RE: Jaguar XF TDV6 S: Driven
Discussion
julian64 said:
Hmm you think so. 335xd BMW. According to the figures posted the jag engine makes more power, the jag is lighter but does 6seconds 0-60 compared with 4.8 for the BMW
Now I like sporty cars but its been a very long time since I had a car that couldn't break six seconds to sixty. Thats very sloooowwww for anyone in todays world talking about sporty cars
Why are you comparing this XF to the 335xd? Wouldn't comparison to a 535d M-Sport be better (5.7s to 60 in the EVO link below)?Now I like sporty cars but its been a very long time since I had a car that couldn't break six seconds to sixty. Thats very sloooowwww for anyone in todays world talking about sporty cars
http://www.evo.co.uk/bmw/5-series/6963/bmw-535d-m-...
julian64 said:
Krikkit said:
Is that not just because the Jag doesn't have launch control? There's no way you could consider the 3.0S a slow car at all, the rate it gathers speed is very impressive indeed.
Well the four wheel drive might help a bit, but not by that much and the older RWD 3 litre BMW was also much faster on the stats than this.We aren't talking a few tenths here and there. We are talking between TWO AND TWO AND A HALF SECONDS TO SIXTY!
Either the stats produced for the engine are all wrong or it only produces the stated power over a very narrow band compared to the BMW engine, or somethings wrong cos that difference in performance over the first 60mph is staggering for two cars where the slower car has the best stats.
Anyone got nay comparison figures for what happens after 60?
After four and a half years of DPF hell on my XF Diesel S I will not be touching either Jaguar or Diesel again. After 55 days at the dealer and still unresolved I went back to BMW and petrol. My Jaguar was £41000 new but I paid £32000 for a 4 month old 3000 miler. £50000 is nonsense for a flawed design. Bought a pre-reg BMW 5-Series with 15 miles on the clock for £16000 off list and it is faultless and quirk free (unlike the XF), with broadly similar real world fuel consumption and performance to the Jaguar diesel.
julian64 said:
lotus116tornado said:
moffat said:
A new engine that is still behind both BMW's old 3l TT engine and Audi's 3 litre biturbo lump.
Sat Nav looks last generation too.
The Jaguar engine is a development of an engine that has been around in different guises since 2004. It's only 13ps down on the BMW engine but 70NM up on torque. Sat Nav looks last generation too.
I think most keen drivers would rather be in the XF though, by all accounts it's the best handling car in its sector by some margin.
Now I like sporty cars but its been a very long time since I had a car that couldn't break six seconds to sixty. Thats very sloooowwww for anyone in todays world talking about sporty cars
Give me a better handling car all day long over 0.7 seconds quicker to 60. I gave up the traffic light races 20 years ago.
Personally I would buy the petrol 3.0S.
classic1952 said:
After four and a half years of DPF hell on my XF Diesel S I will not be touching either Jaguar or Diesel again. After 55 days at the dealer and still unresolved I went back to BMW and petrol. My Jaguar was £41000 new but I paid £32000 for a 4 month old 3000 miler. £50000 is nonsense for a flawed design. Bought a pre-reg BMW 5-Series with 15 miles on the clock for £16000 off list and it is faultless and quirk free (unlike the XF), with broadly similar real world fuel consumption and performance to the Jaguar diesel.
Sounds like you weren't doing the mileage to warrant a diesel in the first place. Most XF DPF problems (well all brands) are due to the low amount of miles from start to stop continuously. I've done 70K miles in my XFSs and not once has a DPF light come on.Oh, and don't kid yourself that BMW and their dealers are any better. They're not,
fatboy b said:
0-60 is pretty irrelevant IMO these days, and it's not that wide a gap. BMW are saying 5.3 for the 535d, so less that a second, but who cares? I go for looks and refinement first. BMW are never going to win that game.
Oh good god! 0-60 is about the only thing you can do these days on the road without losing your license. Even if you completely ignore 0-60 times the 60+ don't seem to be much better.Even if you completely ignore performance in a saloon obviously designed to be the performance end of the brand, then the refinement of the jag is better than the 3 series BMW, but it isn't better than the 5 series BMW in my eyes for the comparison you just made.
