RE: Jaguar XF: Driven

[pointedstarman]

Don't like the dash screen (am guessing it does more than control the nav so won't call it the nav screen) being down low on the centre console. It makes far more sense nearer the eye line as in BMW / Lexus et al. Suspect it'll make the overall dash design look dated prematurely.

[Wills2]

Ug_lee said:

fk me can you not do a single article that doesn't refer to the interior of a fking Audi.

I own an Audi and it's just more and more obvious Haymarket are in the pocket of the German manufacturers.

The Jag is lighter, better looking, better driving and still somehow dashboard aesthetics come into play.

Sort yourselves out PH

To be fair I've always looked upon Haymarket as JLR's PR department at large, especially Autocar but you have a point they do seem to be ramming Audi down our throats at the moment.

[Amanitin]

selling 'independent' reviews of stuff and accepting advertising money from same stuff's manufacturers and retailers sounds like a very basic conflict of interest to me.
yeah i know

[bencollins]

"In any case, after two days' driving the new XF over some extremely challenging roads, it's clear Jaguar has proven it remembers how to make a big car endlessly entertaining and engaging. But can the XF V6 S be recommended over Audi's mighty 450hp 4.0-litre twin-turbo V8 Audi S6? Impossible. The German would walk it in performance terms - it's almost a whole second quicker to 62mph."
Almost a whole second on a completely different car. OOOOOO, relevant.
Tell us more about the soft feel plastics beside your knees.

[V88Dicky]

bencollins said:

"In any case, after two days' driving the new XF over some extremely challenging roads, it's clear Jaguar has proven it remembers how to make a big car endlessly entertaining and engaging. But can the Audi S6 be recommended over Jaguar's mighty 5 litre supercharged 510bhp V8 in the XFR? Impossible. The Brit would walk it in performance terms - it's almost a whole second quicker to 62mph."

See what I did there?

[Gorbyrev]

Some folks seem to be having a very bad day today. If you are going to have a pop at an article at least show some courtesy. For my part I enjoyed the the write up and there were some interesting insights in there. As for automotive journalism having a complex relationship with the hand that feeds advertising revenue, what's new there? Volvo took a dim view to CAR putting a 144 on a box of soap powder and pulled advertising for years. The comparisons to Audi seem fair enough, or Mercedes for that matter. They are the direct competition. For my money I would be having a good look at the XF. 190kg is a shed load of weight to shed and the incorporation of passive rear steer is a welcome one. Loved that in 306's and ZX's as it shortens the wheelbase and makes the car nimble. That new front end looks really good to me and it is interesting that the black pump V6 was more of a drive than the petrol one.

[SteveSteveson]

Gorbyrev said:

The comparisons to Audi seem fair enough, or Mercedes for that matter. They are the direct competition.

That's the issue though, they are not in direct competition. The Audi is a petrol car and £10k more. The 3.0 TDI A6 is in direct competition with the XF, being roughly the same price, same power and same fuel. The S6 is not, and this is not about giving a biased review of an Audi but about the disingenuous comparison to a much more expensive car. It may be a genuine error, but when you have the worry of conflicts of interest you need to be extra careful.

[MikeO996]

Gorbyrev said:

Some folks seem to be having a very bad day today. If you are going to have a pop at an article at least show some courtesy. For my part I enjoyed the the write up and there were some interesting insights in there. As for automotive journalism having a complex relationship with the hand that feeds advertising revenue, what's new there? Volvo took a dim view to CAR putting a 144 on a box of soap powder and pulled advertising for years. The comparisons to Audi seem fair enough, or Mercedes for that matter. They are the direct competition. For my money I would be having a good look at the XF. 190kg is a shed load of weight to shed and the incorporation of passive rear steer is a welcome one. Loved that in 306's and ZX's as it shortens the wheelbase and makes the car nimble. That new front end looks really good to me and it is interesting that the black pump V6 was more of a drive than the petrol one.

This. Some really stupid comments above. The only hatchet job is towards the article. In actuality the British press always seems to really really want to like a new Jag, and so the bias is probably in the other direction.
The mention of the S6 is a bit bizarre as the XF comparator isn't around yet, but the article really doesn't say you'd be better off with an Audi.

[Baryonyx]

What an absolutely dreadful article. It's more evident with each passing day that the wafer-thin integrity that PH used to have to go with it's awful articles is now gone. It reads as though Audi's PR department has been paying out bungs.

[Gorbyrev]

SteveSteveson said:

That's the issue though, they are not in direct competition. The Audi is a petrol car and £10k more. The 3.0 TDI A6 is in direct competition with the XF, being roughly the same price, same power and same fuel. The S6 is not, and this is not about giving a biased review of an Audi but about the disingenuous comparison to a much more expensive car. It may be a genuine error, but when you have the worry of conflicts of interest you need to be extra careful.

Fair point well made in terms of comparison. I do find it distasteful to assume bias on PH towards VAG.

[kambites]

Gorbyrev said:

Fair point well made in terms of comparison. I do find it distasteful to assume bias on PH towards VAG.

I don't think it's a bias towards VAG, I think it's a bias towards German manufacturers in general. It's also not unique to PH, it seems to be endemic across the entire British motoring press. Evo have become particularly bad for it recently.

To be fair to the journalists, I don't think it's conscious and I certainly don't think it's down to bribery as some people imply.

[Pickled Piper]

ash73 said:

Looks like a Ford Mondeo.

Indeed, my mate has it on good authority that it is based on the new Mondeo.

[macky17]

Currently my daily is the old xf 3.0d S - a meagre 2009 pre facelift. It's a terrific car. The new model with 10% more power and 150kg lighter should be about perfect. Looks great too. I'd love one of these. Audi would have to sponsor ME to drive around in one of their beautifully finished numb barges.

Edited by macky17 on Sunday 16th August 21:55

[elementad]

I just don't get the whole perceived 'audi quality' thing. My wife had an A4 as a company car up until last year. The interior looked dated, the radio/heating system was a faff to use, the seat when positioned would wait until you had driven around a corner about 17 miles away and suddenly (and dangerously) 'click' into position and the car wouldn't even let you move it off or around the driveway without putting your belt on.
The ONLY part if the interior I felt was quality was the material spec of the steering wheel and the small dial to the right of the wheel used to switch the lights on.

[aeropilot]

elementad said:

I just don't get the whole perceived 'audi quality' thing. My wife had an A4 as a company car up until last year. The interior looked dated, the radio/heating system was a faff to use, the seat when positioned would wait until you had driven around a corner about 17 miles away and suddenly (and dangerously) 'click' into position and the car wouldn't even let you move it off or around the driveway without putting your belt on.
The ONLY part if the interior I felt was quality was the material spec of the steering wheel and the small dial to the right of the wheel used to switch the lights on.

Glad I'm not the only one that doesn't 'get' this Audi interior 'superiority' bks.

Certainly the smaller A3/A4/TT types I tired before I bought the 135i had poor ergonomics IMHO, and didn't appear to be that much better in terms of 'quality' of material than any of the competitors. And they driving experience isn't better either.
Maybe the bigger A6/A8/Q5/Q7 class is different, but not really tried them.

[pti]

Pickled Piper said:

ash73 said:

Looks like a Ford Mondeo.

Indeed, my mate has it on good authority that it is based on the new Mondeo.

Your mate might want to get some better intelligence.

[British Beef]

aeropilot said:

elementad said:

I just don't get the whole perceived 'audi quality' thing. My wife had an A4 as a company car up until last year. The interior looked dated, the radio/heating system was a faff to use, the seat when positioned would wait until you had driven around a corner about 17 miles away and suddenly (and dangerously) 'click' into position and the car wouldn't even let you move it off or around the driveway without putting your belt on.
The ONLY part if the interior I felt was quality was the material spec of the steering wheel and the small dial to the right of the wheel used to switch the lights on.

Glad I'm not the only one that doesn't 'get' this Audi interior 'superiority' bks.

Certainly the smaller A3/A4/TT types I tired before I bought the 135i had poor ergonomics IMHO, and didn't appear to be that much better in terms of 'quality' of material than any of the competitors. And they driving experience isn't better either.
Maybe the bigger A6/A8/Q5/Q7 class is different, but not really tried them.

Having spent a few thousand miles driving my fathers A8 4lt TDI, I can confirm the interior is a master of disguise and it does give the impression of a very well built car, however mechanically stuff does keep going wrong with that car!! After 55k miles it developed a tappety noise, which Audi could not diagnose, suggesting a £12k engine rebuild, a turbo went (£3500 fix), hifi broke, boot lock down cable snapped (£700) to replace, electric handbrake jammed on, battery runs itself flat, dicky electrics and quite a few other bits and pieces. I would certainly never wish to own one.

Yet Audi, like Porsche, seem to have this loyal following that they are a cut above all other vehicles, enforced by some shoddy journalism on this site.

[ORD]

British Beef said:

Yet Audi, like Porsche, seem to have this loyal following that they are a cut above all other vehicles, enforced by some shoddy journalism on this site.

Wash out your mouth

The two are in fact polar opposites. Porsche consistently produces cars that are among the best in class for dynamics - 2 seats but practical? Cayman; 2+2? 911; SUV? Cayenne. Audi, by contrast, produces almost nothing but very mediocre cars and relies on "soft touch plastics" and other journalistic nonsense to sell cars. Aside from the R8, I cannot think of an Audi that is class-leading (or even close to it).

[macky17]

ORD said:

Wash out your mouth

The two are in fact polar opposites. Porsche consistently produces cars that are among the best in class for dynamics - 2 seats but practical? Cayman; 2+2? 911; SUV? Cayenne. Audi, by contrast, produces almost nothing but very mediocre cars and relies on "soft touch plastics" and other journalistic nonsense to sell cars. Aside from the R8, I cannot think of an Audi that is class-leading (or even close to it).

Bear in mind that it's only very recently that Porsche has returned to building engines which don't self-destruct...

[King Steffy]

What is this quality thing..
I have an old Jag & I am sure my car is not as well built like new Jags however after 17 years, it's still feels solid.

Now I agree with many in the forum here...Put a nice photo of the Jag interior & not dark, depressing colours..
& maybe next time you'll be comparing the Audi TT with a Ferrai Enzo & suggest the Ferrari is just a little quicker...Yeah right...

Fair comparisons pls...