Does anyone know how a STR would fair against the XJR? Talking same years of course...

 

You'd have to state the year as they got different engine changes at different times IIRC.

 

I had a 2007 XJR, amazing ride. So to compare 2004 forward in both models
I believe its faster due to the aluminum body.
The ride was way more soft and less sport, air suspension and overall felt
much larger than the STR.

 

Hey Marc, are you saying u believe the XJR is faster or STR? STR's hood was aluminum 04+, but nothing else. Not sure on the XJR. I would be very surprised if the XJR was faster both off the line and around twisties.

 

The 04+ XJR's make less hp and tq than the 03+ STR and they XJR weights more......I can no tsee how it is faster than a STR.....My friend has a 04 XJR, we have yet to line up but I dont think he will beat me, once we od the same mods....

 

Riski... Hate to correct you but I'm big on the nerdy specs... This is taken directly from the 2005 literature from Jaguar that can be looked up at another "Jag-Lover" site..Hint Hint...

2005 S Type R - 400hp DIN 3969 Curb Wgt Lbs 0-60 5.6 sec

2005 XJR - 400hp DIN 3671 Curb Wgt Lbs 0-60 5.3 sec

So, the XJR and S Type R (same year) have the same horsepower (makes sense, they share drivetrain).

And the XJR is quicker to 60 (Again it makes sense since the ALL ALUMINUM XJ is lighter than the smaller S Type)

That was the big deal in 04 when the XJ came out. It and the Audi A8 are the only cars I know of that are all aluminum....

BTW..with all the recent smack ups on here, be glad that you don't have one of those aluminum cars... Takes a special facility to fix one..Yikes.

Now, I'd think the S would do better around the corners. The XJ is probably tuned a little softer, and has a longer wheel base, I think. But then again, if it is tuned right, being lighter, it may surprise there as well...

I still want one of the 04 and up XJ's...Love that car. Never see them inexpensive enough...

 

Haha Jeff I know you are the king at nerdy specs but I respectfully disagree with your disclosed 0-60 of the STR.

http://www.edmunds.com/jaguar/stype/review.html
-5.3
"-From 2004 to its final year, the S-Type R produced 400 hp. While it was capable of doing the 0-60 drill in just 5.3 seconds"

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ype/index.html

"Jaguar's humble claim that the R will accelerate 0-60 mph in 5.3 seconds is obviously conservative: Reviewing similarly powered and sized competitors, we predict the S-Type R will run a 5 flat, perhaps even quicker."

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz0jy6spgWf

http://www.fantasycars.com/sedans/HT...r_stype_r.html
-5.1

http://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/to...uar-S-Type.htm
-(from Ford Motor Company Press Release) 2008 MODEL YEAR JAGUAR S-TYPE - 0-60 5.3s

 

Challenge Accepted... I figured there would be other tests quoted... I will sometimes use Car and Driver as a reference.. In this case I wanted an "apples to apples" comparison so I used the Manufacturer's numbers for the same model year. In this case it makes total sense. For the "same" drivetrain, the difference in curb weight would give you a quicker 0-60. The main point is despite the larger size the XJ is actually lighter.

So here is Car and Driver's review in a comparison test of the 03 STR. They got 0-60 in 5.4 seconds (granted the 03 and 04's were rated at 390hp not the 400).

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...-type_r_page_5

And here is a review of the 2004 XJR... Where they got a 0-60 of (hold on to your hat) 4.8.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...uar_xjr_page_2

So, the references can go on and on... Who knows what conditions drove the large difference between the two cars in Car and Driver's case. It is well known that numbers can vary when vehicles are tested. The one thing that I have seen though, is the XJR is quicker than the S.....

 

http://www.eurotekdesigns.com/assets...Tuning2010.pdf

dunno......

 

Haha challenge accepted.....

Ok soooooooooo I posted a manufacture claim of 5.3s on an 05 and 08 STR when they were supposedly rated 400bhp, and you claimed a 5.6s for an 05 STR and 5.3 for an 05 XJR in your first post. Whats up with that? Based on my very extensive and and impeccable research on the 0-60 for the STR, they should be exactly the same 0-60. I will start my research on the XJR after posting this.

Something is wrong here because every site I go to, STR's are 5.3 and less, plus Jag and Ford disclosed a 5.3s 0-60 in which alot of these reviewers think is conservative.

If anyone has an 05ish XJR in the Boston Metro area and wants to have an "Official Jaguar Forums Road Test", I would be down for that. Maybe Jim could get some gals from Hooters to give is the "GO" signal (with bikinis on of course).

 

Me and Budsang are very close to one another.....we will do dyno and 0-60, and 1/4 miles times as soon as we get out beasts tuned, and my blower ported/polished like his....

 

I stand corrected... Or I should say... Jaguar needs to be corrected...

The tech sheet out of the literature for the STR; and it does say 5.3 sec.


And here is the tech sheet for the XJR. And here they state it is 5.0 0 to 60...

So the R Performance Literature listed different numbers...
http://www.jag-lovers.org/brochures/...02-08-045.html

But still, they list the XJR has the quicker of the two.

 

I will stick to my story.....

Manufacturer claims and Motortrend.

 

They pulled their numbers from different years.. The 4.2 SC motor was rated at 390hp when it first came out. The first STR application was the 2003. The 4.2 SC then was bumped up to 400hp...Year for year the same drivetrain was used in both cars. So, when the R motor was 390hp, both the XJR and STR were 390, when they implimented the changes that got it to 400, again, both cars got the bump. One thing I am curious about....What about the 03 XJR????? The new body came out in 04.

Hmmm, the only thing I could find real quick is a listing for a used one on E-bay. Now it has what looks like the 4.0 still in it and a 5 speed trans..So, I'm thinking that the last year of the X308 was running the older drivetrain.. In that case the closest Jaguar spec sheet I found on the net was from 2001

based on the listed specs though..Still @ 5.3 0-60

Specs Attached

 

And the Manufacturer does claim that the XJR is the quicker of the two.

 

Ok, will you concede that the 2005+STR is listed as a 5.3s vehicle??? That is what Jag claims for that year. Where have you seen that Jag claims less than that for an 05 XJR?
http://www.europeancarweb.com/firstl...iew_specs.html

You stated that it was a 5.6s. Conversly you said the XJR, same year, was 5.3s.

Here are some 2005 XJR tests:

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffwor...j-series-1.htm
-5.6s

http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/dr...r-xj8-super-v8
-"just a tick over 5 seconds" (whatever the hell that means)

http://www.intellichoice.com/reports...005/Jaguar/XJR

-5.2s


I dont know man, we could go back and forth all day with this but what i DO know is that at least the 2005+ STR's are NOT 5.6s vehicles, they are at the highest 5.3s.

Now, if you look at the XJR reviews, same year, they look almost identical in 0-60 times. Float around 5.1-5.3 with a high of 5.6.

A straight up STOCK drag race is the only thing that will convince me one way or the other. I rest my case.



PS WHAT IS UP WITH ALL THESE "JAG LOVERS" POST CARD THINGS?

 

I do and did admit that the 5.6 number was wrong and I posted the a link to the source of that number...The Jaguar R Performance catalog. And I agree that we could go back and forth over it for ever. My point is all things being equal, which they are when it comes to drive train, the LIGHTER XJR despite it's larger size is the quicker of the two.

Those Jag-Lovers post cards..... Well aren't they the clever ones.....The literature snap shots were "swiped" from their site. I'm going to try something different so everyone can see the "specs".... So, I saw the little post cars and thought I would just save the JPEG's and attach them...Well, they are really clever...After I actually went to their site all the little post cards went away and the spec sheets were back, it must be browser specific... I'm still going to fix the other ones and change them to attachments. It will be a bit smaller and harder to read... BTW, their archived literature is really neat...

So on this one I'm going to attach the R Performance literature that got me in all the hot water to begin with...And I figured out what they did wrong..On the spec sheet they list 0 to 60mph and 0-100kp/lh (Leedsman or someone will explain that one..) in ().. The copy editor put the wrong set of numbers from the spec sheet in the R literature.

 

100kph is about 62mph, so you got a 0-62mph time

 

Methinks he really, REALLY wants that drag race...err comprehensive on-road performance test.

 

wait up, hold on one minute here....none of us jaguar STR owners have ever raced a XJR? really?

all this talking about numbers is completely useless... unless someone has real world experience from it. All this testing for 0-60 and 1/4 mile times magazines do never account for real driving situations where the roads arnt always perfect. It doesnt matter if a car has a 0-60 time faster than yours, its all about the launch and who gets the most traction out of the pocket.

The question so far will remain unanswered, all the literature in the world will not give us an honest answer unitl it has been physically done.

So should we have a Jaguar drag day? Think it should be pretty... interesting