Well I only posted this thread because I was tired of seeing "huge disappointment" pop up. The more I see the car the more I like it, save I'm not keen on the tail lights. In some ways I prefer it to the XF (which I love).

The photos of the interior arent what I expected but I'll leave my decision until I see it in the flesh. The touchscreen uncomfortably reminded me of windows 8 which I have to say isnt a good thing, but you never know. My experience has been that with the smaller cars, the interiors that look good in pictures dont so much in the metal (eg A class benz), and the ones that look a bit boring can look great in the flesh (eg V40). I'd have rathered seen something other than black on the full dash setup.

And I dont think that I was expecting something radically different with this car. It is meant to slip in and give a lower entry point for buyers. If it was radically different from the current range, then it would steal sales from it.

So having been disappointed by the awful blue pre reveal pictures, I have to say I was mightily impressed by the video of the car. It's overall shape reminded me a little of the classic jag shape, which is pretty sexy. I think it'll be a great looking car.

 

X2
I'm with you Bruce!
Interior is nicer than the XF in my opinion - I never liked metallic finishes and the XF has that giant slab of refrigerator door looking panel right across the whole dash.
The car itself looks pretty tight - I hope they don't screw it up too much for the N. Am. spec. I just might get me one...

 

I think the front end looks so much more taught and muscular and aggressive than the XF. I am not sure how much I like the taillights but it is hard to see what they really look like without seeing one in person.

 

Heck with you guys I'm buying one sight unseen!! Yeeeehaw!!!

 

I have been positioning myself to get a 2015 or 2016 XFR and now may have to consider the XE as a strong candidate. The burning questions I keep asking myself is, what is the new XF going to bring to the table. New design, perhaps new engine choices, etc. I could really buy an F-Type but I prefer four doors right now and the larger XF is not really necessary. Will there be a 400hp-plus XE? Could I get an outstanding deal on an off-lease 2013 XFR? A test drive of the 340hp XE will probably answer 99% of these questions but the wait is excruciating.

 

Nice to hear positives

As said before, Jaguar and change of style....they're damned if they do and damned if they don't

Its a no win situation

 

Marcus, while I can't go into a lot of detail about what jaguar has planned for the 2015/16 upgrade to the XF, I can tell you that for the most part, the body is going to remain as you see it today (slight tweaks, nothing drastic). The big difference will be the shift over to a complete aluminum body (that is the major upgrade). So, take the car you have now and it is going to loose a few hundred pounds due to the lighter chassis. When it comes to motors, the only thing I have heard is they are looking to offer the diesel engine here in the US. But, a date for that has not be determined, if they even will. The motor line up is possibly shrinking as I seem to recall hearing that they are going to offer the I-4 as the standard engine, the supercharged V6 as the upgraded engine, and then you will only be able to get the supercharged V8 in the XFR. Granted, this is still in the works and I don't see the naturally aspirated motor going away as I see it as too popular of an engine for here in the US. But, at the same time, with the power of the N/A V8 and the supercharged V6 being very close, they may make it where the one motor will cover both segments.

 

Hmmm, couple of tweaks huh? Interesting. This isn't going to be easy. I maintain that the XE is going to handle better than any of the current sedans in the lineup including the XFR but then the 2015/16 XFR will counter with an all-aluminum design. I gather that the XE will not be blessed with an engine that will outperform the XFR but as much as I LOVE the 510hp engine, I would be satisfied with a 400-420hp, handles like an M3 version of the XE.

Thanks Thermo, I'm even more confused now.

 

To compare apples to apples, Right now, this XE-S is 651 lbs lighter than the base steel-bodied XF 3.0 RWD. The next gen XF could cut this to 300 lbs or less.
I was always sad when they phased out the 5.0 NA. I had this in my first 2010 XF, and it's many miles better than my current 2014 XF 3.0 AWD motor. Of course, my last 2011 XF 5.0 S/C motor was the best......, but the NA was a gem, even with fuel economy very close tho this (boring) V-6 ( considering it did not have the new 8 speed), and engine growl to die for in dynamic mode. I certainly don't like some of the moves the corporate types come up with. Another example - why they stick the 340HP in the heavy XF, and the top of the line XE-S when they have the 380HP version available elsewhere? I would hope they at least tweak the XE-S engine sound to be more sporty than in my XF.

