Found the forum a couple weeks ago and love all the information. Bought a 2001 XKR on Labor Day 2008. Love the car and wanted to share some performance numbers, in case any one was interested.

Took the car to the track today and got 5 runs in.

First Run: 13.54s @ 107.6mph Traction control on
Second Run: 13.55s @ 107.9mph Traction control off
Third Run: 13.41s @ 108.4 mph Traction control off
Fourth Run: 15.11s Traction control on*
Fifth Run: 13.88s @ 105.6 Traction control off

*First three runs the tires never broke loose at all. For the Fourth run I had decided to brake torque the car heavily to see if I could break my 13.41 run. However between run 3 & 4 I forgot to keep traction control off. So when I released the brake for the fourth run, the tires slipped and traction control kicked in and just bogged the car down, kind of embarrassing!! For the fifth run I did break the tires loose (remembered to turn traction control off). Plan on taking the car again, probably in two weeks to retest the results.

If any one is interested in picts, car info or more detailed time slip info just ask. I will be happy to post!

 

Was this basically a stock car or were there any enhancements?

Doug

 

The relatively high ETs compared to thefast trap speeds shows how heavy the car is. I bet even witha quickreaction time, the 60 foot numbers were high. At near 4000 lbs, there is just so much mass to get moving from a dead stop. My NA feelinglike stoking a 100 car locomotive that just keeps on pulling hard but takes forever to get there. gordo

 

How about 4630 lbs! Let us not forget these cars are touring cars and not roadsters.

 

All the sources I saw cite 2001 XK8 specs as coupe: 3709; and convertibles: 3950.

Add a few extra pounds for the supercharger andextra equipment, but not 800 pounds.

Maybe you've got your scale tickets mixed up w/ your Rolls. Well, maybe not... thats probably close to 5500-6000 pounds. Gordo

 

Car appears to be very stock. The exhaust from the cats back is looks aftermarket. I just have not determined the brand yet.

Run 1- 2.1139 60 ft - 13.5411 ET - 107.60 MPH
Run 2 - 2.0960 60 ft - 13.5548 ET - 107.92 MPH
Run 3 - 2.0551 60 ft - 13.4161 ET - 108.37 MPH
Run 5 - 2.1707 60 ft - 13.8888 ET - 105.67 MPH

Picts are at: http://gallery.mac.com/pjanczuk#100069

 

The weight is printed right on the VIN sticker.

This whole issue gave me a big laugh when one of my old customers drove in a few weeks ago... in a(ye gads) little two seater Mercedes. I don't know anything about those cars, but I was admiring themuchmore tidyback end of the body lines when the guy tells me it's 290HP. That's a familiar number, and I say, "That's the same as XK8, and I bet this car weighs 800 lbs. less".

So I compare the two door stickers, and I was wrong...4600 vs. 3600.

If one is captivated by the pure technical challenge of super tuning an XK into a rocket, then I guess that's a good enough reason to spend an awful lot of money and sacrifice at least some of thereliability and versatility designed into the vehicle. Otherwise, it'spure folly: you can build a hand grenade withevery bit of HP you can wrangle, and still end up with an inferior power to weight ratio.

 

I did a little research about this. The 4630 pounds on the VIN plate is the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR); this is an figure established by the manufacturer which sets themaximum allowable total weight of the car when loaded - i.e including the weight of the vehicle itself plus fuel, passengers, and all maximum allowable cargo.

The curb weight, 3709 pounds for the coupe, is the weight of the car with a all fluids, full tank of gas, but no driver.

Whatever the actual racing weight at the track, these are not the cars to use for a favorable power to weight factor.

 

I was actually very impressed with my times. The best article I could find on 2000 XKRs claimed a 13.8 trap time. So I was very pleased with the 13.41. Considering at the track a new Dodge Challenger with 425hp ran low 13's says a lot of good things about the Jag. There was also a brand new AMG Mercedes V12 at the track, it ran a very high 12.9.

I don't ever plan on using the car as a drag strip car, I just like taking it up there on test and tune day just to see how good it runs. The car got a lot of good compliments from people on the track.

Remember the car is turning 13.4s and also can out handle most of the other cars at the track and makes a great daily driver. I am very well pleased.

 

Gordo, I stand corrected! Glad to know I am driving a lighter car.

 

(After a couple of weeks on the forum I'm reading all the older posts).

Thanks pjanczuk for track testing your car...now I don't need to thrash my 2000 XKR just to see what it'll do. I think the times are pretty good for a 3785 lb car XKR Coupe). Now compare this to a C5 Corvette with LS1:

From Motor Trend Car of the Year 1998 Corvette:
345 hp 5680cc LS1, 3.42:1 axle, 3245 lbs curb wt coupe,
Quarter mile: 13.2/109.3 6 spd manual, 13.5/104.7 4 spd auto conv
The vette has a 550 pound advantage and a higher gear ratio vs Jag 3.06:1 and no positraction. So That's pretty good!

NOW Also consider this:
XK8 4.0 ltr 290 hp = 72.5 hp/ltr
XKR 4.0 ltr 370 hp = 92.5 hp/ltr
XKR 4.2 ltr 400 hp = 95.2 hp/ltr

LS1 5.68 ltr 345hp = 60.7 hp/ltr
LS2 6.0 ltr 400 hp = 66.6 hp/ltr
LS3 6.2 ltr 430 hp = 69.3 hp/ltr
LS7 7.0 ltr 505 hp = 72.1 hp/ltr : That's 427 cubic inches vs 244 for the Jag!!!
LS9 TVS Super Charger 6.2 ltr 638 hp = 102.9 hp/ltr
AND THE NEW JAG with TVS SC: 5.0 ltr 510 hp = 102 hp/ltr!!!

So all of you with an XK8 can be proud of the efficiency of a Jag with more HP/Ltr as the mighty LS7 - 427 Z06 Corvette:
And us XKR owners..well 92 hp/ltr is more than all but the ZR1 SC Corvette....HOW ABOUT THAT!