Even if you completely ignore the performance, the refinement, and just concentrate on the toys they are at least a generation looking behind anything in any series in BMW let alone audi.
I really really want jaguar to succeed as possibly one of the last brands that you can actually call British. But a thread full of obvious blinkered fanboys saying what a world killer it is while ignoring all the obvious problems isn't going to cut it. Jaguar need a bit of a kick to say why they are producing a new flagship model with five year old nav system and an engine which stats show is more powerful than the rival but with lacklustre performance on any of the normal criteria the car mags use to judge a car by.
I mean it surely can't be beyond the tech ability of Jaguar to at least put a vestigial launch control to get within shooting distance of the other cars in the sector, can it?
Your last comment was probably the most telling. Jaguar which is a car company who has been for years trying to shrug of the image of the slippers and pipe luxobarge appeals to you because it is a luxobarge in refinement and you don't care about the performance? Is this the eighties?
Up your game Jaguar.
lotus116tornado said:
julian64 said:
lotus116tornado said:
moffat said:
A new engine that is still behind both BMW's old 3l TT engine and Audi's 3 litre biturbo lump.
Sat Nav looks last generation too.
The Jaguar engine is a development of an engine that has been around in different guises since 2004. It's only 13ps down on the BMW engine but 70NM up on torque. Sat Nav looks last generation too.
I think most keen drivers would rather be in the XF though, by all accounts it's the best handling car in its sector by some margin.
Now I like sporty cars but its been a very long time since I had a car that couldn't break six seconds to sixty. Thats very sloooowwww for anyone in todays world talking about sporty cars
Give me a better handling car all day long over 0.7 seconds quicker to 60. I gave up the traffic light races 20 years ago.
Personally I would buy the petrol 3.0S.
julian64 said:
fatboy b said:
0-60 is pretty irrelevant IMO these days, and it's not that wide a gap. BMW are saying 5.3 for the 535d, so less that a second, but who cares? I go for looks and refinement first. BMW are never going to win that game.
Oh good god! 0-60 is about the only thing you can do these days on the road without losing your license. Even if you completely ignore 0-60 times the 60+ don't seem to be much better.Even if you completely ignore performance in a saloon obviously designed to be the performance end of the brand, then the refinement of the jag is better than the 3 series BMW, but it isn't better than the 5 series BMW in my eyes for the comparison you just made.
Even if you completely ignore the performance, the refinement, and just concentrate on the toys they are at least a generation looking behind anything in any series in BMW let alone audi.
I really really want jaguar to succeed as possibly one of the last brands that you can actually call British. But a thread full of obvious blinkered fanboys saying what a world killer it is while ignoring all the obvious problems isn't going to cut it. Jaguar need a bit of a kick to say why they are producing a new flagship model with five year old nav system and an engine which stats show is more powerful than the rival but with lacklustre performance on any of the normal criteria the car mags use to judge a car by.
I mean it surely can't be beyond the tech ability of Jaguar to at least put a vestigial launch control to get within shooting distance of the other cars in the sector, can it?
Your last comment was probably the most telling. Jaguar which is a car company who has been for years trying to shrug of the image of the slippers and pipe luxobarge appeals to you because it is a luxobarge in refinement and you don't care about the performance? Is this the eighties?
Up your game Jaguar.
The outgoing XFR-S I have posts 0-60mph in 4.4 secs and 0-62mph in 4.6secs. It'll break traction in 4th in the wet on 295 section Michelin Pilot Super Sports and is traction limited to around 60ish in the dry anyway.
5.8secs to 60 is plenty for a brisk saloon.
My TVR Cerbera posts 0-60 in 3.9 seconds and achieving that is both very challenging and very fast.
0-60 nowadays has little to do with power and everything to do with off-the-line traction, which isn't especially relevant for family saloon cars that rarely do standing starts on launch control.
If the figures are all important for bragging to colleagues then by all means use them - but let's not get confused and suggest the new XF discussed here will be a slow car compared to the BMW on the move, because that's patently stupid.
Zod said:
fatboy b said:
The 6.2 time is 0-100km/h. Don't know why it's that much longer, but as you say, the handling will always win.
Find a non-UK source for the Jag's handling being better, please.http://www.caranddriver.com/jaguar/xf
Article said:
Without a formal comparison test, and without driving the finalized U.S. version, we’re not quite ready to lock in the XF’s position in the mid-size luxury-sedan segment. But we can say that the new XF feels more lithe, involving, and playful than the usual suspects from Germany (the Audi A6, BMW 5-series, and the Mercedes-Benz E-class). While it isn’t as aggressive as the sports-car-aping Cadillac CTS Vsport, and its primary controls lack the dogged alertness of the Cadillac’s, it’s not far off. It does have a more pleasing interior than the CTS, and the Jag's supercharged V-6 is smoother than, if not as powerful as, the American car’s twin-turbo six. But this is just the first version of the new XF. Sportier and more powerful versions are undoubtedly on the drawing board.
I wouldn't call that conclusive by any means. Claiming that it is the best handling, in a way that suggests it is way out in front, is ridiculously jingoistic. From the variety of reports I've read, you'd need to drive the Jag, Merc and BMW together to decide which you felt handled better for you (you wouldn't of course bother with the Audi if handling was your most important criterion).
fatboy b said:
julian64 said:
Krikkit said:
Is that not just because the Jag doesn't have launch control? There's no way you could consider the 3.0S a slow car at all, the rate it gathers speed is very impressive indeed.
Well the four wheel drive might help a bit, but not by that much and the older RWD 3 litre BMW was also much faster on the stats than this.We aren't talking a few tenths here and there. We are talking between TWO AND TWO AND A HALF SECONDS TO SIXTY!
Either the stats produced for the engine are all wrong or it only produces the stated power over a very narrow band compared to the BMW engine, or somethings wrong cos that difference in performance over the first 60mph is staggering for two cars where the slower car has the best stats.
Anyone got nay comparison figures for what happens after 60?
Zod said:
I wouldn't call that conclusive by any means. Claiming that it is the best handling, in a way that suggests it is way out in front, is ridiculously jingoistic.
I'm not here to convince you, but to share my opinion. However, it also seems to be the opinion of many others on another forum of mainly XF owners (mixed in with other brands) who have mostly come from German marques (including me). Most seem to agree that equivalent BMW handling is not great compared to the XF.jamieduff1981 said:
It can only be launch control, which is for fannies.
The outgoing XFR-S I have posts 0-60mph in 4.4 secs and 0-62mph in 4.6secs. It'll break traction in 4th in the wet on 295 section Michelin Pilot Super Sports and is traction limited to around 60ish in the dry anyway.
5.8secs to 60 is plenty for a brisk saloon.
My TVR Cerbera posts 0-60 in 3.9 seconds and achieving that is both very challenging and very fast.
0-60 nowadays has little to do with power and everything to do with off-the-line traction, which isn't especially relevant for family saloon cars that rarely do standing starts on launch control.
If the figures are all important for bragging to colleagues then by all means use them - but let's not get confused and suggest the new XF discussed here will be a slow car compared to the BMW on the move, because that's patently stupid.
I'm being given no reason to think otherwise. No ones arguing about a few tenths here. but the times I quoted are well over two seconds to sixty. I have to restate that two seconds is an absolutely enormous gap you guys just choose to ignore.The outgoing XFR-S I have posts 0-60mph in 4.4 secs and 0-62mph in 4.6secs. It'll break traction in 4th in the wet on 295 section Michelin Pilot Super Sports and is traction limited to around 60ish in the dry anyway.
5.8secs to 60 is plenty for a brisk saloon.
My TVR Cerbera posts 0-60 in 3.9 seconds and achieving that is both very challenging and very fast.
0-60 nowadays has little to do with power and everything to do with off-the-line traction, which isn't especially relevant for family saloon cars that rarely do standing starts on launch control.
If the figures are all important for bragging to colleagues then by all means use them - but let's not get confused and suggest the new XF discussed here will be a slow car compared to the BMW on the move, because that's patently stupid.
If you ever tried launch control in a BMW, you'll know it isn't any faster than just putting your foot down. So I don't really gel with the whole 'it looks terrible on paper but once it gets going they'll be about the same', or'its all down to launch control'
Anyway, if its just me being hard on the brand, then I apologise, but after coming out of MY Cerbera (incidently I'm buggered if I can do 3.9 in mine), or even a 3 series BMW, for all the reasons stated in my last post Jaguar wouldn't get me as a customer, and I suspect unless you lot are a little less forgiving, Jaguar will persist.
It probably is my immaturity in a car because I do enjoy traffic light GPs, and the country lanes in the Cerbera, and want at least a shadow of that in my daily shed.
fatboy b said:
Sounds like you weren't doing the mileage to warrant a diesel in the first place. Most XF DPF problems (well all brands) are due to the low amount of miles from start to stop continuously. I've done 70K miles in my XFSs and not once has a DPF light come on.
Oh, and don't kid yourself that BMW and their dealers are any better. They're not,
It went far deeper than that. Going into limp mode after long motorway drives, not allowing me to recycle. DPF blocking within 50 miles of a dealer recycle. Dealer and several Jaguar staff technicians all tried to understand the fault codes without success, although they all accepted something was fundamentally wrong, whilst a Jaguar Breakdown technician told me the problem was rife on Jaguar and Land Rover/Range Rover V6 models and that the latest tech was only going to make it worse. Jaguar themselves spent weeks studying the data from my car without resolving the problem.Oh, and don't kid yourself that BMW and their dealers are any better. They're not,
When the car was right it was wonderful, but it was impossible to trust it to complete any journey without going into limp mode.
Have owned BMWs almost continuously from 1990 to date and only once had cause to complain about a dealer on service or warranty. I covered 300000 miles in 3 5-Series BMWs over 12 years without major problems. My wife's 11 year old Z4 is fault free, as was her 325i Coupe over 9 years, so one can only hope!
Who cares about 0-60 in a car such as this for heaven's sake? (Or in any car for that matter). The torque, handling and refinement in these things is prodigious. I have a 2009 version S which is 100kg heavier and 60 lb/ft down: it goes like a stabbed rat and is fantastic to drive. This thing must be terrific. Great buy in about 3 years 
julian64 said:
jamieduff1981 said:
It can only be launch control, which is for fannies.
The outgoing XFR-S I have posts 0-60mph in 4.4 secs and 0-62mph in 4.6secs. It'll break traction in 4th in the wet on 295 section Michelin Pilot Super Sports and is traction limited to around 60ish in the dry anyway.
5.8secs to 60 is plenty for a brisk saloon.
My TVR Cerbera posts 0-60 in 3.9 seconds and achieving that is both very challenging and very fast.
0-60 nowadays has little to do with power and everything to do with off-the-line traction, which isn't especially relevant for family saloon cars that rarely do standing starts on launch control.
If the figures are all important for bragging to colleagues then by all means use them - but let's not get confused and suggest the new XF discussed here will be a slow car compared to the BMW on the move, because that's patently stupid.
I'm being given no reason to think otherwise. No ones arguing about a few tenths here. but the times I quoted are well over two seconds to sixty. I have to restate that two seconds is an absolutely enormous gap you guys just choose to ignore.The outgoing XFR-S I have posts 0-60mph in 4.4 secs and 0-62mph in 4.6secs. It'll break traction in 4th in the wet on 295 section Michelin Pilot Super Sports and is traction limited to around 60ish in the dry anyway.
5.8secs to 60 is plenty for a brisk saloon.
My TVR Cerbera posts 0-60 in 3.9 seconds and achieving that is both very challenging and very fast.
