RE: New 300hp engine for Jaguar XE, XF and F-Pace

RE: New 300hp engine for Jaguar XE, XF and F-Pace

Monday 26th June 2017

New 300hp engine for Jaguar XE, XF and F-Pace

F-Type's 2.0-litre turbo makes it to more Jags



It's not long now until we get to drive the four-cylinder Jaguar F-Type, a significant addition to a range of cars celebrated for their brazen soundtracks and outrageous performance. Can it still feel like an F-Type with four cylinders? Will it be a better four-cylinder sports car than a 718 Cayman? What will it sound like?


Those are questions to be answered soon, but before then we have news of more four-cylinder Jags: the XE, XF and F-Pace are all now available with the 300hp, 295lb ft 2.0-litre Ingenium turbo engine. Using a twin-scroll turbo and ceramic ball bearings, Jaguar claims the engine "delivers exceptionally smooth acceleration... and outstanding responses." All models use the eight-speed automatic.

In the F-Pace, that means 0-62mph in six seconds and 37mpg. The saloons are quicker, the XF hitting 62mph in 5.6 seconds and the XE 5.5, with both also returning 40mpg or more.


Now while some may not be too pleased at the prospect of new fast Jaguar saloons without six- or eight-cylinder engines, these XEs and XFs do arrive at an interesting time. The smaller saloon of course goes head-to-head with that other non-German four-cylinder alternative, the Alfa Giulia Veloce. There is BMW 340i to consider as well, but there isn't a high-powered petrol A4 below the S4 and the 300hp Mercedes C-Class is the C350e hybrid.

As for the XF, it compares quite favorably with the BMW 530i (252hp and 258lb ft, but 48.7mpg) and is about on par with Mercedes E350e, which uses the same powertrain as the C-Class.

All 300hp models are available to order now, although prices are yet to be announced. More info soon!



 

 

Author
Discussion

redrook

Original Poster:

41 posts

105 months

Monday 26th June 2017
quotequote all
Cue all the PH'ers who talk about how the 40-cylinder isn't as "refined" or whatever, despite having never driven it, or possessing any inkling of the meaning of the term.

J4CKO

41,287 posts

199 months

Monday 26th June 2017
quotequote all
Fuel economy figures provided by Jay from the Inbetweeners.




Ares

11,000 posts

119 months

Monday 26th June 2017
quotequote all
Such a shame Jag still haven't stuck a proper high powered engine in the XE, with decent engines in their portfolio already, it's a missed open goal.

tejr

3,101 posts

163 months

Monday 26th June 2017
quotequote all
Never a good thing to offer too many options imo. It dilutes the brand/marques image imo. In the same way that Bob down the road things his 318i M sport is the same as your 335i etc.

havoc

29,928 posts

234 months

Monday 26th June 2017
quotequote all
redrook said:
Cue all the PH'ers who talk about how the 40-cylinder isn't as "refined" or whatever, despite having never driven it, or possessing any inkling of the meaning of the term.
I think most of them are bemoaning more than refinement:-
- Sound. NO turbo'd 4 sounds as good as a properly-tuned 6.
- throttle-response
- flexibility / rev-range

...all in the name of emissions targets. Pretty sad really...

Dr G

15,159 posts

241 months

Monday 26th June 2017
quotequote all
So there isn't a comparable petrol A4 but there is a comparable BMW with 252 BHP (the same power output as the 2.0T A4).

OK...

TomScrut

2,546 posts

87 months

Monday 26th June 2017
quotequote all
Dr G said:
So there isn't a comparable petrol A4 but there is a comparable BMW with 252 BHP (the same power output as the 2.0T A4).

OK...
I thought that too. In the same way that the 340i is 26hp (1 litre and 2 cylinders) more than these cars.

TomScrut

2,546 posts

87 months

Monday 26th June 2017
quotequote all
havoc said:
redrook said:
Cue all the PH'ers who talk about how the 40-cylinder isn't as "refined" or whatever, despite having never driven it, or possessing any inkling of the meaning of the term.
I think most of them are bemoaning more than refinement:-
- Sound. NO turbo'd 4 sounds as good as a properly-tuned 6.
- throttle-response
- flexibility / rev-range

...all in the name of emissions targets. Pretty sad really...
Exactly. 6 cylinders almost always sound better than 4 when in a road car. My experience with 300hp 4 cylinder (Golf R) vs 350hp 6 cylinder (S5) has been that the power delivery is far superior with the added engine capacity (admittedly the S5 has a twin scroll wheras the Golf doesn't I don't think) and the fuel is to within 10% in my use with another 50hp which is around 15%. And the S5 also has a less efficient 4WD system given that it is permanent rather than the haldex system in the Golf.

D200

514 posts

146 months

Monday 26th June 2017
quotequote all
The 340i is BMW's direct competitor for this car

The Jags price and specs etc are on their website - it's list price is just over 38k, same as a 340i


Ares

11,000 posts

119 months

Monday 26th June 2017
quotequote all
D200 said:
The 340i is BMW's direct competitor for this car

The Jags price and specs etc are on their website - it's list price is just over 38k, same as a 340i
That's a mistake for Jaguar, unless the spec is way superior. Why would you got for the 2.0T XE over the 340i? Unless as a protest purchase?

j90gta

563 posts

133 months

Monday 26th June 2017
quotequote all
There was a time when outputs of this type from 4 cylinder engines were seemingly limited to the Impreza/Evo brigade. Everyone was so impressed then so why the hate now? Sadly fossil fuels are a limited resource and the further we can go on a tank-full the better. Just be grateful that manufacturers are willing to spend the time and money to develop such engines that try to offer a reasonable compromise between performance and economy. There will come a time when the internal combustion engine will become obsolete so enjoy them whilst you can.

philmots

4,630 posts

259 months

Monday 26th June 2017
quotequote all
havoc said:
redrook said:
Cue all the PH'ers who talk about how the 40-cylinder isn't as "refined" or whatever, despite having never driven it, or possessing any inkling of the meaning of the term.
I think most of them are bemoaning more than refinement:-
- Sound. NO turbo'd 4 sounds as good as a properly-tuned 6.
- throttle-response
- flexibility / rev-range

...all in the name of emissions targets. Pretty sad really...
A lot of that is rubbish too.

I've got a VAG 2.0T with similar specs 300hp and 280lbft... I've come from V8's i6's etc etc and my wife currently has a 0.9 Turbo Clio that's quite hard work.

If the engine is anywhere near as good as mine the only worry is the sound, they will never ever sound as good as extra cylinders.. The throttle response is literally instant, and although peak torque is at 1800rpm it pulls hard from practically tick over.

I was a doubter, this engine has impressed me so much but I'm genuinely surprised.

I don't know what you have or haven't driven, but you should drive a manual one of mine and see what you think.

Ares

11,000 posts

119 months

Monday 26th June 2017
quotequote all
philmots said:
havoc said:
redrook said:
Cue all the PH'ers who talk about how the 40-cylinder isn't as "refined" or whatever, despite having never driven it, or possessing any inkling of the meaning of the term.
I think most of them are bemoaning more than refinement:-
- Sound. NO turbo'd 4 sounds as good as a properly-tuned 6.
- throttle-response
- flexibility / rev-range

...all in the name of emissions targets. Pretty sad really...
A lot of that is rubbish too.

I've got a VAG 2.0T with similar specs 300hp and 280lbft... I've come from V8's i6's etc etc and my wife currently has a 0.9 Turbo Clio that's quite hard work.

If the engine is anywhere near as good as mine the only worry is the sound, they will never ever sound as good as extra cylinders.. The throttle response is literally instant, and although peak torque is at 1800rpm it pulls hard from practically tick over.

I was a doubter, this engine has impressed me so much but I'm genuinely surprised.

I don't know what you have or haven't driven, but you should drive a manual one of mine and see what you think.
Exactly. IME, those bemoaning throttle response/flexibility are either nit-picking or have never driven the cars in question.

Ares

11,000 posts

119 months

Monday 26th June 2017
quotequote all
j90gta said:
There was a time when outputs of this type from 4 cylinder engines were seemingly limited to the Impreza/Evo brigade. Everyone was so impressed then so why the hate now? Sadly fossil fuels are a limited resource and the further we can go on a tank-full the better. Just be grateful that manufacturers are willing to spend the time and money to develop such engines that try to offer a reasonable compromise between performance and economy. There will come a time when the internal combustion engine will become obsolete so enjoy them whilst you can.
The Subaru managed to sound good though.

Alas the move is partly about real environmental...but seems mostly about political environmental appeasement.

Shiv_P

2,725 posts

104 months

Monday 26th June 2017
quotequote all
What about the XE S
3.0 V6 supercharged or turbo or whatever. Surely that is a closer match for a 340i

J4CKO

41,287 posts

199 months

Monday 26th June 2017
quotequote all
Ares said:
Such a shame Jag still haven't stuck a proper high powered engine in the XE, with decent engines in their portfolio already, it's a missed open goal.
Is coming inst it, a 600 bhp XE was mentioned a few weeks back.

Ares

11,000 posts

119 months

Monday 26th June 2017
quotequote all
Shiv_P said:
What about the XE S
3.0 V6 supercharged or turbo or whatever. Surely that is a closer match for a 340i
Thats 380bhp though, and £50k by the time it gets on the road. 340i is nearly £10k less (just £1000 more than the 2.0T XE)

Pintofbest

804 posts

109 months

Monday 26th June 2017
quotequote all
D200 said:
The 340i is BMW's direct competitor for this car

The Jags price and specs etc are on their website - it's list price is just over 38k, same as a 340i
A 340i is £41,070 according to BMW and is RWD (if XDrive was available it is c£1,500 more) , the Jaguar is just over £38k and is 4 wheel drive - they aren't priced the same, more like 10% different like for like.

Ares

11,000 posts

119 months

Monday 26th June 2017
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
Ares said:
Such a shame Jag still haven't stuck a proper high powered engine in the XE, with decent engines in their portfolio already, it's a missed open goal.
Is coming inst it, a 600 bhp XE was mentioned a few weeks back.
Yes, The SVO Project 8, but its a hand-built, 300 limited run model with a £6-figure price point. Think M4 GTS approach.

craigjm

17,909 posts

199 months

Monday 26th June 2017
quotequote all
Ares said:
J4CKO said:
Ares said:
Such a shame Jag still haven't stuck a proper high powered engine in the XE, with decent engines in their portfolio already, it's a missed open goal.
Is coming inst it, a 600 bhp XE was mentioned a few weeks back.
Yes, The SVO Project 8, but its a hand-built, 300 limited run model with a £6-figure price point. Think M4 GTS approach.
They dont have a viable engine to make a production XE-R type model at the moment. The 5.0 v8 supercharged is a Ford era engine that they have to pay for as a customer and is built for them and is therefore no longer in their future model plans. I am guessing any future high performance cars will have the 3.0 Ingenium and battery assistance.