XFR, a bit quick I think, 0-100 in 9.6 quick enough?

[Cerbman]

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/car_...

[fatboy b]

[FWDRacer]

XKR weighs less

... same engine.

[Cerbman]

FWDRacer said:

XKR weighs less

... same engine.

Though strangely the XKR in last weeks AutoExpress was a little slower than the XFR both in 0-60 and from 30-70.

[FWDRacer]

Sounds like someone needs more practice

[Cerbman]

Also could it be possible the boost was turned up a bit on the XFR?

[a8hex]

Your surely not suggesting a manufacturer would "tweak" a car supplied to a magazine for testing would you?

Or could it be like all those suspicious test that always showed the Astons to be faster than the Jaguars.

[The Pits]

Cerbman said:

FWDRacer said:

XKR weighs less

... same engine.

Though strangely the XKR in last weeks AutoExpress was a little slower than the XFR both in 0-60 and from 30-70.

From Auto express: 'At our wet test track, both cars struggled for traction, and recorded identical 6.1-second 0-60mph times. But once up and running, the Jaguar is faster.'

I think the 'wet test track' bit explains it well enough.

[Cerbman]

I know it was wet, how does that explain the XFR being quicker than the XKR?

[a8hex]

different tyres? perhaps the XKRs are a little more extreme but not so good in the wet, perhaps?

[FWDRacer]

Both run same cross section Dunlop Sportmaxx 285/30/20 rears.

[Cerbman]

My local dealer seemed to suggest that the XFR seemed quicker in the wet. I suppose it could even explain the 30-70 time too, as I'm sure with traction control off, both would get wheelspin at 30.

[NormanD]

At Gaydon I had the XFR up to 170MPH

The XKR I had 175MPH, thats 5MPH extra for the XKR

[a8hex]

NormanD said:

At Gaydon I had the XFR up to 170MPH

The XKR I had 175MPH, thats 5MPH extra for the XKR

So what you are saying is that the speed limiter in the XFR is better than the one in the XKR :-)

[The Pits]

Cerbman said:

I know it was wet, how does that explain the XFR being quicker than the XKR?

The XKR times were recorded in the wet.

The XFR times were recorded in the dry.

The Auto Express article quote was from a contest between the XKR and the Maserati Gransummatorother.

The XKR isn't slower than an XFR mainly because it can't be.

Edited by The Pits on Thursday 14th May 18:01

[NormanD]

a8hex said:

NormanD said:

At Gaydon I had the XFR up to 170MPH

The XKR I had 175MPH, thats 5MPH extra for the XKR

So what you are saying is that the speed limiter in the XFR is better than the one in the XKR :-)

As they were pre-production cars there was NO limmiters

[Triple7]

There were limiters Norm, just not properly calibrated speedos. Anyway who cares whether its 170 or 155, the new jags are lightening quick. More speed than you'll ever need on a UK road.

[Cerbman]

The Pits said:

Cerbman said:

I know it was wet, how does that explain the XFR being quicker than the XKR?

The XKR times were recorded in the wet.

The XFR times were recorded in the dry.

The Auto Express article quote was from a contest between the XKR and the Maserati Gransummatorother.

The XKR isn't slower than an XFR mainly because it can't be.

Edited by The Pits on Thursday 14th May 18:01

I suggest you look again, both Jaguars were tested in the wet.

[eddy_hyde]

Cerbman said:

I know it was wet, how does that explain the XFR being quicker than the XKR?

XK is ligher than XF, more weight=more traction and makes more of a difference in the wet than the extra weight slowing the acceleration

[The Pits]

apologies Cerbman the part I read was just versus the maser.

there are any number of explanations behind the figures, from typos (very common in car mags) to the wrong choice of electronic mode for the conditions in the XK versus the right mode for the XF, however the least likely one is that the XK is actually slower than the XF.

The figures are suspect in that the M5 weighs very nearly the same as the XF yet it's 30-70 time was appalling and by some margin the slowest of the cars on test. If the extra weight of the XF was it's advantage in the wet then the M5 should have gone better too.

We also don't know that they were all tested at the same time of day. It could have been streaming wet for one and merely damp for another.