RE: Jaguar XE V6 S: UK Review
Discussion
Crikey, this is just like all of the other threads about the XE/F-Type. Contributors broadly split into two categories: 1/ Wild-eyed BMW/Audi/Mercedes haters for whom it's 'Anything But German', making lots of sweeping statements about it being 'clearly a better car but the diesel driving PCP idiot sheep don't care because they're not driving heroes like us' and 2/ People for whom Jaguar will never win their business, as they're expecting Jaguar to compete on the ground the German manufacturers excel at - seemingly failing to accept that Jaguar won't win on infotainment and gadgets so they have to adopt a slightly different strategy (ride/handling/not German-ness etc).
Why can't we comment on a new car without it going tribal inside three posts for once? It's great to have choice and when we're all in our self-driving pods in ten years time, we'll probably look back at all of these cars with misty eyes. FWIW, I like the look of the XE (and I have a 3-series as my day-to-day car) although as someone said above, an estate and AWD would be needed for me to buy one, but it sounds like those are in the pipeline. My only regret is Jaguar's ill-advised 're-defining the sports saloon' advertising strap line - clearly nonsense, but an interesting and apparently good car nonetheless.
Why can't we comment on a new car without it going tribal inside three posts for once? It's great to have choice and when we're all in our self-driving pods in ten years time, we'll probably look back at all of these cars with misty eyes. FWIW, I like the look of the XE (and I have a 3-series as my day-to-day car) although as someone said above, an estate and AWD would be needed for me to buy one, but it sounds like those are in the pipeline. My only regret is Jaguar's ill-advised 're-defining the sports saloon' advertising strap line - clearly nonsense, but an interesting and apparently good car nonetheless.
Nohedes said:
Crikey, this is just like all of the other threads about the XE/F-Type.
Every car on PH has to have a 'narrative' by which people not in a position to drive one can hate it without having to think to hard. XE is RWD so can't be hated for that, and it's not exceptionally heavy (weight is a catch all abuse angle for anything as all modern cars are built unnecessarily heavy, purely out of spite by the manufacturers).
I doubt anyone will be misty eyed about a car with a ZF auto. Otherwise, though, I agree - there's a lot to applaud in Jaguar focussing on the chassis over silly gadgets, and supercharging is less bad than turbocharging. I've not driven one, though, and I don't trust car reviews in the slightest. In my experience, very average cars are raved about and good cars are overlooked if they don't fit the current narrative.
George111 said:
big_rob_sydney said:
Of more interest to me is the performance of the car, and this is where it falls down to cars that are 7 years older, as I mentioned previously.
7 years in design terms is a generation. To be a generation behind, with a brand new car, is a disgraceful outcome.
It's not 7 years behind, if you care about such frippery the 0-60 dash is less than 5s so it's hardly slow and is likely to give quite reasonable in gear times. It's got more power than the 340i and the S4 and it handles better than both of them. As has already been said, only a fool would gauge a whole car by it's 0-60mph time.7 years in design terms is a generation. To be a generation behind, with a brand new car, is a disgraceful outcome.
A supercharger will always be less efficient than a turbo but it doesn't appear to affect the XE very much. The engine is also proven from the f-type so it is a couple of years old but then so is the BMW straight 6 and the Audi V6 in the S4 (with supercharger) so it's hardly 7 years.
It is expensive but only when viewed against the massive discounts BMW are giving on petrol cars right now - you can get £10k off a 340i from Coast to Coast cars in the UK. Big discounts don't bode well for long term residuals and BMW have pretty much flooded the market with 3 series, so the XE is likely to offer significantly better residuals than the 3-series and certainly the current generation S4.
0-62mph: 5.1sec
Why are you talking out of your arse?
Have a look at a 2009 s4. Same time 5.1 seconds.
Again, why are you talking out of your arse. Come back once you have something of use to say.
Kolbenkopp]Not sure why people are complaining about performance stats. The XE does 0-100 in 11.5 secs [1 said:
, on par with a current 340i and faster than the outgoing S4. Pretty good result for something RWD, no?
Not that this really matters IMO -- good thing the power escalation seems to have slowed down a bit. The "Sub-M" compact saloons all seem to stay around 300-350 PS. Easily sufficient. And I think Jag are doing it right, focus on the bits that make it enjoyable to drive while delivering comparable performance stats.
If there is anything to criticize, for me it is the styling which is a bit too generic. And the street price with current discounts seems to be 10% higher than a BMW. Pretty sure the S4 will be more expensive though. But thinking residuals will be strong for the Jag is certainly optimistic. I'm pretty sure in Europe that won't be the case. Hence very few people will rent a V6S.
[1] http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-jaguar-xe...
