Anyone have a reliable idea of what the new 2015 XKR will look like?

It is rumoured to get larger. Will it be stretched so the back seats are functional? The front grille will most likely take on the look of the F-type and XF.

I sold my 2011 XKR 175 and need a replacement. I'm missing the cat already. I find the F-type with no luggage space will be a struggle to get use to. I like the F-type but with absolutely no luggage space it would not be practical for me. I might pickup a good used 2012-13 XKR-S.

 

Take your pic.

 

That's my concern as well. Why did you sell XKR?

 

I bought the XKR 175 to sell and enjoy if I never sold it. I never knew much about Jaguar's until I bought this car. When I got it with only 3,700 miles on it I really got personal with it, appreciated it, and looked after it (never out in the rain and garage kept it in the winter). I had it for 6 months. I put 2,000 miles on it since March to July. I washed it and kept a close eye on it. I loved just looking at it and I felt really special when I drove it. However, I stayed with my original plan. Consequently, I regret selling it. So, I'm looking for a replacement. I do like the 2012 headlight change. I didn't like the 175 only having a body kit change with no real performance enhancements like the European version. Ok, I'll be looking for a good 2012-13 XKR-S. The pictures above of the new XK look lame--taking away from the exotic GT look (too bad). Alternatively, I'll be looking at a Porsche 911 turbo S. No other car really appeals to me. I would consider the Nissan GTR, but it doesn't have the exotic look, class, and from what I hear is rough and too track oriented. I also regret selling it because I looked forward to visiting this forum and discussing our Jaguar's.

 

That was my experience of the GT-R from a few test drives - phenomenally fast, and a great car on smooth tarmac, but a hard ride in town over potholes & speed bumps (even in 'comfort' mode). And the run-flat tyres tramline really badly - you can fix that and also improve the ride by fitting Michelin PSS, but that was another chunk of expense to factor into the cost. Overall, apart from the performance, the car just wasn't 'special'.

 

Bleh. All of those are very "old man". The first looks sort of like a Volvo mixed with a BMW, and the other two are just an XJ front end slapped on a 2 door body!

 

Not moving in the right direction...

I will keep my 2010 XKR. If they move that direction with the XKR my next GT will definitely be a DBS or a Vanquish.

And with the XJR due out soon, that's a possibility too.

 

I've come to believe that those flat and squared off front ends are a result of some european safety laws.

The did the same to the SL550's. That car a couple of years ago, used to have a slanted front end and now it's all straight up and down in the front. Really sad.

Might as well just buy a XFR as to buy what is shown in those pictures in the treads above this one. Or another make all together.

 

Some of those mockups are pretty old - at least one dates back to 2009. I don't think you should read much into them; we'll start seeing spy shots soon enough.

 

I'm and "old guy" so I guess that's why I kind of like it. Looks a little like a Bentley from a certain angle. I'll reserve my judgment until I see the final design in coupe form. My problem is it doesn't look any better than the current XK series to me. Most important is the current XK line is the perfect size for me. I don't carry backseat passengers except in an emergency. Other than that I just use them for some of my stuff occasionally. There is plenty of headroom/legroom (unlike the XK8 I previously owned). I don't need or want anything any bigger.

Someone was right about the "flat" and vertical front-ends. It does have something to do with safety standards I believe.

 

I think that's my problem too. It looks like what the current XK might've been if they had gone a slightly different route, but it does not look like a successor.

 

So far, the proposed pictures of what the XK will be do not look very exciting to me. The front end does not look sporty or purposeful. Is it the pedestrian laws in EU screwing with the design?

 

My problem with "proposed pictures" like this is that they're invariably nothing to do with Jaguar. It'll be some motoring mag or freelancer carving bits of other, more recent models and sewing them together into a guess of what it probably may possibly look like. To be taken with a pinch of salt methinks.

Nevertheless, it'll be interesting to see what effect the f-type has on the direction the xk(r) takes but I think there's still plenty of room for a very sporty GT in the line-up - Complete with with fake back seats so all you Americans can get cheaper insurance

 

2015?! so i take it the ones in the market right now are 2014? i thought the 2013 models will be out this September! lol

 

Yes its laws that are screwing with the looks, but many if not most are US ones. One of the worst (only required in the US) is the car has to look after the driver if he drives without a seatbelt on, meaning the windshield has to get more vertical etc. The ice cream van look, basically.

 

Ugh... If those are the choices then I'm not interested...

 

The current XK body style is timeless.

I hear there will be 1 more iteration of the XK body before changing the model with a complete redesign, if it's contiued. The front has been changed the most since the current body style came out. In the next iteration I'm sure the 6 speed tranny will be replaced with the 8 speed. I'd like to see the front and back change more to resemble the X-C75. I'd also like to see any power restrictions on the TC removed so the 5l SC could be tuned to 700 hp. The F-type RS is rumored to come with 700 hp when available.

I'm also not liking the redesigns above.

 

That rumor was likely started in an effort to create some hype and excitement, and should be considered completely without merit and filed with the car's 3600 lb estimate.

When the TCU limitters are lifted, and with a more aggressive tune, you get a peak torque of ~500 ft lbs instead of 460 as seen in the XKR-S. As rpm rise above 5000 rpm the torque falls off gently, as is the case with all engines. Let's say Jag and ZF figure they can increase torque to 560 safely with a beefed up tranny, big intercooler in the front and a boost increase with smaller pulley. The amount of hp that 560 ft lbs of torque can make is calculate using the formula hp=tq X rpm/5252. Peak hp on these engines is between ~6000 and 6500 rpm, and the peak torque of 560 would likely drop off to no more than 500 ft lbs, and even that could require larger cams, revised intake manifold, and the best high flow cats.

For best case scenario we can calculate peak hp using 6500, with torque of 500 ft lbs at that rpm, and this optimistic case would still only yield 619 hp. There is absolutely no way we'll see anywhere near 700 hp from a stock and factory warranted 5L Jaguar engine, and there is nothing in Jaguars past to suggest they would start trying to compete with the likes of a Corvette ZR1 (7L/663hp) or Viper (8.4L V10/640 hp).

They've got a much better chance of making that power with a hybrid system adding power with electric motors on the front wheels...which is what the C-X16 boasted the F-Type was going to be, IIRC

Bruce

 

Interesting. I'm curious how the Nissan GT-R's 3.8l turbo stock with simple down pipes, new injectors and a tune can go from 530 to 700 horse power. This is well documented with dyno charts.

 

This will be Jag's ugliest model if the renderings are true. That nose is not meant for a GT. Love to hear Callum's opinion on this.