I have a 2012 XF with the 5.0 Natural Aspirated. It's a great engine and well suited to the XF. I have had a 2013 XF 3.0 S/C as a loaner. The difference in performance is remarkable. The 40 or so hp disadvantage of the 3.0 does not tell the real story. The 5.0 is a much stronger engine with loads more torque at lower RPM 's. The 3.0 is a wimp compared to the 5.0. I noted that my around town driving fuel economy with both was nearly identical at 17.2-17.3 mpg. Maybe the 3.0 gets better economy on the Federal EPA test cycle, but not with real world driving. The 5.0 is fun to drive; the 3.0 is not. And that stupid 2.0 turbo! The turbo/downshift lag is in the vicinity of 1.2-1.7 seconds. From a dead start stomp on the throttle.....nothing happens for a second or so. At 30-40 mph stomp on the throttle....nothing happens for well over a second. Totally unacceptable. And the 2.0 runs out of torque above 4,000 rpm. And it gets only marginally better fuel economy than either the 5.0 and 3.0. The 2.0 totally denigrates the XF. Jaguar Vehicle Engineers were overruled by the Product Planners.....what a shame. Am I the only one with these thoughts?

 

I agree 100% that the 5.0 is a superior engine to the 3.0SC, and there have been some significant commentary in this forum about the topic. I actually think the 3.0 is a very nice engine, and I completely understand the rationale for it. But, it's not the 5.0 in performance or in its audible effect either. Driving them back to back at altitude (Denver), where the blown engine would be at maximum advantage, the 3.0 just simply isn't as strong. The 2.0i4? Well, I guess everybody else is doing it, but it basically takes the claws off the cat. And it's not such a sweet engine to begin with, having not been engineered by Jag.

 

I am addicted to my v8 SC. I did drive a 12 loaner 5.0 NA last week and felt this engine was still had great power, but hard to go back from the SC let along to a 6 or 4.

 

I fully agree that the V8 SC is addictive. I have an XFR; and man do I love it. The throttle response if from heaven! The instant and massive torque response is wondrous. BUT....you can't put winter tires on either 5.0 SC models so I had to get the 5.0 Natural. I must say it too is a great car and more relaxing to drive, but still is very capable. The R is a cat of a different breed....so to speak. If I could get higher profile (pot holes) winter tires for the R it would be my only driver. The 5.0 NA will be with me for a long time. The 3.0 SC just doesn't do it for me.

 

I put a set of non staggered 20 inch Nokian's on for winter. Gets by for average winter conditions. Not an SUV for sure.

 

Pirelli makes a 20 inch Sottozero winter tire that fits.

Short sidewall tires are less than ideal for winter grip but they work.

 

Wow, I am so glad to hear I'm not the only one upset with Jag replacing the V8's in the XF lineup with pathetic V6's and 4 cylinder compact car engines!

I have a 2010 XF with the 300 HP engine and - no way would I even consider one of these pathetic new engines.

I'm sorry, but who the heck buys a Jaguar for a 4 or 6 cylinder engine? (I know, as with most things today, Jag is catering to the lowest common denominator.)

Worst of all, the 4 and 6 cylinder engines cost the same if not more than my 2010 XF with the V8!

There's no way I would even consider a Jag with anything other than a V8.

Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

 

AMEN brother!!!

 

I had recently driven both the V6 XF and the XJ. I still prefer the V8 in my XJL and XF but, I was impressed with the V6, as well. While I did not check city MPG, the freeway MPG of the V6 with the 8sp was absolutely superior to my V8, 6sp cars. The V6s got over 32 MPG while both of my V8s got 26.

Albert

 

Motorweek recently got a V6 SC XJ to out accelerate the 5.0 V8.

My V6 SC seems very quick.

The NA 5.0 V8 seems more powerful on paper but I'm sceptical.

 

Your skepticism is grossly misplaced, but I'm not going down this rabbit hole with you again on this.

 

The V8 and the interior are what sold me on the XF, then I test drove the XFR and said why not. The V8 is one of the very best engines I've ever laid my hands on.

Why Jag, who even in their biggest success scenarios would never be a high volume company, is being held to a big volume fuel ecnonomy standard is beyond me. The regulators should let there be some premium brands that retain the true character of the cars that we all love.

 

Only in America. In Europe the rules apply to each car model. That's because Americans won't allow gas taxes to reflect pollution effects so must accept bone headed regulations instead. It's the American way.

