Great car. Absolutely no trouble EXCEPT the glass panoramic roof. Hope they ditch this set up very soon. It does make the car feel light and airy but not worth the troubles and rattles associated with it. I hear they softened the suspension in the 2013 models. Not good. Can't wait to drive the new v6 with the eight speed for comparison with the current v8 with the six speed .. Not to enthusiastic about the new start /stop system on the 2013. I would definitely trade in my 2012 for a 2013 if it didn't have the glass roof.

 

What would I change after 1800 miles on my car?

In my post at 1000 miles my only significant complaint was the RIDE. I found it much too harsh for a luxury saloon. As a matter of fact, just today I took the car to the dealer and had them check the tire balances and check them for being round. I basically feel nearly constant ride harshness particularly at 70+ miles per hour MPH. Even at lower speeds I feel the breaking of the spine of every single ant that I drive over on perfectly smooth black-top surfaces. Basically I feel the harshness transmitted though the bottom seat cushions as well as the wood steering wheel. I do have to add that I have developed a rather fine sense of mechanical "feel" during my decades of auto-racing, sensing and feeling mechanical imperfections that many other drivers (like my wife) do not pick up on.

So, I got a Hyundai Sonata economy car as a dealer loaner and I sadly realized that on the very same freeway the cheap Korean car rode significantly smoother than my XJL. That did not make me overly happy. Of course, the Hyunday did not have those stiff low profile tires, it was running on what seemed to be 15 or 16" wheels with good flexi tire sidewalls.

So, the dealer said that they found an out-of-round rear tire which, they would not warranty, sending me to a Pirelli dealer. So, I did go to a Pirelli dealer that very thoroughly checked and spin balanced all four wheels and checked the rear tire for being round. It was NOT out round, as the dealer claimed. Both did only visual checks for roundness as they spun the tires. When I get home I will put a precision instrument on the tires to check them for roundness.

I do have the 19" wheels with the standard Pirelli Zero Nero 4-season tires. Maybe the sidewalls on them are just simply too stiff? Not sure, as I did read a couple of magazine reviews on 2011+ XJs and XJLs that pointed out the harsh ride. The fact that the factory is making the suspension softer for 2013 seem to indicate that they indeed are having issues with harshness. So, yes, my primary wish would be a more compliant suspension, more fitting a luxury sedan. I would not mind at all to have 17" wheels and an extra inch of softer sidewall. Still, my '08 XK on its 19" wheels and tires do not transmit the same harshness.

Other than that, I would make the dash clock so that one can see the pointers in the dark and I would improve upon the dash and touch screen configuration so that the vertical sun coming through the windshield does not fade out the instruments and the touch screen.

I would also prefer the 8-speed. I was actually waiting for the 2013s because of the 8-speed but, I got impatient and got a 2012. Now, with the availability of the 8-speed and the softer suspension (promised by Jag not to effect the great handling) I feel that I probably should have waited for the 2013s.

Besides the main, ride issue, the others are insignificant in comparison. The car is fabulous, still dead quiet, no roof or any other noise, yet (keeping my fingers crossed).

Albert

 

If you have the SC, ditch the wheels. Go to the smaller more comfortable wheels of the non supercharged. Makes all the difference. The trouble is with the wheels as they follow the fashion trend.

 

You will never, ever, get a good ride with those 19" wheels, (what the 20" are like, I hate to think). I started off on 20" on my X350, swapped to 18" after a couple of months, and it transformed the car. If you swap, you have to have the car reprogrammed for the new wheel size and tyre.

 

Oh, I forgot to mention that Jaguar normally lists two sets of tyre pressures, Comfort and Normal. Comfort covers use up to 100 mph. How often do you go over 100 ?

 

I dont understand the complaints with ride. Not to be condescending, but you must all have very sensitive rear ends. I thought the ride on the 20" wheels on my supercharged XJ is perfectly fine. Just as good as an S-Class or a 7 series BMW. I updated mine to 22's and dont really notice an appreciable difference except on speed bumps. and larger imperfections in the road ie small potholes (that you would feel anyways).

