New Jaguar XJ petrol 2 litre

the culture of deference

Big changes for the future.






Everyone is downsizing in an effort to eke extra miles from every gallon of petrol. Jaguar’s latest idea is to put the 2.0-litre turbocharged four-cylinder petrol engine from the Range Rover Evoque into its all-aluminium XJ saloon – and this model will go on the sale in the UK next year.


To make it more to the taste of Jaguar’s customers, refinement has been improved with a pair of balancer shafts for a smoother power delivery. The engine will also appear in the XF saloon – although this model is unlikely to come here – and could power the F-Type in future, too.


Effectively, the 2.0-litre replaces the old 3.0-litre V6, and it delivers 237bhp with 340Nm of torque at 2,000rpm, which ensures sprightly performance – 0-62mph takes 7.5 seconds.


Where the car really excels is cross country. Here the engine’s lighter weight means excellent balance through twists and turns. The steering is light, but never vague, with plenty of feedback, while the fluid ride would be the envy of many rivals.


Although there’s some initial turbo lag at low revs, once the engine has picked up its stride, deft use of the silky smooth eight-speed auto ensures it is always in the powerband’s sweet spot. This guarantees a surprising turn of speed that can be easily maintained. Equally, motorway cruising is a refined and relaxing experience.

the culture of deference

It seems big engines days are numbered.

This is a big car. The new ford focus comes with a 1 litre engine.

What do the petrol heads here think of it?

coolisin

As a massive petrol ead this is a great thing, while we may be loosing a massive v8's and v6's to some degree we are getting as much power out of a 4cyl engine.

I was surprised at the ecoboost featured on fifth gear, it was better performing then the 1.6.
So I think it's interesting at least.
While I'm wary of the troubles that come with turbo chargers, at least it's a move away from let's everyone make a new Prius.
I do wish they would move the hydrogen engine on a little.

the culture of deference

coolisin wrote: »

I was surprised at the ecoboost featured on fifth gear, it was better performing then the 1.6..

It was funny watching them on the 5th gear. They all hated the idea of a 1 litre car, and had their minds made up. Then after driving it they were delighted with it. What a tiny engine.

Leonard Hofstadter

These engines will be great when new, but what are they going to be like in a few years' time?

Four cylinders doesn't cut it in a luxury car no matter how many balancer shafts or bhp it has.

Plus the CO2 figure is 216 g/km, which is worse than the BMW 750i with a proper large capacity 4.4 litre engine with a much more impressive number of cylinders (eight).

A 750i pollutes 199 g/km, this is 17 g/km WORSE despite it's small capacity engine with the wrong number of cylinders.

I don't believe that these new generations offer any real benefit for the consumer (apart from lowering the road tax bill), the new V6 has less power (by 45 bhp) but in the real world is no more economical than 5.0 V8 it replaced according to Auto Express's real world test.

Larger displacement engines have more cylinders (which means greater refinement and a much nicer exhaust note), natural aspiration (usually) for even better sound not to mention throttle response and will obviously be more reliable becuase the engines will be under far less stress, and will be more tolerant of not being serviced on time, which is very important in the Irish market obviously. It will be like the diesels all over again when they all changed to common rail.

166man

captainspeed wrote: »

These engines will be great when new, but what are they going to be like in a few years' time?

Four cylinders doesn't cut it in a luxury car no matter how many balancer shafts or bhp it has.

Plus the CO2 figure is 216 g/km, which is worse than the BMW 750i with a proper large capacity 4.4 litre engine with a much more impressive number of cylinders (eight).

A 750i pollutes 199 g/km, this is 17 g/km WORSE despite it's small capacity engine with the wrong number of cylinders.

I don't believe that these new generations offer any real benefit for the consumer (apart from lowering the road tax bill), the new V6 has less power (by 45 bhp) but in the real world is no more economical than 5.0 V8 it replaced according to Auto Express's real world test.

Larger displacement engines have more cylinders (which means greater refinement and a much nicer exhaust note), natural aspiration (usually) for even better sound not to mention throttle response and will obviously be more reliable becuase the engines will be under far less stress, and will be more tolerant of not being serviced on time, which is very important in the Irish market obviously. It will be like the diesels all over again when they all changed to common rail.

I reckon you're not too far off the truth tbh. I always wondered what engines like the E250 CDI will be like with 150k miles on them. Would they last putting that much pressure on such a small engine....

Impressive as it is, I think a 2.0T in an XJ is a step too far.

Casati

captainspeed wrote: »

These engines will be great when new, but what are they going to be like in a few years' time?

Four cylinders doesn't cut it in a luxury car no matter how many balancer shafts or bhp it has.

Plus the CO2 figure is 216 g/km, which is worse than the BMW 750i with a proper large capacity 4.4 litre engine with a much more impressive number of cylinders (eight).

A 750i pollutes 199 g/km, this is 17 g/km WORSE despite it's small capacity engine with the wrong number of cylinders.

I don't believe that these new generations offer any real benefit for the consumer (apart from lowering the road tax bill), the new V6 has less power (by 45 bhp) but in the real world is no more economical than 5.0 V8 it replaced according to Auto Express's real world test.