 

That response makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. "In Europe the rules apply to each car model. That's because Americans..." Which would mean the Europeans did their scheme because of what the US did. Oh, wait, it was just an excuse to bash the US. I understand now. At least we got the rest of the world to go along with adoption of the high mounted brake light LOL.

The underlying issue of making exceptions to established rules and regulations is a slippery one, though, because there would be all kinds of manipulation to squeeze your products into the loophole, and lawsuits (I'll beat you to the punch, jagular - we have an absurdly litigious and over lawyered country) galore about discriminatory practices and restraint of trade.

 

Europe doesn't do the fleet CAFE as far as I know. Each car model is taxed on its predicted CO2 emissions. Since CO2 and fuel economy are two sides of the same coin, more or less, the two sets of rules, taxing emissions and taxing fuel, have similar effects. This means a 2.0 litre BMW 3 series gets taxed less than a 3.0 litre BMW 3 series and means two 3.0 litre cars may be taxed differently depending on actual predicted emissions. That is a rational regulation given the declared objective of reducing CO2 emissions.

The difference is the US CAFE rules are designed to reduce US dependence on imported "foreign oil" from nasty places like Iraq. Funny in retrospect since the US seems set to be a net exporter of hydrocarbons in the not too distant future because of shale gas and large oil discoveries like Bakken in the Dakotas. The truly bizarre aspect of the US approach is it applies to vehicles made by a manufacturer and their average fuel economy. Which is what CAFE stands for. In addition, there is an arbitrary cap on fuel economy beyond which a special tax is applied to a particular model. This approach is patently irrational. Furthermore, it is clearly designed to favour domestically based auto manufacturers as are so many US auto manufacturing regulations. As there are only two such entities left in the US you can see how well this protectionism is working.

Europeans tax also the fuel directly to discourage wasteful consumption. Their current mania is reduction of CO2 specifically.

Whether any of this makes any sense, apart from the apparent limited ability of some to read, depends on whether global climate change is significantly influenced by CO2 emissions.

 

First, though your micro facts are correct and abundantly well known by anyone who follows the automobile industry, you are unfortunately missing a much larger strategic view that encompasses labor mobility, industrial planning, and necessary strategic interests. Europe fell back into and remained in a second recession until the most recent quarter due to what many would argue is an extremely over regulated and inelastic economic structure. I'll leave it at that. However, it remains that your previous post was written as a dependency, and therefore would be read as such due to the poster's apparent inability to write.

Getting back to the thread's original subject, though, I was in a local dealership today, and they had a 2.0 XF on the floor. I just can't at all understand how that is a good value proposition at 47k (US) - there just can't be very many ultra Eco conscious people out there who would have Jag on their radar to begin with. Those that do would be knowledgeable enough to realize the 3.0 is a big step up in performance and a much better more modern engine at very minimal decrease in real world efficiency.

 

The turbo four is pure CAFE. That's exactly the problem those US only rules create. Jaguar MUST sell enough of those to meet the regulations. If Jaguar built a smaller car then the turbo four could go in that and be marketable on its own merits. Why Jaguar should have to meet CAFE is the question. CAFE is irrational.

The turbo four isn't offered in Canada as nobody would buy one. Canada doesn't have fuel economy regulation.

The fact that you think Europe is over regulated is irrelevant to the question of whether the US protects its car industry by regulation, which it does.

 

Wow - the question only became about regulation and protectionism when it was hijacked there by you. Though your limited knowledge of CAFE is abundantly clear, as in you completely ignore the footprint adjustment, let's agree to disagree.

Where you are correct is that governmental policy has had the affect of altering the supply and demand curves - more significantly in Europe and less so here in the US (and Canada by extension since the country tends to be led around by whatever the US is doing). Incredibly high taxation in other parts of the world have resulted in far fewer people being remotely able to afford a car like a high performance V8 Jaguar. Sure, they exist, but only for the outlier population. Which leaves a lot of people driving around what amounts to showy looking underperforming economy versions of the marque. I guess you could say "spayed" Jaguars.

 

The thread was about the superiority of the 5.0 V8 and lamenting the wimpy 3.0 V6 SC.

In reality the V6 SC is far from wimpy.

The 5.0 V8 NA will only sell in any numbers in the US. No US market means no big V8 without a supercharger from jaguar. It would be illegal.

The 2.0 turbo four is for the US only. Jaguar will make a loss on every one. In reality and by performance standards accepted in Europe and many other places that turbo four is an excellent performer. Problem is the fuel economy of this undersized engine is just barely enough to help Jaguar meet CAFE and then only under EPA testing, not real driving. In a Ford Fusion or Escape or the Range Rover Evoque that engine gets rave reviews. The XF is just too heavy.

US diesel emission standards are also irrational which is why very few European manufacturers bother to try and comply. If the US adopted European standards the CAFE could be easily met, but only if Americans started driving turbo diesels in significant numbers and that isn't going to happen in your lifetime if you are old enough to read this. US diesel is finally being refined properly for passenger car use, to the benefit of everyone since the same stuff is now used in heavy transport. Of course, if heavy transport were to switch to CNG,as seems very likely, then CAFE could be ditched entirely, except for the climate change issue.

The irony of this thread is that the reason for the demise of the 5.0 V8 in naturally aspirated form is the US totally irrational ( and yes, that's a euphemism for stupid) CAFE regulations. Jaguar makes far more money from sales of the XFR than it could possibly make selling the 5.0 NA car. To meet CAFE Jaguar has to sell more fuel efficient models BECAUSE it's the fleet average that matters. This is totally illogical. What matters is the fuel consumption of a particular car which should be taxed appropriately, then the consumer gets to choose what to drive and what to pay. Easiest way to do this is a significant gasoline tax. Good old over-regulated European methods apply again.

You Americans live with the illusion that you have a free market economy. You do not, especially when it comes to the precious auto industry, now mostly owned by foreigners. There is a direct connection there. The Canadian auto industry was created by excessive government regulation which directly lead to its purchase by US automakers. Last laugh is Canada's though because we enjoy the sweetheart auto pact because our industry is American owned. Irony of ironies, Canada's auto industry is more American than America's !

 

I couldn't agree more about the issues related to CAFE - it is stupid. However, taxing gas to the point it would cut down on driving is significantly more realistic in Europe than it is in the US. If anyone took the time to look at a map of the US versus Europe, you would see that the land area of the US is dramatically larger than that of Europe - here is a good link to view the comparison -

Europe and US Country Size Comparison Map - How Big is Europe?

By comparison, the population of Europe has been estimated at about 830 million versus 316 million in the US - that's a dramatic difference in population density and one of the main reasons automobiles are so popular in the US. Other than flying, driving is the only option.

I would be happy to travel by train in the US, but it is ridiculously slow and the routes are few and far between. EVERY study that any entity in the US has done on the feasibility of high speed networks has identified the lack of population density in the US as the underlying factor that makes such efforts financially and economically infeasible.

While you can bad mouth the US policies, the bottom line is foreign companies rely on US auto sales. Without the US, many of these companies would go belly up. (As far as I know, there currently are three auto manufacturers in the US (not counting Tesla) and Chrysler is the only US company owned by a foreign entity. The primary reason Fiat bought Chrysler was to get a foothold in the US market - it's that important.)

Jaguar's worldwide sales totaled 116,340 vehicles (Jaguar and Land Rover) in the first three months of 2013. Sales in the US through April of 2013 totaled 20,688 - that's a pretty significant share for one country and the ONLY reason why the manufacturers are working to meet CAFE requirements.

Don't get me wrong, I love Canada, but for a Canadian to look down their nose at the US is pretty absurd. I live in the Seattle area, and I would hazard a guess that as many as 10 percent of the people employed in metro Seattle are Canadian descendants.

I recall riding my motorcycle up to Vancouver one summer to visit a friend and getting stopped at the border by Canadian immigration. Had to trudge into the office and undergo a ton of questioning (granted I looked somewhat grubby after riding in the rain). So the questions started - How much money do you have? How long are you going to be in Canada? What do you do for a living? Where are you going?

Turns out that last one was pretty telling. I told the inquisitor I was going to visit a friend who worked at Transport Canada. His immediate reply was - You aren't coming here to get a job in Canada are you to which I said I hadn't planned on it. His response was "We don't want Americans coming up here and taking Canadian jobs. Hmm! Pretty interesting given the incredible number of Canadians who have permanently crossed the border into the US to live and work.

And for a Canadian to bad mouth the US for our emissions is pretty ironic given the impacts the tar sands projects have had on the Canadian environment - and the local populations -

Tar Sands' Ecological Impact - The Canadian Encyclopedia

Aida Edemariam on the environmental impact of the tar sands of Alberta in Canada | Environment | The Guardian

How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming?: Scientific American

Sure the US is protecting its auto industry - so is every other country that has one. Canada certainly benefits from that.

And of course Jaguar makes a lot more money on the XFR than it does on the NA V8 - look at the price difference.