RE: Jaguar XF TDV6 S: Driven

RE: Jaguar XF TDV6 S: Driven

Tuesday 19th January 2016

Jaguar XF TDV6 S: Driven

The original XF began the Jaguar revolution, so how does the new one compare?



Replacing the XF was always going to be a tough task. The first car was such a radical departure for Jaguar in terms of design and image that the second generation was inevitably going to be more difficult than normal. Think of the Ford Focus as a comparison. Jaguar doesn't need reinventing again, but the XF must be sufficiently improved to appear a worthwhile replacement.

Natty 20-inch wheels a £1,200 option
Natty 20-inch wheels a £1,200 option
Initial impressions from Spain were very positive, so this Glacier White V6 diesel S was eagerly anticipated at PHHQ. Though we don't often have diesel executive saloons in for test, the price did come as something of a shock; with options including the head-up display, 20-inch wheels and 'Advanced Parking Assist Pack', OV65 NKS is a £58,000 car, up from £49,945 as standard. But then a BMW 535d M Sport is £49,070, and an A6 BiTDI S Line £48,990, so it's hardly overpriced compared to key rivals.

To these eyes the XE-aping design actually suits the XF better, particularly here with those 20-inch wheels. And yes, it was definitely cleaned before going back to Jaguar. The interior is largely a success too, with a superb driving position, great wheel and clear instruments. Oddly the instruments are better to look at than the rather outdated head up display.

Sadly there's another noticeable probelm inside. Though much has been made of the new InControl Touch infotainment system, it still can't quite match the best for graphics, responsiveness and intuitiveness. It works well, but as a user experience it lags a little behind those systems in its rivals.

Oh look, a round steering wheel (!)
Oh look, a round steering wheel (!)
That being said, the XF has more than enough talents on the road to make up for those shortfalls. As we've come to expect from Jaguar, the dynamics are so finely resolved that it makes you wonder why others can't match it. At any speed, its combination of damping, steering response and control weight are all absolutely spot on, the compromise it strikes between executive saloon comfort and sports saloon composure perfectly judged.

This all with the powertrain and chassis set to normal, the XF's ability to coast down the motorway, absorb the worst urban imperfections and reward on B-roads rendering the other setting rather superfluous. It's a genuinely entertaining car to drive fast too, steering as well as any other EPAS-equipped car and with a 50:50 weight balance that gives it great poise and control. Its ride and handling bode exceptionally well for an XF SVR; with a gearbox made slightly sharper and that stonking supercharged V8, it could be fantastic.

Back on the M40 and the diesel XF is supreme actually, all noise very well suppressed and the 516lb ft providing effortless speed. It's extremely comfortable and very relaxing, still in the 'normal' mode that proved so entertaining in the B-roads. It seems a shame that buyers apparently demand endless configurability when one mode so well suits every situation. The news is less positive from the back though, where a few complaints could be heard of excess tyre and road noise.

Like an XE, but bigger. And possibly better
Like an XE, but bigger. And possibly better
Overall though the XF is an extremely desirable car, particularly for people like us. If there's one place where minor tech gripes can be overlooked for driving dynamics it's PH, right? Perhaps the biggest problem faced by the XF at the moment is an issue of spec though. The smooth, powerful 3.0-litre V6 diesel is only offered as an 'S' model, which means that the cheapest V6 diesel XF, indeed the only V6 diesel XF, is £50K. The 180hp four-cylinder cars are not only 120hp down but are at least £14,000 less as well. This XF S is a glorious executive saloon, but it sometimes seems a bit much. The market for £50,000, 300hp diesel saloons must be fairly small, however impressive the cars and content the owners. Something at a 530d level, at about 50hp and £10,000 less, would not only be the XF of choice but probably the executive saloon to have too; it's tremendous.


JAGUAR XF TDV6 S
Engine
: 2,993cc, V6 diesel
Transmission: 8-speed automatic, rear-wheel drive
Power (hp): 300@4,000rpm
Torque (lb ft): 516@2,000rpm
0-62mph: 6.2secs
Top speed: 155mph
Weight: 1,750kg
MPG: 51.4 (NEDC combined)
CO2: 144g/km
Price: £58,355 (Base of £49,945 with £675 for Glacier White metallic paint, £1,200 for 20-inch Venom Twin 5-spoke Gloss Black wheels, £450 for Memory pack with powerfold mirrors, £1,620 for Advanced Parking Assist Pack with Surround camera, £1,000 cabin pre-heat with timer and remote, £300 for Steering column electric adjustment, £1,220 for Laser Head-up display, £510 for cold climate pack, £300 for Alloy space saver spare wheel, £485 for soft door close and £650 for the Black Pack)











Images: Dafydd Wood

Author
Discussion

Cotic

Original Poster:

469 posts

80 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
Expensive, yes - but there's £4k worth of options there which I could easily do without.

Agree that there should be a lower trim level though; an R-Sport with the same engine would be fine.

Zod

34,291 posts

186 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
That's just a facelift isn't it, not a new car?

moffat

920 posts

153 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
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.

luckystrike

442 posts

109 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
Zod said:
That's just a facelift isn't it, not a new car?
It's a new car. Old car was based on the same steel platform as the S-type, this is off the new aluminium platform like the XE.

unpc

1,861 posts

141 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
Zod said:
That's just a facelift isn't it, not a new car?
No it's all new. Doesn't look a lot different though but that never hurt Audi.

Advertisement

ahenners

203 posts

54 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
Not a fan of the rear, that back end doesn't really work well on the XE either, for me. The rest of the styling looks good though.

Edited by ahenners on Tuesday 19th January 12:41

MonkeySpanker

316 posts

65 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
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.
It's not a new engine. The 3.0 V6 replaced the old 2.7 in about 2009.

lotus116tornado

201 posts

80 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
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.
The Jaguar engine is a development of an engine that has been around in different guises since 2004. It's only 13ps down on the BMW engine but 70NM up on torque.

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.

dc2rr07

833 posts

159 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
The steering wheel may be round but looks a bit odd been off centre IMHO

Zod

34,291 posts

186 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
lotus116tornado said:
The Jaguar engine is a development of an engine that has been around in different guises since 2004. It's only 13ps down on the BMW engine but 70NM up on torque.

I think most keen drivers would rather be in the XF though, by all accountsaccording to Mike Cross and Autocar it's the best handling car in its sector by some margin.

swisstoni

6,321 posts

207 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
If I was in the market for a car like this I'd certainly consider it but its really unexciting looking.

julian64

12,304 posts

182 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
lotus116tornado 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.
The Jaguar engine is a development of an engine that has been around in different guises since 2004. It's only 13ps down on the BMW engine but 70NM up on torque.

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.
Hmm you think so. 335xd BMW. According to the figures posted the jag engine makes more power, the jag is lighter but does 6seconds 0-60 compared with 4.8 for the BMW

Now I like sporty cars but its been a very long time since I had a car that couldn't break six seconds to sixty. Thats very sloooowwww for anyone in todays world talking about sporty cars

Krikkit

12,032 posts

109 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
julian64 said:
lotus116tornado 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.
The Jaguar engine is a development of an engine that has been around in different guises since 2004. It's only 13ps down on the BMW engine but 70NM up on torque.

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.
Hmm you think so. 335xd BMW. According to the figures posted the jag engine makes more power, the jag is lighter but does 6seconds 0-60 compared with 4.8 for the BMW

Now I like sporty cars but its been a very long time since I had a car that couldn't break six seconds to sixty. Thats very sloooowwww for anyone in todays world talking about sporty cars
Is that not just because the Jag doesn't have launch control? There's no way you could consider the 3.0S a slow car at all, the rate it gathers speed is very impressive indeed.

Ex Boy Racer

1,020 posts

120 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
It would be a lot better with a few buttons on the steering wheel..

fatboy b

7,760 posts

144 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
I had one if these on loan last week. In a word - phenomenal! I love my XF - streets ahead of anything from Germany, but this made mine look a bit archaic.

The chassis is just incredible, just amazing handling and ride comfort at the same time. The engine has a lovely roar up the rev range, but is a little worse than mine for noise on tickover. The seats are great, but a bit less adjustment than mine. LED lights, I'm on the fence here. I've seen better. It had main-beam assist. OK on normal A-roads, but on dual carriageways with a crash barrier, it kept seeing, then un-seeing cars coming the other way, so kept switching up and down. Lane change assist is just annoying, but can be turned off. But overall, I'll be getting the petrol 380 version once the interior colour schemes are a little more pleasing.



Edited by fatboy b on Tuesday 19th January 13:36

fatboy b

7,760 posts

144 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
moffat said:
A new engine that is still behind both BMW's old 3l TT engine and Audi's 3 litre biturbo lump.
It knocks BMW & Audi for refinement though. Has done for a while. SAt nav is due a major upgrade around now, along with a bigger screen apparently.

green911

89 posts

137 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
How about a RHD 4 wheel drive Sportbreak this time please, pretty please!

HJMS123

974 posts

61 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
fatboy b said:
It knocks BMW & Audi for refinement though. Has done for a while. SAt nav is due a major upgrade around now, along with a bigger screen apparently.
This is true, my brother is a program engineer at JLR and they will be updating a fair bit of the infotainment system soon .

julian64

12,304 posts

182 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
Krikkit said:
Is that not just because the Jag doesn't have launch control? There's no way you could consider the 3.0S a slow car at all, the rate it gathers speed is very impressive indeed.
Well the four wheel drive might help a bit, but not by that much and the older RWD 3 litre BMW was also much faster on the stats than this.

We aren't talking a few tenths here and there. We are talking between TWO AND TWO AND A HALF SECONDS TO SIXTY!

Either the stats produced for the engine are all wrong or it only produces the stated power over a very narrow band compared to the BMW engine, or somethings wrong cos that difference in performance over the first 60mph is staggering for two cars where the slower car has the best stats.

Anyone got nay comparison figures for what happens after 60?

forzaminardi

1,863 posts

115 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
Minor irrelevant point to the wider qualities of the car, but white car with black wheels - just wrong imo.