Gathered some info on the XF. Please realize that there are so many factors that affect times. I've tried to use mostly manufacturer numbers to be fair and for a better comparison. At least these numbers are somewhat standardized compared with other things like weather (temperature, humidity, barometric pressure), altitude, traction control settings, etc. that can grossly vary from the magazines. Hope someone finds it useful.

 

Thanks for posting! Ironically I was just going to look this up this morning as I went to the track and was curious what the published times were to compare...


Last year I ran a 12.9 just as the spec indicates. Ran 12.6 this year -- temp was in mid 60s, low humidity, etc so that probably had a lot to do w/ it... ( I have XF-S BTW -- which I still don't believe only has 470HP as this thing is FAST!!)

 

Thanks for this, really makes thinking about purchasing one easier now as I pinpoint which model and year I would be interested in.

 

Guaranteed that both supercharged cars are faster than quoted. 4.4 and 4.3 respectively is pretty well accepted across a lot of publications. 1/4 time is less than I would have expected an SC though.

 

To think that my slow N/A 4.2L is faster than my first sports car was with a 14.5 1/4 says a lot about how far vehicles have come lol.

 

Those look like numbers from Jaguar, and from what I've seen from various publications they're very conservative--worst scenario possible.

 

Yes, I hope these are very conservative numbers. If not, this shows that my old E500 is faster than my 09 XF-SC. That can't be. This feels much faster.

 

Yea those numbers aren't too accurate.

 

I realize that different publications will get different results. That's why I went with Jaguar's quoted numbers. At least these numbers should be consistent when comparing XF to XF.


In the instance of the 2013 2.0t XF:

• Edmunds.com 0-60 mph: 8 sec
• Jaguar 0-60 mph: 7.5 sec
• Car & Driver 0-60 mph: 6.8 sec

All three are very reputable sources with years of automotive experience, however, a 1.2 sec spread in 0-60 is a world of difference that anyone can feel. Even an amateur should be able to close that gap in repeatability given that these cars are equipped with automatic transmissions. What they didn't state are environmental conditions, elevation, what mode the car was in (DRIVE, SPORT, DYNAMIC, SPORT+DYNAMIC, TRACTION CONTROL ON/OFF, etc...), were they standing on the brake to pre-load the torque converter and launch the car, or did they just release the brake and mash the gas like a quick stop light getaway? Too many variables to give one right answer.

 

Here's another performance update. This dyno sheet was taken from a press release for the F-Type, but they use the same AJ126 340 hp/332 lb-ft V6 base engine as the V6 XF. The F-Type S achieves its 380 hp/339 lb-ft number using the same V6 engine via a bump in boost from 25.4 psi to 27.6 psi.