 

What are you smoking, "Smokin"??? (sorry, just could not pass that up).

Really, I do not know what YOUR rear end is made of if you are not feeling the harshness? To answer your suggestion, my rear-end has nerve endings that let me know of unnatural road vibrations that should not be there even in economy cars.

Last night I scanned through over a dozen of pro reviews of the XJ(L) and at least 50 percent reported stiff or downright harsh rides. So, given that the factory is softening the ride for 2013, I suspect that my car is the norm, rather than the exception.

The fact that the Jag is no worse than the Mercs or BMW only tells us that they are all using big wheels and low profile tires and the ride is way stiff in all of them. Where are the days when you could have 16" stock wheels on a 7-series Beemer that provided a firm but, super smooth highway ride and good handling? The only reason factories are using these silly wheels and tires because customers demanding them, making them a fashion issue. Most of these customers do not understand the effects of them on the ride.

I would agree that there may NOT be a huge difference between 19, 20 or 22" wheels. That is because even the 19" wheels already require short, straight, super stiff sidewalls that do not compress much, taking away the intended cushioning effects typical of the slightly bulging sidewalls of years past. That is why even lowering the air pressure in the tires do not help much. The sidewalls are so stiff that they simply do not soften up even when you let 5 psi air out. I know, because I tried that already.

Electronic dampers, that change the valving thousand times per second, made it possible to use these huge wheels, short sidewalls. But, there is a limit of what they can do and they can not fully substitute for the lost tire sidewall cushioning. Using these wheels/tires with older non-electronic dampers would be unbearable for most. My '05 XK with 18" wheels and no electronic dampers rode rougher than my '08 XK on 19" with electronic dampers. But, that does not mean that the car would not ride far better and even handle better on 16 or 17" wheels and corresponding higher tire sidewalls when used with these electronic dampers.

I can not think of a single benefit for large wheels/short side walls but, I can think of a number of detriments: stiff ride, prone to rim damage and rims that are far heavier than would be required with a taller sidewall in order to survive the greater stresses and impacts resulting from hitting pavement irregularities. The only single "benefit" of large wheels maybe visual and fashion for some people. I personally think that cars look downright silly with wheels so large that they appear to touch the pavement with nothing but a thin strip of rubber around them.

If you think there is a performance advantage to large wheels and short sidewalls, look at F1, Indy, Nascar, SCCA race cars and see that they all use rather tall tire sidewalls and smaller diameter wheels.

Besides the tire sidewall issue, judging from the above mentioned reviews, I think that Jaguar selected electronic damper valving that is too stiff. I think that because my '08 XK on 245 and 275 wide 19" tires actually rides somewhat better than the XJL over the same surfaces.

Interestingly, my particular car on Pirelli Zero Nero tires seem to be their worst over almost new asphalt, (black-top) surfaces. It seems to transmit the texture of the asphalt right through the seat and the steering wheel. I could be a resonant frequency style vibration set up between a certain road texture and a particular thread design at a certain speed range. Either way, when an economy car, like my dealer-loaned Hyundai, clearly rides smoother at 70 MPH than my large luxury cruiser, something is not quite right with the suspension setup. Which is, undoubtedly, why Jaguar is changing it for 2013. Too bad it took them 2 years to adjust and too bad that I did not wait for the 2013s.

Since this will be my car for at least 3 years, I will solve the ride issue to my satisfaction, by changing components. The point is that I should not have to do so when purchasing a car in this category.

Albert

 

Albert,

XJ isn't a Lincoln town car - it's a Sports Saloon. Which means, it has to complete with vehicles like the S class and 7 series.
Having a short side wall affects the handling greatly. I have seen tires pop off the wheel during hard cornering. Why? Larger side wall has a lot more flexibility.
You mention of economy cars and the fact that they ride nicer. Do you know what would happen if you tried apexing a corner at a high speed in one of those economy cars? You will loose control and crash.

It's contradictory to say large wheels are a fashion statement - so, is a Jaguar XJ. You applause one and not the other?

I have 19" wheels on my XF and i am quite impressed as to how good the ride is. Would i up the size to 20"? Most likely not. It's at the pinnacle in terms of balance.

 

I have to agree with the previous poster. I have a 2012 Supercharged XJ with the standard 20inch rims that has 6k miles on it and I would be disappointed if it rode like a hyundai/honda/lincoln/cadillac. I like the way it shrinks around you in the corners and feels like a much smaller and more nimble car than it looks. As stated above, this car has to compete with the big Merc, and BMW sedans that are made to cruise at triple digit speeds with composed, sure footed road manners. I used to have a Buick that was the picture of a quiet/comfortable highway cruiser but would not think of driving it like the XJ. Lexus has gone the route of trying to be all things to all drivers but many feel they are still too soft.

All that said, I cannot think of anything I would change. In my 6k miles I have not had a single problem and have not seen the dealer since I picked it up. This is my daily driver and I do not baby it at all and it is as solid as the day I picked it up. Never thought I would "need" the supercharger but I must say it is very nice if not addictive. I have the short wheel base so the back seat is not huge but that is what the "L" is for.

Enjoy the ride.

 

Please allow me to counter some of your claims. Worth mentioning that I had raced cars for about 25 years in many categories, including autocrossing stock cars and track racing stock, modified stock, full blown racing GT and open wheeled formula cars. Won countless races and won 5 season championships in various classes. I did nearly all chassis, engine and suspension and body constructions and engineering on my race cars.

You suggested that short sidewalls greatly effected handling. True but, not necessarily in a positive direction. Certainly, if you drive on glass smooth surfaces, the short sidewall will provide crisper transitions and, depending on the suspension geometry, a flatly planted tire surface. The problem, however, is that real life roads and curves tend to come with uneven surfaces. If you have a suspension that is too stiff, you hit some surface irregularities under hard cornering and it will cause a sharp jolt on the wheel, sending the wheel up or down, changing the weight distribution on that wheel. At max cornering that could be enough to send you flying off the corner into the weeds. Since tire sidewalls are designed to absorb such irregularities, minimizing weight transfer, an overly stiff tire sidewall could be very dangerous. With these tires you are forced to rely on the springs and the dampers to do the job that was previously shared by the sidewall flexing.

Also, to respond to your suggestion, no half-way decent driver would crash in driving an economy car fast and hard. Proof of point; years ago I rented a Russian-made Lada in Austria. It was loaded with myself, my wife and a heavy friend. The Ladas were reputed to have had awful tires. Everyone hated them. Yet, when I raced a special high performance BMW Alpina in the steep downhill twisties, coming off of the Alpen peak of Grossglockner (spelling?), I was not only able to keep up with the much superior car but, actually passed him under braking. No crashing despite the substandard car/tires and neck breaking downhill speeds. Sure, I would have been able to go even faster in a decent car but, just pointing out that a cheap car will not necessarily crash when driven hard properly. Heck, my friends who rode with me in the Sierras decades ago in my slightly modified Toyota Corolla could tell you how many Porsches we blew away in that little economy cars in the tight twisties, often with multiple passengers and multiple 40 lbs+ white-water kayaks on the roof racks to help with the center of gravity :-).

In my decades of racing and fast street driving I have NEVER seen a tire come off a wheel due to heavy cornering, not even on cheap economy cars. A tire that is inflated anywhere close to its suggested levels, on undamaged rims, will slide far before developing enough lateral forces to tear it off a rim. Just does not happen. I have raced street-tired cars going far faster than any street driving could produce and never had any indications of a tire coming loose. To show you an example; my GT-2 race car used 13" rims and sidewalls so tall that it makes the Jags sidewall look like thin rubber strips in comparison. My cold tire pressures were 14 psi as opposed to a typical street tire pressure of 30+ psi. The tire had thinner, far more flexing sidewalls than our Jag tires, weighting a fraction of the street tire. Still, never a tire separation from the rims while cornering far in excess of 1 G.

As to how much difference in handling? I have had 3 Jags now in a row; a '05XK on 18" wheels, and '08XK on 19" wheels and the present XJL on 19" wheels. My 1984, championship winning Mustang was running on 16" wheels/street tires and produced handling that was far superior to any of my late Jags. My next street/race car was (still have it) a 1993 modified, 500 HP, 2600lbs Twin Turbo RX-7 which on its 16" wheels and 50 series stock tires produced handling that even exceeded my modified Mustang. Nothing could touch it on the track in the modified stock categories. The Jags, particularly the XKs, would not even be in the same handling class, despite their much lower sidewalls. BTW; of all the listed Jags, my new XJL has, by far, the best handling, meaning, best steering and most neutral cornering.

So, my XJL is new, only 1800 miles on it. Now, it may be that something is wrong with my suspension that causes the harsh ride. So far, all look fine. But, reading the magazine reviews, as well as picking up on the factory news of a coming softer 2013 suspension, I'm confident that the XJL suspension is far too stiff, period.

I'm glad if you guys find the ride to be good. I personally feel that a luxury sedan should primarily focus on a luxurious ride, and secondarily on race car handling. As one XJ reviewer pointed out: "You will not impress your friends with the ride quality of the 2011 XJ". Yes, that is exactly how I feel. The car rides beautifully at city speeds, nice and stately. But, not at highway speeds, around 70 MPH. Way too busy, too much distracting sensory inputs from the road surface texture.

Finally, worth saying that as an old race car driver I appreciate a good handling car as much as anyone would. Thus, I do not want it to wallow and buck like and old Lincoln or Cadillac in order to get that silky ride. We could have both qualities, handling and silky ride, back in the times of the 15 or 16" wheels; just go and drive an older 7-series BMW in good condition. You will know what you are missing with these short sidewalls.

Albert

 

Albert,
Maybe I am stereotyping and making incorrect assumptions, but it appears that there is a "generational gap" on expectations and ride quality. On one hand there are guys like you who do not see the value in larger wheels and actually appear to prefer the look of smaller wheels with "big bubble" tires. On the other hand there are guys like me who abhor the look of smaller wheels, who cant stand the visual "gap" between a fender and a wheel and probably dont have such a "sensitive butt" towards minute bumps in the road as we have always had low profile tires on most of the luxury cars we have owned in our lives. Jaguar is trying to reinvent their image to a more youthful crowd. Its an assumption, but they are likely willing to sacrifice one demographic in exchange for another. Same way Cadillac, Audi, and others mfgs have done in the last 10 years to "reinvent" their image.

 

You do realize that the "fender gap" will be the same with both, the low and the high profile tires. So, you really do not get any improvement there either. If you put 16" wheels on the Jag, you would install something like 50, 55, 60 tires (I'd need to calculate which), instead of 40s, that would give you the same overall diameter and looks as far as the "gap" goes.

I do get you point; "visuals" are more important for you than ride comfort. There are simply no other advantages to the low profile tires than visual. I won't hold that against you as myself, I also tend to place high marks for visuals in my car selections. Visuals were my primary reason for purchasing my two XKs, even though they handled rather poorly, despite their low profile tires. Visuals were the primary reason for purchasing the XJL and also the fact that it handles better than my latest XK. As to tire/wheels I absolutely have no problem with the smaller wheel/larger tire looks of Formula 1, Indy, etc. racing cars which are about as cutting edge (youthful) technologies as they come.

In my 500HP twin turbo RX-7 (on 17" wheels now) I am more than willing to take up with the harshness of my racing suspension because of the rewards of unbeatable, razor sharp street/track performance. For me, my XJL is NOT for race performance. I've been there, done that with other cars. So, ride quality is what I demand in this car, ahead of max handling performance. My usual commute (not daily) includes 95 percent of freeway driving, about 150 miles each way, and what I really want is a nice smooth ride (combined with the looks, of course, and decent handling). Too much to ask for from a luxury sedan?

Albert

 

You're right, the actually fender gap remains relatively constant. What does change is the "apparent" fender gap. The black from the tire tends to blend with the "actual" gap, giving IMO, a inferior visual appearance.

Perhaps its perception, but I have added aftermarket wheels to nearly all my cars. Went from 20 to 22 on both my Range Rover, 18-20 on my E55 AMG and didnt notice a degraded ride quality on those cars. On my performance cars, I still do it, although I do admit it sometimes hurts the performance. I have a twin turbo 1K+ horsepower Dodge Viper that wears 20" shoes for the street and 18" wheels with road racing slicks for the track. Same with my corvette Z06. For day to day street driving...even with a performance oriented driver, I dont think the sidewall really detracts too much from the performance capabilities of the car. On track conditions its a totally different story.

I honestly cant tell the difference in ride quality on the 22" wheels on my XJ. Like I said on my prior post, I REALLY have to pay attention to feel the difference. Perhaps its the tire choice (Continental DWS) as I chose the quietest, smoothest riding 22" tire I could find in that size. I know that the Pirelli PZero Nero's are significantly noisier and bumpier as are Michelin PS2's. Perhaps its tire choice? There are also differences in expectations. I suppose someone who drives an XJL portfolio is a completely different buyer than someone who drives an XJ Supercharged or Supersport. I purposely didnt buy a Lincoln Town Car because that "cloud like feel" is exactly a feeling I dont want in a performance luxury saloon.

 

I am very familiar with Ladas, actually grew up with them. Nice to see someone else with similar experiences.


If one told you to corner a highway ramp the fastest you could in a XJ and told you to meet the mph set by the XJ with the econobox, you would have the econobox upside own on it's roof before you would even get to the end......nothing to do with the driver.
While, i do admit drivers can make all the difference in the world (i know all about it), but the driver is as good as the car he drives.

I respect your knowledge in motorsports. But, i think we can agree, that you are putting more of a focal point on good drivers rather than the handling characteristics of a sumptuous Jaguar vs econobox.

Regarding the RX7, you can't necessary make a comparison with a Jaguar. Yes, 16/17s do look fine and perform well on a Rx7 as you stated, only because it's much smaller car.

If are talking about balance, 20" wheels on a 7 series BMW would have similar characteristics of 18" wheels on a 5 series. Hope the analogy makes somewhat of a sense.

Regards,

 

Nice to meet someone who can relate to the good old Lada cars, aka, Fiat 124 (the Soviets purchased the manufacturing license from Fiat to make the Lada, which was originally the "car of the year" award winning Fiat 124 sedan)

As to econoboxes being necessarily slower that high priced cars, I used to be laughing at the angry responses of high priced car owners when they saw an econobox running far faster lap times on race tracks than their high priced Porsches and Ferraris. Of course, they did not take into account that those econoboxes were running on "R" compound DOT tires and had modified race suspensions but, mostly stock engines and transmissions.

I had owned 2 Lamborghinis, V12 and V8 variations. Both my Mustang and my TT RX-7, that I owned and raced during the same years, ran circles around my Lambos in terms of track lap times and in on-ramp contests. Of course, both were modified vs. stock Lambos. So, my advice is that don't ever make the mistake of trying to race an econobox on an on-ramp and expect to win; you never know what is under the hood and suspension of the econobox. When I used to drive my Lambos, I would never take up the challenge from a cheaper car for exactly the above reasons. On the other hand, I beat countless high priced cars in my modified, less expensive cars. It is always fun the whoop an expensive car with a cheaper one but, not the other way around.

Cheers,

Albert

 

1000+ Hp? That rings my bell for being impressed. Wow!!! I'd love to see that car on a track. Let's see; that is about 3.5 lbs/HP vs. 5.2 lbs/HP for my TT RX-7. Even with the extra 900 (or so) lbs weight in the Viper, it should win, hands down, on a track.

The most powerful car I ever raced against in my RX-7 was a 1970s vintage pro-Trans Am Mercury modified stock-chassied race car with 803 HP dyno-ed rear wheel hp (roughly 900+ engine HP). The Trans Am car weighted 4300 lbs. I would always out-qualify him but, it blew me off every time at the start under acceleration but, if I was aggressive enough I would re-pass him under breaking into corner #1 but, for sure going into corner #2. His braking distances were far longer than mine, cornering speeds were lower and, by lap 3, his slicks were done with, burned up because of that much weight. That big-block Ford engine pumped so much air that you could feel the sudden compression on your chest, standing by the pit walls, as this Trans Am car would blow by at full throttle. I imagine the Viper must feel quite similarly.

Albert

 

Albert, I'm curious how your test drives didn't identify the harshness in ride quality.

Bruce

 

Bruce

Excellent question and the answer is that it is my fault to ignore my own rules for test drives. My own rules include pre-planning the test drive over known roads and terrain to test the car over bad/good pavements, up-downhill, winding roads, etc.

In this case I purchased the car while I was at a remote location, far away from home. My test drive included about 5-7 total miles, with 3 people in the car and the route chosen by the salesman. Needless to say that the road was perfect and while I tried the low/high speed driving and braking, all seemed fine. So, really, I can only blame myself for not doing a full, representative test drive. I should, at least, have remembered that when I had a new loaner 2011 XJL SC, following that day's drive the only thing I complained about on these forums was the ride.

Like I said above, I'll figure out a satisfactory solution, just as I figured out a solution for the terrible handling of the '05XK and the drone of the '08XK.

Albert

 

Albert, I wonder if a more complete test drive would have led you to a different car purchase, or whether you would have adjusted your ride quality preference/tolerance in order to accept it for all the car's positive virtues.

I've never sat in one, but like you would have expected it to have a well-contolled but plush ride fit for Royalty. I might be tempted to rationalize any harshness in ride quality as a trade-off for great handling and style, and some other owners here may have happily done just that.

Bruce

 

Bruce, I've always appreciated your great insights into various issues we discussed on these forums. Once again, you are entirely correct. I was thinking AFTER I replied to your above question. Indeed, I did know from my previous full day experience with the XJL SC that the ride was not fully to my liking. Yes, the test drive was short. But...

I really liked (still do) the car as a whole so much that I did allow the negative to be pushed into the background when it came to the purchase decision. Also is the very fact, as I was again thinking during my last Friday's 150 miles drive to home, that if I drove the car only a few city miles and, perhaps, a dozen of freeway miles under my regular driving routine, I probably would not have an issue. Same as with the XK droning. What makes them issues is that the effects of the droning and harsh ride get amplified with the distance and time that I am exposed to them. So, after about the second hour of listening to a drone or sensing every imaginable ripple on the pavement, I tire of those things. Likely, that is why so many other people, with far shorter commutes would not have an issue with either.

I remember test driving my '05XK and I could not help but to notice the truly atrocious, 1970's style American big car handling. Yet, I purchased the car because it was BEAUTIFUL inside and outside. I figured that I could always fix the handling. Well, I partially did, not fully, given the fact that hardly any aftermarket exist for Jaguars. With the '08XK it was a big step up from the '05. Also BEAUTIFUL, with definitely better but, still NOT GREAT handling. No question about the decision to purchase at the time. So, now with the XJL, once again absolutely BEAUTIFUL inside and out, GREAT handling BUT, the darn ride... throwing up my hands as I write this... does anyone make a car that can do it all; beautiful, great handling and gives great ride? Truthfully, can not think of one.

Albert