Engines: 5.0 Natural vs 3.0 S/C vs 2.0 Turbo
#41
09-03-2013, 08:40 AM
Veteran Member
Well that is it..I've given you a chance to be civil and mature and anything but a dik, but I see you chose the low road again as usual and shown your azz once more...you are forever on my ignore list...
The following users liked this post:
jagular (09-03-2013)
#42
09-03-2013, 08:54 AM
I now understand the disconnect - you're a comedian - as you cannot possibly be stating that, because you have made a pronouncement, it makes it so. I mean, you didn't even realize, and were very difficult to convince, that the footwell OF YOUR OWN CAR had to be modified to accommodate the AWD mechanism. Anyway, that's quite a punch line about the V6 being the better car - it would be met with significant laughter at a Jag meet. Anyway, I won't put you on ignore, but I will continue to read your materials for comedy, and point out your errors. I'm going to be quite busy...
Last edited by rbobzilla; 09-03-2013 at 08:56 AM.
The following users liked this post:
DPK (09-03-2013)
#43
09-03-2013, 01:48 PM
When my post initiated this thread I did not anticipate what was to follow, especially on the international diplomacy front. My thoughts were along the lines that there might be more consensus....and that Jag officials might, in some way, be monitoring this forum.
First of all, I don't know if the real reason for the 2.0 is CAFE or is in any way related to fuel economy. The dealer informed me that it was so they could offer a lower price point entry level vehicle to compete with the BMW 5 series with their own 2.0 turbo. In a way, a "loss leader" to get customers in the door with a lower starting price point. Accurate or not, that's just another perspective. In any event, I still strongly believe that in general it denigrates the Jaguar brand and in particular the XF. That engine should not be in the XF. Don't follow BMW's (and others) lead. On a plus side, the lighter front end does feel nice).
The 5.0 NA vs 3.0 S/C is another, more complex story. Yes, my initial post comment calling the 3.0 a "wimp" was less than diplomatic, but it is a matter of relative comparison. MPG fuel economy is 16/23 (5.0) and 17/28 (3.0). Just guesstimating for the 3.0... probably 1/2 of the fuel economy improvement is engine and 1/2 is transmission. Should the 5.0 have had a 8 speed, I would suggest that highway economy might be in the 26 mpg range (city economy is already very close). For marginally better fuel economy the 3.0 sacrifices about 15% torque in the mid range. Almost anyone who has driven the two will state that the difference in performance is absolutely noticeable.....and some may not care. And what about the induction growl of the 5.0? Now the 3.0 is a wimp in that department. I just think that the 3.0 gives up way too much to the 5.0 for such marginal highway and questionable city fuel economy gains.
Among many reasons, most of us are attracted to Jaguar because it is more of a niche brand. The Jag product planners need to create their own path and not be sucked up into following the masses. The 2.0 is a disgrace....period. I may just be too "old school" in my love for the 5.0 NA.....and I do suspect the V-8 will sooner or later disappear from the passenger car landscape. I just hope that Jaguar could have extended the run for the 5.0 NA.
What makes one car better than another? The age old car guy question. I will say that in far more cases my 5.0 XF is a better car than my XFR.....but there are those fewer situations when the XFR is a VASTLY better car. Can't say the same for the 3.0, I believe the 5.0 NA XF is a better car in all situations (and including consideration of fuel economy).
First of all, I don't know if the real reason for the 2.0 is CAFE or is in any way related to fuel economy. The dealer informed me that it was so they could offer a lower price point entry level vehicle to compete with the BMW 5 series with their own 2.0 turbo. In a way, a "loss leader" to get customers in the door with a lower starting price point. Accurate or not, that's just another perspective. In any event, I still strongly believe that in general it denigrates the Jaguar brand and in particular the XF. That engine should not be in the XF. Don't follow BMW's (and others) lead. On a plus side, the lighter front end does feel nice).
