Hi All,

The answer to this question may seem obvious but I've got to ask since I don't have quick access to an XF with the 5L engine for comparison.

I'm looking to get an XF and was originally looking at getting a 2009. However, I noticed that the 2010 Premium comes with the 5.0L with 85 more ponies.

I'm not really one to punch it off the line so I'm wondering if the difference in horsepower would really be that noticeable to me and if I should save up my pennies a bit more and go for the 2010.

Any other differences between the 09 and 10 Premiums that I should consider?

 

New engine is significantly more powerful. It is direct injection as well as longer stroke.

You will notice the difference. The 5.0 is comparable to the 4.2 supercharged in daily use.

I like the 4.2 and it will be cheaper to buy. The difference is about 0.3 seconds from 0-60 mph which is a lot.

 

I fully concur with Jagular's assessment on the difference. I have the 385 bhp 5.0L in a 2010 Premium and have driven loaners with the 4.2L 300bhp engine. The 4.2 L sounds better but does not have the urge that the 5.0L has. The newer 5.0L has equivalent or better fuel consumption as well, which befits the more modern design.

If I could afford it, I would go for the 5.0L. With regards to differences in the equivalent packages (I think the 2009 was a Premium Luxury and the 2010 was called just Premium) I cannot comment since the 4.2L loaners I drove were the Luxury package which is a step down in the equipment stakes.

 

You usually have your points covered, but I think you're way understating the difference. Car and Driver tested a 4.2 and it did 0-60 in 6.1s. XF 5.0 went 0-60 in only 5.1s - a full second quicker. That's huge...

 

While I haven't driven the 5.0 I just bought a '09 S/C and it's able to plant my head on the seat the further/faster I push the gas. I've come to the conclusion that the extra money spent on a car over 400 hp is a redundant concept... (not to mention numerous visits to traffic court) especially on the roads we drive. Granted those who track their cars have different motives. I find my '09 takes me to 90/100 mph on my drive to school on I-90 unless I'm paying attention whereas I can stay at a "reasonable" speed.
All this development of 500+ hp cars seems excessive... besides, how many are instigating drag races at red lights?

 

I was going by memory (obviously defective) however I also find Car & Driver to be particularly poor at predicting real world performance.

Evo, a UK magazine, puts the 0-60 for the 5.0 liter XF at 5.5 seconds which is Jaguar's own number. You should not buy an XF that has been tested by Car & Driver.

Jaguar claimed 6.2 seconds for the 4.2 so the correct real world differential is 0.7 seconds which is a lot. Seat of the pants you would notice the extra urge from the 5.0 engine.

385 hp for the 5.0 v. 300 hp from the 4.2. Of that difference 57 hp is pure displacement increase and 28 hp is due to the direct injection factor as well as some nifty internal friction reduction. The 5.0 also has a more beneficial torque curve.

 

The '10 model is also likely to have some of the bugs fixed that the '09 models had. Jaguar is notorious for buggy first year cars.

 

If I were going to purchase an 09, I'd pickup a 4.2 S/C. It's about 400+ hp and faster than the naturally aspirated 5.0, 385 hp model.

 

Car and Driver may be flawed (now more than ever, in fact), but they also produce a 'real world' acceleration figure by testing a vehicle for rolling start (5-60mph). I think XF5.0 did it in 5.3s, so 5.5s 0-60 time is probably just an estimate by Evo, not a an actual test. Either that or they really suck at launching their cars...

In any case, the difference between 4.2 and 5.0 is very much noticable indeed.

 

Thanks for the replys, everyone. It sounds like it's definitely worth opting for the 2010 over the 2009 (unless, of course, I were to get the S/C).


Hmm, Jerry S brings up another important consideration. The S/C version has that's much power and more, especially if I were to get a 2010 or 2011.

There appear to be a few gem deals with used 2011's for a few $K's that would give me a much newer car plus that extra power.

How do the S/C's stack up against the normally aspirated as far as reliability, problems, etc., go? I'm now *really* intrigued by the thought of 470 horses!

 

Reliability seems to be the same across the range, they are all made in the same factories, Birmingham (Castle Bromwich in an old Spitfire factory) for assembly and the North Wales Ford plant for the engines. No reason for reliability to differ: same parts and same people assembling them.

As for rolling starts and "estimated" acceleration numbers, Evo uses factory supplied numbers whenever they are available. Most manufacturers use real world acceleration techniques, I.e. what actual owners of the cars should use if they want their warranty to be honoured. Journalists rarely do this and produce some ridiculously low numbers on occasion. Also, the manufacturer publishes figures attainable under average conditions without resorting to heating of the tires by "burning in" or testing at drag strips rubbered in with all manner of rubber compounds.

When comparing two cars in a manufacturer's range it is best to use the manufacturer's numbers to get a feel for how the cars will differ under normal driving conditions.

The 5.0 is roughly equivalent to the 4.2 SC, particularly off the line under normal conditions. The 4.2 SC lacks the low rpm torque of the larger displacement DI engine until the boost kicks in.

 

LOL.. I beg to differ. Having that power and torque may not make a lot of quantitative sense, but I'm telling you that from the qualitative end of things, there is no comparison.

My '11 XFR is in getting its interior perma-plating done, and I'm driving an '11 XFS loaner right now. This loaner seems tired and boring next to my car. Pressing the gas to pass on the highway results in a long lag before the car decides to gear down and push forward. Once you get up above 4000rpm it does come alive, but compared to the instantaneous acceleration that the blown motor has, it seems downright anemic.

More than anything else, power makes driving FUN. Many people drive in order to get from point A to point B. I drive not only because I have to, but because I enjoy it. Once you get more power, the car becomes better able to respond to your commands, and when that happens you enter a whole new world of driving.

My wife is by no means a power freak, but she is definitely on board. Technically this is her car and she made the call to go with the XFR over the lower models.

That's personal preference, of course, and some will say that the price difference isn't justified. I am of a completely different opinion on the matter. I'd challenge anyone to drive the R series cars then go to the base model and honestly tell me they'd prefer the less powerful version.

 

Power is fast becoming irrelevant, even in Europe. In North America it is impossible to exploit the power of some of the latest engines.

It is indeed a qualitative difference but one that is impossible to appreciate for more than a few seconds a day. North American drivers drive so slowly almost all of the time it is intensely frustrating to try and drive a truly powerful car here. In Europe traffic and traffic law enforcement is making it difficult to enjoy driving powerful cars there also.

The normally aspirated engine is so good and the acceleration completely sufficient that the SC or the R does not make enough difference to warrant buying, for most of us.

I already rocket away from the lights in my lowly 4.2 and I find no lack of acceleration ever. Extremely rapid passing is unnecessary in North America because most of our highways are virtually straight and "dual carriageway" anyway, so that short burst of acceleration needed to pass safely on crowded twisty roads so common in Europe isn't a consideration (if it were, turbo diesels would be much more popular over here).

So, enjoy your top end XF, by all means, but don't delude yourself into thinking there is anything practically advantageous about it. A normally aspirated XF is plenty quick enough and uses significantly less fuel.

 

If you can afford the few extra bucks for the 2010, you'll be happier in the long run.

If you dig deep enough (and don't mind a little travel) you might be able to come across a 2010 Prem closer to some 2009 listed prices.

Also if original warranty plays a big part in your decisions a 2010 may be the way to go.

Let us know what you get

 

Okay, this will probably make most of you laugh but while the wife and I have been looking at the different XF models and years, we've gone from looking at a CPO '09 Premium to a new '11 SC!

We realized that we both had our own little important requirements which when put together made it tough to find a used vehicle at a decent price. So, we're looking at the '11 SC that the dealer has on the lot and has offered us at what seems like a pretty good price.

So, thanks all for the responses! They all helped me get to the point where I am now. (Well, at least I THINK I want to thank you!)

I think I'll start a new thread to see what the SC owners out there might have to say.

 

Point taken, however...

I don't recall saying anything about the higher power vehicles being more practical. What I was talking about, and what we're all really talking about here, is enjoyment. If you want to spout practicality I challenge you to justify your own jaguar purchase over a very economical and highly practical 1.2L diesel car that gets a billion miles to the gallon and can fit six comfortably. Practical drivers drive minivans, (and, yes, I've been there and done that!) the rest of us indulge ourselves to one degree or another when we choose our transportation.

All I was trying to say previously is that both my wife and I felt that the higher power version of our car added significantly to the enjoyment that we get driving it.

 

Agreed 100%. If we are looking at cars merely from the point of view of being a transportation device, a car can be (and probably has been) designed that would suit all of us and our roads would be unpolluted and free-flowing homogenous conveyorbelts. But seriously, that is not why we are all here talking about Jaguars is it? I can easily claim that the guy with the 911 GT2 is wasting his money because my XFR is fast enough and can carry more people. But I would swap in a heartbeat...

I drove an SC, concluded that it was more than fast and lovely enough, but that I wanted an XFR more. Never regretted it - it is a bargain. Go for what you want. Life is too short...

 

I feel the same way going from the SC to the NA versions. When I punch it on the highway and the car downshifts the supercharger really makes this car scream. I've driven a few XF 5.0 loaners and while they are no doubt quick my 4.2L SC is still faster, more responsive, stops better, sounds better, has better steering feedback, etc. I've driven both for a decent amount of time and it comes from experience not magazine numbers.

 

I was shopping for a 09 SC but when I saw that the 2011 XF Prem had 5L engine, 5 yr warranty WITH wear and tear covg on top of the sched maintenance it was too good to pass up. Plenty of power for me.

The one I bought was form Jag dealer and had 11K mi on it. $44K. Lunar gray.

 

2012 XF impressions:

I'm driving around a loaner 2012 XF. I'm not sure on the model range but it is either base or portfolio. How do you tell? Seats seem to have more bolstering vs. my 09 SC XF. The XJ like entertainment system is nice. It is less laggy than my 09 (button press time to actual acknowledge). I'm not sure I like how dark the menus are (all are black), well see how it seems at night later today. One huge plus: the bluetooth for my phone worked perfectly!!!! It still drops every 10 seconds in my car. The rubberized/black buttons throughout are nicer. The shifter while looking similar is different (knob is the same shape but the grip is different (good thing)). The 5.0L as in the other years I've driven does sound better than my SC 4.2L. It has a deeper tone and is a bit louder. The low end seems lacking compared to my SC 4.2L. Odd because this is what I've always noticed when comparing my car to the 5.0L NA, but others think the opposite. Roots blowers do provide instant low end response so the low end should be good in the SC cars.

Dealer had a XF S which after some searching online is the Diesel version. I'm a bit surprised to see one here in the US but maybe they are common.

I supposed I could have started another thread but this was kind of a SC vs. NA type thread so it kind of fits.