0-100? Sorry buddy, but while I can probably get away with a 0-60 in a built up area, doing 0-100 is largely never going to happen. I would suggest to you the total percentage of time you would be able to do this would be less than 1% of your ownership experience.Not that this really matters IMO -- good thing the power escalation seems to have slowed down a bit. The "Sub-M" compact saloons all seem to stay around 300-350 PS. Easily sufficient. And I think Jag are doing it right, focus on the bits that make it enjoyable to drive while delivering comparable performance stats.
If there is anything to criticize, for me it is the styling which is a bit too generic. And the street price with current discounts seems to be 10% higher than a BMW. Pretty sure the S4 will be more expensive though. But thinking residuals will be strong for the Jag is certainly optimistic. I'm pretty sure in Europe that won't be the case. Hence very few people will rent a V6S.
[1] http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-jaguar-xe...
0-60 though is something you could manage multiple times a day, multiple times, and still retain your license.
My issue is that the car should be a lot faster (as I mentioned, 7 year old competition was doing it), and for less money (£55k is a lot of money in this segment, for only average performance).
big_rob_sydney said:
The article states in black and white:
0-62mph: 5.1sec
Why are you talking out of your arse?
Have a look at a 2009 s4. Same time 5.1 seconds.
Again, why are you talking out of your arse. Come back once you have something of use to say.
http://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/jaguar/xe 0-62mph: 5.1sec
Why are you talking out of your arse?
Have a look at a 2009 s4. Same time 5.1 seconds.
Again, why are you talking out of your arse. Come back once you have something of use to say.
Says 4.9s to 60mph - might be longer to 62
What's with the rudeness and mention of arse, is your boyfriend not playing today ?
0-whatever is a pretty silly benchmark, as nobody who pays for their own clutches and tyres will do many full bore starts!
Anyone who thinks 5 seconds to 60 isn't more than fast enough for a saloon has no clue at all. I can count on 1 hand the times I have ever thought 'Not enough power' in any car with over 300bhp. Our roads are not suited to hugely powerful cars. Most people who bang on about cars needing 500bhp to be properly fast never use more than half throttle and 200bhp.
Anyone who thinks 5 seconds to 60 isn't more than fast enough for a saloon has no clue at all. I can count on 1 hand the times I have ever thought 'Not enough power' in any car with over 300bhp. Our roads are not suited to hugely powerful cars. Most people who bang on about cars needing 500bhp to be properly fast never use more than half throttle and 200bhp.
big_rob_sydney said:
George111 said:
big_rob_sydney said:
Of more interest to me is the performance of the car, and this is where it falls down to cars that are 7 years older, as I mentioned previously.
7 years in design terms is a generation. To be a generation behind, with a brand new car, is a disgraceful outcome.
It's not 7 years behind, if you care about such frippery the 0-60 dash is less than 5s so it's hardly slow and is likely to give quite reasonable in gear times. It's got more power than the 340i and the S4 and it handles better than both of them. As has already been said, only a fool would gauge a whole car by it's 0-60mph time.7 years in design terms is a generation. To be a generation behind, with a brand new car, is a disgraceful outcome.
A supercharger will always be less efficient than a turbo but it doesn't appear to affect the XE very much. The engine is also proven from the f-type so it is a couple of years old but then so is the BMW straight 6 and the Audi V6 in the S4 (with supercharger) so it's hardly 7 years.
It is expensive but only when viewed against the massive discounts BMW are giving on petrol cars right now - you can get £10k off a 340i from Coast to Coast cars in the UK. Big discounts don't bode well for long term residuals and BMW have pretty much flooded the market with 3 series, so the XE is likely to offer significantly better residuals than the 3-series and certainly the current generation S4.
0-62mph: 5.1sec
Why are you talking out of your arse?
Have a look at a 2009 s4. Same time 5.1 seconds.
Again, why are you talking out of your arse. Come back once you have something of use to say.
Kolbenkopp]Not sure why people are complaining about performance stats. The XE does 0-100 in 11.5 secs [1 said:
, on par with a current 340i and faster than the outgoing S4. Pretty good result for something RWD, no?
Not that this really matters IMO -- good thing the power escalation seems to have slowed down a bit. The "Sub-M" compact saloons all seem to stay around 300-350 PS. Easily sufficient. And I think Jag are doing it right, focus on the bits that make it enjoyable to drive while delivering comparable performance stats.
If there is anything to criticize, for me it is the styling which is a bit too generic. And the street price with current discounts seems to be 10% higher than a BMW. Pretty sure the S4 will be more expensive though. But thinking residuals will be strong for the Jag is certainly optimistic. I'm pretty sure in Europe that won't be the case. Hence very few people will rent a V6S.
[1] http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-jaguar-xe...
0-100? Sorry buddy, but while I can probably get away with a 0-60 in a built up area, doing 0-100 is largely never going to happen. I would suggest to you the total percentage of time you would be able to do this would be less than 1% of your ownership experience.Not that this really matters IMO -- good thing the power escalation seems to have slowed down a bit. The "Sub-M" compact saloons all seem to stay around 300-350 PS. Easily sufficient. And I think Jag are doing it right, focus on the bits that make it enjoyable to drive while delivering comparable performance stats.
