RE: Jaguar XF TDV6 S: Driven
Discussion
jamieduff1981 said:
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.
jamieduff1981 said:
I thought I half recognised your user name.
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.
I'm with you there. The stats on these cars makes no sense to me at all. Which is surprising as every manufacturer knows these are the headline figures we use to kick the tyres with. If they are irrelevant to these sort of cars why does PH, and the manufacturer still put them at the bottom of every review.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.
fatboy b said:
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,
julian64 said:
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.
The Jaguar XJ has just been updated with a brand new infotainment system. Which appears as the optional extra in the D segment XF called Incontrol Touch Pro.fatboy b said:
JNR77 said:
Not sure what it is about this new jag but the looks don't seem to have moved on since the last version. I'll stick with my 535d twin turbo
The irony is strong with this one 
Like ...I didn't know they even made one of them ....
///ajd said:
I love this, but it has a rather big problem.
I know its a class lower (and should be compared to 535d), but you can buy a brand new 335d MSport Touring for £32k (broadspeed).
How can you justify the £18k difference?
Because you want a medium sized Jag rather than a sales-rep sized BMW?I know its a class lower (and should be compared to 535d), but you can buy a brand new 335d MSport Touring for £32k (broadspeed).
How can you justify the £18k difference?
Ok, that's a bit glib, but you can buy a Mini Cooper S for £24k. How can you justify the £8k extra for your 335d MSport?
julian64 said:
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.
You clearly have accrued enough money to buy a TVR or a BMW or a Jaguar or whatever you drive. This suggests to me that you must have done some work to earn it.However if you consider the difference between 4.8 and 6.2 to be more than two (as you have stated), I don't know how you've managed to complete that work.
jamieduff1981 said:
///ajd said:
I love this, but it has a rather big problem.
I know its a class lower (and should be compared to 535d), but you can buy a brand new 335d MSport Touring for £32k (broadspeed).
How can you justify the £18k difference?
Because you want a medium sized Jag rather than a sales-rep sized BMW?I know its a class lower (and should be compared to 535d), but you can buy a brand new 335d MSport Touring for £32k (broadspeed).
How can you justify the £18k difference?
Ok, that's a bit glib, but you can buy a Mini Cooper S for £24k. How can you justify the £8k extra for your 335d MSport?
Comparing to a Mini would be daft though, I agree.
philmots said:
Why are people so hung up on the 60 time!?
It's got practically the same power and torque as a 535d, I'm sure they will weigh something close, they even use the same gearbox... I'm sure on the road they'll be as close as the above suggests.
Some people need thouse bragging rights in the pub still.It's got practically the same power and torque as a 535d, I'm sure they will weigh something close, they even use the same gearbox... I'm sure on the road they'll be as close as the above suggests.
The new XF and its German competitors are "executive car park" fodder. Surely most buying decisions at this end of the market are made by comparing monthly lease prices and BIK personal tax charge rates? I think the figure is that 4 of every 5 cars now put onto UK roads are on a PCP lease deal.
Mind you, I'm still reeling from reading that line from the OP "price is £58,000 with the options as fitted". Can't think that 0-60 times guide most purchasing decisions, although the claimed mpg figures might do so. As for a private buyer walking in to buy any of these cars at that price level, well, the line "more money than sense" comes to mind...
Should be an interesting possibility once it's at 3 years+ age, mind you. Some depreciation will make it look a lot better value.
Mind you, I'm still reeling from reading that line from the OP "price is £58,000 with the options as fitted". Can't think that 0-60 times guide most purchasing decisions, although the claimed mpg figures might do so. As for a private buyer walking in to buy any of these cars at that price level, well, the line "more money than sense" comes to mind...
Should be an interesting possibility once it's at 3 years+ age, mind you. Some depreciation will make it look a lot better value.
FourRingedDonuts said:
Mine says 0-62 = 5.3 yours says 0-62 = 6.2. I WIN
It's just Top Trumps for grown ups.
We all buy in to the numbers from manufactures sadly, even when we know they have little relevance in the real world.
Speed sells.......
There are many of us who don't want anything to do with S-Line, M-Sport, R-Type, 0-60mph etc We just want a comfortable, swift, quiet petrol car that can take 5 people and luggage 300 miles in a go but the manufacturers seem to have forgotten this for a few years now, focussing on the so called "sporty saloon" which is nothing but an uncomfortable, noisy bone shaker.It's just Top Trumps for grown ups.
We all buy in to the numbers from manufactures sadly, even when we know they have little relevance in the real world.
Speed sells.......
Audi now have the A8 4.0 V8 now so you get a similar engine to the S8 but without the barry boy accessories and rubber band tyres and I'm really hoping Jaguar make a V8 XF without the supercharger and the Halfords R seats and badges/bodykit, say 350bhp and super wafty and smooth. I looked at the XE last month but it's just too small (and V6 is only available in S) but the XF would be about perfect.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff