RE: Jaguar XF: Driven
Discussion
"What's missing is an evocative soundtrack. The XF sounds great from the outside, but inside it's a little plain, with only a dull supercharged whine to keep you company. We're not asking for the F-Type histrionics, but it needs more than this."
Complaints when artificial noise is pumped into the cabin; complaints when the cabin quality is good enough that engine noise isn't intrusive - just wind the effin' window down, yeah.
Complaints when artificial noise is pumped into the cabin; complaints when the cabin quality is good enough that engine noise isn't intrusive - just wind the effin' window down, yeah.
macky17 said:
Bear in mind that it's only very recently that Porsche has returned to building engines which don't self-destruct...
6 years ago (and "self-destruction" is a bit extreme). Most major problems gone by about 2004, I think.Off topic! My fault.
The new XF looks great. The idea that one should buy an Audi instead is bloody hilarious. Terrible journalism.
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' bThe 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.
ks.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.
And now that the Jaguar is more then 120kg lighter then a similarly engined Audi, the Audi will feel more "planted" on the road, more "stable" as more weight is now "better" according to Audi
Anyhow well done Jaguar for making a replacement car SMALLER then before. Cars have got too big. To create a car with more interior space without making the car any bigger is a worthy achievement in itself. In fact, looking online the Audi is wider then any Rolls Royce built since the 1970s. But then again, extra width means more sportyness, right??
williamp said:
Anyhow well done Jaguar for making a replacement car SMALLER then before. Cars have got too big. To create a car with more interior space without making the car any bigger is a worthy achievement in itself.
Absolutely 
A 12 month old of these will be at the top of my shopping list as a replacement for my 135i in a few of years time.
The Audi bias on PH is getting tiring (like an S6 will be remotely as entertaining as it's RWD competition) but I have to say, the thing that puts me off this XF is what turned me on to newer Jags in the first place, the styling. It's just so much blander and less elegant than before. The huge air intakes and tiny headlights make it very awkward at the front.
Regardless of the PH bias towards Audi, they've fallen into the same trap as the Germans....too similar to its predecessor.
At initial inspection, 95 out of 100 people will not spot that this is the new one.
Great for owners of the old model, but when a new model comes out I want it to look like a new model!
And this doesn't.
So because of that, perhaps we start nick-picking over those plastics....
At initial inspection, 95 out of 100 people will not spot that this is the new one.
Great for owners of the old model, but when a new model comes out I want it to look like a new model!
And this doesn't.
So because of that, perhaps we start nick-picking over those plastics....
I see these regularly out testing around Coventry and at the Starbucks near Ross at the end of the M50, and actually paid attention to the one I saw this morning. Very nondescript from the back but it does look great in your rear view mirror, the bonnet sculpting in particular looked great without the ridiculous snarling "face" that Audi have resorted to.
Did PH review the same car as everyone else?!
http://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/jaguar/xf/30-v6...
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/jaguar/xf/firs...
http://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/jaguar/xf/30-v6...
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/jaguar/xf/firs...
There doesn't look to be a lot wrong with the panel gaps or the colour to me. Perhaps you should consider a career in metrology or spectrophotometry if you can tell so much from some press shots.
crimbo said:
Wow, are the side shots real?
The doors look a different colour and the panel gaps are shocking. The crease on the door really does not look right next to the crappy vent/grill in the front wing.
Just lazy and careless design.Should be built to a higher standard than it looks.
Who cares how it drives it will feel like and other car it has suspension and tires is going to be no real improvement. If it handles on rails it's going to be too firm for the road and if it's comfy is going to be soft in the bends. So how it drives is not important.
Is the engine going to be so much better than before,nope!
So basically you are buying it because of its looks and it's new and with them panel gaps it's looks terrible. So well done jag, brilliant you have built a slack half arsed looking car that instantly looks not up to the quality standard you expect of the brand or the image you are looking or charging for.
And are you serious about jag having to try hard to get from 550bhp to 600bhp from a supercharged 5 litre v8 to keep up with the new m5 or merc.
Yeah real hard that, according to a pistonheads right up it needs a smaller pulley, intercooler, induction kit and a remap for over 620bhp and that comes with a 3 year warranty.
So there is no reason at all that they can't launch with an R version other than a marketing stunt so cut the rubbish.
The doors look a different colour and the panel gaps are shocking. The crease on the door really does not look right next to the crappy vent/grill in the front wing.
Just lazy and careless design.Should be built to a higher standard than it looks.
Who cares how it drives it will feel like and other car it has suspension and tires is going to be no real improvement. If it handles on rails it's going to be too firm for the road and if it's comfy is going to be soft in the bends. So how it drives is not important.
Is the engine going to be so much better than before,nope!
So basically you are buying it because of its looks and it's new and with them panel gaps it's looks terrible. So well done jag, brilliant you have built a slack half arsed looking car that instantly looks not up to the quality standard you expect of the brand or the image you are looking or charging for.
And are you serious about jag having to try hard to get from 550bhp to 600bhp from a supercharged 5 litre v8 to keep up with the new m5 or merc.
Yeah real hard that, according to a pistonheads right up it needs a smaller pulley, intercooler, induction kit and a remap for over 620bhp and that comes with a 3 year warranty.
So there is no reason at all that they can't launch with an R version other than a marketing stunt so cut the rubbish.
Edited by crimbo on Sunday 16th August 01:15
macky17 said:
Bear in mind that it's only very recently that Porsche has returned to building engines which don't self-destruct...
What, like the 991 GT3?ORD said:
6 years ago (and "self-destruction" is a bit extreme). Most major problems gone by about 2004, I think.
Numerous 997s blew up their engines. There are enough threads about it here.Maldini35 said:
The XF looks a lot better than the XE.
It just looks like a proper Jag,
...once they get the panel gaps sorted.
Is it just taken as read that the panel gaps are poor? As stated previously, they look pretty good. There is no way knowing without taking measurements. It would be interesting to see the results of this shown against VAG.It just looks like a proper Jag,
...once they get the panel gaps sorted.
IMO, it's perception on a white car.
RupertM said:
Maldini35 said:
The XF looks a lot better than the XE.
It just looks like a proper Jag,
...once they get the panel gaps sorted.
Is it just taken as read that the panel gaps are poor? As stated previously, they look pretty good. There is no way knowing without taking measurements. It would be interesting to see the results of this shown against VAG.It just looks like a proper Jag,
...once they get the panel gaps sorted.
IMO, it's perception on a white car.
I've no idea if the panel gaps are any good or not.
Could be an interesting feature to do a panel gap shoot out between Jag and the all the Germans (not just VAG).
It might put to bed some of the debates once and for all. Let's get the facts.
XF is a nice looking car though.
pti said:
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.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff