Finally - Jag XF

[Bobby Dazzler]

It's certainly possible - just turning up the wick a bit like an aftermarket tuner would see it - but probably not an attractive option as it will inevitably lead to higher warranty repair costs. Upgrading components would also carry a cost.

 

[Uberwagon]

HP/ Litre doesn't interest me, only the performance.

Is good to see them on par with the german diesels now. I still see it as a shame that they have a diesel in the first place, it may be the correct thing to do for the market, it just loses yet more Jag identity imo.

The Perkins Sunshine diesel in 1994 was capable of these kinds of numbers i've been told, it was a real shame nobody wanted to persue them any further.

Dave!

 

[Dieselman]

but probably not an attractive option as it will inevitably lead to higher warranty repair costs. Upgrading components would also carry a cost.

That depends on whether the manufacturers are sensible. They can choose to wring the life out of a 3.0 litre engine producing say 450Bhp and destroy the box or they can use smaller engines and produce say 250Bhp or less.

By using the smaller engine they won't add any more strain to components but will reduce emmissions and fuel consumption.

Do we really need to have the horsepower race we've seen recently?

People used to think a Rover V8 or Ford V6 was great with 140Bhp, now we want 300+.

Make cars lighter and more aerodynamic and less power will be necessary.

 

[gary350]

That depends on whether the manufacturers are sensible. They can choose to wring the life out of a 3.0 litre engine producing say 450Bhp and destroy the box or they can use smaller engines and produce say 250Bhp or less.

By using the smaller engine they won't add any more strain to components but will reduce emmissions and fuel consumption.

Do we really need to have the horsepower race we've seen recently?

People used to think a Rover V8 or Ford V6 was great with 140Bhp, now we want 300+.

Make cars lighter and more aerodynamic and less power will be necessary.

Just wait until we all have limiters fitted (whether speed or revs), it will be a case of following the Sinclair C5.

gary

 

[maddog]

I looked it up on Parkers and saw a figure of 268Bhp. I can now see 281Bhp as well, so thanks.
So MB and Jag at 91bhp/litre and BMW at 93Bhp/litre.

Neither is 100Bhp/litre though, so I wondered which car does produce that.

I can't wait to see some serious power outputs, it will be fun.

Plenty of chipped diesels are exceeding 100hp per litre , only a matter of time before the manufactures catch up

 

[harpalb]

My alpina d3 produces 200bhp from a 2 litre diesel

 

[st4]

Nothing against petrol engines..well apart from the lack of accessible torque and additional raspy noise, but try getting a 275Bhp petrol engine to achieve average emissions of 179g/km in a reasonable sized car.

Which production diesels achieve 100Bhp/litre.? I assumed you meant BMW so checked and find the most powerful to be the 535d at 89Bhp/litre, which is trailing both the Jag and Merc.

With proper design 100+Bhp diesels should present no issues at all, just a bit more investment and development.
Aftermarket tuners can achieve this and more already.
The engine won't give up, more likely the gearbox, but there is nothing that trying to save the last penny won't fix.

Imagine regular hatchbacks with 3 cylinder 140bhp engines producing under 100g/km...

The BMW 123d produces over 200bhp IIRC from a 2 litre engine. It has the same sequential turbo system as the 35d car.

I agree re gearbox design and I'd like to see heavier duty gearboxes and oil coolers to cope with extra torque from the engine (remember that power is a theoretical measurement, your looking @ torque and RPM together). That would be sufficient to cope with high specific output engines. However specific output is all well and good, but you need to look @ the gearing ratio's as well to get an overall idea of what the car is capable of MPG wise + performance wise.

What I'd love to see however is a weight reduction from modern cars. This benefits all aspects of driving dynamics, the fun ones, and the ones that have a financial consequence. I marvel @ how much my 211 weighs sometimes. The weight loss approach will translate to when cars are propulsed electically.

Currently batteries allied to electic motors would provide a hopeless range on a car as heavy as mine, especially as they are heavy themselves, and fuel cell technology needs to be allied to a lighter car to make the process more efficient due to the lack of energy density in H2. Simply put, cars need to get lighter, and smaller.

 

[Dieselman]

The BMW 123d produces over 200bhp IIRC from a 2 litre engine. It has the same sequential turbo system as the 35d car.

You're right on two counts..the 123d does produce 100bhp/litre AND I wouldn't want to drive one...

Engine Size 1995 cc
Cylinders 4
0-60 mph 6.7 s
Power Output 201 bhp
Valves 16
Torque 400 Nm 295 lb-ft
Top Speed 148 mph

MPG 54
Insurance Group 16
Euro Emissions Standard IV
CO2 Emissions 138 g/km

 

[harpalb]

Thats right ***....

In similar vein, using the twin turbo 2.0 diesel the new Alpina d3 bi turbo produces 214bhp...admittedly these are subtly remapped but are production cars. It seems such a shame that its taken this long for jaguar to place this engine in the XF as at launch they would surely have sold more cars. I myself put a deposit down pre launch but changed my mind as the engine is poor when compared to those offered by Mercedes, BMW and Audi.

IMO

Merc 420 CDI > AUDI 4.0 TDI > BMW -35d > Merc 320 CDI > BMW -30d > Jaguar 2.7d > AUDI/VW 3.0 TDI
in the larger capacity diesels as far as combined power/refinement/torque is concerned.

 

[st4]

You've also got to factor in reliability. BMW diesels get an awfully bad press for this turbo reliability issue. Looking on BMW forums, the petrols seemed reliable, the diesels not so...I have a nagging suspicion on closer inspection that BMW have done this through running the turbo @ very high pressure - this is the case with the single turbo 4 pot 177bhp engine.

Certainly the engine in the XF (2.7) is underpowered and I read cars owners review today claiming they felt it was "slow". A luxury car needs to be effortless, a big torquey diesel does fit the bill for this. I happen to like 6 clyinder engines (more than 8's) and I am pleased jag have gone with a 6, it will keep the car lighter and not upset the balance of the car. A big V8 diesel is great for a 4x4 like yours, but for a saloon is a bit overkill.

 

[gary350]

Certainly the engine in the XF (2.7) is underpowered and I read cars owners review today claiming they felt it was "slow". A luxury car needs to be effortless, a big torquey diesel does fit the bill for this. I happen to like 6 clyinder engines (more than 8's) and I am pleased jag have gone with a 6, it will keep the car lighter and not upset the balance of the car. A big V8 diesel is great for a 4x4 like yours, but for a saloon is a bit overkill.

The figures would suggest that the 2.7 is not as quick as it should be but I and many others find the drive and acceleration acceptable and applies the power effortlessly, its a big car and sticks to corners better than my SLK350, if speed was your thing then the SV8 is an option. The art in getting the best out of the 2.7 is do not jab the pedal to the metal just squeeze it nice and easy it goes quite rapidly.

gary

 

[st4]

The figures would suggest that the 2.7 is not as quick as it should be but I and many others find the drive and acceleration acceptable and applies the power effortlessly, its a big car and sticks to corners better than my SLK350, if speed was your thing then the SV8 is an option. The art in getting the best out of the 2.7 is do not jab the pedal to the metal just squeeze it nice and easy it goes quite rapidly.

gary

The bit in bold kinda makes me want one. The dynamics of the car are highly praised and the R&D making it agile, yet comfortable are amazing. I am not into speed, but effortless power is something I'd want from a Jaguar car. I suspect this new engine will make the car complete. I am sure I'd be fine with the 2.7, my car is less powerful and sluggish when you need to overtake in a hurry.

 

[gary350]

More on the engine(s).
http://www.jaguarperformance.com/engines/

gary

 

[fyonn]

You're right on two counts..the 123d does produce 100bhp/litre AND I wouldn't want to drive one...

Engine Size 1995 cc
Cylinders 4
0-60 mph 6.7 s
Power Output 201 bhp
Valves 16
Torque 400 Nm 295 lb-ft
Top Speed 148 mph

MPG 54
Insurance Group 16
Euro Emissions Standard IV
CO2 Emissions 138 g/km

I'd not turn one down, not in coupe form anyways, which I think looks a lot better than the hatchback. and those are pretty decent specs, esp for a small car.

the 135i might be a bit more fun, but it's gonna pay a lot more in tax and fuel!