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
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
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.