Jaguar XF

	Jaguar XF
	Debut: 2015 Maker: Jaguar Predecessor: XF Mk1

Published on 5 Dec 2015

The last generation XF injected a new lease of life to Jaguar. It signaled the end of the classical era guided by late design chief Geoff Lawson, entering the fresh new sporty theme of Ian Callum. It was not only head-turning beautiful but also very good to drive. Naturally, that lifts our expectation on the new generation. We hope it could maintain the lead in design and handling while fixing the weaknesses, namely accommodation, fuel efficiency and electronic tech. Also, it should lift economy of scale to make sure the project profitable, something the last car failed to do. The last target should be met by building the new XF on the same platform as its smaller brother, XE, as well as the F-Pace crossover. This also explains why the new XF can be launched just 6 months after the XE.

At the first glance, the new car tries to keep the sleek and sporty shape of the original, but a number of places have evolved. The front grille gets larger and more pronounced, but it loses the old grille’s chrome surround accompanied with the sense of elegance. At the side, the rear quarter window is enlarged and no longer fixed to the door. This slims up the C-pillar and leads to a more civilized, less sporty look. The general profile of the car also gets squarer in an attempt to improve interior volume. For instance, the arc roof line of the old car becomes flatter, and it is extended rearward to increase rear headroom. As a result, the new XF is no longer as distinctive as the last one. It is still a quite beautiful design, just no match with the original.

As said, the new car uses space more efficiently. It is 7 mm shorter yet the wheelbase is stretched by 51 mm to 2960 mm. Jaguar promised “class-leading rear seat space with more legroom, knee room and headroom”. This might be overstated, but the new cabin is truly more spacious. When you slip into the back seat, you will find 24 mm more knee room and 27 mm more headroom than the old car. Now six-footers can sit comfortably there. However, to call it class-leading spacious is not true, because the Jaguar’s cabin is noticeably narrower than its German rivals. This might be due to the fact that it shares platform with the smaller XE, whose exterior is only 30 mm narrower. The Jaguar’s broad shoulders and aluminum frames also explain why its cabin is not as wide as its steel-bodied rivals.

As the car shares platform with XE, it is no surprise to hear it has an aluminum-intensive monocoque consisting of 75% aluminum and the rest high-strength steel. Its torsional rigidity is increased by 28 percent compared with the old car, while the whole car is up to 190 kg lighter – admittedly, the old XF was known for overweight. Weight distribution is close to 50:50, thanks to putting the majority of steel at the rear half of the chassis.

The aluminum suspensions are shared with XE, although the tuning is specific (of course). The front suspension is double-wishbone type – the best we can think of, while the rear is a complicated multi-link setup that Jaguar calls “integral link”. The “integral link” consists of a knuckle, a lower control arm, an upper camber link, a vertical toe-control link and a short vertical integral link. The last one helps separating lateral cornering forces from vertical forces, thus enables the use of softer vertical bushings for better ride quality and harder lateral bushings for better handling. More expensive XF features electronic adaptive damping as standard, but even the base 4-cylinder model gets frequency selective dampers (FSD). These purely mechanical dampers use an extra valve to increase oil flow at low frequency motions, so to soften the ride in town, and shuts down the valve at high-frequency motions to stiffen the ride at speed. The electrical power steering so loved in the XE is also carried over to the larger car.

On the road, the Jaguar’s chassis is clearly superior to BMW 5-Series or just any of its key rivals (Cadillac CTS may be a close call in the handling department, but we need a comparison test to see). Its F-type-based electrical power steering, while ultimately not as tactile in feel as the old hydraulic rack, is direct, precise and linearly loaded in corners. The double-wishbone suspensions offer impressive front-end grip so that the car turns into corner responsively. Inevitably, the turn-in is not as sharp as the smaller XE, but for a large executive car the XF is unusually agile. This perception is also amplified by the fact that its steering requires less effort than the 5-Series. On back roads the car feels light, precise and very well balanced. It suspension also manages to deliver consistent grip across a wide range of surfaces.

Surprisingly, the excellent handling does not come at the price of ride quality. On the contrary, the XF has the most versatile ride across different surfaces and driving conditions. Even on the largest 20-inch wheels, it overcomes B-roads without fuss. The complicated suspension pays off with a supple, compliant and quiet ride. Its damping is perfectly tuned, maintaining composure no matter how hard you drive. The ride quality and steering are the best assets of XF.

Up to this point, we can easily assume the Jag to take the class laurel. However, when the powertrain and interior are taken into consideration, I am not quite sure. Jaguar has a modern line of engines, but they are just not as good as the German’s. Take the entry-level Ingenium 2-liter four-banger turbo diesel for example, even at the higher state of tune (180 hp) it doesn’t feel as punchy as BMW or Audi’s counterparts. At cold start, it exhibits old-fashioned noise and vibration, something should not happen on a brand new diesel. At high rev, it growls loudly. Even though its fuel consumption and emission rating look impressive on paper, its real-world manner disappoints.

Likewise, the 380 hp 3-liter supercharged V6, sourced directly from F-type, is not exactly world class. Derived from Jaguar’s old 90-degree V8, it is inevitably larger and heavier than a typical 60-degree V6. It is also less smooth to spin at higher revs. The supercharger whine is not intrusive but you are aware of its existence. On the other hand, it doesn’t feel as potent as the number suggested. BMW’s 306 hp straight-six can easily match it at stop watch.

The best of the bunch is the 3-liter V6 turbo diesel, now improved to 300 horsepower and 516 lbft of torque. It is competitively powerful and refined. The ZF 8-speed automatic also works more flawlessly with it than the other 2 engines. However, this is also an expensive choice. In fact, the XF 3.0D S is considerably more expensive than the equivalent BMW and Audi even on its home soil.

That brings us to a question: is the Jaguar, whose image and reliability records are still inferior to the established German brands, worth the premium? Look at the interior and you will get the answer. While there are expensive-looking leather and alloy decors as well as a new, more intuitive infotainment system, the fit and finish still trials the German brands and Lexus. There are some cheap plastics and cheap buttons on display. Ergonomics are not as good as the oppositions, too. It looks as if Jaguar has a smaller budget for developing the interior. However, at least this place is special. While other executive cars try to emphasize the sense of space, Jaguar opts for sportiness by cocooning the driver and by setting the driver seat low. It also keeps the theatrical startup process of the old car. Once you push the start button, the rotary gear selector rises and the air vents on the center console swivel (though the outer ones no longer participate) to welcome your aboard. Nevertheless, these gimmicks can’t quite justify the high prices.

This means, while the car is the best to drive and ride in class, it is not yet a superior choice against the German rivals. Give it an upgrade interior and powertrains and it could become a winner. However, even if Jaguar had budget to do so, by then the 5-Series, E-class and A6 will have been already renewed.

Verdict: