XJ 2.0 Turbo!

[V12 Migaloo]

Sunday evening top gear has finished and I'm looking though the autotrader app looking at XJ's... Suddenly I come across 2 XJ's with 2.0 Turbo petrol engines, initially I dismissed these as being incorrectly specified, but further investigation reveals these are indeed 2.0 Turbo Four Cylinder XJ's.... When did this happen? Why has no one in the UK reviewed them.. or has someone just stuck a 2.0 pinto in to the new XJ??

[Benbay001]

Meant to be new for 2014 model year.

2.0 i4 Ti 1,999 cc (122 cu in) I4, 87.5 mm × 83.1 mm (3.44 in × 3.27 in) 240 PS (180 kW; 240 hp) @ 5,500, 340 N·m (251 lb·ft) @ 2,000-4,000 7.5 241 km/h (150 mph)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XJ_(X351)#Engi...

[Domf]

The 2.0 was launched last September to the press and given the autotrader car is reg VX12 I would guess this was one of the UK press launch cars. At the time of the launch Jaguar said they were testing the water with a small engine large car. It's not available in the UK yet but is abroad go on to Jaguar.com and you'll see it in the engine choice. It's available in the Netherlands, many European markets are looking at down sizing also China is looking at its cities air pollution and may follow suit, Jaguar need to have this market move covered. Countries that tax heavily on large engines will definitely be the market. The engine comes out of the Evoque and is retuned for use in the XJ. There was talk of it possibly going into the F Type

[V12 Migaloo]

They should stick it in the XJ and XF and sell it here. If it can attain 35 real world MPG I'd rather have this then a diesel with EGR vales and DPF filters.
Also whilst they are at it why are Jag only offering one diesel engine and no V8 Diesel...

[Benbay001]

V12 Migaloo said:

They should stick it in the XJ and XF and sell it here. If it can attain 35 real world MPG I'd rather have this then a diesel with EGR vales and DPF filters.
Also whilst they are at it why are Jag only offering one diesel engine and no V8 Diesel...

I could be(and probably am) wrong but surely the people who buy a £80000 car arent terribly fussed about £1000 per year fuel saving petrol to diesel.

[MEC]

Benbay001 said:

I could be(and probably am) wrong but surely the people who buy a £80000 car arent terribly fussed about £1000 per year fuel saving petrol to diesel.

No, but people who lease one for £600 a month may be concerned whether they pay £500 or £250 a month in fuel?

[XJ Flyer]

MEC said:

No, but people who lease one for £600 a month may be concerned whether they pay £500 or £250 a month in fuel?

It's doubtful wether you'd see a halving of fuel consumption over a supercharged V8 for example on a like with like
comparison of use of the available performance of the two.The laws of physics say you can't get something for nothing regardless of engine size.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 5th August 19:12

[MEC]

XJ Flyer said:

It's doubtful wether you'd see a halving of fuel consumption over a supercharged V8 for example on a like with like
comparison of use of the available performance of the two.The laws of physics say you can't get something for nothing regardless of engine size.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 5th August 19:12

Hmm, up until April I was running a 4.0 V8 X308 as my daily car. I do a lot of local running around and we live in the Pennines, which doesn't suit a big engined auto, but I live where I live! Chugging around I was getting about 18 mpg, not driving quickly and in fact trying to save fuel. I was using £500 (and the rest!) in fuel a month.

I have now switched to an auto Volvo S80 D5. I know it has much reduced performance, but the usage is identical. I now get 40 ish mpg running around and low 50's on a run.

Big saving in fuel costs (though I miss my Jag hugely and I'm keeping an eye on the price of 3.0d XJ X351's!!) It just wasn't sensible to spend a quarter of the cars value in fuel on a monthly basis, not to mention the twice annual trip to the specialist to take a grand off me!

[Benbay001]

MEC said:

Big saving in fuel costs (though I miss my Jag hugely and I'm keeping an eye on the price of 3.0d XJ X351's!!) It just wasn't sensible to spend a quarter of the cars value in fuel on a monthly basis, not to mention the twice annual trip to the specialist to take a grand off me!

I used to have a 1.8 Ford Focus before my STR. The focus used to achieve 32mpg. My STR is heavier, driven everywhere as near to WOT as i can safely get. and returns 19mpg-20 mpg. If i was to go at the same pace as my old Focus id probably be able to get 22mpg.

Doing 10000 miles per year it costs me £880 more in fuel.

[Chilli]

V12 Migaloo said:

They should stick it in the XJ and XF and sell it here. If it can attain 35 real world MPG I'd rather have this then a diesel with EGR vales and DPF filters.
Also whilst they are at it why are Jag only offering one diesel engine and no V8 Diesel...

It is going in the XF, I understand. 2.0 and 3.0 litre engines for the XF from 2014 onwards. The dealer also told me that there was no difference in performance form the new 3.0 than there would be in the 5.0. I decided not to believe him and bought an old one.

[XJ Flyer]

MEC said:

Hmm, up until April I was running a 4.0 V8 X308 as my daily car. I do a lot of local running around and we live in the Pennines, which doesn't suit a big engined auto, but I live where I live! Chugging around I was getting about 18 mpg, not driving quickly and in fact trying to save fuel. I was using £500 (and the rest!) in fuel a month.

I have now switched to an auto Volvo S80 D5. I know it has much reduced performance, but the usage is identical. I now get 40 ish mpg running around and low 50's on a run.

Big saving in fuel costs (though I miss my Jag hugely and I'm keeping an eye on the price of 3.0d XJ X351's!!) It just wasn't sensible to spend a quarter of the cars value in fuel on a monthly basis, not to mention the twice annual trip to the specialist to take a grand off me!

That's more of a comparison of the worst possible usage type of the big Jag v that of a usage regime more suited to a smaller engined car.Things would start to look a lot different in the case of a long high speed trans european run with lots of around 100 mph running for example.Although even then a torque converter auto is going to use more fuel than a manual box because of the power losses.On that note I'd bet that my 6.0 litre V12 series 3 with a 5 speed manual would use no more fuel,let alone twice as much,at around 100-120 mph,let alone 150 mph,than the 4 cylinder XJ being described here.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 6th August 13:32

Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 6th August 13:38

Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 6th August 13:48

[V12 Migaloo]

XJ Flyer said:

MEC said:

Hmm, up until April I was running a 4.0 V8 X308 as my daily car. I do a lot of local running around and we live in the Pennines, which doesn't suit a big engined auto, but I live where I live! Chugging around I was getting about 18 mpg, not driving quickly and in fact trying to save fuel. I was using £500 (and the rest!) in fuel a month.

I have now switched to an auto Volvo S80 D5. I know it has much reduced performance, but the usage is identical. I now get 40 ish mpg running around and low 50's on a run.

Big saving in fuel costs (though I miss my Jag hugely and I'm keeping an eye on the price of 3.0d XJ X351's!!) It just wasn't sensible to spend a quarter of the cars value in fuel on a monthly basis, not to mention the twice annual trip to the specialist to take a grand off me!

That's more of a comparison of the worst possible usage type of the big Jag v that of a usage regime more suited to a smaller engined car.Things would start to look a lot different in the case of a long high speed trans european run with lots of around 100 mph running for example.Although even then a torque converter auto is going to use more fuel than a manual box because of the power losses.On that note I'd bet that my 6.0 litre V12 series 3 with a 5 speed manual would use no more fuel,let alone twice as much,at around 100-120 mph,let alone 150 mph,than the 4 cylinder XJ being described here.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 6th August 13:32

I'd probably disagree. I would've thought that at high running speeds, where forward momentum, aerodynamics and weight/inertia have more of an effect then power, I would probably think that especially with all the sophisticated electronics, that the 2.0 would probably easily out sip a V12 every time, well mine at least.

A hectic 100/120Mph+ blast back from LMC 2012 (in esteemed company I would add) saw a not very considerable 6 MPG... average... that was just over 100 miles per 140 Euros!!!

on the way there a steady 75mph on cruise yielded me 24 mpg. You have to expect the 2.0T to give at least 40 in the same situation?

In my opinion I think the fitment of a smaller capacity 4 cylinder to a large lightweight aluminium construction makes perfect sense. How long before Merc brings out a 1.6 turbo S-Classe, with 300 bhp.. Hybrids and diesels will eventually loose out to cleaner, quieter, smoother, small capacity petrol engines.

I liked it when BMW brought out a 1.8 5-Series (82/83/84 I think..) because you got the big car with the accessible engine/price. I see huge similarities with this. Price this XJ at £40-45K, give 35 - 40 mpg and I bet you'd see loads of chauffer's and private buyers rather have this then a diesel..

[V12 Migaloo]

Chilli said:

V12 Migaloo said:

They should stick it in the XJ and XF and sell it here. If it can attain 35 real world MPG I'd rather have this then a diesel with EGR vales and DPF filters.
Also whilst they are at it why are Jag only offering one diesel engine and no V8 Diesel...

It is going in the XF, I understand. 2.0 and 3.0 litre engines for the XF from 2014 onwards. The dealer also told me that there was no difference in performance form the new 3.0 than there would be in the 5.0. I decided not to believe him and bought an old one.

The new 6 cylinder 3.0 is supercharged and about 9/10ths as fast as the 5.0. Either way I think the burble of the V8 wins it hands down, well it would for me if someone else was paying for the fuel.

[XJ Flyer]

V12 Migaloo said:

XJ Flyer said:

MEC said:

Hmm, up until April I was running a 4.0 V8 X308 as my daily car. I do a lot of local running around and we live in the Pennines, which doesn't suit a big engined auto, but I live where I live! Chugging around I was getting about 18 mpg, not driving quickly and in fact trying to save fuel. I was using £500 (and the rest!) in fuel a month.

I have now switched to an auto Volvo S80 D5. I know it has much reduced performance, but the usage is identical. I now get 40 ish mpg running around and low 50's on a run.

Big saving in fuel costs (though I miss my Jag hugely and I'm keeping an eye on the price of 3.0d XJ X351's!!) It just wasn't sensible to spend a quarter of the cars value in fuel on a monthly basis, not to mention the twice annual trip to the specialist to take a grand off me!

That's more of a comparison of the worst possible usage type of the big Jag v that of a usage regime more suited to a smaller engined car.Things would start to look a lot different in the case of a long high speed trans european run with lots of around 100 mph running for example.Although even then a torque converter auto is going to use more fuel than a manual box because of the power losses.On that note I'd bet that my 6.0 litre V12 series 3 with a 5 speed manual would use no more fuel,let alone twice as much,at around 100-120 mph,let alone 150 mph,than the 4 cylinder XJ being described here.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 6th August 13:32

I'd probably disagree. I would've thought that at high running speeds, where forward momentum, aerodynamics and weight/inertia have more of an effect then power, I would probably think that especially with all the sophisticated electronics, that the 2.0 would probably easily out sip a V12 every time, well mine at least.

A hectic 100/120Mph+ blast back from LMC 2012 (in esteemed company I would add) saw a not very considerable 6 MPG... average... that was just over 100 miles per 140 Euros!!!

on the way there a steady 75mph on cruise yielded me 24 mpg. You have to expect the 2.0T to give at least 40 in the same situation?

In my opinion I think the fitment of a smaller capacity 4 cylinder to a large lightweight aluminium construction makes perfect sense. How long before Merc brings out a 1.6 turbo S-Classe, with 300 bhp.. Hybrids and diesels will eventually loose out to cleaner, quieter, smoother, small capacity petrol engines.

I liked it when BMW brought out a 1.8 5-Series (82/83/84 I think..) because you got the big car with the accessible engine/price. I see huge similarities with this. Price this XJ at £40-45K, give 35 - 40 mpg and I bet you'd see loads of chauffer's and private buyers rather have this then a diesel..

Firstly,at least in the case of mine,100 mph-120 mph is a steady cruise which equates to between 3,300-4000 rpm in fifth.There's certainly nothing to be gained by running at much less than those rpm's in fifth or at around the same rpm in 4 th.The figures usually work out at around the same 15 mpg at anything less than 125 mph.

In the case of a like with like comparison of the modern XJ in either supercharged V8 v small 4 cylinder it's obvious that all the weight and aero issues will be comparable.Which just leaves the issue of torque and which can pull the highest gearing.In which case it's obvious that the big V8 will be ahead at a given speed at least around the 100 mph + mark.

In general small engined Jaguars have always rightly been considered the poor relations and it's usually been a case of the biggest most powerful engine option is best.Everything else is just political correctness trying to make the case for smaller engines which really isn't something best suited to the Jaguar marque.

[XJ Flyer]

V12 Migaloo said:

XJ Flyer said:

MEC said:

Hmm, up until April I was running a 4.0 V8 X308 as my daily car. I do a lot of local running around and we live in the Pennines, which doesn't suit a big engined auto, but I live where I live! Chugging around I was getting about 18 mpg, not driving quickly and in fact trying to save fuel. I was using £500 (and the rest!) in fuel a month.

I have now switched to an auto Volvo S80 D5. I know it has much reduced performance, but the usage is identical. I now get 40 ish mpg running around and low 50's on a run.

Big saving in fuel costs (though I miss my Jag hugely and I'm keeping an eye on the price of 3.0d XJ X351's!!) It just wasn't sensible to spend a quarter of the cars value in fuel on a monthly basis, not to mention the twice annual trip to the specialist to take a grand off me!

That's more of a comparison of the worst possible usage type of the big Jag v that of a usage regime more suited to a smaller engined car.Things would start to look a lot different in the case of a long high speed trans european run with lots of around 100 mph running for example.Although even then a torque converter auto is going to use more fuel than a manual box because of the power losses.On that note I'd bet that my 6.0 litre V12 series 3 with a 5 speed manual would use no more fuel,let alone twice as much,at around 100-120 mph,let alone 150 mph,than the 4 cylinder XJ being described here.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 6th August 13:32

I'd probably disagree. I would've thought that at high running speeds, where forward momentum, aerodynamics and weight/inertia have more of an effect then power, I would probably think that especially with all the sophisticated electronics, that the 2.0 would probably easily out sip a V12 every time, well mine at least.

A hectic 100/120Mph+ blast back from LMC 2012 (in esteemed company I would add) saw a not very considerable 6 MPG... average... that was just over 100 miles per 140 Euros!!!

on the way there a steady 75mph on cruise yielded me 24 mpg. You have to expect the 2.0T to give at least 40 in the same situation?

In my opinion I think the fitment of a smaller capacity 4 cylinder to a large lightweight aluminium construction makes perfect sense. How long before Merc brings out a 1.6 turbo S-Classe, with 300 bhp.. Hybrids and diesels will eventually loose out to cleaner, quieter, smoother, small capacity petrol engines.

I liked it when BMW brought out a 1.8 5-Series (82/83/84 I think..) because you got the big car with the accessible engine/price. I see huge similarities with this. Price this XJ at £40-45K, give 35 - 40 mpg and I bet you'd see loads of chauffer's and private buyers rather have this then a diesel..

Firstly,at least in the case of mine,100 mph-120 mph is a steady cruise which equates to between 3,300-4000 rpm in fifth.There's certainly nothing to be gained by running at much less than those rpm's in fifth or at around the same rpm in 4 th.The figures usually work out at around the same 15 mpg at anything less than 125 mph.

In the case of a like with like comparison of the modern XJ in either supercharged V8 v small 4 cylinder it's obvious that all the weight and aero issues will be comparable.Which just leaves the issue of torque and which can pull the highest gearing.In which case it's obvious that the big V8 will be ahead at a given speed at least around the 100 mph + mark.

In general small engined Jaguars have always rightly been considered the poor relations and it's usually been a case of the biggest most powerful engine option is best.Everything else is just political correctness trying to make the case for smaller engined options which really isn't something that's ever been best suited to the Jaguar marque.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 6th August 16:21

[V12 Migaloo]

My XJ-D, before the bottom end imploded, would do about 12MPG at 125mph... so I'm flabbergasted that your twelve can even approach this... my V12, on cruise, at 70 on any small incline will drop to low mid teens.. I still believe that Aerodynamics & inertia play a far bigger part then torque at these speeds, the more slippery and lighter a car is the less throttle angle required to keeping it going hence less mpg, yes you are stressing the car less with 500ft/lbs of torque, but you still have to feed it...

