ı want to inform you about real fuel consumption on my car.
I am using my Jaguar XF 2.0i4 MY2013 from home to work at back avery day. The distance is ca. 6km each way. Start with a cold start and drive within a moderate city trafic in Istanbul. I accelerate smoothly up to ca. 40 to 70 km/h and try to keep my speed as constant as possible. I am passing 3 trafic lights and having some moderate trafic on 200-300 meters way. Fuel consumption is 12-13 lt/100km.

On the highway with ca. 110-130km/h climate switched on and with allmost constant speed it consumes 9-10 lt/100km.

I appreciate if others share their consumption experiences.

 

I had to do a conversion to the US MPG (Miles Per Gallon) system. If we take the 10 lt /100km figure that translates to 28.24 US-MPG.

I would have expected a little better from the 2.0. When I test drove the 2013, 3.0 SC XF with the 8sp transmission over 42 miles of nearly constant 70-72 MPH (112 - 115 Km/hr) I got an instrument readout MPG of 32.7 US MPG. When I drove my 2012 XJL with the 5.0 NA engine and the 6 sp transmission over the very same distance my readout was 25.6 US MPG. So, compared to those figures the 2.0 seems a bit low and the 3.0 seems amazingly high.

Albert

 

You areright on your succession. I also achieved to reach 7,5lt/100km. But it isnot easy to keep that consumption. To keep that consumption I have todrive with a constant speed of ca. 110km/h and the rood must be straight.During my 150km test drive on the highway I drove mostly 120-140km/hand also there where some up and down hills with some overtaking. The averageconsumption was about 9,5lt/h.


Next week Iwill drive about 250km on Highway and mostly straight. I will inform you aboutthe result. I am planning to drive with a speed range of 110-130km/h since there is speed limitation at120km and lots of radars.

 

With 2,200 km on the odometer my actual measured consumption so far is 12.7 L/100km on my petrol V6 3.0 SC. The indicated consumption is 12.2 L/100km. My experience with these displays is they tend to be optimistic by 5% or more.

I have done more highway travel than city at the moment. My last tank shows consumption at 8.4 L/100km and the new displayed average is 11.2. This is averaged since new, four tanks of fuel so far plus the fifth I'm about to refill but not yet measured.

I tend to drive at 125 km/hr indicated on the highway but average around 35 km/hr in city driving. Our posted limits are maximum 110 km/hr on the highway and from 30 to 100 km/hr in the city depending upon the road. I take my average speed from the display. My average speed at the moment for the current tank of fuel is 98 km/hr so results from mostly highway travel.

I'm about to fill the tank today so will post an update with the actual calculated numbers based on the odometer reading and the actual pump delivery volumes.

Actual economy is now 11.9 l/100km after 2,200 km. The city/highway split is about 50/50.

Jaguar's own numbers suggest the 2.0 turbo four is not much more economical than the 3.0 SC V6.

 

Last week I have tested the car withfull baggage, full thank, 2 person 1 child in a distance of260km. The rood was mostly straight and the first180km without traffic. My speed was ca. 110km/h. In the first 180km Ireached an amazing 6.4lt/100km consumption according the cars instrumentpanel. In 180km there was an accident and I had to stay approx. 30min in aslow moving queue and had to full stop many times. The consumption raisedto 7.0lt/100km. After the queue (about 5km's) I draw again ca. with 90km/hbecause curved urban rood. After 260km's I reached my destination and theinstrument panel was showing 6,7lt/100km. A/C was turned on on the start ofthe accident and was on until my destination.



On my way backway yesterday Idrove the same way back. A/C was turned on from the beginning. Thank wasbetween 2/3-2/4 so that the weight was reduced. Baggage was also not so full. Idrove again with a speed of ca. 90km/h the first 80km's then with approx.110km/h about 120km's and the rest way again with 90km/h and on the last 90kms A/C turned off. The averageconsumption for the back way was 7,4lt/100km.



I do not know why Icould not get down to 6,5lt/100km on the back way. The difference was that theA/C was on longer and the car was very dirty. There was slightly trafficbut no accident and the weight was less.



The drivingabilities and the A/C also the dirt on the surface of the car may affect the consumption. But anywaythis consumption rates are quite good for a 240PS 2.0lt engine.

 

I have a 5.0 NA.
City driving is around 15l/100km
If its only highway driving then I've gotten 8.8/100kms

As a note, when I first got the car best I could get on the highway was around 12l/100.
As the engine wore it more it got quite a bit better especially on the highway. In the city it went down a bit but nothing too crazy.
10l/100 is 28 imperial gallons not us gallons. (Just a note)

Had a a4 2.0t before and best I got on the highway was 6.2/100.
7l/100 in this car I think is great!

Highway consumption differences are minimal. I think where you can really get burned is I the city consumption.
If you beat down on the car. I am pretty sure I could get 20+ consumption in the city. Lol. The sky's probably the limit?
Your difference in consumption could be as simple as on the way there it was a bit more down hill and on the way back it's a bit more uphill?
I don't think the dirt would make any difference? I could be wrong though?