0-60 nowadays has little to do with power and everything to do with off-the-line traction, which isn't especially relevant for family saloon cars that rarely do standing starts on launch control.
If the figures are all important for bragging to colleagues then by all means use them - but let's not get confused and suggest the new XF discussed here will be a slow car compared to the BMW on the move, because that's patently stupid.
If you ever tried launch control in a BMW, you'll know it isn't any faster than just putting your foot down. So I don't really gel with the whole 'it looks terrible on paper but once it gets going they'll be about the same', or'its all down to launch control'
Anyway, if its just me being hard on the brand, then I apologise, but after coming out of MY Cerbera (incidently I'm buggered if I can do 3.9 in mine), or even a 3 series BMW, for all the reasons stated in my last post Jaguar wouldn't get me as a customer, and I suspect unless you lot are a little less forgiving, Jaguar will persist.
It probably is my immaturity in a car because I do enjoy traffic light GPs, and the country lanes in the Cerbera, and want at least a shadow of that in my daily shed.
I'm glad we have common Cerb ground. Something doesn't add up with these saloon cars. The 550ps R-S weighing near 2 tonnes returns slightly slower 0-60 times than our Cerberas which weigh 1.2 tonnes to be conservative and 400bhp to be optimistic. That's fine. The Cerbera and XFR-S both have traction management to consider.
Ergo how on earth can a near 2-tonne 5 series with their 35 diesel achieve the same 0-60 sprints with sub-Cerbera power, when the significantly more powerful XFR-S (and big AMGs and M cars) can't do any better?
If it's simply because the BMW diesel's power delivery coincidently matches the maximum traction its rear tyres can provide in good conditions that's fine - but then the on paper very similarly matched XF-S should do the same, but it doesn't.
I'd like someone to explain to me why not.
The interior and exterior look nicely styled to my eyes. Looks like a winner. I dont imagine the rivals are massively worse or better, comes down to styling preference, brand and that it has 10% more torque than the BMW 5er and 10% less weight which is quite an achievement as the BMW will obviously be a good car.
The 4000 rpm power peak is lower then the BMW which explains the lower peak power - yet likely higher power in the Jag at any given "in use" rev level. Change that to 4100 and the stats will change again. Pity we never see power graphs any more in reports or articles, it would be nice (for curiosity purposes) to overlay these different engines.
Given it is an 8 speed auto, not sure how often you are bouncing off the limiter at peak power anyway.
As for the deliberately disingenuous post about a 4wd car being faster, that is a strange comparison to make.
I imagine it will drive very well, shame to hear the owner above had DPF problems, which seems to be affecting plenty of cars and brands in the last decade. I say imagine, because cant afford such a car for many years. Often wonder why we need 300hp & 100hp/l in cars but seems that's what people want to spend their £50k on. Cant say I ever feel cars are slow even in 1.2l hire car fodder which i often drive for example. Just press the pedal further, they all do 90mph cruise fairly effortlessy and i dont live in Germany so that is my absolute max.
Looking forward to maybe owning one in 5 years with that lovely big sunroof.
The 4000 rpm power peak is lower then the BMW which explains the lower peak power - yet likely higher power in the Jag at any given "in use" rev level. Change that to 4100 and the stats will change again. Pity we never see power graphs any more in reports or articles, it would be nice (for curiosity purposes) to overlay these different engines.
Given it is an 8 speed auto, not sure how often you are bouncing off the limiter at peak power anyway.
As for the deliberately disingenuous post about a 4wd car being faster, that is a strange comparison to make.
I imagine it will drive very well, shame to hear the owner above had DPF problems, which seems to be affecting plenty of cars and brands in the last decade. I say imagine, because cant afford such a car for many years. Often wonder why we need 300hp & 100hp/l in cars but seems that's what people want to spend their £50k on. Cant say I ever feel cars are slow even in 1.2l hire car fodder which i often drive for example. Just press the pedal further, they all do 90mph cruise fairly effortlessy and i dont live in Germany so that is my absolute max.
Looking forward to maybe owning one in 5 years with that lovely big sunroof.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff