2013 Jaguar XF 2.0 Track Test on Edmunds.com

2013 Jaguar XF Track Test

Does Jag's Mainstream Motor Measure Up?


Edmunds tests hundreds of vehicles a year. Cars, trucks, SUVs, we run them all, and the numbers always tell a story. With that in mind we present "Edmunds Track Tested," a quick rundown of all the data we collect at the track, along with comments direct from the test drivers. Enjoy.

Jaguar wants to sell cars. Jaguar needs to sell cars. Jaguar's parent company, Tata, invested billions in the purchase and expansion of Jaguar and, sooner rather than later, it would like to see a positive return on its investment.

To this end, Jaguar did the obvious and, earlier this year announced that the 2013 Jaguar XF would be available with some new consumer-friendly powertrains. First was the addition of all-wheel drive, a configuration crucial for all markets that are not Southern California. Finally, the new Jags would feature new forced-induction motors including a supercharged V6 (replacing the NA 5.0-liter V8) and a 240-horsepower turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder hooked to an eight-speed automatic transmission.

According to the EPA, the 2013 Jaguar XF 2.0 is good for 19 city/30 highway and 23 mpg combined. During our testing, we did manage to hit that 30 mpg figure, but we averaged a more modest 21.9 mpg. Even so, with a starting price of just $46,975 (some $6,000 cheaper than the least expensive XF available in 2012) it begins to look like a very attractive package.

But is the four-cylinder worth it? Can it handle duty in a true luxury car? We know the 2012 Jaguar XF Supercharged is a roaring monster. Is the four-pot still a proper Jaguar, or a declawed kitten? We took it to the track to find out.

Vehicle: 2013 Jaguar XF 2.0
Odometer: 3,117
Date: 3/12/2013
Driver: Chris Walton
Price: $63,375 as tested ($46,975 base)

Drive Type: Front engine, rear-wheel drive
Transmission Type: Eight-speed automatic
Engine Type: Turbocharged, direct-injection four-cylinder
Displacement (cc/cu-in): 1,999/122
Redline (rpm): 6,500
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 240 @ 5,500
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 251 @ 2,000-4,000
Brake Type (front): 14-inch ventilated discs with single-piston sliding calipers
Brake Type (rear): 12.8-inch ventilated discs with single-piston sliding calipers
Suspension Type (front): Independent double-wishbone, coil springs, stabilizer bar
Suspension Type (rear): Independent multilink, coil springs, stabilizer bar
Tire Size (front): 245/40R19 (94H)
Tire Size (rear): 245/40R19 (94H)
Tire Brand: Continental
Tire Model: ContiProContact
Tire Type: All-season
As Tested Curb Weight (lb): 4,034

Test Results:

0-30 (sec): 2.7 (3.4 w/ TC on)
0-45 (sec): 4.9 (5.7 w/ TC on)
0-60 (sec): 7.8 (8.6 w/ TC on)
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 7.5 (8.2 w/ TC on)
0-75 (sec): 11.3 (11.9 w/ TC on)
1/4-Mile (sec @ mph): 15.6 @ 89.2 (16.2 @89.9 w/ TC on)

30-0 (ft): 31
60-0 (ft): 120

Slalom (mph): 63.9 w/ TC on
Skid Pad Lateral Acceleration (g): 0.80 w/ TC on
Db @ Idle: 41
Db @ Full Throttle: 68.2
Db @ 70-mph Cruise: 60.7

RPM @ 70: 1,750


Acceleration: The 2013 Jaguar XF 2.0 is a little lazy off the line. The torque comes on strong at about 2,000 rpm, so from there on out, it feels very much like a V6, linear and not a hint of turbocharging at all. Turning traction control off, selecting Sport Drive and bringing the rpm up didn't produce any wheelspin, but it eliminated the initial bog and cut acceleration times by more than a half-second across the board. Still, it's not as quick as a BMW 528i (also a 2.0L turbo), probably because the XF is also about 200 pounds heavier.

Braking: Noticeable amount of dive and a noisy ABS system buzzing away ahead of the firewall. Best stop was the first, and successive distances, while showing typically linear distance creep, were not as short as others in the segment. This might have been due to the M+S tires.


Skid pad: Wow this car feels soft and heavy on the skid pad. The lateral-g is impressive considering the amount of understeer and body roll. The steering-wheel load or feedback doesn't tell me much about what the front tires are doing.

Slalom: The 2013 Jaguar XF doesn't like the slalom from the second cone to the last one. The initial turn-in is what one might expect, but then the car flops around and feels much larger and more reluctant to transition than its dimensions suggest. If I wasn't tight and tidy (with the least amount of steering and chassis upset), the electronic stability control was very unhappy and grabbed the brake(s) abruptly and for too long to be useful. Stability control is more a reprimand than an electronic helping hand.

The manufacturer provided Edmunds this vehicle for the purposes of evaluation.



  • carzrmylife carzrmylife Posts:

    I couldn't believe it when I first read that Jag/Land Rover were going to be incorporating a V6 let along a 4 cyl. into there lineup...I would be VERY, VERY embarrassed to own and/or drive one of these cars. The whole point of owning a luxury car from a luxury brand is to have it all, including POWER and excitement...this is neither powerful nor is it exciting. It is tasteless and just for sales. Just like the FRONT WHEEL DRIVE Mercedes Benz CLA250. What a shame and brand suicide. All this does is sell more cars and smear the brand. Sad. And what was Cadillac thinking making the ATS/CTS drop dead gorgeous then producing a FWD "flagship" XTS? I just don't get it.

  • agentorange agentorange Posts:

    This can be explained with four letters... CAFE.

  • @carzrmylife I'm not sure what to make of your statement "then producing a FWD 'flagship' XTS". The XTS was never meant to be a flagship, nor has Cadillac ever claimed it to be. Cadillac has even been recorded saying that the XTS is not a flag

  • flapsmcgee flapsmcgee Posts:

    Why is it never mentioned that this is the 2.0 Ecoboost engine from Ford? That engine is always getting complained about but when it is in a Jaguar it is ok.

  • I've read several article reviews about the Ford EcoBoost engines, to include the I-4, and don't ever remember them complaining about it. In fact I think it is a good motor from the test drive the other day (Focus ST). So I'm not sure what you are referring too.

  • That is some ho-hum acceleration number, and this thing really is no better than the E350. As for the CLA250 being crap? I wouldn't be so quick to judge without a review or actually test drive one myself.

  • stovt001_ stovt001_ Posts:

    7.8 to 60 in a 4000 lb car on all season tires is honestly better than I would have anticipated out of a 240 hp turbo 2.0

  • 500rwhp 500rwhp Posts:

    Jaguar apparently doesn't learn. When you produce ho-hum cars (reference X-type), people stop caring about you as a luxury brand. Pretty simple concept. Don't suck if you want to be lusted after.

  • carzrmylife carzrmylife Posts:

    @500rwhp: I couldn't have made a better statement myself. Absolutely agree 100%. @custom_junky: I redact my statement, whether a flagship or not it is there largest sedan and is supposed to compete with 750i and s550 etc. Front wheel drive and no powe

  • shatner shatner Posts:

    Kind of suck when your 63k car gets smoked by a 22k Honda Accord, and is really worse in the slalom.

Leave a Comment
Have a question? We're here to help!
Chat online with us
Email us at help@edmunds.com
*Available daily 8AM-5PM Pacific
Call us at 855-782-4711
Text us at ED411