Perhaps we need to be more accepting on smaller engines in the Jaguar range... BMW and Merc have always been able to attract more punters with a greater range of engines whilst the bigger engines serving to provide only a halo effect over the lesser engine cars.. Certainly my first new beemer was a 318i (Yes it was de badged) the 325 even the 320i were miles out of reach... I subsequently bought 5 other beemers, each of course with bigger engines..

I'd accept the point about the smaller engine Jaguars being a poor relation with regard to the AJ6 range, 2.9 et al, but the 3.4 XK was far smoother then the 4.2... Years ago I drove a 2.1 6 cylinder X-type and thought its six cylinder was particularly sweeter then the 3.0, same when I had the 2.5ltr S-type, also ditto in choosing the 3.2 V8 over the 4.0 in a previous XJ.

I'm curious to read some British road tests on this model..

[XJ Flyer]

V12 Migaloo said:

My XJ-D, before the bottom end imploded, would do about 12MPG at 125mph... so I'm flabbergasted that your twelve can even approach this... my V12, on cruise, at 70 on any small incline will drop to low mid teens.. I still believe that Aerodynamics & inertia play a far bigger part then torque at these speeds, the more slippery and lighter a car is the less throttle angle required to keeping it going hence less mpg, yes you are stressing the car less with 500ft/lbs of torque, but you still have to feed it...

Perhaps we need to be more accepting on smaller engines in the Jaguar range... BMW and Merc have always been able to attract more punters with a greater range of engines whilst the bigger engines serving to provide only a halo effect over the lesser engine cars.. Certainly my first new beemer was a 318i (Yes it was de badged) the 325 even the 320i were miles out of reach... I subsequently bought 5 other beemers, each of course with bigger engines..

I'd accept the point about the smaller engine Jaguars being a poor relation with regard to the AJ6 range, 2.9 et al, but the 3.4 XK was far smoother then the 4.2... Years ago I drove a 2.1 6 cylinder X-type and thought its six cylinder was particularly sweeter then the 3.0, same when I had the 2.5ltr S-type, also ditto in choosing the 3.2 V8 over the 4.0 in a previous XJ.

I'm curious to read some British road tests on this model..

Firstly there's a difference between instantaneous fuel consumption and average consumption and aero and weight differences are probably irrelevant at the type of speeds in question while even those differences are effectively non existent in the case of just different engine options in the new XJ.

I'd bet that a comparison,between at least my old series 3 and the new XJ in both supercharged 4 cylinder and V8 form,at the type of average speeds which complete the journey to Monza for example in less than 12 hours each way,would see them all return around the same average 15 mpg which mine does on that trip.

All that would probably be different in the case of local shopping or commuting runs.Which then leaves the question of the raison d'etre of a Jaguar.

[V12 Migaloo]

XJ Flyer said:

..... and aero and weight differences are probably irrelevant at the type of speeds in question while even those differences are effectively non existent in the case of just different engine options in the new XJ.

Sorry flyer, gotta disagree there, otherwise an 600bhp artic would be able to do 150mph...

[XJ Flyer]

V12 Migaloo said:

XJ Flyer said:

..... and aero and weight differences are probably irrelevant at the type of speeds in question while even those differences are effectively non existent in the case of just different engine options in the new XJ.

Sorry flyer, gotta disagree there, otherwise an 600bhp artic would be able to do 150mph...

There's a big difference between comparing the weight,aero and resulting fuel consumption figures differences between a supercharged 4 cylinder and V8 XJ or even my old series 3 in that comparison too over those less than 12 hour runs to and from Monza as opposed to an artic.Considering that the weight and aero differences would be as close as makes not much difference in the case of the XJ's.

In the case of the new XJ just with those different engine options what exactly would those weight and aero penalties be anyway.Nothing in the case of aero and very little in the case of weight.