Hi: Over the weekend I drove my 02 x type 2.5 manual trans to Albuquerque and back from Tucson and had it up to 110mph (not kmh) a couple of times. This was at altitude of about 7000 feet in clear dry daytime conditions with no other cars in sight for miles. It definitely had to be pushed owing to the altitude I figure. RPMs were just over 4K but it likely had a little more in it. The surface was a bit irregular causing some pitching and bounce but it did feel solid and sure. I was more worried I would make a mistake or misstep than something on the car might fail. About twenty years ago I had my 83 XJ-S V12 to 115 on the same road and it felt much better as one might guess. Apples and oranges admittedly. . .
Just sharing this and wondering how fast other members on here have personally pushed their own similar cars. Mine has 120K on its ticker and I have lots of confidence in it to go far after this experience. --TH

 

07 X Type 3.0. I've done 110-115 mph several times. I've averaged around 80 MPH from Northern VA (home) to the outer banks in North Carolina. I find the car pretty stable at high speeds.

 

My '05 2.5L 5-speed is a joy on the highway. I've had it up to 90 MPH, and it feels like 60 MPH in other cars. I love how I can leave it in 5th gear and am right in the middle of the torque power band. No downshifting required and the other cars pass right by.

I think 120+ MPH is no sweat for this car, but I don't plan on pushing it.

 

Ain't gonna say.

Tires become vitally important if you are going to push your car, and your luck. I run a "Z" Speed Rated set, and inspect them closely and frequently.

Probably most important, however, is the music you choose to listen to.

Here's an interesting little formula you might mentally apply to any speed you are driving (it works "straight line graph", any math geeks will like trying this against their calculator):

If you are at your absolute best of reaction time (read: all coffee'd up, wide awake, etc), the quickest you are going to be able to lift your foot off the gas, get it over to the brake pedal and start depressing it is 3/4 of a second. Let's say that's your "reaction time" (it isn't; we're not factoring in that "Awww, sh*t !!!" moment it takes you to realize you need to hit the brakes).

But in that 3/4 of a second, you will travel
44 feet at 40 mph;
55 feet at 50 mph;
66 feet at 60 mph;
77 feet at 70 mpg;
82.5 feet at 75 mph;
88 feet at 80 mph;
99 feet at 90 mph;
110 feet at 100 mph;
132 feet at 120 mph;
etc.

Now that you "finally" have your foot on the pedal, you can begin to brake the car. The question now is how far will you travel before you stop? (too many variables to answer that - road condition, brakes, tires, distractions by the screaming passengers, etc).

If you really want illustrative example of just how far it really takes you to stop, try this little exercise: take a few eggs with you, and a passenger. Drive your "usual" speed, holding an egg in your hand out the window. Forget - if you can - what the experiment is, and just drive along conversing with your passenger. Have your passenger scream "STOP!" when you least expect it, and when they do, drop the egg and stop the car as quickly as you can.

Get out and walk back to the egg you dropped.

I assure you, you will be amazed just how far it took you to stop. Try it at different speeds, you will be surprised just how far you end up walking back to those eggs.

That little reaction time formula (speed + 1/10th speed = distance traveled in 3/4 second) and the egg drop were taught to me by an Oklahoma Highway Patrolman during a driving school.

(He also taught me what the proper term for those spinning, crazy tire marks on the freeway are: "Hero Marks" he called them. "That's where some S.O.B. started spinning his steering wheel around thinkin' "I'm gonna be some kind 'o Hero!" ")

 

@usaftbird 90 does feel like 60 in other cars these cars really shine on the interstate, except for the road noise. Mine is noisy and looking into Dynamat-ing the door panels to see if that helps. I've personally had my car up to 122 before i started running into traffic. Smooth ride

FYI my buddies 2007 XK I got it up to 167 and she still had more in her as the speedometer was still climbing. I ran out of "safe" road and started slowing down or i would have tried to peg it out. I like the adrenaline rush

 

THIS should explain it better than I ever could:

The REAL Meaning of MPH

(It's all very scientific. I love Blondes!)

 

Ok, ok... maybe the stereotyping is unfair.

In Her Defense

 

The 2.5 is out of breath at any speed.

 

I got mine to 115 once and had no issues with instability or noise. That was about a year ago when I got the car, I wanted to verify accuracy of the speedo with my GPS unit.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

132mph is my top score.... The GPS headunit I have in my car keeps track. Did that in the desert between LA and Vegas. I doubt she would have had much more to give, I figure absolute tops at 135ish.

That was with Z rated tires, super low suspension, front lip spoiler, and just me in the car with not very much fuel.

 

I'm not sure what Jags are governed at in Canada? I have had mine to 170 KM (105 mph) passing but we have to be very careful in Ontario as they suspend your license at 50 km over, I usually drive at 90 MPH for this reason

 

"The 2.5 is out of breath at any speed."

Don't know what prompted that, but that hasn't been my (though very limited) experience. Is there a 3.0L vs. 2.5L thing on this board? Sorry, still new.

@myjaghasspark Know what you mean. If you can bear to hold off, I plan on doing a video series on damping your car (any car) at Parts Express: the #1 source for audio, video & speaker building components. We sell much lower cost alternatives to Dynamat, and I hope to go over the proper way of lowering road noise.

Do believe the doors have something to do with it, but suspect the culprit is the floor and the trunk area. The doors on the X-Type are better than most.

 

Not that I know of. Everybody here is pretty open and friendly. Very little attention is paid to 2.5 vs 3.0 unless we're talking about specific maintenance questions.

As for what prompted it? Just my observations with my 2.5. Don't even get me started about how the 2.5 performs when you add a load to it. The 3.0 does much better and is a much better suited engine for this car and drivetrain.

The X-Type's biggest performance (speed) downfall is its gearing, IMO.

 

>Is there a 3.0L vs. 2.5L thing on this board?

No but that motor is very strange, it's exactly identical to the 3.0 just
less displacement... From what I've learned it wasn't any cheaper to build, isn't lighter in any measurable way, and really isn't that much more economical to operate. I believe that the only difference is the stroke of the
crank.

What was the point? Not a criticism, just an observation on the strangeness of the design.
================================================
Jaguar: Grace, Pace, and Space - Sir William Lyons

 

TRUTH.

A coworker drove a 2.5 in to work for about a week while her car was in the shop. I asked her to let me drive it out of curiosity and it was terrible. I really don't understand what the point of that engine was.

 

I think that the difference between our opinions, with regards to power, is that I didn't expect anything more than a pedestrian power band as I knew going in what to expect (having had a 2.8L 6-cylinder S10 pick-up). It delivers more than what I expected though, but believe I know what you are talking about with how quickly the lower gears wind out.

I don't even try to pretend to others that this is a light-to-light power house. What I do like (being a 95% highway driver) is that 5th gear is right in the meat of the torque curve at 70 MPH. I don't ever have to downshift to pass.

I can't speak to the 3.0L for MPG, but am clocking over 30 MPGs between fill-ups on the highway, and for me that is much better than what I'd been getting with a 2004 3.8L 240 HP Grand Prix GT.

The funny thing that I run into with non-Jaguar owners is that they think it's a super car (which it most assuredly is not). I could have bought a 1998 BMW V12 850 Series instead of the 2.5L X-Type, but am so glad I didn't. Test drove it for 60 miles, and realized I'd need a line of credit for the gas

I do believe that 220 HP is within reach of this engine with smart upgrades, but am curious as to what people are seeing MPG-wise with daily driver 3.0Ls.

 

usaftbird, I average about 22-24 mpg for my normal driving to/from work. That is a mix of about 1/3 city driving and 2/3 highway driving, with the 1/3 city driving being with the car trying to warm up. So, that combination only hurts the mileage that much more. My drive is 13 miles each way. If I can get the car out on the highway and let it cruise at about 70, my mileage will vary between 25 and 29 mpg (depends on the hills).

As for why Jaguar has a 2.5L motor and a 3.0L motor, a lot of it probably has to do with marketing. Think about it, most people make the assumption that a smaller motor means better mileage (even if it uses the same parts). The other benefit that the 2.5L motor has over the 3.0L motor is that it is physically capable of revving to a higher RPM without damage since you have the pistons moving less distance, therefore are not subject as much acceleration stress. Granted, give me the longer crank with the increased torque as I use that much more than the high RPMs.

 

That's actually by biggest gripe about the gearing! It goes through all the gears so quickly that there's nothing left for it at highway speeds.

I cruise at 80mph - at that speed the engine sits at about 3k rpm. This is right at peak torque, but you do not need the engine spinning there while cruising. It sucks more gas, it increases NVH, and I also disagree about not having to downshift to pass. I always end up having to downshift to 4th to get anywhere - unless traffic is light and I have the time to slowly creep past in 5th.

 

Being in Marketing, myself, I know what you mean. Let me check my mileage this week (tomorrow) and report back. For some reason, Speedway gas (in the US) seems to yield best results out of all of my surrounding stations.

My first post ever questioned the final gear ratio. I'm used to much lower revs on the highway, having had most of my cars fall in at 2000 RPMs at 65-70 MPH. I've grown accustomed to it, though I have to admit, that I do feel the need to shift when hitting 80 MPH.

What has worked for me in the past, to reduce static speed RPMs, is to reduce intake and exhaust impedance to airflow. I do believe that the engine holds RPMs due to exhaust restriction (still a WAG), but since my down pipe to catalytic converter seems to be jacked, I am willing to experiment.

Our emission laws, in Ohio, have been lifted... Time to play.

 

wow. didn't get to the end of the conversation. I consider myself to be below average intelligence. I'm guessing this lady has other qualities besides maths. You can almost hear the car engine under the hum of her brain racing at full tilt.