If there is anything to criticize, for me it is the styling which is a bit too generic. And the street price with current discounts seems to be 10% higher than a BMW. Pretty sure the S4 will be more expensive though. But thinking residuals will be strong for the Jag is certainly optimistic. I'm pretty sure in Europe that won't be the case. Hence very few people will rent a V6S.
[1] http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-jaguar-xe...
0-60 though is something you could manage multiple times a day, multiple times, and still retain your license.
My issue is that the car should be a lot faster (as I mentioned, 7 year old competition was doing it), and for less money (£55k is a lot of money in this segment, for only average performance).
Besides, comparing the XE to an S4, which by most accounts is a bit s
t purely by its 0-60 time really is somewhat shortsighted.I suspect the subtle tactile qualities of a beautifully set up rear wheel drive chassis will be somewhat lost on the type of ape who can only measure a car by a 0-60 figure against a 4 wheel drive car.
Just buy the S4. It's dreadful to drive, but if you consider a rolling pin a precision instrument you'll love it.
Just buy the S4. It's dreadful to drive, but if you consider a rolling pin a precision instrument you'll love it.
paralla said:
I always wonder why JLR products are so heavy considering all the aluminium.
This is 50kg heavier than an equivalent 340i auto.
It would handle even better and have more competitive emissions if it hadn't eaten all the pies.
Don't BMW use a lot of plastic in the body. The frnts wings are/were.This is 50kg heavier than an equivalent 340i auto.
It would handle even better and have more competitive emissions if it hadn't eaten all the pies.
George111 said:
http://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/jaguar/xe
Says 4.9s to 60mph - might be longer to 62
What's with the rudeness and mention of arse, is your boyfriend not playing today ?
Thats funny actually. You want to cast the first stone and now you whinge about it? Keep talking out of your arse.Says 4.9s to 60mph - might be longer to 62
What's with the rudeness and mention of arse, is your boyfriend not playing today ?
Edited by big_rob_sydney on Monday 28th March 20:50
I think some of you guys are taking the s4 reference a little too literally. My point was that a car in the same segment (it could be ANY car), could do this 7 years ago.
Whether its an s4, or any other car, is irrelevant.
What IS relevant, is that this is being compared across a variety of characteristics, including performance, to others. And it cannot match a very old metric, even with the benefit of years of development.
And, at a very high price.
Whether its an s4, or any other car, is irrelevant.
What IS relevant, is that this is being compared across a variety of characteristics, including performance, to others. And it cannot match a very old metric, even with the benefit of years of development.
And, at a very high price.
George111 said:
Nohedes said:
My only regret is Jaguar's ill-advised 're-defining the sports saloon' advertising strap line - clearly nonsense, but an interesting and apparently good car nonetheless.
Like BMW's "The Ultimate driving machine" . . . oh yes, well chosen words there big_rob_sydney said:
I think some of you guys are taking the s4 reference a little too literally. My point was that a car in the same segment (it could be ANY car), could do this 7 years ago.
Whether its an s4, or any other car, is irrelevant.
What IS relevant, is that this is being compared across a variety of characteristics, including performance, to others. And it cannot match a very old metric, even with the benefit of years of development.
And, at a very high price.
So its 0-60 is 5.1, the same as an old Audi S4. So it can match a very old metric. I would add that you, me and anyone else does not need a 4 door sports saloon to be any quicker in the 0-60. I mean that: quicker then most, if not all 70s/80s supercars, and probably 90s sportscars. Yet it has 4 doors, a decent boot, and isn't the quickest car in the range. You cant expect the next generation to be quicker then the last. The real news, as other manufacturers are all working towards, is being more efficient in every metric: performance with decent fuel consumption, weight saving, not being larger then the last generation but having better packaging. Whether its an s4, or any other car, is irrelevant.
What IS relevant, is that this is being compared across a variety of characteristics, including performance, to others. And it cannot match a very old metric, even with the benefit of years of development.
And, at a very high price.
The story of the XE is not that it isn't any quicker then an old Audi. It excels in so many other areas, which are more important
I'm shocked it wasn't mentioned on the first page but.....
E46 M3 was normally aspirated and made 3bhp more than this all those years ago.
The CSL was 360bhp and still normally aspirated.
So slapping a turbo on something and it being nearly as powerful is hardly difficult.
I'd compare it more to a 90's Supra Twin Turbo and, funny enough, it makes about the same now as a Surpa did then.
E46 M3 was normally aspirated and made 3bhp more than this all those years ago.
The CSL was 360bhp and still normally aspirated.
So slapping a turbo on something and it being nearly as powerful is hardly difficult.
I'd compare it more to a 90's Supra Twin Turbo and, funny enough, it makes about the same now as a Surpa did then.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff