OK guys, this one is not for me, but buying for family - otherwise I would be focused on XFR only !

So similar pricing on a non-CPO '13 XF 2.0's compared to CPO'd 2012's with the 5.0 V8. Range is anywhere from 35k up to 41k on the East coast.

Were the '13 engine/trans refresh enough to say go for the newer car - I realize the chassis has been around for some time, the bigger refresh was done in 2012, and the tech seems the same in 12 vs. 13.

As a side note, the nav is aging rapidly, to the point where I'd consider a non-premium package car.

Any quick thoughts and thanks.

 

After driving both as loaners and being an XFR owner, I would never buy the 2.0. There is a ridiculous amount of turbo lag for in town driving (even in sport) that I found disturbing, especially if there are any hills to deal with. My GF has a Kia Optima with the turbo 4 that performs much better. I think the 2.0 would be an acceptable choice if you were looking more for a commuter in flat areas or for someone who drives very conservatively. It actually does perform well on the highway.

The 5.0 is much much more fun and felt like my XFR pre pulley and tune, just with less actual speed. Still had soul though. But mileage will suffer. Got about the same with the 5.0 as my XFR, but that could have been influenced by me pushing it to tell the differences in power.

Have the person drive both and see what they think. But don't let the sales person just take them on the freeway in the 2.0. Have them go for mostly in town driving as that will expose them to the shortcomings of that engine. And make sure they try the sport mode. I think the car is just too heavy for a 2.0. Will probably work a lot better in the new aluminum car.

 

I have heard nothing but horrible things about the 2.0T. I think the car is just too heavy for that engine.

I just sold my Kia Optima 2.0T. I bought it as a run around car, but even though it's a good implementation of a 2.0T, it was still a buzzy little engine that just does not have any grin factor when you hit the accelerator. I sold it for a second XF so I wouldn't ever have to downgrade my ride by riding in the Optima. Once you get to a certain age, every mile driven in a horrible car is a mile lost. I didn't think that way in college.

The 5.0L in the Jag is one of the nicest engines period.

Funny thing is even though my Optima was the lighter car with a much smaller engine, it was getting close to the same overall mileage as my 5.0 Jag.

 

I would look around for the 3.0 V6. Ours is a wonderful car and really love the 3.0. You are really not going to pay that much for the 3.0 and there is a world of difference between the two motors.

 

I have the '12, 5.0 XF but, driven both the 3.0 and the 2.0 extensively as loaners.

Frankly, I would not purchase the 2.0. The turbo lag is truly bothersome and I just don't think that the buzzy 4-banger with its usual sounds and vibrations belong in an upscale sedan.

The 3.0 is a much better choice but, if it were me, I'd rather buy a low mileage 5.0 any day over the other choices. The only thing I envy in the new ('13+) cars is the 8sp transmission with their great gear ratios. I purchased both my '12 XJL and XF when I realized that the NA V8s would be phased out. It is a SHAME as the 5.0 is the engine that should be in a Jaguar.