Jaguar XJ MY2010: stunning but needs a V12

I'm a bit late to the party, I know. I guess I have had other things to contemplate over the past 5 months. Still, I can't believe I missed the XJ launch!

Perhaps I assumed the XF was the replacement for the XJ (more evidence that I wasn't paying attention to recent developments). Anyway. Only one thread about it on this forum? Surely it's worth more than a page's worth of comments?

The only negatives: weight and engine. There is no excuse as to why the engines are V6s and V8s only (but see below). Richard Hammond, commenting on the 2.0L front-drive model some years ago (now discontinued, thank God), said that while it was "enough" Jaguar, enough Jaguar isn't enough: there must be more than just enough.

Even Volvo has V8 engines now. And BMW has been making great V12s since '88 or so. V12 conjures up majesty, myth and wonder. Jaguar can cry all it wants about logic and rationale, but Jaguars should transcend those, just as the 'soul' transcends scientific understanding.

510bhp from a supercharged 5.0L? BMW gets that from a normally aspirated 5.0L - albeit a V10. The new Jag V8 is nice - but it should be the middle option between the diesel V6 and a V12. This is what I love about Ferrari: they don't take the easy way out, they make every cc work for its living!

Kerb mass is still too much, despite all the ravings about 'light weight' bodies. Still, Jaguar is not the only one. In fact all luxury saloons are heavier than I'd like. Where's the progress?

But this car... it's stunning. It looks great (although some here disagree strongly) and its interior is just... WOW. Even those who dislike the body love the cabin. That says plenty.

This car truly puts its predecessors in the past. That's scary. Usually new cars don't do this. This one does. I'd prefer it to any modern Rolls, nevermind Bentley, whose last good car was the Arnage (yeah, I prefer the Turbo R to the new ones, sue me!). Bentley = bling for the upper classes these days.

The electronic instrumentation will be interesting to keep an eye on. Will it be as reliable as it should be? In the past, manufacturers tried it and it failed miserably. You look at some cars from the '80s and their designers would be embarassed. But now... it's a totally different paradigm. It might work. My 30yo car's speedo is playing up. Will the XJ's speedo be happy in 30 years' time?

Maybe the new Daimler will boast a V12 or V10. I hope so. Eight cylinders is a good option to have - BMW would agree. But no V12? Inexcusable!

 

Agreed its a break through model, but we need an entry level engine, plus built in reliability re the miscellanous parts. I can forsee the new instrument panel will be a night mare down the road. The issue with Jaguars are they look great, handle well and oozng real luxury. The letdown is when the electrical gremlins start acting up after a few months, or after the warranty expired. That is why the residual values are so poor worldwide as compared to MB/BMW/Lexus!!

 

Im sorry, but I have to disagree with what you are saying for the most part.

You are forgetting a massively significant figure... TORQUE!!!!!!!

That wonderful BMW m5 engine is great in theory, but is also the leading reason why BMW has lost its superiority in the "super sedan" category. It only makes 380 ft-lbs of torque and its like at 6k rpm. Very unusable, especially on a heavy car such as the BMW. The supercharged mercedes and even the new 63 amgs make massively more torque and thats why BMW hasn't reined supreme as it has in years past. It only puts out 3 more ft-lbs of torque than the 550i. But again, the 550 makes more usable torque. you don't have to rev the nuts off of it.

That supercharged jag engine puts out 460 or so at a much lower rpm and over a much larger power band.

Concerning light weight luxury cars and there weight disappointing you... they are luxury cars. Not carbon fiber monocoque sports cars. They are designed to be luxurious, have tons of rear seat room (foot rest etc...) To make them out of carbon-fiber etc would be so extremely expensive and a gigantic waste. These are cars that spend there time shuttling ceo's down wall street by chauffeurs. For the driving experience, a person would pick a 5 series or an e class etc... for the driver involvement. This new jag is a 7 series, and S class fighter. These cars have great acceleration but expecting great race track characteristics out of them is just ludicrous

T

 

I wouldn't expect more than 8 cylinders from Jaguar any time soon, if ever.

They built more 12 cylinder engines than any other company but that was then and this is now. 50% more moving parts, bigger, heavier, less efficient than the engines of today.

Jaguar isn't Lamborghini and their cache' isn't so much tied to a particular engine configuration. I doubt most buyers will ever look under the "bonnet".

 

also, if anything... a straight 6 is more there heritage than anything. however, id rather see jag stick around then produce a 12 cylinder engine that prices the car out of the market.

 

I agree. Jaguars V12 is a ***** cat. It just looks impressive.