Great news! My dealership finally has 3 XF loaner vehicles. They finally stepped it up. They gave me a new 2013 XF 4cyl. Driving the new 2013 XF 4cyl as a loaner makes me appreciate my 5.0, 8 cyl engine. The 5.0 engine is almost perfect. In my opinion, Jaguar has done itself a disservice by putting that 4cyl engine on the XF body. The 4cyl engine in that car at that weight is a horrible combination and drive. They should have come up with another model and shape similar in size to a 3 series or Audi A4. Has anyone else driven the 4cyl XF? Am I spoiled and jaded with my 5.0 engine or is it as bad as I think it is???

 

I read a review of and they hated it they said the gas pedal could be replaced with a on off switch. It was impossible to dial in moderate acceleration you were either full throttle or crawling.

I'm 'okay' with the supercharged V6 because it does make almost as much power as the NA V8. I also figure if you didn't spring for the supercharged V8 you probably don't care about performance persay or its low on the list of wants.

The turbo 4 has no business in a Jaguar period. Its an embarrasment to the brand.

I am a fan of the AWD and probably would enjoy the 8spd auto too.

How is the 8spd Auto?

 

Well, the SC V8 versions cost $10,000 to $15,000 more, which can be a huge contributing factor.

I do agree, they should have kept the 4 cylinder for the baby XF that is in the works. It's not like it's going to yield huge MPG numbers over the other engines anyway, if you going to have your foot married to the floor board all the time.

 

BMW put a 4 banger in their 5 series. Competition drives these decisions. I liked that Jag only made 8's for the USA, but they need to survive. Exclusivity is not what it used to be with any marquee (i.e Merc, audi, BMW)

 

CAFE.

The new supercharged V6 makes more power and torque than the launch model V8. Performance even with the awd is almost exactly comparable.

The new turbo four is consistent with where fuel economy is going these days. Apparently even Americans are considering this factor when buying a car. However, the fuel economy gain from using such a small engine is not significant. The curb weight reduction is significant and no doubt this model handles well. Canada is not to get this version, I believe. It has to be a US driven model. There is no equivalent European version as they get the much better 2.2 turbodiesel four.

0-60 in 7.5 seconds is quite acceptable at that price point. The new 8 spd is no doubt responsible.

 

When you think about it is not stupid for Jaguar to put the i4 turbo in, since it delivers 240hp which is what the old s-type v6 3.0 had. So there is not much of a difference. Its just an entry level car.

 

I'm assuming you mean petrol, not diesel (I've driven both, and the 3.0 litre diesel, both 500Nm and 600Nm).

It's a great engine. Sure, it's not quite as punchy as any V8 or supercharged engine (my current drive), but it has a remarkable pick up once it gets going. Indeed, for 2 litres, it performs very well, and has less turbo lag than the 2.2 litre diesel. It also sounds better, especially under acceleration.

What interested me was the fact that the engine is very light, and makes the XF handle in a more sprightly fashion in the twisty bits. This is especially noticeable compared with both the 2.2 and 3.0 litre diesels.

Fuel consumption is the only real niggle: it's good - not diesel good, but still very acceptable - on longer trips, but not much good at all if hammering it around on fun roads. I saw 15 litres per 100 km (sorry people, you'll have to translate into Imperial) around town, which made me reconsider - it also demands 95 RON fuel.

In my testing of all of the motors listed above, I'd say the sweet spot of balance between power and economy is without a shadow of doubt the 3.0 litre 600Nm diesel, but here down under, they're as rare as hen's teeth, so I've had to settle for a standard 3.0 litre diesel for my next purchase.

 

Car and Driver liked that engine. The Ford Fusion (Mondeo) uses that engine as its top end, replacing the 3.0 V6.

That XF diesel 3.0S is a remarkable engine, my cousin drives one in the UK. North Americans always think they need big power but what they actually use is big torque and they hardly ever use that either. The irony is the turbodiesel 3.0 S is the perfect engine for North America but nobody here would buy one, at least very few would.

That turbo 4 produces plenty of torque for the way North Americans actually drive their cars. Trouble is, North Americans think they drive faster than they do so "need" that V8 "power", for bar talk.

 

The car was the gasoline version 4cyl. It drives very consistent with the article "XF-Xtra Fast" referred to. I was surprised they used "that' engine in the car. It drove nothing like the BMW I-4 or the Audi 4 cyl engines. It my opinion, it was one of the worst I've driven which is unacceptable for a luxury brand trying to survive with major competitiion. I have not driven the 6cyl. The specs on the 4cyl and 6cyl look promising but driving performance is something different. I would be curious to everyone's thoughts after they drive the 4cyl.

 

Canadians' commute must mostly consist of driving on roads built for horse and buggies, that's why the 4 cylinder engine is sufficient.

I am surprised Canada won't be getting that engine.

 

I dunno, 0-60 in 7.5 seconds is more than sufficient for North American commutes anywhere I've driven, regardless of road surface. The speed limits and enforcement patterns mean a top speed of 120 mph is more than adequate. In my area the risk of hitting a larg animal: moose, elk, cow or horse is sufficient to restrain intelligent drivers to reasonable speeds.

What would be interesting is to see how different the cornering is with an engine approaching half the weight of the V8. The four cylinder cars are much lighter than either the V6 or V8 cars.

And, believe it or not, the four cylinder XF weighs about the same as the Evoque with that same engine. I know which I prefer.

 

Just test drove the new Canadian spec awd V6 SC.

I like it.

The engine is brilliant. In the XF it is very quiet and smooth with plenty of punch. It compares very favorably with my 4.2 V8 and the 5.0 V8 I drove in an XJ.

One minor difference, true of all forced induction engines, is a noticable lag when you first step on it at low rpm. This cannot be engineered out of any supercharged engine made by anyone. It is simply a result of using a small displacement engine and then boosting it. A 3.0 V6 just isn't powerful enough to accelerate a 4,000 lb car until the boost arrives. The four cylinder will be I appropriately criticized for the same issue. The 5.0 supercharged won't exhibit this because 5.0 liters is enough to move the XF without a supercharger.

If you drive a boosted engine correctly you will hardly ever notice this issue. I've driven turbos for more than 25 years now and have no issues dealing with throttle lag. Turbos suffer from this effect slightly more than mechanical superchargers because they also suffer from turbo lag. Mechanical superchargers boost immediately when you step on the gas and close that bypass valve. No time is required to also spin up the air pump.

 

@ Jagular
That explains the driving impressions of the 4cyl. There was a very noticeable lag and then a strong boost. The engine seemed to always be between lag and boost even when driving versus stop/start. I'm use to more of an immediate throtte response. My BMW 550 had a slight lag but nothing significant. It could be considered a driving hazzard for those not accustomed to it, especially pulling out into traffic. Thanks for the education.

 

Same engine in the Range Rover Evoque, costs lots of money and gets rave reviews. Go figure. Same transmissions too, I think. Maybe the Evoque still fits the 6 spd?.??

Doh, except the Evoque uses a transverse drivetrain originally developed for the Freelander and the Jaguar X Type. No holes in the sump needed.

 

It all depends on what you're used to. Any engine with a modicum of power will always seem powerful if you've only even driven less powerful cars. The 2.0 litre petrol is a fine engine, and I rated it much more highly as a 'responsive' engine compared with the 2.2 litre diesel. The only real drawback for me was the calculated running costs on premium fuel. For a vehicle over 1800kg, the 2.0P is incredibly responsive, and a joy to drive.

On the other hand, the 3.0 litre diesel is another league again, and no doubt the larger petrol motors, too - but you pay for what you get.

 

We won't buy diesels in any great numbers. Diesel fuel is significantly more expensive than petrol most of the time. Our fuel prices are around $1.00 to $1.25 per liter, cheaper in the US than in Canada where I live.

 

No surprises there. Here in Australia, we pay around $1.50 per litre in capital centres, for both petrol and diesel - and up to 30-40% more in the bush.

This nation runs on diesel (massive trucking industry).

 

So does North America. Diesel fuel will never be cheaper than gasoline here partly for that reason. Fuel taxes remain low in part because we drive so far. Auto fuel is a basic here like bread. You can't tax it and stay in office.