They better not screw up the XE intro, and offer AWD right from the get-go in the USA, as 99% of all the 3-series, c-series cars I see on the roads in the northeast are x-drive/4matics.

That being said, the Jag AWD system is quite advanced, not upsetting the sweet handling and dynamics I got used to in my XFs, and is basically transparent and does not introduce any undue understeer . BUT, it is heavy and not efficient (0.4 sec slower to 60 compared to the RWD). I don't think the Germans take such a hit to performance adding the AWD system, but I have to check.

 

^^the article I read on Auto Express said that the 2016 launch for us will coincide with AWD, which makes me think they're still tuning the AWD system. I don't know why they wouldn't at least launch the 2.0 and XE-S here in the states at the same time they are in the UK, though.

I too have an XF AWD and it doesn't feel like a slouch to me, and if you've noticed Jaguar is overly conservative with performance figures, though I've never seen an instrumented test of the AWD XFs and XJs.

 

I've got to agree that it's a very good looking car, much better than the BMW, Mercedes and Audi offerings. I'd say I'm 95% certain to replace a 5 series with an XE provided they

1. Don't screw up the pricing. As long as it's comparable to the 3 series, it's okay.
2. Offer some interesting colors other than black, white and silver. I like the red they're showcasing but I'm most definitely not willing to pay $1500 for it. I'm hoping for an electric blue or the F-type amethyst.
3. Don't introduce an XF that makes me want to wait yet another year for delivery.

Anyways, good work Jaguar.

 

As far as my XFs 0-60 go,

2010 5.0NA: Jaguar says 5.4sec, best reported 4.9sec
2011 5.0SC: Jaguar says 4.9sec, best reported 4.3sec
2014 3.0AWD: Jaguar says 6.1sec, best reported 5.8sec

 

The 3.0L seems to shine at midrange, at launch there is "lag" which I think has more to do with the programming than the engine itself.

 

Bellanca, they are not launching the car world wide as they are trying to ramp up the construction side of the vehicles and they are trying to get out the easy stuff first (ie, there in Europe). Then as production comes up to full speed, then they will start adding different markets. Keep in mind that this car will adventually be sold in 40 different countries and the US is "small potatoes" when you start looking at what Europe and China are going to need. So, unfortunately, we are near the bottom of the list here in the US for getting the car.

As for power output in the XE-S, the official numbers are the 340 hp supercharged V6. I am sure with time, they may up that to something a bit more powerful. But, the official info is 340.

 

certainly the same 3.0 feels much more linear and satisfying in the F-type. I drove the F-type S with the 380HP, and engine response is way better from low end than in the XF application. The XF 3.0 low end is weak, acceleration is not linear as you would expect with a supercharged set-up. Response feels more like old generation turbo v6, with power coming on suddenly at mid range. I would agree it does feel like ECU calibration issue more than anything else, where the supercharger boost is bled off at low rpm for some reason.

 

Bellanca - regarding my comments on the Jag AWD system. I checked the published specs for our car and the 535i / 535xi just for comparison's sake.

535i: 535xi
weight 3957 lbs 4156 lbs
0-60 5.5 sec 5.4 sec
MPG 20/30 20/29


XF 3.0 XF AWD
weight 3902 lbs 4145 lbs
0-60 5.7 sec 6.1 sec
MPG 17/28 16/26

So the effect of adding AWD system to the XF is much more negative to performance and fuel economy compared to the 535, even though both versions of the 535 are certainly heavier than the XF counterparts. The BMW x-drive actually helps put the power to the ground and improves acceleration. The main issue is how the engines make the power as we suspected. The 535 makes max. torque from 1300 rpm , the XF only from 3500rpm - big difference to everyday driving

 

I just don't like to use MFR numbers, MPG will always vary as will performance, and so does the weight. I'm not making excuses by any means, I honestly just don't know what real world times look like for the XF RWD vs AWD; but yeah, the lag is kind of annoying, I don't know if that was to protect the new AWD system in some manner? Not sure if the RWD model has the same feel at take-off.