Anybody know the zero to sixty time for a 2017 XJ with the 5.0 engine and rated at 470hp????

I'm not the least bit interested in the 550 hp versions times. The online 'build you Jaguar' says something on the order of 4.9 seconds if memory serves, which seems way slow.

There is a web site called '0-60 Specs" and another called Zero to Sixty times but I have doubts about those times and they all seem to be for 3.0 AWD six cylinder, 340 hp.

Searching Motor Trend, Road and Track and Car and Driver didn't satisfy my quest.

 

This is what the brochure says.

 

There was a road test in one of the magazines... mid 4's and the 1/4 mile in 12.8 at 109 or so if memory serves correct.

 

The 4.9 for zero to sixty in a 470 hp car seems a bit slow. Seems it should be around the 4.2 range to me.

The memory of Gpfarrell sounds like what I think it should be.

If it really is 4.9.......then might as well just buy the 3.0 six instead of the 5.0. I already have the 3.0.....so no need to think about buying a 5.0 if that's the case.

 

That terminal speed is the same as I was seeing for the standing quarter in my stock 4.2L XKR and that was rated at 4.9 secs 0-60 as well.

My 5L XKR is seeing 115mph and that supposedly does 0-60 in 4.6 secs.

 

 

That Road and Track road test is for a 2011 XJL 470HP 5.0L with a 6-speed transmission. Hailers' 2017 XJL has the same 470HP engine but has an 8-speed transmission, which became standard beginning with the 2013 model year.

Is the 8-speed quicker than the 6-speed?

 

Yup, that is why I only focused on the trap speed. The XJ has more power than the 4.2L XKR but is heavier so it isn't unreasonable that they have the same quoted 0-60 and trap speeds even though the XJ has 50 more horse power.

 

You would think that a car that weighs around 4k and has that much power would be quicker in the 1/4 mile...I did read somewhere that the 6spd ZF cars had some type of lag at launch during the 1/4 mile tests. Could cost you .5 sec or more...I bet the 60-100 mph is where the SC car shines.

 

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ad-test-review

Ok, I couldn't find a road test for the XJ with 470 hp, BUT I kept looking and found the above link to a '10 XF Supercharged, and it's zero to sixty and quater mile times.

I had remembered reading in the past where Car and Driver did a comparison of the XFR (510 hp) and the XF Supercharged(470 hp), and found the zero to sixy times and quarter mile times were not worth talking about. Plus how you had to spend ten grand more for the XFR.

Off the top of my head, I think the 2017/18 XJ Supercharged weighs less tha that '10 XF Supercharged.

So i've come to the conclusion, right or wrongly, that a '18 XJ Supercharged will match the '10 XF Supercharged. Both of 470 hp power. I can't believe the newer XJ's which weigh less would be slower.

Like zero to sixty in 4.3 and quarter mile in 12.7 sec. plus weighing quite a bit more than a XJ.

What got me to wondering is .....>I've a '14 CL550 with just 429 hp and 516 lb/ft of torque and it's times are much lower than what Jag advertises..as in 4.2 and 12.8.

MIght trade up from my '17 XJL Portfolio to a XJL Super charged at the end of the year. Nice cars from Jag.

 

The factory ratings seem a bit slow compared to aftermarket instrumented road test numbers?
I see you don't want any XJR info?

But Car & Driver tested a 2014 XJR and got 0-60 of 3.8 seconds while Jaguar has a published number of 4.4 seconds.

2014 Jaguar XJR First Test - Motor Trend

As always a range of numbers depending on where you look and how the test was done.
.
.
.

 

Does it really matter? Sure, it's fun to read and have bragging rights, but there are so many variable conditions in daily driving that make whatever answer you find in road tests really meaningless. Those variables include tires, traction, driver skill, roadway surface and angle, and timing equipment.

The only place to safely redline my 470HP beast is at the strip. But it sure is great fun in my daily driving.

 

If you want a FAST car buy a FAST car like a COPO Camaro, Drag Pack Challenger, Super Snake Mustang (these all cost the same as the XJL supercharged and will actually INCREASE in value regardless of how you treat them)! These are luxury cruisers not racecars!!

I have been drag racing my entire life and currently own a 8 second 77 Nova and a (real deal all steel) 55 Chevy pump gas street car that runs 11s. The thing I have learned is don't look at factory false claims of E.T. times, spend a few minutes reading online about how fast a stock SS Camaro or GT Mustang is then go to the race track and see how many of them ACTUALLY hit that number. On a fully prepped VHT treated track you will usually see these cars are much slower since they do not have the torque in them to overcome the sticky track surface.

Lets be honest with ourselves here... Our Jags are nice but they are crap wrapped in nice leather. The odds of your Jag making it to 100k miles on the original motor is slim so what makes us think the drivetrain in them can actually handle the power of the supercharged engine? If you were to actually mount a good set of drag radials on the back of a F Type SVR, XFR, or XJR and actually tried to launch it on a prepped surface you would spend a week picking up the parts of your rear axle after it scattered all over the starting line!

Stop looking at HP numbers, 0-60 times, and quarter mile times because if your not going to race it doesn't matter! Buy something that's comfortable and stylish because that's all your going to use it for!

 

That's a bit harsh. I know the 5.0 had some teething problems but I'm sure there are far more out there that run perfectly than not. Problems always seem magnified on forums because most people don't bother posting until they have an issue.

I've owned several Jags over the years and they've all gone over 100k miles with no major issues. My XJ40 made it to 200k. My last 4.2 XJ was still running strong at 175k when I traded it in. My current XJ 5.0 is nearly at 90k and has never had any drivetrain troubles according to the dealer service records.

I hate to say it, but I think poor maintenance is a factor in a good number of the sad tales we hear. You cannot be a casual Jag driver outside of warranty or lease. They demand constant supervision and maintenance and most people do not care enough. You have to love a Jag to drive one.

 

 

lol the 265 was the first SBC which became the 283, 327, then the 350... so that design was in production for nearly 50 years... so ya it was total trash! Jaguar has been making the 5.0 for 8 years and can't get a water pump to hold together.

but ya your car should be much faster then cars made 50 years ago you do have EFI, overdrive, and real tires. The cars from that dead era were running with nothing and trash fuel..

do you actually have a time slip showing a high 12 or have actually seen one run that number? I know I have never seen one of these on the track.

 

 

What a coincidence??
My wife has a 2013 MKS EcoBoost AWD. Stock so far. Lots of mods for that drive train!
I have a 2014 XJR with only a tune. Not really more to do besides a pulley.

Hope to see you take yours to the track!
Post back how it went.
.
.
.

 

I don't hate Jaguar as much as I have come across in this post. My wife bought her 2012 5.0N/A with 26k miles on the clock back in October of 2017 and it has already gone through two water pumps! Its crazy to me that a car this expensive that has already been in production for almost 10 years cant get a water pump right! I will say you are much braver then me if you do run that car on the track, I would be terrified that the stock CV shafts would snap if you really tried to launch it hard! I have seen too many Mustangs, Camaros, and Corvettes leaving the track on a tow truck after shattering the stock rear ends and I would hate that to be the fate of my car!

I think the biggest thing that makes me doubt the performance of these cars is the Hennessey F-type. The modified Hennessey F Type was only able to squeeze off an 11.57@123 MPH with (dynoed) 518 HP at the rear tires and a Hennessey rated 623 HP at the motor. Being that this F-Type is much smaller and lighter (roughly 600lbs lighter) then XJL with an additional 153HP (470 HP supercharged XJL if the rating is 100% correct) makes me suspect the XJL supercharged would run at best a mid 13 in the quarter. I would guess the 575HP XJLR would run a high to mid 12 but not the supercharged.

Again these are my internet opinions which mean nothing!

 

https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/m...andings-84783/

I'm going to assume the lack of x351s on this list is not due to weaker drive components but more the lack of posts from those who have been to the track. I have not been as of yet but I know that, as far as real world performance goes, I've put quite a few "faster" cars to shame.