The 5.0 NA vs 3.0 S/C is another, more complex story. Yes, my initial post comment calling the 3.0 a "wimp" was less than diplomatic, but it is a matter of relative comparison. MPG fuel economy is 16/23 (5.0) and 17/28 (3.0). Just guesstimating for the 3.0... probably 1/2 of the fuel economy improvement is engine and 1/2 is transmission. Should the 5.0 have had a 8 speed, I would suggest that highway economy might be in the 26 mpg range (city economy is already very close). For marginally better fuel economy the 3.0 sacrifices about 15% torque in the mid range. Almost anyone who has driven the two will state that the difference in performance is absolutely noticeable.....and some may not care. And what about the induction growl of the 5.0? Now the 3.0 is a wimp in that department. I just think that the 3.0 gives up way too much to the 5.0 for such marginal highway and questionable city fuel economy gains.
Among many reasons, most of us are attracted to Jaguar because it is more of a niche brand. The Jag product planners need to create their own path and not be sucked up into following the masses. The 2.0 is a disgrace....period. I may just be too "old school" in my love for the 5.0 NA.....and I do suspect the V-8 will sooner or later disappear from the passenger car landscape. I just hope that Jaguar could have extended the run for the 5.0 NA.
What makes one car better than another? The age old car guy question. I will say that in far more cases my 5.0 XF is a better car than my XFR.....but there are those fewer situations when the XFR is a VASTLY better car. Can't say the same for the 3.0, I believe the 5.0 NA XF is a better car in all situations (and including consideration of fuel economy).
#44
09-03-2013, 03:22 PM
When my post initiated this thread I did not anticipate what was to follow, especially on the international diplomacy front. My thoughts were along the lines that there might be more consensus....and that Jag officials might, in some way, be monitoring this forum.
First of all, I don't know if the real reason for the 2.0 is CAFE or is in any way related to fuel economy. The dealer informed me that it was so they could offer a lower price point entry level vehicle to compete with the BMW 5 series with their own 2.0 turbo. In a way, a "loss leader" to get customers in the door with a lower starting price point. Accurate or not, that's just another perspective. In any event, I still strongly believe that in general it denigrates the Jaguar brand and in particular the XF. That engine should not be in the XF. Don't follow BMW's (and others) lead. On a plus side, the lighter front end does feel nice).
The 5.0 NA vs 3.0 S/C is another, more complex story. Yes, my initial post comment calling the 3.0 a "wimp" was less than diplomatic, but it is a matter of relative comparison. MPG fuel economy is 16/23 (5.0) and 17/28 (3.0). Just guesstimating for the 3.0... probably 1/2 of the fuel economy improvement is engine and 1/2 is transmission. Should the 5.0 have had a 8 speed, I would suggest that highway economy might be in the 26 mpg range (city economy is already very close). For marginally better fuel economy the 3.0 sacrifices about 15% torque in the mid range. Almost anyone who has driven the two will state that the difference in performance is absolutely noticeable.....and some may not care. And what about the induction growl of the 5.0? Now the 3.0 is a wimp in that department. I just think that the 3.0 gives up way too much to the 5.0 for such marginal highway and questionable city fuel economy gains.
Among many reasons, most of us are attracted to Jaguar because it is more of a niche brand. The Jag product planners need to create their own path and not be sucked up into following the masses. The 2.0 is a disgrace....period. I may just be too "old school" in my love for the 5.0 NA.....and I do suspect the V-8 will sooner or later disappear from the passenger car landscape. I just hope that Jaguar could have extended the run for the 5.0 NA.
What makes one car better than another? The age old car guy question. I will say that in far more cases my 5.0 XF is a better car than my XFR.....but there are those fewer situations when the XFR is a VASTLY better car. Can't say the same for the 3.0, I believe the 5.0 NA XF is a better car in all situations (and including consideration of fuel economy).
First of all, I don't know if the real reason for the 2.0 is CAFE or is in any way related to fuel economy. The dealer informed me that it was so they could offer a lower price point entry level vehicle to compete with the BMW 5 series with their own 2.0 turbo. In a way, a "loss leader" to get customers in the door with a lower starting price point. Accurate or not, that's just another perspective. In any event, I still strongly believe that in general it denigrates the Jaguar brand and in particular the XF. That engine should not be in the XF. Don't follow BMW's (and others) lead. On a plus side, the lighter front end does feel nice).
The 5.0 NA vs 3.0 S/C is another, more complex story. Yes, my initial post comment calling the 3.0 a "wimp" was less than diplomatic, but it is a matter of relative comparison. MPG fuel economy is 16/23 (5.0) and 17/28 (3.0). Just guesstimating for the 3.0... probably 1/2 of the fuel economy improvement is engine and 1/2 is transmission. Should the 5.0 have had a 8 speed, I would suggest that highway economy might be in the 26 mpg range (city economy is already very close). For marginally better fuel economy the 3.0 sacrifices about 15% torque in the mid range. Almost anyone who has driven the two will state that the difference in performance is absolutely noticeable.....and some may not care. And what about the induction growl of the 5.0? Now the 3.0 is a wimp in that department. I just think that the 3.0 gives up way too much to the 5.0 for such marginal highway and questionable city fuel economy gains.
Among many reasons, most of us are attracted to Jaguar because it is more of a niche brand. The Jag product planners need to create their own path and not be sucked up into following the masses. The 2.0 is a disgrace....period. I may just be too "old school" in my love for the 5.0 NA.....and I do suspect the V-8 will sooner or later disappear from the passenger car landscape. I just hope that Jaguar could have extended the run for the 5.0 NA.
What makes one car better than another? The age old car guy question. I will say that in far more cases my 5.0 XF is a better car than my XFR.....but there are those fewer situations when the XFR is a VASTLY better car. Can't say the same for the 3.0, I believe the 5.0 NA XF is a better car in all situations (and including consideration of fuel economy).
I think there are a couple really interesting points in your post, and I looked up the EPA ratings for a few of the XJs (where the NA 5.0 is enjoying it's last run unless there's some kind of reprieve). Now, I assume we're going to hear from some quarters what a bunch of crap the the EPA ratings are, but they do provide some useful relative comparison.
XJ (SWB) 3.0 is 18/27/21 (city, highway, combined MPG)
XJL Port NA 5.0 16/25/19
XJ AWD is 16/24/19, a little less MPG than the 5.0 in the XJL Port
XJL AWD is 15/24/19 so the whopping 28 lbs (which has to be an error) of addl curb weight for the LWB costs 1 MPG in the city...
Doesn't take a brain surgeon to then make the assumption that the EPA rating for an XJL with the 3.0 if it were available would probably also have this same 1 MPG city deficit which I think was also the case in 2012 when it was an all 8 cyl line-up.
So, the MPG would likely be 17/27/21(maybe 20 combined) for the hypothetical XJL 3.0, which is not a very big jump at all from the 16/25/19 of the 5.0 considering the performance improvement...
Another thing to just consider a bit, though I have no allusions that the XF is going to be "collectable", but the 2012 XF NA 5.0, is unique. The only year combining the naturally aspirated V8 with the facelifted exterior and interior.
Last edited by rbobzilla; 09-04-2013 at 03:47 PM.
#45
09-03-2013, 08:37 PM
Veteran Member
And Motorweek just put the XJL V6 SC AWD through its paces and produced slightly better numbers than the rwd XJ with the 5.0.
2013 Jaguar XJL AWD | MotorWeek
And, yes, the L isn't much heavier than the regular wheelbase, air doesn't weigh much.
2013 Jaguar XJL AWD | MotorWeek
And, yes, the L isn't much heavier than the regular wheelbase, air doesn't weigh much.
#46
09-03-2013, 09:37 PM
And Motorweek just put the XJL V6 SC AWD through its paces and produced slightly better numbers than the rwd XJ with the 5.0.
2013 Jaguar XJL AWD |*MotorWeek
And, yes, the L isn't much heavier than the regular wheelbase, air doesn't weigh much.
2013 Jaguar XJL AWD |*MotorWeek
And, yes, the L isn't much heavier than the regular wheelbase, air doesn't weigh much.
Is there anyone who lives in Northern/Central NJ have a 3.0 RWD XF who wants to compare it with my 5.0 XF.....and post it on YouTube. That's one way to solve the debate. And for that matter, anyone one in the same area with a XFR 8 speed who wants to compare it to my XFR 6 speed to solve another debate going on elsewhere in this forum? Send me a private message.
#47
09-03-2013, 11:32 PM
Veteran Member
AWD adds only about 150 lbs, 70 kg or so. The XJL is about 5 inches longer than the standard car but as you note just a but of additional aluminum is required to get that length.
As for the performance numbers, Motorweek is very reliable. Boosted engines can produce torque lower down and over a wider rpm range. The Jaguar V6 and V8 boosted engines display a flat torque curve.
It could be car to car variation or it could be the awd on Motorweek's 1/4 mile. The launch area is well rubbered in and the Jaguar awd system pretty much makes the traction control on launch irrelevant.
Jaguar's published figures conform to expectations from curb weight and engine torque I.e. the rwd 5.0 is quickest and the awd XF is slowest ( not counting the turbo four of course). The awd weight adds about 0.2 seconds to the 0-60 time.
As for the performance numbers, Motorweek is very reliable. Boosted engines can produce torque lower down and over a wider rpm range. The Jaguar V6 and V8 boosted engines display a flat torque curve.
It could be car to car variation or it could be the awd on Motorweek's 1/4 mile. The launch area is well rubbered in and the Jaguar awd system pretty much makes the traction control on launch irrelevant.
Jaguar's published figures conform to expectations from curb weight and engine torque I.e. the rwd 5.0 is quickest and the awd XF is slowest ( not counting the turbo four of course). The awd weight adds about 0.2 seconds to the 0-60 time.
Last edited by jagular; 09-03-2013 at 11:38 PM.
#48
09-03-2013, 11:33 PM
Veteran Member
Just BTW, both Martin Brundle and Mike Cross consider the F Type V6 S to be the best of the F Type range.
Having driven both I understand why. My choice would be the base V6 as it gets you almost all the F Type performance for less cost. Mechanical LSD are not as good as electronic traction control for street driving.
Having driven both I understand why. My choice would be the base V6 as it gets you almost all the F Type performance for less cost. Mechanical LSD are not as good as electronic traction control for street driving.
Last edited by jagular; 09-03-2013 at 11:40 PM.
#49
09-04-2013, 09:54 AM
AWD adds only about 150 lbs, 70 kg or so. The XJL is about 5 inches longer than the standard car but as you note just a but of additional aluminum is required to get that length.
As for the performance numbers, Motorweek is very reliable. Boosted engines can produce torque lower down and over a wider rpm range. The Jaguar V6 and V8 boosted engines display a flat torque curve.
It could be car to car variation or it could be the awd on Motorweek's 1/4 mile. The launch area is well rubbered in and the Jaguar awd system pretty much makes the traction control on launch irrelevant.
Jaguar's published figures conform to expectations from curb weight and engine torque I.e. the rwd 5.0 is quickest and the awd XF is slowest ( not counting the turbo four of course). The awd weight adds about 0.2 seconds to the 0-60 time.
As for the performance numbers, Motorweek is very reliable. Boosted engines can produce torque lower down and over a wider rpm range. The Jaguar V6 and V8 boosted engines display a flat torque curve.
It could be car to car variation or it could be the awd on Motorweek's 1/4 mile. The launch area is well rubbered in and the Jaguar awd system pretty much makes the traction control on launch irrelevant.
Jaguar's published figures conform to expectations from curb weight and engine torque I.e. the rwd 5.0 is quickest and the awd XF is slowest ( not counting the turbo four of course). The awd weight adds about 0.2 seconds to the 0-60 time.
But, since you have stated that "Motorweek is very reliable," there's no way you can object to going with their actual test results for the 2013 Jaguar XF 3.0 AWD - 6.2 seconds to 60, and their quote: "0-60 sprints of 6.2-seconds are not slow by any means, but like a cat just waking up from a mid-day nap, this Jag is just in no particular hurry to scoot away. But, as it works its way down the track, it wakes up quite a bit, achieving a commendable 14.6-second quarter mile at 102 miles-per-hour. Still, soft shifts and a weak exhaust note reminds us that this cat is more for prowling around town than chasing down dinner across the flats "
Hmmm - wonder why you've chosen not to share that particular fact, given that you are so intent on proving your fallacious point - come on, just give it up. I'm also satisfied with my own personally timed results (at altitude) where there frankly was no comparison. As the saying goes, "I coulda had a V8"
To each their own. You apparently appreciate being able to see the scenery in slower accelerating cars, and that's perfectly fine. The XF 3.0 SC AWD is a fine car with a fine engine - enjoy the view of the exhaust pipes of the V8.
Last edited by rbobzilla; 09-04-2013 at 11:29 AM.
#50
09-04-2013, 02:11 PM
Veteran Member
The guy is in denial, you guys don't waste too much time on him.
He bashed AWD in 20 threads and went out bought one. Now that he's got one, it's the best thing on the block.
He has complained about noisy cars, such as loud exhausts, as well as the intake growl in the XF, but he plans on buying the F type.......one of the loudest cars ever to come out of factory.
ko ' ko' ko' ko'
Last edited by Executive; 09-04-2013 at 02:18 PM.
#51
09-04-2013, 03:56 PM
You know, this is really quite fun - apparently German "air" must weigh a lot more than British "air" - the A8L weighs 99 lbs more than the A8, and the 750Li weighs 85 lbs more than the 750i. While the additional length only weighs 28 lbs in a Jaguar. Of course it is not only aluminum (and air) we're talking about - the steel side door beams also have to be lengthened, along with more glass, wiring, trim, stainless steel exhaust, driveshaft, etc. You apparently know less about car design and manufacture than I know about oil sands...
Last edited by rbobzilla; 09-04-2013 at 04:11 PM.
#52
11-24-2018, 01:01 AM
Senior Member
I have a 2012 XF with the 5.0 Natural Aspirated. It's a great engine and well suited to the XF. I have had a 2013 XF 3.0 S/C as a loaner. The difference in performance is remarkable. The 40 or so hp disadvantage of the 3.0 does not tell the real story. The 5.0 is a much stronger engine with loads more torque at lower RPM 's. The 3.0 is a wimp compared to the 5.0. I noted that my around town driving fuel economy with both was nearly identical at 17.2-17.3 mpg. Maybe the 3.0 gets better economy on the Federal EPA test cycle, but not with real world driving. The 5.0 is fun to drive; the 3.0 is not. And that stupid 2.0 turbo! The turbo/downshift lag is in the vicinity of 1.2-1.7 seconds. From a dead start stomp on the throttle.....nothing happens for a second or so. At 30-40 mph stomp on the throttle....nothing happens for well over a second. Totally unacceptable. And the 2.0 runs out of torque above 4,000 rpm. And it gets only marginally better fuel economy than either the 5.0 and 3.0. The 2.0 totally denigrates the XF. Jaguar Vehicle Engineers were overruled by the Product Planners.....what a shame. Am I the only one with these thoughts?
my experience listed.
#53
11-30-2018, 04:52 PM
I have ability to test a bunch of jags atthe same time, to be honest in the wet, modified 600hp+ XFR is slower around town than XJL 3.0 AWD. 2014 XF same configuration nearly same performance, 2017 XF quicker, and seems its gearbox does not have electronic limitations of nM.
so in the city, in the wet 3.0AWD is superior. horses doesnt matter here.
in the highway 600hp+ XFR is a monster. not much cars (including sport ones) can catch it from 150 to 250km/h
now engines V8 4.2 NA- weakest engine. no low torgue, no high rpm power. V6 3.0 AWD nice engine , but soulless. prety good from the low also have decent pull on high rpm but something is missing. its perfectly fine to carry from pijt a to pint B or overtake cars. but soulles . tried on three diferent cars- XJL.XF new XF.
5.0NA nice engine but no low torgue comparing to 4.2SC also no instant power. once you get used to supercharged engine its clearly sad to step down to turbo or NA. But i like 5.0 NA more than 3.0SC. its somehow amateur to drive. i have driven only once 2.0 turbo, you need to push it to enter circles or highway. not a sign of effortless torgue.. but it should be fine on 1200kg car..
fuel consumprion another funny story- 2.0 turbo would take more fuel if try to follow that 600hp+ xfr. 3.0AWD takes only 0.6 liter less than 4.2sc if you overtaking on travels. once you drive at steady speed 3.0SC consumption goes as low as 6.5liter/100km (v8 SC never goes lower then 7.8l/100km)
so in the city, in the wet 3.0AWD is superior. horses doesnt matter here.
in the highway 600hp+ XFR is a monster. not much cars (including sport ones) can catch it from 150 to 250km/h
now engines V8 4.2 NA- weakest engine. no low torgue, no high rpm power. V6 3.0 AWD nice engine , but soulless. prety good from the low also have decent pull on high rpm but something is missing. its perfectly fine to carry from pijt a to pint B or overtake cars. but soulles . tried on three diferent cars- XJL.XF new XF.
5.0NA nice engine but no low torgue comparing to 4.2SC also no instant power. once you get used to supercharged engine its clearly sad to step down to turbo or NA. But i like 5.0 NA more than 3.0SC. its somehow amateur to drive. i have driven only once 2.0 turbo, you need to push it to enter circles or highway. not a sign of effortless torgue.. but it should be fine on 1200kg car..
fuel consumprion another funny story- 2.0 turbo would take more fuel if try to follow that 600hp+ xfr. 3.0AWD takes only 0.6 liter less than 4.2sc if you overtaking on travels. once you drive at steady speed 3.0SC consumption goes as low as 6.5liter/100km (v8 SC never goes lower then 7.8l/100km)
#54
11-30-2018, 04:57 PM
The following users liked this post:
NBCat (12-02-2018)
#56
12-08-2018, 04:41 PM
The 5.0L V8 is better than the 3.0L SC. I wish they continued to offer them in the latest XF. The main reason I like my car is because of the V8 but that’s just me and my preference. It just sounds great and gives a great driving experience. Plus the Torque is actually more so Jaguar is just giving a slightly downgraded engine for the same cost (actually more).
#57
12-10-2018, 08:05 AM
>I wish they continued to offer them in the latest XF
So do I, I miss my 4.2NA in comparison to my 3.0 and I'd think it would be more with the 5.0. The V8 was just lazy power, no drama, just push the pedal and go.
But perhaps it's more of the new 8 speed ZF... Every time I want to dial up more scoot it has to down shift at least a couple of times. The 4.2 didn't really care what gear it was in.
Also, what really bugs me is the fact that the 3.0 shares the block with the 5.0, but with sealed up spaces for the two missing rear cylinders. Instead of designing a turn V6 they plugged two holes and added balance shafts to tame the out of balance 90 degree V6.
Shame on them!!!!
================================================== ===========
Understeer is when you hit the wall with the front of the car
Oversteer is when you hit the wall with the rear of the car
Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall, and
Torque is how far you take the wall with you
So do I, I miss my 4.2NA in comparison to my 3.0 and I'd think it would be more with the 5.0. The V8 was just lazy power, no drama, just push the pedal and go.
But perhaps it's more of the new 8 speed ZF... Every time I want to dial up more scoot it has to down shift at least a couple of times. The 4.2 didn't really care what gear it was in.
Also, what really bugs me is the fact that the 3.0 shares the block with the 5.0, but with sealed up spaces for the two missing rear cylinders. Instead of designing a turn V6 they plugged two holes and added balance shafts to tame the out of balance 90 degree V6.
Shame on them!!!!
================================================== ===========
Understeer is when you hit the wall with the front of the car
Oversteer is when you hit the wall with the rear of the car
Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall, and
Torque is how far you take the wall with you
The following users liked this post:
bfarrell (05-04-2019)
#58
12-19-2018, 08:37 PM
Member
Wow....A fascinating thread, worthy of multiple reads.
I am now in the position of needing a four door car with an automatic and having grown up driving and wrenching on Jaguar 3.4 and 3.8 litre sedans as well as a 4.2 E-Type naturally my heartstrings pull me towards an XF.
I realize this generation of Jaguars have none of the old Coventry dna left in them, but Mr. Callum's design sense really works for me, I find the 2012-15 XF to be visually about as good as it gets. I am leaning towards the NA V-8 as this will likely be my last purchase of a car with an IC engine. I am coming from a 2005 R53 Mini Cooper S, a truly delightful little car, but with multiple grandkids and two Great Danes, it's gotten a bit snug. As much as I love it, I need something bigger.
I've done all my own wrenching on the Mini for eight years now, but all my tools and manuals were lost in the Camp Fire in Paradise, California last month along with the house and my workshop/business..I am now bunking with my older kids in Centennial, Colorado until the insurance company gets done trying to drive me insane. I think the least I can do is gift myself a reasonably fun, beautiful motorcar. I am thinking that current economic trends will make nice XF's even more of a bargain in a few months and I will look in California for my car, as it will not have had to deal with the salted roads here for the last five years .
My only real reservation is knowing that no matter how clean a car I find, the great plastic cooling system replacement will be inevitable. I have to wonder if somebody out there won't do some 3D printed seamless replacement parts that might last longer?
Anyway, very happy to have found this forum, and all the accrued wisdom .
Paul
I am now in the position of needing a four door car with an automatic and having grown up driving and wrenching on Jaguar 3.4 and 3.8 litre sedans as well as a 4.2 E-Type naturally my heartstrings pull me towards an XF.
I realize this generation of Jaguars have none of the old Coventry dna left in them, but Mr. Callum's design sense really works for me, I find the 2012-15 XF to be visually about as good as it gets. I am leaning towards the NA V-8 as this will likely be my last purchase of a car with an IC engine. I am coming from a 2005 R53 Mini Cooper S, a truly delightful little car, but with multiple grandkids and two Great Danes, it's gotten a bit snug. As much as I love it, I need something bigger.
I've done all my own wrenching on the Mini for eight years now, but all my tools and manuals were lost in the Camp Fire in Paradise, California last month along with the house and my workshop/business..I am now bunking with my older kids in Centennial, Colorado until the insurance company gets done trying to drive me insane. I think the least I can do is gift myself a reasonably fun, beautiful motorcar. I am thinking that current economic trends will make nice XF's even more of a bargain in a few months and I will look in California for my car, as it will not have had to deal with the salted roads here for the last five years .
My only real reservation is knowing that no matter how clean a car I find, the great plastic cooling system replacement will be inevitable. I have to wonder if somebody out there won't do some 3D printed seamless replacement parts that might last longer?
Anyway, very happy to have found this forum, and all the accrued wisdom .
Paul
#60
05-27-2023, 07:26 PM
Member