Felt compelled to write a quick review of the 2012 loaner I finally got today in place of my XFR. I have written on here before how the base XF has a really great engine. It is pretty much all that anybody needs. It is a properly quick car. It sounds lovely too.

This was the first time I have had some time to consider the 2012 upgrades. Outside, its a wash - personal taste means that I like some changes, not others. Inside, the seats they have really nailed. They are as good as the pre 2012 ones were poor. Very comfortable and supportive. The improved tactility of the buttons is nice, but otherwise it is "as you were". The seats make a massive difference though - probably the one key improvement over the previous years.

There are hugely varying opinions on the infotainment systems in these cars. My judgment - the 2012 system looks slicker and is slicker - but only just. On its own I don't think it would tempt me to upgrade, but they have made lots of small improvements on these cars that together, add up to make it worthwhile looking at a 12 over an 11 for current buyers. The voice command stuff worked really well - called my wife no problem at the first attempt and I like the bluetooth connection for music - although it doesn't help sound quality, which is noticeably poorer than the B&W system I am used to (as it should be!). Still, it is decent enough, I guess.

I have said this before too - the handling is the perfect balance between ride quality and err...handling. Possibly the smaller wheels than my usual 20" ones plays a part here, but it is a great handling car - Jag have got it spot on.

At 54k (I looked at the sticker - one measly option added to this one - so minor that I forget what it was - oh, keyless entry) it isn't a cheap car but compared to a top end 3 series at the same price, there is more room and more power, if not quite as much kit. For a similar 5 series, you would have to pay a fair whack more. So it represents great value in my view.

So to all you owners of the "lowly" base NA XF 5.0, I salute you in your choice. I actually enjoy driving this car more than I do my XFR at times, because all the performance is easily accessible, and it is a lovely restful cruiser the rest of the time. Using the XFR in the same way - it is scary, illegal and puts me on edge. But I love driving my XFR because it is scary, illegal and puts me on edge.

One last thing - mpg was at least 30% better than my XFR on the way home tonight. Quite an astonishing gap, I didn't expect so much.

 

I think the touch screen could be better but coming from a Garmin 1400 series portable GPS the Jag is 100x better. It is almost impossible to use the GPS while driving but I think that might be the point.

 

My XF Supercharged isn't quite your XFR but I can echo this feeling. Putting the thing in Dynamic+Sport and trouncing the gas pedal still gives me a rush every time. I get that nervous adrenaline everytime I get ready to let it rip.

 

It is pretty much the same thing - I would have had an SC but the awful seats and lack of "sporty" design options (body kit; non-wood trim) plus a serendipitous opportunity meant that I got an XFR instead. The 2012 plus options sort out my issues I think, so an XFR is a slightly harder sell. I love it though, and at least I never want the slightly better version!

 

I would agree the 2009 with the 4.2 is not the same as the 5.0 XFR. But the 2010+ XFSC vs XFR is a matter of interior/exterior taste. They have the same 0-60 time, the XFR is .1 of quicker and 4 mph faster in the 1/4 mile but tested on different day.

2010 Jaguar XF Supercharged Road Test – Review – Car and Driver

I couldn't find an XFR in the color combo I wanted at the price I would pay. I didn't care for the hood vents which to me look out of place on a car in this price range. I also liked the XFSC wood trim better then the XFR carbon fiber trim.

 

I believe the claimed HP difference between the SC and XFR is either pure marketing or only related to intake/exhaust differences. I'm very skeptical there are any actual ECU differences... Published road tests tend to confirm this.

Personally I like the dark wood trim on the XFR. A nice balance of Jaguar elegance, but still looks very modern...

Cheers,

- Will

 

This is good. As much as I WANT an XFR, I have to get a vehicle that won't scare the crap out of my wife. Although I'm sure the 5.0 has enough grunt to raise your eyebrow, it won't make you scream like the XFR. I'm torn between quickly pulling the trigger on an 2010-11 XF 5.0 or waiting on the 3.0 AWD XF that my better half wants. I had an opportunity to drive an XJ AWD 3.0 and I was pretty satisfied with it's performance although I didn't get a chance to REALLY drive it. Guys, this is getting harder than I thought. Jaguar has the car for me, I'm just sure WHICH ONE I WANT.

 

Great review and bang on with my impression during the same situation with mine. The 2012 cars are rock solid performers and anyone should be more than thrilled to be driving one, supercharger or not...

 

That's easy. 2012 with a NA 5 liter engine.
You will get the perilous redesigned front end and a 5 liter engine with all the improvements that will keep you happy. The baritone growl produced by the 5 liter engine is irreplaceable.
In terms of gas mileage, i don't know how much better it's really going to be since, the 5 liter engine average is quite high.

 

I agree with Exec. Pull the trigger on a 2012 NA - you will still save a bunch of money. Jag are introducing AWD purely for perception reasons. RWD + using the "snow" mode and winter tyres will be plenty good enough for the winter. The V6 will be a decent engine, but I doubt it will be much more frugal in the real world. When the Audi S4 went from 4.2 V8 to 3.0 SC with DFI, it made very little difference to economy. The 5.0 already has DFI so there isn't as much to gain. I am quite impressed by how frugal it is. I also have to stress again how much better the 2012 seats are. This matters since almost all perception of how the car is handling comes through the seat. If you are not hooked to the car, you don't feel what it is doing. Scientifically proven fact....probably!

 

Great review, I'm considering and flipping back and forth between the SC and the XFR. Being a bit younger than the average Jag driver I find the SC a bit subdued in appearance and like the look of the XFR...my problem is there's some pretty serious cash involved in upgrading the seats, front clip, wheels and adding a rear spoiler...

Am still leaning toward the XFR...

 

How young are you? I just turned 34 .... in MAY

The XFSC is understated and very classy. The XFR is not understated at all and more racy. I'm going to get in enough trouble without have a car that has hood vents.

 

In my vast ownership experience of 3 days, I'll put my 2 cents in...

I bought a 2011 XFR with 7k miles this weekend and paid $56,200. Prior to buying that I did test drive a new 2012 base XF at my local dealer which I could have got for about $51k (only had like 100 miles but was a "demo"). I thought the XF was wonderful and would have seriously considered getting it but later that day I drove an XFR (not the one I bought) and really liked the engine. At the end of the day, I purchased the XFR based on the fact that I felt like I was getting a better deal on the XFR (sticker price was $80k and still has 4.5 years of warranty remaining now) and I REALLY liked the torque/acceleration. Had I never driven the XFR (or the Audi S6 and S7 I drove earlier in the week), there is no doubt in my mind I would be over-the-top happy with the base XF.

Darin

 

The 4.2 V8 Audi S4 had terrible fuel economy compared to the later3.0 supercharged S4.

The only reason Jaguar is going supercharged V6 is to get the sme performance with much lower fuel consumption. Supercharging is used only to get better fuel economy while delivering the same or sometimes even better performance. If you drive each as hard then the fuel economy will be comparable but in the real world where full throttle is hardly ever used the supercharged engine will always be more fuel efficient.

But the naturally aspirated engine with the same displacement will always beat the fuel economy of the supercharged engine of that capacity due to lower compression ratio in the supercharged version.

 

The Audi S6, Mercedes E63 and Infiniti M56 were all cars I considered along with the Jaguar. The Mercedes is faster depending on how new you go (2012 is 4.1 vs 4.3 0-60) but none of them had more interior room then the XF.

I was very surprised that the S6 was so slow and also so thirsty with the V10 what a pointless car!

 

Jagular - I have to disagree - there is a mountain of owner opinion to the contrary. Sure, it is more efficient, but only just. Talking about real world, not govt. tests.

The S6 is a weird car - quite cheap now for a hot Audi. People just don't want them. They tick all the boxes but they don't deliver on the promise. They cost the earth to run, I guess that is about as "supercar" as it gets! The new S6 might be different tho...

 

That's my dilemma. There are some pretty good deals on XFR's out there to the point that in dsmith's case there was only a $5k difference between it and the NA XF. I would have jumped on the XFR as well and this example is not a rare one as I 've seen low mileage XFR's around $52K. I think in the end though, I will end up with a NA 5.0 XF or 3.0 AWD XF. This will be a happy medium and if I have need to drive an XFR, I'll just borrow dsmth's ride.

 

In Knoxville, TN...stop on by...

 

xfr vs r8 Audi doesn't make fast cars.

 

Check this out. This how close the XFR is to the XKR in performance, sort of.