on the first drive. I ended up buying the XKR because it was the colour combination I wanted (dark outside and light interior), the price was OK and was local.
In hindsight I might have been better off with the NA version because LadyB8 might drive it more, she's only driven it once and does find it intimidating. I'm sure that if she spent a few more minutes behind the wheel she'd soon get used to it. Her Merc has almost as much torque, but her's is a diesel.
In the end I never actually drove the 5L non SC version so can't comment on them from first hand experience. Somewhere way back there should be a thread where I asked about other owners experience of the two.
I'd go and enjoy test driving a few if I were you, only I ended up buying the first one I drove so missed out on the few bit.
Another TVR(Griffith)owner here looking to buy an X150 convertible.
Have test driven 4.2, 5.0 and 4.2R. In that order.
Personally found the standard 4.2 to have the sweetest, smoothest most cultured engine of all 3. Loved the power delivery compared to the other 2 which simply seemed to be far too "urgent" from initial step off. Possibly it is because I am used to TVR's long travel "life saving" accelerator pedal which requires a firm prod to release the horses.
The 4.2 was great at both pootling slowly through towns and then coming alive when burying the loud pedal. Have never been a fan of the superchargers "whine"(R) and The 5.0 engine was quite tappety....a real surprise. maybe a bad example?
Anyway standard 4.2 for me. It is exactly how I expected a Jag to be...the other two were, for me, a little bit too raw...maybe I'm getting old!
Have test driven 4.2, 5.0 and 4.2R. In that order.
Personally found the standard 4.2 to have the sweetest, smoothest most cultured engine of all 3. Loved the power delivery compared to the other 2 which simply seemed to be far too "urgent" from initial step off. Possibly it is because I am used to TVR's long travel "life saving" accelerator pedal which requires a firm prod to release the horses.
The 4.2 was great at both pootling slowly through towns and then coming alive when burying the loud pedal. Have never been a fan of the superchargers "whine"(R) and The 5.0 engine was quite tappety....a real surprise. maybe a bad example?
Anyway standard 4.2 for me. It is exactly how I expected a Jag to be...the other two were, for me, a little bit too raw...maybe I'm getting old!
Only really noticeable when I was encouraged by the dealer to "give it the beans". It certainly did move though!
I wanted to like both R and 5.0 but as others on here have said I was most disappointed was how the power was delivered.....everything in the first few mm of pedal travel and not linear.
I wanted to like both R and 5.0 but as others on here have said I was most disappointed was how the power was delivered.....everything in the first few mm of pedal travel and not linear.
V8Firm said:
Only really noticeable when I was encouraged by the dealer to "give it the beans". It certainly did move though!
I wanted to like both R and 5.0 but as others on here have said I was most disappointed was how the power was delivered.....everything in the first few mm of pedal travel and not linear.
OK thanks. Must be the years of abuse my hearing has had I wanted to like both R and 5.0 but as others on here have said I was most disappointed was how the power was delivered.....everything in the first few mm of pedal travel and not linear.
Interesting to hear you say that about the throttle response, I wouldn't say mine feels like that at all, input and response feel natural and fairly linear.
V8Firm said:
Only really noticeable when I was encouraged by the dealer to "give it the beans". It certainly did move though!
I wanted to like both R and 5.0 but as others on here have said I was most disappointed was how the power was delivered.....everything in the first few mm of pedal travel and not linear.
I wasn't saying that you get everything in the first few mils of travel, I was saying that even in the first few mils of travel you get a lot of poke, but the more you press the more you get and it just keeps giving more and more. Usually you run out of road before you run out of throttle travel.I wanted to like both R and 5.0 but as others on here have said I was most disappointed was how the power was delivered.....everything in the first few mm of pedal travel and not linear.
I was suggesting that a non linear arrangement where the last few mils gave more than the first few might be worth exploring.
I've also not noticed any discernible whine from the super chargers.
Well I owned a 5.0 XKR and I certainly wasn't disappointed in the way the power was delivered.
With 100hp more than a 4.2 XKR it can't really fail to be the more impressive car. I used mine as an everyday car and also toured it in France.
I set off to buy a NA 5.0 of the exact spec and colour I was looking for. The dealer also had an XKR in stock, once I drove it there really was only one choice.
I've driven a friends 4.2 XKR - it's a great car but the 5.0 litre is just the better car in my opinion.
