RE: Jaguar XF TDV6 S: Driven
Discussion
///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?
I can secure a 20% discount on an XF S petrol saloon and no I dont work or have any family working for Jaguar. That would be 40k then for a car in a higher class with a 380bhp petrol engine, rear wheel drive and higher spec. No contest really is it.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?
Twoshoe said:
BeirutTaxi said:
Amazing to see how much cars cost new, huge amount of money.
Not sure how true that is actually. I thought cars today are no more expensive now than they used to be (allowing for inflation of course). Hopefully some statistics-guru can confirm (or refute) this.In fact, checking back...
Merc 300E-24, as tested in the May 1990 CAR magazine road test
Base cost on the road with no extras: £32,240
Some of the available options --
Air con: £2,002.40
Electric seats: £436.10 per seat, so £872.20 for the pair
Front seat heating: £365.52
Adjustable steering wheel reach/rake: £335.97
Leather seats: £1,524.75
All of which would be standard today.
Warranty was 12 months only. Car had 231 bhp and 200 lb/ft ; the auto gearbox was a 4-speeder; it did 19.7 mpg average on test; it came on 195/65 15 tyres; it did 0-100 in 19.5 secs.
UK average earnings in 1990 were £13,760. in 2014: £27,195
On that basis, cars today are dirt cheap compared to their predecessors.
Edited by Lowtimer on Wednesday 20th January 16:23
Lowtimer said:
Twoshoe said:
BeirutTaxi said:
Amazing to see how much cars cost new, huge amount of money.
Not sure how true that is actually. I thought cars today are no more expensive now than they used to be (allowing for inflation of course). Hopefully some statistics-guru can confirm (or refute) this.In fact, checking back...
Merc 300E-24, as tested in the May 1990 CAR magazine road test
Base cost on the road with no extras: £32,240
Some of the available options --
Air con: £2,002.40
Electric seats: £436.10 per seat, so £872.20 for the pair
Front seat heating: £365.52
Adjustable steering wheel reach/rake: £335.97
Leather seats: £1,524.75
All of which would be standard today.
Warranty was 12 months only. Car had 231 bhp and 200 lb/ft ; the auto gearbox was a 4-speeder; it did 19.7 mpg average on test; it came on 195/65 15 tyres; it did 0-100 in 19.5 secs.
UK average earnings in 1990 were £13,760. in 2014: £27,195
On that basis, cars today are dirt cheap compared to their predecessors.
Edited by Lowtimer on Wednesday 20th January 16:23
Mercedes aren't of the same status as they were 25 years ago, these days in terms of prestige they are watered down and hence comparatively cheaper compared to what they use to be.
I wasn't directly comparing new and old prices either. For an average person with an average sized mortgage, a £50k overpayment would knock around 10-15 years off their term. As I said, huge amount of money.
Just my view anyway
Quite so. People forget what real value loss happens due to inflation depreciating the money unit of value over 30 or 40 years..
First house I ever bought, in 1972, cost £4,000. Put down £750 as a deposit, the other £3,250 was on my first mortgage. I lay awake 1/2 the night before I had to go into the building society to sign off the paperwork, wondering if I was doing the right thing... And, that price got us a 3 bedroom detached house too. In the midlands. Worth now - probably £250 to £300K, judging by land registry prices for 3 - bed detached's in that part of Britain.
A typical modern car, built in volume, not some "exotic", at between £20K to £30K list price new today is also far better built, safer, has more equipment included in the price and is also quicker and quieter than anything built 20-plus years ago.. Modern in real terms is better value, pound for pound.
First house I ever bought, in 1972, cost £4,000. Put down £750 as a deposit, the other £3,250 was on my first mortgage. I lay awake 1/2 the night before I had to go into the building society to sign off the paperwork, wondering if I was doing the right thing... And, that price got us a 3 bedroom detached house too. In the midlands. Worth now - probably £250 to £300K, judging by land registry prices for 3 - bed detached's in that part of Britain.
A typical modern car, built in volume, not some "exotic", at between £20K to £30K list price new today is also far better built, safer, has more equipment included in the price and is also quicker and quieter than anything built 20-plus years ago.. Modern in real terms is better value, pound for pound.
The nav system looks like the iGo Primo based aftermarket unit I had in my E39. Which was really good for an aftermarket sytsem in a 15 year old car. Not sure what it's doing in a brand new Jag, though, it looks considerably worse than the system in my F10 and that came out 6 years ago!
The 0-60 debate is amusing but it has substance to it - that substance being you can equal the top end Jag's performance by purchasing the lesser 530d, which is presumably cheaper.
The 0-60 debate is amusing but it has substance to it - that substance being you can equal the top end Jag's performance by purchasing the lesser 530d, which is presumably cheaper.
Baryonyx said:
lotus116tornado said:
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.
I don't suppose many people buying diesel saloons care about the handling though, but whatever...
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.
Odd isn't it, jag launch new car with sat nav ICE and HUD that lags behind much older rivals? All this stuff is 3rd party supplied why can't they get the modern stuff. Sat Nav looks last generation too.
It's a very pretty car and I think the engine at 300hp and 516 is competitive but it still manages to be 15-20% slower to 62 than the key rivals, why? When Jag say it only weighs 1750kg, they must be telling porkies again about the kerb weight...
Wills2 said:
It's a very pretty car and I think the engine at 300hp and 516 is competitive but it still manages to be 15-20% slower to 62 than the key rivals, why? When Jag say it only weighs 1750kg, they must be telling porkies again about the kerb weight...
You'll have to wait for a proper test to see what it really does.Jaguar may be looking for different characteristics from their car than BMW so the calibration on their engine and gearbox will reflect this. So perhaps in-gear acceleration time will be very different and possibly beat the 535d once it's tested properly.
The only place a 0-60 is relevant is the M6 toll barriers
Everywhere else 50-90 is probably far more relevant and as the Jaguar has over 60lb ft more torque than the BMW, it might leave the m-sport brigade eating its dust Have changed recently to 3.0ds & cannot recommend highly enough. Had Porsche Cayman S before this with 320hp & have to say the Jag is more than enough for everyday driving with 275hp & 440 ft/lb of torque. Have had 5 bmw's over the years, most recently 530d & would not compare with current car. Everyday driving is 30 - 70 mph, not 0-60 speeds & this car is more than enough. Also the spec on Portfolio model is 2nd to none. Just my opinion.
George111 said:
Wills2 said:
It's a very pretty car and I think the engine at 300hp and 516 is competitive but it still manages to be 15-20% slower to 62 than the key rivals, why? When Jag say it only weighs 1750kg, they must be telling porkies again about the kerb weight...
You'll have to wait for a proper test to see what it really does.Jaguar may be looking for different characteristics from their car than BMW so the calibration on their engine and gearbox will reflect this. So perhaps in-gear acceleration time will be very different and possibly beat the 535d once it's tested properly.
The only place a 0-60 is relevant is the M6 toll barriers
Everywhere else 50-90 is probably far more relevant and as the Jaguar has over 60lb ft more torque than the BMW, it might leave the m-sport brigade eating its dust Wills2 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.
Odd isn't it, jag launch new car with sat nav ICE and HUD that lags behind much older rivals? All this stuff is 3rd party supplied why can't they get the modern stuff. Sat Nav looks last generation too.
It's a very pretty car and I think the engine at 300hp and 516 is competitive but it still manages to be 15-20% slower to 62 than the key rivals, why? When Jag say it only weighs 1750kg, they must be telling porkies again about the kerb weight...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff