I wasn't aware that stating facts could be bad mouthing the US.

Jaguar engineers weren't overruled by product planners. They were overruled by the EPA.

Canada is even bigger than the US and has one tenth the population. We can't realistically tax gasoline either. In fact, when I go to Europe I spend about the same amount on fuel for the rental car as I do for my XF at home. Fuel is more than double but the engine is half the size.

As for bashing the oil sands you need to be aware that the entire production of syncrude (or dilbit if you prefer) is shipped to and burned in the US. We are trying to get some delivered to China but environmentalists funded by US based environmentals are tring to delay that.

 

Point one - You spend about the same amount to fuel your euro rental car, but you're getting nowhere near the same car or performance for that same amount of fuel. So, that means the European approach is better how? Because you get to drive a smaller car with less performance. It would seem that driving a nicer more powerful car for the same amount of fuel money could certainly, without an incredible amount of twisted logic, be considered "better."

Point two - realistically, the only thing preventing the export of Canadian oil to China is money. Lots of it on a lot of different sides. The environmentalists don't want the oil sands exploited period. They also don't want more coal fired plants or nuclear or natural gas for that matter. Bottom line, though, is that the Canadian government is still hoping Obama sees the light of day to allow the pipeline to be built to US refineries.

Third point - the thread is not about bashing the wimpy 3.0 vs the mighty V8. Last time I checked it was comparing the 5.0, 3.0 and the 2.0. It only veered off track when someone decided it was time to make what remain fallacious arguments about the relative merits of US and European approaches. I'll offer that even that argument shouldn't be about which is better, but rather about how both are actually bad. But let's not kid ourselves - both approaches have a huge amount of protectionism built in.

Fourth point - every time it is attempted to be brought back to the topic of the thread, someone insists they have to have the last word on what I will call the regulatory issue. So, attempting to bring it back once again to the actual thread topic, the 2.0t has no logical existence whatsoever - it is a substandard performer that I would be shocked could have ever been estimated to be able to sell in large enough numbers to justify any number of things, including the expense to certify it for this country, and the joke it makes out of the performance of the model.

Oh, and this is meant as tongue in cheek, but in the mine is bigger than yours category, the United States of America is actually slightly larger than Canada if you are looking actual land mass, LOL.

 

The manner in which you make grand sweeping statements such as the above is both insulting and indicative of idiocy. I presume you are not an idiot, but your efforts to prove otherwise are becoming quite convincing.

 

Two posts? Is your edit function not working?

Of the four or perhaps five points you try to make only one is on topic and is wrong.

The only correct thing you point out is the engine performance of my European rental car v my XF. However, the turbo diesel 3.0 V6 XF performs as well as my current XF, outperformed my previous XF V8 and uses far less fuel so even that point is incorrect, in substance.

You apparently know nothing about oil sands economics.

Your perhaps sixth point illustrates a tendentious tendency unworthy of sensible reply.

Last word depends on the moderator.

 

I think this thread could use a bit of throttling down on testosterone. I personally did not like the multiple tones of putting-down any one of the available engine choices which can and will be seen as putting down some of our own member's personal selections and preferences.

I have never driven the 2.0 but, own two 5.0-NA, V8 powered cars and driven the V6 SC fairly extensively. I had absolutely nothing to complain about the performance of the V6 and am downright impressed with its fuel economy on the open highways. The MPG alone may be a perfectly reasonable issue for making the choice.

From my driving experiences, I would bet that if you placed the average driver at the wheels of a V6 or a V8 powered car, they would have a difficult time to tell which one is which. I found that V6 that well done.

But, besides the point, I think it is not in good form to put down the choices of any of our members. After all, this is a very small community here, we should be glad to see any diversification of makes, models, member preferences, etc.

Just my 1-cent...

Albert

 

Al..

I think you're wrong....Not once did I see any-one point a finger at anybody who has the V6 of 4 cylinder Jaguar and ridicule them..I think those like myself are out spoken that do not like that Jaguar has taken the path to suit the ECO car world of common car makers..but I don't think or believe any-one was directly slammed by any persons here for their car choices..We all respect what others has bought to drive....the rest is all OPINIONS and we are certainly entitled to what we personally like or dislike about the cars Jaguar has made available in 2013 and forward....Your concerns are appreciated but are unwarranted.

 

I would hope that it would not come down to ridiculing anyone's choices. I have gone through the first page of the thread and found at least 3 objectionable statements on the other (than V8) choices. If I'd just spent good money on one of those choices those critical statements would not make me feel good or welcome.

Let's realize that the NA V8 is no longer a choice in the XFs as well as the base XJs. So, people purchasing new cars and joining this forum and thread will have one of those smaller engines that have been put down in these posts. I do not wish to actually quote the offending lines because it would further the argumentative nature of this thread. But, you can re-read them and see how you would feel if your choices would be characterized in a similar manner.

Albert

 

That same engine with a 6 spd is in the Ford Fusion, Ford Escape and the Range Rover Evoque. Performance is much the same as in the XF but the engine gets good reviews in the Escape and Evoque. The four cylinder XF is far better value than either of those and comes with an 8 spd, among other advantages.

When stuffed into the Focus you get the ST which is a great car.

Performance is relative. Very few people use the full performance of their cars.

 

Again Al,

Lose the thin skin will ya.. and let those who wish to defend their choice of cars for themselves..they sure don't need someone else being their spokesperson..If we are to soften our opinions to sooth the feelings of others that have cars that don't fall into our, or my category of what Jaguar is doing for the Jaguar lines..then too bad!..I will not choose my words so carefully as to not step on toes of people that are UNFORTUNATE to have bought the new V6 models or less and God bless them if they really like their cars..IMO, I think this is a test market for a while (I hope) and we may see the V8 make a come back other than the SC'ed version...

 

Not only will the NA V8 not be back it seems likely that all main line V8 engines are set to disappear except for those built especially for the US market.

Supercharging of one kind or another and diesel power are king now and for the foreseeable future.

The US will not be able to sell outside the US until it falls into step with the rest of the World, not that it has ever exported many passenger vehicles in the past.

The US automobile fleet is steadily downsizing powerplants across the board.

Still, this is unlikely to be a problem if supercharging develops much further. The current Ford turbo engine in the ZF is already out of date, producing "only" 120 hp/litre. The latest 2.0 turbo four from Mercedes Benz produces over 350 hp in streetable form. That's over 175 hp per litre compared to just 76 hp/ litre for the latest V8 Corvette. So much for "dense power"!

 

You maybe right and that sure looks like the trend RIGHT NOW!..But I sure hope you're wrong...Because there is a still a lot of us Motorheads that want the V8 and the car market wants a piece of that pie too I would hope.

 

Jagular, I'll just leave it as I'm glad you've got your V6 as it is heartening to know that we do not have that in common.

 

Unfortunately, I think it is a one way street, but at least those of us who have the V8 got them before they were gone. I have no doubt that the V6 will eventually (as it already does in higher rated tune in the F-Type) will outperform the NA 5.0. The current one in the XF, though a nice engine, isn't quite there yet.

 

Did you watch that F-type, half hour deal On "How it's Made" dream cars?

The F-type is quite the work of art and an all Aluminum car, so the Puny V6 when tuned right will get it down the road..0-60 4.2 secs...But it still is only like 350HP..so nothing to brag about..but it will do th F-type justice...However, if money was no object, I would go for the V8 in the F-type...just saying..

 

No doubt the ideal choice if you care about performance would be the V8 (which is obviously supercharged), but the F-Type S does have a higher tune engine than the base model (380 vs 340 hp) but it (oddly) only has 7 lb ft additional torque (339 vs 332). Though I actually don't think it's "puny", and we'll probably reminisce eventually when there were engines with as many as 6 cylinders and 3.0 liters if displacement, I'm thrilled that I'll be able to reminisce about the burble and immediacy from the NA 5.0! Not to mention from the 12 cylinder I had in my MB CL600!!

 

"Puny" maybe a poor choice of words and I mean not to slight the V6-sc one bit...But I think (and I'm not an auto engineer)..But the torque numbers come from the mass of the engine and the number of cylinders in play..I seen High HP in turbo charged and supercharged 4 and 6 cylinders, but the torque numbers were not very impressive, say compared to a V8...Maybe I've not seen them all, to have a very comprehensive understanding.

 

F Type V6 S uses a much shorter final drive ratio to get quicker acceleration. The extra power is just brochure power.

The V8 S is a hilarious brute to drive but the V6 is the better car.

 

To coin a phrase.."How So?"..Seriously, I really want to hear what you mean by your opinion of the difference in the V8 vs the V6...I know you mentioned driving the only V6 F-type recently..So what is your comparison based on?..By your terms; a hilarious brute..is just a flamboyant expression with no meaning to me...

 

I have also driven the V8 S.

If you have driven one you would not ask that question.

 

Actually, the V8 is clearly the better car. Just as a 5.0SC XF is a better car than a 3.0SC XF. The chassis has plenty of strength to handle the additional weight, though as with any car, the heavier engine will exact a bit of handling penalty, which would be more than offset by its improved performance in basically every other way. Disclaimer - I've only driven the V8... However, Jaguar anticipates roughly half the US sales to be the V8, despite the additional cost. But, it's a performance car and it's supposed to be seriously quick, not a poseur. Or, I guess it could be because we Americans are idiots as I'm sure will be claimed by someone out there. ROFL!