Whichever you buy you won't be disappointed and the 4.2 cars are certainly excellent value.
With 100hp more than a 4.2 XKR it can't really fail to be the more impressive car. I used mine as an everyday car and also toured it in France.
I set off to buy a NA 5.0 of the exact spec and colour I was looking for. The dealer also had an XKR in stock, once I drove it there really was only one choice.
I've driven a friends 4.2 XKR - it's a great car but the 5.0 litre is just the better car in my opinion.
Whichever you buy you won't be disappointed and the 4.2 cars are certainly excellent value.
I guess the only thing I would say to the OP is don't automatically dismiss standard 4..2. My initial thought as a TVR owner was that I would automatically want the "full fat " model but no one was more surprised than me to find I preferred my first test drive which was a high mile 4.2.
This is certainly good news for me as this means I can get a really good example for less than 20k
All x150's are awesome cars and I just love the fact that Jag allowed the voice of the V8 to be heard!
This is certainly good news for me as this means I can get a really good example for less than 20k
All x150's are awesome cars and I just love the fact that Jag allowed the voice of the V8 to be heard!
It's noteworthy I feel that it's mostly us TVR drivers who don't like the fly by wire throttle pedal. I guess we're quite accustomed to having very fine control over throttle position (well you need it in a car that's notably faster than a 5.0 XKR but without any traction control) but those who haven't got used to TVR throttle pedals don't mind it.
Having thought on this more, I think it's just a matter of fine adjustment rather than whatever curve is on the pedal. Us TVR lot expect to have a great deal of control over throttle input and ankles are not the most precise things for most folk to have control over. A tiny pedal movement results in a massive change in torque in the 5.0 s/c engine in particular and it's hard to really enjoy the chassis on anything but a warm, bone dry road because of the way the car breaks traction ao aggressively.
Part of it might be the Jag's active diff being too effective too. The hydratrak in the Cerbera in particular is a lovely diff for road use that avoids sitting smoking one tyre but at the same time avoids the savage nature of very aggressive diffs which for uneven road use are a bit like trying to run with your shoe laces tied together.
Frankly the feel isn't there in the big and comparitively heavy Jags either. Again us TVR lot probably expect too much from them as a drivers' car. TVRs don't win many races but despite their reputation they are hugely communicative cars, as most purely mechanical cars are.
Having thought on this more, I think it's just a matter of fine adjustment rather than whatever curve is on the pedal. Us TVR lot expect to have a great deal of control over throttle input and ankles are not the most precise things for most folk to have control over. A tiny pedal movement results in a massive change in torque in the 5.0 s/c engine in particular and it's hard to really enjoy the chassis on anything but a warm, bone dry road because of the way the car breaks traction ao aggressively.
Part of it might be the Jag's active diff being too effective too. The hydratrak in the Cerbera in particular is a lovely diff for road use that avoids sitting smoking one tyre but at the same time avoids the savage nature of very aggressive diffs which for uneven road use are a bit like trying to run with your shoe laces tied together.
Frankly the feel isn't there in the big and comparitively heavy Jags either. Again us TVR lot probably expect too much from them as a drivers' car. TVRs don't win many races but despite their reputation they are hugely communicative cars, as most purely mechanical cars are.
jamieduff1981 said:
It's noteworthy I feel that it's mostly us TVR drivers who don't like the fly by wire throttle pedal. I guess we're quite accustomed to having very fine control over throttle position (well you need it in a car that's notably faster than a 5.0 XKR but without any traction control) but those who haven't got used to TVR throttle pedals don't mind it.
Having thought on this more, I think it's just a matter of fine adjustment rather than whatever curve is on the pedal. Us TVR lot expect to have a great deal of control over throttle input and ankles are not the most precise things for most folk to have control over. A tiny pedal movement results in a massive change in torque in the 5.0 s/c engine in particular and it's hard to really enjoy the chassis on anything but a warm, bone dry road because of the way the car breaks traction ao aggressively.
Part of it might be the Jag's active diff being too effective too. The hydratrak in the Cerbera in particular is a lovely diff for road use that avoids sitting smoking one tyre but at the same time avoids the savage nature of very aggressive diffs which for uneven road use are a bit like trying to run with your shoe laces tied together.
Frankly the feel isn't there in the big and comparitively heavy Jags either. Again us TVR lot probably expect too much from them as a drivers' car. TVRs don't win many races but despite their reputation they are hugely communicative cars, as most purely mechanical cars are.
Interesting points. Having thought on this more, I think it's just a matter of fine adjustment rather than whatever curve is on the pedal. Us TVR lot expect to have a great deal of control over throttle input and ankles are not the most precise things for most folk to have control over. A tiny pedal movement results in a massive change in torque in the 5.0 s/c engine in particular and it's hard to really enjoy the chassis on anything but a warm, bone dry road because of the way the car breaks traction ao aggressively.
Part of it might be the Jag's active diff being too effective too. The hydratrak in the Cerbera in particular is a lovely diff for road use that avoids sitting smoking one tyre but at the same time avoids the savage nature of very aggressive diffs which for uneven road use are a bit like trying to run with your shoe laces tied together.
Frankly the feel isn't there in the big and comparitively heavy Jags either. Again us TVR lot probably expect too much from them as a drivers' car. TVRs don't win many races but despite their reputation they are hugely communicative cars, as most purely mechanical cars are.
I sold my Chim 500 just the a few weeks ago and already miss it. Having said that I simply was not using it enough hence the search for a more versatile car. I guess I could have used it as a daily but as you say, the lack of traction control coupled with what I found to be rather uncommunicative rear end made it a tiring car to cover ground quickly in. That's fine for a weekend blast but not so much for the daily grind of serenely yet rapidly getting from A to B.
I did get the car set up but maybe I should have had another go - or maybe I'm just a pussy. I never really knew how close to the limit I was, and relying on the mechanical grip of the tyres on the wet with no feel for when this runs out is not a exactly relaxing.
Anyway, point very much taken about the modern throttle mapping. Definitely something that will need some recalibrating; particularly since having sold the Chim my transport has been either a Landcruiser or a diesel Mondeo Estate!
As a completely left field addition to the discussion has anyone experience of both the XKR and the E92 M3? Very different cars I know, with very very different engines, but the M3 does have some attraction as a potential next car too.
TD
TorqueDirty said:
Hmm, I just realised that there is another question I should be asking and that is how the the newer 5.0 XK (not XKR) compares against the older 4.2 XKR.
If the new 5.0 XKR is too much of a nutter maybe the non supercharged version might be worth a look.
By the way, that was extremely hard for me to type. I can't believe I am actually considering the slower XK model when I could afford an XKR of the same age. That MUST be genuine proof that I am getting old - and the fact that I recently bought some rather nice sheepskin slippers.
Has anyone deliberately chosen the non supercharged version of the 5.0 XK for reasons unrelated to budget? If so what is the conclusion after having lived with the car for a while? Wish you had more poke or glad you did the grown up thing and went for the more everyday usable car?
TD
I tried a NA 5.0 before buying the XKR 4.2 ( 2007). XKR feels much more special, in terms of engine noise, power delivery and outright punch. 5.0 to me would suit the convertible perfectly. If the new 5.0 XKR is too much of a nutter maybe the non supercharged version might be worth a look.
By the way, that was extremely hard for me to type. I can't believe I am actually considering the slower XK model when I could afford an XKR of the same age. That MUST be genuine proof that I am getting old - and the fact that I recently bought some rather nice sheepskin slippers.
Has anyone deliberately chosen the non supercharged version of the 5.0 XK for reasons unrelated to budget? If so what is the conclusion after having lived with the car for a while? Wish you had more poke or glad you did the grown up thing and went for the more everyday usable car?
TD
I also tried the XKR 5.0Sc , and despite being faster than the XKR 4.2, it didnt feel special. Not for me anyhow.
Plus the 4.2 is quite tuneable. Got around another 40bhp out of mine at relatively low cost, sitting around 450bhp now and very good fun indeed.
8bit said:
Can I ask, was that just a remap or were there hardware changes involved also?
K/n Filters, remap , upper supercharger pulley, exhaust rear box. Although the exhaust was mainly to improve the sound, not necessarily for performance. Next level would be to replace the centre section of exhaust and change CATs to race cell version, but i'm not going to go that far. Happy with the extra urge, and brilliant noise the engine now makes. I thought it was too refined, the box now has made it far better and a little louder when using the performance, and i think is actually quieter when you are off throttle or cruising. The standard rear box i always found boomy between 1000-2000 revs such as when in traffic. This one doesn't suffer.
Got the work done at TL Jaguar near Reading.
Gassing Station | Jaguar | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff