RE: New 300hp engine for Jaguar XE, XF and F-Pace
Discussion
philmots said:
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.
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 said:
Exactly. IME, those bemoaning throttle response/flexibility are either nit-picking or have never driven the cars in question.
My wife ran a Golf-R for 2 years - I drove it fairly often, sometimes hard enough to see what it could do.So I know that engine, and I know it's one of the better ones in class (much more so than the lower-power versions in the GTi, vRS etc.):-
(a) Very effective package, esp. with the Haldex-5. Point-to-point it's a very quick car, if a little uncommunicative.
(b) Pulls well once on-boost, but is still a little flat off-boost, and the torque curve tails-off from 5,000rpm - it rewards short-shifting more than wringing it out, which is anathema to what a performance engine should be like. As above, it IS one of the better engines regarding low-rev / off-boost performance though...but I think this is at the expense of economy...
(c) Not very economical - I couldn't tickle more than 30mpg from it on a long motorway run where the old Mk5 GTi would deliver maybe 35mpg and my Civic delivers ~32-33mpg. Over a similar journey my very old, 5-speed NSX (with a 3.0 V6 delivering thick end of 300bhp) managed 29mpg. And BMW's N52/N53 engines have been delivering mid-30s mpg (or better) for over a decade...
(d) Got a very fake engine note to disguise the lacklustre actual sound.
So, emissions targets and cheating-to-hit-them aside, I'm not actually sure what these high-output 2.0T engines are supposed to do. In a C-segment hot-hatch they make sense as it's difficult to package a V6, but in a mid-size saloon there's not much point.
craigjm said:
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.havoc said:
My wife ran a Golf-R for 2 years - I drove it fairly often, sometimes hard enough to see what it could do.So I know that engine, and I know it's one of the better ones in class (much more so than the lower-power versions in the GTi, vRS etc.):-
(a) Very effective package, esp. with the Haldex-5. Point-to-point it's a very quick car, if a little uncommunicative.
(b) Pulls well once on-boost, but is still a little flat off-boost, and the torque curve tails-off from 5,000rpm - it rewards short-shifting more than wringing it out, which is anathema to what a performance engine should be like. As above, it IS one of the better engines regarding low-rev / off-boost performance though...but I think this is at the expense of economy...
(c) Not very economical - I couldn't tickle more than 30mpg from it on a long motorway run where the old Mk5 GTi would deliver maybe 35mpg and my Civic delivers ~32-33mpg. Over a similar journey my very old, 5-speed NSX (with a 3.0 V6 delivering thick end of 300bhp) managed 29mpg. And BMW's N52/N53 engines have been delivering mid-30s mpg (or better) for over a decade...
(d) Got a very fake engine note to disguise the lacklustre actual sound.
So, emissions targets and cheating-to-hit-them aside, I'm not actually sure what these high-output 2.0T engines are supposed to do. In a C-segment hot-hatch they make sense as it's difficult to package a V6, but in a mid-size saloon there's not much point.
havoc said:
My wife ran a Golf-R for 2 years - I drove it fairly often, sometimes hard enough to see what it could do.So I know that engine, and I know it's one of the better ones in class (much more so than the lower-power versions in the GTi, vRS etc.):-
(a) Very effective package, esp. with the Haldex-5. Point-to-point it's a very quick car, if a little uncommunicative.
(b) Pulls well once on-boost, but is still a little flat off-boost, and the torque curve tails-off from 5,000rpm - it rewards short-shifting more than wringing it out, which is anathema to what a performance engine should be like. As above, it IS one of the better engines regarding low-rev / off-boost performance though...but I think this is at the expense of economy...
(c) Not very economical - I couldn't tickle more than 30mpg from it on a long motorway run where the old Mk5 GTi would deliver maybe 35mpg and my Civic delivers ~32-33mpg. Over a similar journey my very old, 5-speed NSX (with a 3.0 V6 delivering thick end of 300bhp) managed 29mpg. And BMW's N52/N53 engines have been delivering mid-30s mpg (or better) for over a decade...
(d) Got a very fake engine note to disguise the lacklustre actual sound.
So, emissions targets and cheating-to-hit-them aside, I'm not actually sure what these high-output 2.0T engines are supposed to do. In a C-segment hot-hatch they make sense as it's difficult to package a V6, but in a mid-size saloon there's not much point.
philmots said:
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.
I never found my Golf R to pull hard from tick over vs what my S5 does, which although is 50 more hp that's not really relevant to the bottom of the rev range. Don't get me wrong I like the engine and thought it was good, but not a match for the extra two cylinders and half as much capacity again.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.
But I would imagine its pitched as a more powerful alternative to the 250ish hp 2 litre engines from everyone else rather than fighting the more powerful 6s above it.
Pintofbest said:
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.
The list price is just over 40k, and the jag is 40k when you add on some vital options. Even if the price difference was a couple of grand [which isn’t 10% btw] that’s absolutely nothing when spending around 40k. They are as direct a competitor as there ever was - plus with the BMW you will get a substantial discount so most likely will actually be cheaper than the Jag – as the discounts for the Jag aren’t as big.And in regards being 'like for like', well not everyone will want a 4wd. And not everyone will want an auto. Some people prefer a RWD. At least with the BMW you have choice of RWD and 4WD, Saloon, Estate Coupe, manual or auto plus it’s a 4 or 6cyl petrols or diesels. A 330i is a 2.0 and will have a bit less power but very similar car is 34k list in M sport Trim, before applying any discounts – you are talking just over 30k after discounts for a spec'd model.
I like the Jaguar, and I like Jaguar as a brand, I’m not saying it’s a bad car or anything but it is up against it with the 3 Series
Edited by D200 on Monday 26th June 15:40
Aint no replacement for displacement the yanks used to say..... sounds like many around here are still in that era
If you dont move with the times you die. Jaguar know that better than anyone. If you dont like the new times then spend your money elsewhere its as simple as that. Wait until you see the next XJ with a 3 cylinder 1.5 and a big electric motor.
If you dont move with the times you die. Jaguar know that better than anyone. If you dont like the new times then spend your money elsewhere its as simple as that. Wait until you see the next XJ with a 3 cylinder 1.5 and a big electric motor.
)havoc said:
Ares said:
Exactly. IME, those bemoaning throttle response/flexibility are either nit-picking or have never driven the cars in question.
My wife ran a Golf-R for 2 years - I drove it fairly often, sometimes hard enough to see what it could do.So I know that engine, and I know it's one of the better ones in class (much more so than the lower-power versions in the GTi, vRS etc.):-
(a) Very effective package, esp. with the Haldex-5. Point-to-point it's a very quick car, if a little uncommunicative.
(b) Pulls well once on-boost, but is still a little flat off-boost, and the torque curve tails-off from 5,000rpm - it rewards short-shifting more than wringing it out, which is anathema to what a performance engine should be like. As above, it IS one of the better engines regarding low-rev / off-boost performance though...but I think this is at the expense of economy...
(c) Not very economical - I couldn't tickle more than 30mpg from it on a long motorway run where the old Mk5 GTi would deliver maybe 35mpg and my Civic delivers ~32-33mpg. Over a similar journey my very old, 5-speed NSX (with a 3.0 V6 delivering thick end of 300bhp) managed 29mpg. And BMW's N52/N53 engines have been delivering mid-30s mpg (or better) for over a decade...
(d) Got a very fake engine note to disguise the lacklustre actual sound.
So, emissions targets and cheating-to-hit-them aside, I'm not actually sure what these high-output 2.0T engines are supposed to do. In a C-segment hot-hatch they make sense as it's difficult to package a V6, but in a mid-size saloon there's not much point.
is?It's a heavy AWD hatch, it's not going to be overtly communicative?
It's 300bhp hot hatch...it's not supposed to be economical? But you do seem to get crap economy. A friend has just changed am Jag XK for one, he's marvelling at getting c40 on a motorway run.
As for what blown 2.0T engines in mid-sized saloons are supposed to do.....probably the same as higher BHP sports saloons have been doing for 20 years? The only difference is that whereas the 200-250bhp 328i/A4 2.8/C320 used to be 6-cyl, the nanny state, EU and tree huggers have forced us down an efficiency drive. The cars, in reality, aren't that much different.
Edited by Ares on Monday 26th June 15:42
TomScrut said:
philmots said:
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.
I never found my Golf R to pull hard from tick over vs what my S5 does, which although is 50 more hp that's not really relevant to the bottom of the rev range. Don't get me wrong I like the engine and thought it was good, but not a match for the extra two cylinders and half as much capacity again.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.
But I would imagine its pitched as a more powerful alternative to the 250ish hp 2 litre engines from everyone else rather than fighting the more powerful 6s above it.
I think Jaguar are looking to the future, they are selling these cars into a global market, were many countries are penalizing big cubed engines over 2 litre by huge taxation. Therefore the only way to offer potential customers in these markets Jaguar Performance at an affordable price is to build 2.0 litre turbo engines. Please remember Jaguar have had a 2.0 XJ for a number of years in foreign markets. The UK government could go the same way with more punitive taxes on large engines, Jaguar will then have been vindicated by been market ready
JamesRR said:
You say there's not much point in a powerful turbo four in a mid sized saloon, but I'd like to point out the Sierra Cosworth. Most people seem to like that a lot, and you don't hear many wishing they had a Granada with the Cosworth V6 (as good a car as that may or may not be in its own right). I agree with that poster who said these engines were held up as remarkable in the Japanese rally reps, and can't really see why they've become so derided around here.
Sierra Cosworth:-1) Homologation. That was the ONLY reason the Cossie existed. And on-track it mullered the competition everywhere, which gives it a level of kudos above most other machinery.
2) The car was good because of the sum of its parts - the engine (in stock road-going tune) is actually not that impressive, but in competition spec it proved a big-advantage that the chassis could then capitalise on.
3) You're comparing it vs a luxo-barge.
3) Tuneability. It was easy to get what was then big power out of it, and this was before the insurance industry skyrocketed everyone's premiums.
Jap rally-reps:
1) Homologation again - these were the cars the bobble-hat brigade saw rallying every other weekend, and the road-cars were a direct link to the competition cars. So there's an element of true enthusiast-led support. What's the Golf-R got in terms of fan-base? Aside from its own cheap-lease-thread on PH!
2) Era - 10/15/20 years ago these engines were delivering remarkable bhp/litre compared to the rest of the market. Everyone else has caught-up...
3) Revs / engine-mapping vs economy. The way the modern turbo-4's drive vs the way e.g. a v.5/6/7 STi or an Evo VI/VII/VIII/IX drives is night and day - you can rev a UK-market STi out to c.8,000rpm, they pull most keenly at high revs. Modern engines far less so - look at the Fiesta ST's torque curve - boredom defined!
From an enthusiast's perspective there ISN'T a lot of point in a turbo-4 in a fast exec saloon vs an equivalent 6-pot (or 5-pot, even - RS3 engine has bags of character). The issue is that Jag (and Audi etc.) have rightly identified that most buyers of 'warm' fast-saloons (as opposed to full-fat M / RS / AMG / -R) aren't truly enthusiasts, they're image-led buyers, who are probably more interested in looks, kit and top-trumps spec.
So we're in the minority, and we're here arguing about the emperors new clothes rather than calling him a streaker.
havoc said:
JamesRR said:
You say there's not much point in a powerful turbo four in a mid sized saloon, but I'd like to point out the Sierra Cosworth. Most people seem to like that a lot, and you don't hear many wishing they had a Granada with the Cosworth V6 (as good a car as that may or may not be in its own right). I agree with that poster who said these engines were held up as remarkable in the Japanese rally reps, and can't really see why they've become so derided around here.
Sierra Cosworth:-1) Homologation. That was the ONLY reason the Cossie existed. And on-track it mullered the competition everywhere, which gives it a level of kudos above most other machinery.
2) The car was good because of the sum of its parts - the engine (in stock road-going tune) is actually not that impressive, but in competition spec it proved a big-advantage that the chassis could then capitalise on.
3) You're comparing it vs a luxo-barge.
3) Tuneability. It was easy to get what was then big power out of it, and this was before the insurance industry skyrocketed everyone's premiums.
Jap rally-reps:
1) Homologation again - these were the cars the bobble-hat brigade saw rallying every other weekend, and the road-cars were a direct link to the competition cars. So there's an element of true enthusiast-led support. What's the Golf-R got in terms of fan-base? Aside from its own cheap-lease-thread on PH!
2) Era - 10/15/20 years ago these engines were delivering remarkable bhp/litre compared to the rest of the market. Everyone else has caught-up...
3) Revs / engine-mapping vs economy. The way the modern turbo-4's drive vs the way e.g. a v.5/6/7 STi or an Evo VI/VII/VIII/IX drives is night and day - you can rev a UK-market STi out to c.8,000rpm, they pull most keenly at high revs. Modern engines far less so - look at the Fiesta ST's torque curve - boredom defined!
From an enthusiast's perspective there ISN'T a lot of point in a turbo-4 in a fast exec saloon vs an equivalent 6-pot (or 5-pot, even - RS3 engine has bags of character). The issue is that Jag (and Audi etc.) have rightly identified that most buyers of 'warm' fast-saloons (as opposed to full-fat M / RS / AMG / -R) aren't truly enthusiasts, they're image-led buyers, who are probably more interested in looks, kit and top-trumps spec.
So we're in the minority, and we're here arguing about the emperors new clothes rather than calling him a streaker.
Aah! Nostalgia! The 1980's when 300PS from 2 litre was only done in Italy-specials for tax reasons. Maserati and Ferrari. Times :-)
Haven't driven any modern 150PS/litre motors coupled to stick shifts. I think what definetly helps a rather heavy car like the XE with a rather small high-boost engine is the automatic gearbox, be it a real slushbox or a double-clutch. Good for masking the low-rev off-boost range and the sometimes following sudden onset of torque with appropriate gearing.
Would be interested in weight and weight distribution data for that XE30t. Performance might not be too far from the XE35t and handling might be better.
Haven't driven any modern 150PS/litre motors coupled to stick shifts. I think what definetly helps a rather heavy car like the XE with a rather small high-boost engine is the automatic gearbox, be it a real slushbox or a double-clutch. Good for masking the low-rev off-boost range and the sometimes following sudden onset of torque with appropriate gearing.
Would be interested in weight and weight distribution data for that XE30t. Performance might not be too far from the XE35t and handling might be better.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff