Jaguar XF S - the first real rival to the 535d

E92

Yup, the new 3.0 V6 diesel has finally made its debut in the Jaguar XF.

It will be replacing the 2.7 V6 presently found in the XF, and is intended to replace the same engine in the JLR(Jaguar-Land Rover) range.

It will develop 240 bhp and 369 lb ft, far more impressive than the 2.7 V6 model's 207 bhp and 320 lb ft.

As you'd expect it is faster; 0-60 is dealt with in 6.7 seconds and it keeps going all the way up to 149 mph.

As is so often the case these days, the new engine is cleaner in spite of it being bigger, it meets the Euro 5 emission standards and better yet is the fact that it is now in the same VRT band as a BMW 530d or a 530i, and is better on CO2 than a Lexus GS450 hybrid.

CO2 is down to 179 g/km from 199 g/km and average fuel consumption has improved by over 4 mpg to 42 mpg.

But there is even better news than that for Jaguar fans, and that better news is the fact that there will be a model with more power called the XF S.

The XF S will boast a 535d rivalling 272 bhp but the torque will be astounding because there is no less than 420 lb ft available.

The mpg is identical to the lower powered model as well.

There are other bits and bobs that will help the 535d rival stand out; the 20 inch wheels being one of them.

For people like me who like proper engines i.e. those that run on petrol, Jag's forthcoming direct injection 5.0 V8 will be getting an outing next year in the form of the long overdue XFR.

It has 503 bhp, very similar to what an M5 or E63 AMG boasts and will be unveiled in all its glory at the Detroit motor show next month.

niceirishfella

Ohhhhhhhhhh, 20" inch wheels to ruin the ride. Great idea for oirish road surfaces.
The XF is a sublime looking car but I'd stick with my BM.

pipsqueak

id rather take the bm, depreciation on that jag will be worse than anglos shareprice ! plus the normal cramped jag cabin and dated styling .. nah

niceirishfella

pipsqueak wrote: »

id rather take the bm, depreciation on that jag will be worse than anglos shareprice ! plus the normal cramped jag cabin and dated styling .. nah

+1

ohhhh, and the build quality......and will jag the company itself be around in 6 months time?

E92

niceirishfella wrote: »

will jag the company itself be around in 6 months time?

Of course they will.

If they can find enough money in the kitty to sponsor Ferrari then they can afford to keep Jaguar going.

The XF is selling very well for them, and deservedly so.

Now that it has cleaner and much more powerful engines available it will give the 530d/535d a real fright when the new models appear next May.

L-M

That 2.7tdv6 is actually a surprisingly smooth and powerful engine(although i'm sure it's under the 200 mark{around 190ish and 440nm torque} in the Disco and Sport). The only thing killing it were the emissions which put it into the highest VRT bracket and 2k tax. 60nm of torque increase should leave it well able to pull. Sounds good.

pipsqueak

niceirishfella wrote: »

+1

ohhhh, and the build quality......and will jag the company itself be around in 6 months time?

id say they will be gone by july!! is it me or does the xf look like a cross between lexus 220, hyundai coupe and new shape mondeo???

maidhc

E92 wrote: »

Of course they will.

If they can find enough money in the kitty to sponsor Ferrari then they can afford to keep Jaguar going.

There is a big difference here. If the Agnellis closed Ferrari a mob of rightfully angry Italians would quite possibly murder the entire extended family and overthrow the government.

The Indians could close Jaguar in the morning without a second thought.

VolvoMan

pipsqueak wrote: »

id rather take the bm, depreciation on that jag will be worse than anglos shareprice ! plus the normal cramped jag cabin and dated styling .. nah

Residuals are supposed to be better than the 5 Series on the XF. It is one desirable car.

E92

VolvoMan wrote: »

Residuals are supposed to be better than the 5 Series on the XF. It is one desirable car.

Not in Ireland it's not, the engines are "too big":rolleyes:; we like underpowered clattery rattly 4 pot 2.0 litre diesels in this size of car not 2.7 litres and soon 3.0 litres minimum - "shur you'd need your own oil well to run one of them yokes":rolleyes:.

maidhc

E92 wrote: »

Not in Ireland it's not, the engines are "too big":rolleyes:; we like underpowered clattery rattly 4 pot 2.0 litre diesels in this size of car not 2.7 litres and soon 3.0 litres minimum - "shur you'd need your own oil well to run one of them yokes":rolleyes:.

Come on, the 520d may be many things, but not underpowered, clattery or rattly. It does 0-60 in under 9 seconds, which compares well with a Mk1 Golf GTI. And being a diesel, starting from a standing start will never be its strong point.

I know you extoll everyone to buy 5.0L V8s, but not everyone wants one.

niceirishfella

E92 wrote: »

Not in Ireland it's not, the engines are "too big":rolleyes:; we like underpowered clattery rattly 4 pot 2.0 litre diesels in this size of car not 2.7 litres and soon 3.0 litres minimum - "shur you'd need your own oil well to run one of them yokes":rolleyes:.

After a mates olde fella saw my 535d and looked under the bonnet he said " 6 cyliner ehhhhhhhhhhh, a shure you're feeding 2 more suck calves than you need":D

Biro

niceirishfella wrote: »

After a mates olde fella saw my 535d and looked under the bonnet he said " 6 cyliner ehhhhhhhhhhh, a shure you're feeding 2 more suck calves than you need":D

You only need one cylinder to move, so technically he's feeding 3 more and you're feeding 5 more!

VolvoMan

E92 wrote: »

Not in Ireland it's not, the engines are "too big":rolleyes:; we like underpowered clattery rattly 4 pot 2.0 litre diesels in this size of car not 2.7 litres and soon 3.0 litres minimum - "shur you'd need your own oil well to run one of them yokes":rolleyes:.

You will love to hear, E92, that the XF is getting a rattly four pot in the form of the 2.2 litre unit as fitted to the Mondeo and X-type.

One thing I'm wondering is how will it manage to shift over 1.7 tonnes around with it's 175bhp, although torque does seem reasonable at 295 lb ft.

It will be interesting to see how it stacks up against the A6 2.0 TDi and 520d.

Mr.David

VolvoMan wrote: »

You will love to hear, E92, that the XF is getting a rattly four pot in the form of the 2.2 litre unit as fitted to the Mondeo and X-type.

Where did you hear that?

I really doubt it to be honest

maidhc

VolvoMan wrote: »

You will love to hear, E92, that the XF is getting a rattly four pot in the form of the 2.2 litre unit as fitted to the Mondeo and X-type.

I have no doubt it will get a 4 pot diesel, but not the upcoming 2.2 HDi due to be fitted to the mondeo?

pburns

niceirishfella wrote: »

The XF is a sublime looking car but I'd stick with my BM.

pipsqueak wrote: »

id rather take the bm, depreciation on that jag will be worse than anglos shareprice ! plus the normal cramped jag cabin and dated styling .. nah

niceirishfella wrote: »

+1
ohhhh, and the build quality......and will jag the company itself be around in 6 months time?

This place really is BMW-fanboy central!

I've seen a few XFs about (good sign, especially in these recessionary times) and thought the side-profile looked a bit Lexus-esque.

Still preferably to a 'me-too' 5-series though...

Does no-one on here have any ambition to be a bit...DIFFERENT?! Even just a little bit?!? Excellent product though it is the 5-series is such a 'default' choice. Dare I say it - it's like the Toyota Corolla of executive car ownership!

O and E92, for all your promotion of massive 8 pots etc., don't your own folks have a new 520d and haven't you sung it's praises?

(Having said that if I bought a XF or 5-series it would be a big engined diesel or nothing. Depreciation be damned - it would be at least half-way saleable - not like a big petrol...)

VolvoMan

Mr.David wrote: »

Where did you hear that?

I really doubt it to be honest

http://www.aronline.co.uk

Jaguar XF S diesel now packs 272bhp

Although it only seems like two minutes since the Jaguar XF was launched, it’s already received its first tweaking. The new XF S model goes straight to the top of the diesel tree thanks to its award-winning twin-turbo engine, which has been been expanded to 3-litres and 272bhp.

With an increase in power of 33 per cent to 272bhp, performance has been usefully boosted - but the most impressive of the numbers produced by the new car is its torque figure, which rises to 420lb/ft from 320lb/ft. That should allow the XF S to trade punches with the BMW 535d, the performance leader of the class.

But there shouldn’t be a financial penalty at the pumps or in your tax return, as overall consumption is 42mpg, and the car’s CO2 emissions fall from 199g/km to 179g/km.

The XF S will trade punches with the BMW 535d, the performance leader of the class…

The 3-litre unit comes in two forms, though - with a 237bhp version being offered. It returns the same fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, but it’s marginally slower, with its 0-60mph rising to 6.7sec.

The XF S can be identified by its new 20-inch wheels and a boot lid spoiler.

2009 also sees the arrival of the XF Portfolio, which receives a similar treatment to the XK and XJs; bespoke interior trim and colours, and exterior tweaks will mark these out.

Models to come include the new 5.0-litre XF R super-saloon (supercharged and packing 503bhp) as well as a new entry-level diesel powered by the 2.2-litre unit found in the X-TYPE.

Looks like the XF is finally going to put the last nail in the 5 Series' coffin, as the engines were previously the only chink in it's armour. Now that XF has got an upgraded engine range all round it is sure going to give the opposition a hard time methinks.

Mr.David

I doubt that article, no other motoring source has claimed that afaik. I would be surprised if they did (why would they not launch it with the 2.2). The 2.2 emissions ratings will be hardly any better than the new 3L. And the performance would not be electric either. Jag are holding out on putting 4cyl engines in their cars as they are trying to move upmarket and become more premium and avoid becoming an alternative to a Mondeo as some Mercs/BMWs have.

On the other hand, with recession sales come recession decisions and a small diesel would certainly sell well.

We shall see.......looking forward to the XF-R anyway :)

VolvoMan

I wonder since the 2.7D in the Jaguar range is being upgraded, will the upgrades be put into place in other cars that are using the unit from PSA and Ford? I reckon it will certainly help the spiralling sales of the Citroen C6.

Seth Brundle

Biro wrote: »

You only need one cylinder to move, so technically he's feeding 3 more and you're feeding 5 more!

It depends on how fast and smoothly you want to move!

groupb

VolvoMan wrote: »

You will love to hear, E92, that the XF is getting a rattly four pot in the form of the 2.2 litre unit as fitted to the Mondeo and X-type.

One thing I'm wondering is how will it manage to shift over 1.7 tonnes around with it's 175bhp, although torque does seem reasonable at 295 lb ft.

It will be interesting to see how it stacks up against the A6 2.0 TDi and 520d.

If the A6 can use the tractor engine from the passat and get away with it , then Jag should be able to use a ford diesel without too much trouble.The rest of the car should be far superior to an A6 anyway. The 5 series is a different kettle of fish but from what I've read it seems that the jag is right up there.

E92

pburns wrote: »

O and E92, for all your promotion of massive 8 pots etc., don't your own folks have a new 520d and haven't you sung it's praises?

Yes I like our 520d very much. But I like it because it's more economical in the real world than a Toyota Smug, and because it's a great car to drive with a surprising turn of speed for a 2.0 litre diesel; not because it's a diesel, and certainly not because it's the bottom of the range model with only 4 cylinders.

There is the small matter of price and not even I will attempt to justify trying to spend €12k more for the 523i or €14k for the 6 cylinder 525d. €14k for 20 bhp and 6 cylinders just does not make sense. Especially as the 330d costs only €11k more than a comparable 320d and you get way more power and you're still going to get a car that does 50 mpg.

So the 520d is the best 5 series to buy new because it is so much cheaper than any other model and it has very low running costs(tax, mpg, depreciation), not because it has a clattery 4 pot diesel and certainly not because it's the bottom of the range model.

I'll put it to you this way - if I was in Germany where I would only have to pay €1,000 more for a 523i than a 520d -clearly there is no contest now. In fact a 530i costs just €5,700 more than a 520d - now tell me which would you rather - a 177 bhp 4 pot diesel or a silky smooth 272 bhp 6 pot petrol?

Mr.David wrote: »

I doubt that article, no other motoring source has claimed that afaik. I would be surprised if they did (why would they not launch it with the 2.2). The 2.2 emissions ratings will be hardly any better than the new 3L. And the performance would not be electric either. Jag are holding out on putting 4cyl engines in their cars as they are trying to move upmarket and become more premium and avoid becoming an alternative to a Mondeo as some Mercs/BMWs have.

This is true. Jaguar are trying to move their cars upmarket and position them above Merc and BMW. With all these small and economical 4 pot engines supposedly premium makes like Audi, BMW and Merc are making you'd have to question why you are paying more for a premium car if it's coming with a common as muck 4 cylinder engine, the same as you'll find in a €13k Fiat 500.

That's why Jag are not replacing the X-Type and have thankfully resisted from inserting a rattly 4 pot diesel into the XF.

Jaguar are not into volume the way BMW and Merc are, they are meant to be opulent and upmarket executive cars and fitting them with clattery rattly noisy uncultured 4 cylinder diesels is not going to contribute to this opulent feel you are meant to be getting from a Jag.

We saw what happened when Jaguar introduced a 2.5 litre S-Type and the X-Type.

Both were a complete flop.

So why would they want to repeat this failure by offering small underpowered 4 cylinder diesel XFs?

Anyway a twin turbo 4 pot diesel is hardly any better on mpg and CO2 than a single turbo 6 pot diesel, all you'll get is more rattles, more noise and less reliability.

maidhc

E92 wrote: »

Yes I like our 520d very much. But I like it because it's more economical in the real world than a Toyota Smug, and because it's a great car to drive with a surprising turn of speed for a 2.0 litre diesel; not because it's a diesel, and certainly not because it's the bottom of the range model with only 4 cylinders.

Who cares if it is the bottom of the range model. It does exactly what it says on the tin. It is easy to get carried away with the rhetoric until you actually have to buy and run one of these wonderful cars!

E92 wrote: »

With all these small and economical 4 pot engines supposedly premium makes like Audi, BMW and Merc are making you'd have to question why you are paying more for a premium car if it's coming with a common as muck 4 cylinder engine, the same as you'll find in a €13k Fiat 500.

Well, tell me how people have been buying 3 series and C classes and a4s for so long when they could have had a superior car for less money by buying a mondeo.

E92

maidhc wrote: »

Who cares if it is the bottom of the range model. It does exactly what it says on the tin. It is easy to get carried away with the rhetoric until you actually have to buy and run one of these wonderful cars!

They are very, very, very good cars. Great entry level cars. You can do no better if you're looking at bottom of the range executive saloons. For my folks it was a big upgrade from the Avensis. And they adore it to boot. And 520ds represent very good value for money not that BMW actucally fir their cars with standard equipment.

The 520d is probably is the best version of the 5 series you can buy. It's not slow either, the only thing you're missing out on is 2 cylinders really:)! But it makes up for this obvious and significant drawback by being so frugal.

But the 520d is the exception to the rule. Between VRT and motor tax you'd really have to be thinking about buying a 535d or a 530i for it to be worthwhile to go up the range. €20k is a lot of money, you could have a new 520d AND a good used 6 pot petrol 5 series (a late E39 probably or maybe even an early E60) with a big engine or you could have a 530d/535d instead. I know which I'd rather.

What I can't understand and what I don't like is why for the sake of one or 2 grand people don't go and spend that bit extra on a higher spec model or more importantly a bigger engine. We got a 1.8 Avensis instead of the 1.6 because even my parents thought that it "looks too big a car to have a 1.6" and they weren't pushed by performance at all. We got the Luna model instead of the Aura model because you were getting so much more equipment as standard. It was down to the fact that as far as my folks were concerned the 1.8 Luna had enough in it to warrant spending ~€5,000 extra.

Bottom of the range models are usually nowhere near as good as mid range models. They're usually the worst model, well a top of the line model is usually not great either because they don't represent good value for money. It may be a generalisation but it usually is true. But well equipped decently powered models are what is often best; if I were buying an Insignia, it would be the SE 160 diesel, 160 bhp should be more than enough in a car that size and it's only €500 more than the 130 diesel, I wouldn't see the point in spending more for the SRi or Elite models and the S and SC are too basic and the lower powered engines are likely to be woefully underpowered, especially the 1.6.

maidhc wrote: »

Well, tell me how people have been buying 3 series and C classes and a4s for so long when they could have had a superior car for less money by buying a mondeo.

I know you're a Ford fanboy and I know I'm a BMW fanboy but really the Mondeo is not a superior car to the 3 series, at least not a 3 series with the right engine. Don't get me wrong I'd have a Mondeo in a shot before an Avensis and I think it is a great car but if I could choose a Mondeo 2.0 or a 6 pot 3 series there would be no contest.

I'd have a Mondeo 2.0 before a 1.6 litre 316i though:)!(they were both similar in price new).

I don't know enough to say with the Merc or the Audi but with the BMW it's down to what engine you choose. A 316i is a heap of crap, a 320d is a bit better than a Mondeo, but a 6 pot model is terrific and much better than the car with blue oval on the bonnet.

maidhc

E92 wrote: »

I know you're a Ford fanboy and I know I'm a BMW fanboy but really the Mondeo is not a superior car to the 3 series, at least not a 3 series with the right engine.

Yeah, but in the past 10 years everything has had a 1.6 petrol engine. My point was people have consistently bought A4 1.6s, 316is and C180s for no obvious reason other than the badge.

I'm not a Ford Fanboy, I just have eight various vehicles designed and manufactured by Uncle Henry! I'll probably buy a BMW for my next car, for the simple reason I'd like something with a decent engine (535d!)

VolvoMan

E92 wrote: »

We saw what happened when Jaguar introduced a 2.5 litre S-Type and the X-Type.

In what way was that engine a flop in the S-type? I'd say 90% of petrol S-type's sold here used the 2.5 V6 since the unit was introduced in 2002.

Lord Nikon

RedorDead

groupb wrote: »

If the A6 can use the tractor engine from the passat and get away with it ,

Not any more - please keep up.

groupb

I was under the impression that the A6 used the 2.0 tdi 140bhp engine from the passat. It sounded like a tractor in the 07' passat I had. Thats when it worked. Anyway back to the jag. Its a pity it does'nt come with the TDV8 from the Range Rover.

samsemtex

pipsqueak wrote: »

id rather take the bm, depreciation on that jag will be worse than anglos shareprice ! plus the normal cramped jag cabin and dated styling .. nah

Dated styling on the XF? Have you seen this car? Dated is the last thing i would call it. Its a wonderful looking car although i have a few reservations about the front lights.

I was in one last week and its interior is among the most impressive ive seen in any car. Far superior to an E class or BMW.