Larger displacement engines have more cylinders (which means greater refinement and a much nicer exhaust note), natural aspiration (usually) for even better sound not to mention throttle response and will obviously be more reliable becuase the engines will be under far less stress, and will be more tolerant of not being serviced on time, which is very important in the Irish market obviously. It will be like the diesels all over again when they all changed to common rail.

I think this is the crux of there problem here- if the co2 was sub 170, then you could see some logic in picking it, but if its going to drink more petrol than a 4.4 Beemer then I see why they would bother. Cant see this car been offered here

RedorDead

166man wrote: »

I reckon you're not too far off the truth tbh. I always wondered what engines like the E250 CDI will be like with 150k miles on them. Would they last putting that much pressure on such a small engine....

Impressive as it is, I think a 2.0T in an XJ is a step too far.

Kinda like the initial troubles VW got with 1.4TSI when putting out 170HP

mickdw

4 cylinder xj jag is just criminal.

delthedriver

[

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

QUOTE=mickdw;81625386]4 cylinder xj jag is just criminal.[/QUOTE]

Agree!
Sub 3.0 maybe , 2.0 unacceptable to Jag owners who by and large are not overly worried by motor tax and mpg!

the culture of deference

mickdw wrote: »

4 cylinder xj jag is just criminal.

delthedriver wrote: »

Agree!
Sub 3.0 maybe , 2.0 unacceptable to Jag owners who by and large are not overly worried by motor tax and mpg!

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Does anyone have the sales figures of Diesel V Petrol Jaguars.

bazz26

the culture of deference wrote: »

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Does anyone have the sales figures of Diesel V Petrol Jaguars.

Irish market aside most would be petrol models bought in other markets I'd imagine. If someone forking out upwards of €80k for a XJ is concerned about fuel economy then imo they bought the wrong car. However this change to smaller capacity engines is mainly about emmissions rather than fuel economy. EU polution regulations are pushing car manufactures this way.

166man

bazz26 wrote: »

Irish market aside most would be petrol models bought in other markets I'd imagine. If someone forking out upwards of €80k for a XJ is concerned about fuel economy then imo they bought the wrong car. However this change to smaller capacity engines is mainly about emmissions rather than fuel economy. EU polution regulations are pushing car manufactures this way.

Going on this theory, why have so many Mercedes S320CDI's, BMW 740d's and big Audi diesels proven so popular both in Ireland and the UK and also abroad?

bazz26

166man wrote: »

Going on this theory, why have so many Mercedes S320CDI's, BMW 740d's and big Audi diesels proven so popular both in Ireland and the UK and also abroad?

Maybe because a good number of the people who are driving them didn't buy them or are not paying the fuel bills. Granted some people just prefer diesel to petrol too.

166man

bazz26 wrote: »

Maybe because a good number of the people who are driving them didn't buy them or are not paying the fuel bills. Granted some people just prefer diesel to petrol too.

That would be true in the case of the 520d convoy maybe, but I'd doubt there are too many company bought S320CDI's around.

I think the likes of the above cars are popular because they have reasonable power relative to the petrol counterparts yet return far better fuel consumption and as such the range is far greater, meaning less stops at fuel stations. Excellent motorway machines too, especially the S-Class.

Chuck Stone

It has an ugly fat arse.

jimgoose

These new super-tiny engines are a marketing trick and not based on sound engineering. We are about to embark on a whole new generation of underpowered, unreliable little ****heaps that return ridiculous fuel economy due to having to be thraped senseless all the time, and which will explode into a million pieces before 80,000 miles.

Oh and, Jags with less than six pots - 'Goose no likee! :mad:

jimgoose

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It has an ugly fat arse.

Hmm. Yes, yes it has - in fact in that particular photo it looks like an Open Insignia.

Leonard Hofstadter

The sooner the emissions and mpg tests are based on real world driving the better. That might at least prevent car makers from putting in pathetically small engines into cars so as to make them 'look good' in official tests. In the real world Auto Express found that the 3.0 supercharged V6 XJ didn't do even 0.1 mpg more than the 5.0 V8 that it is replacing (which also has 45 more bhp).

Then there is the 2 cylinder Fiat 500, which only does 37 mpg in the real world. The naturally aspirated 1.4 was found to do more in real world testing.

MuppetCheck

166man wrote: »

That would be true in the case of the 520d convoy maybe, but I'd doubt there are too many company bought S320CDI's around.

I think the likes of the above cars are popular because they have reasonable power relative to the petrol counterparts yet return far better fuel consumption and as such the range is far greater, meaning less stops at fuel stations. Excellent motorway machines too, especially the S-Class.

Have a careful look next time you're at a European airport and see what's on offer as a taxi, chauffeur car, or even a rental. The market is bigger than Ireland for both the S-Class and XJ and these are bought on running costs an awful lot of the time.

Saab Ed

Lets no forget that an S-Class now comes with a four pot too, and a diesel at that ....

http://www.mercedes-benz.ie/content/ireland/mpc/mpc_ireland_website/enng/home_mpc/passengercars/home/new_cars/models/s-class/_w221/facts/drivetrain_chassis.0003.html

MuppetCheck

Saab Ed wrote: »

Lets no forget that an S-Class now comes with a four pot too, and a diesel at that ....

http://www.mercedes-benz.ie/content/ireland/mpc/mpc_ireland_website/enng/home_mpc/passengercars/home/new_cars/models/s-class/_w221/facts/drivetrain_chassis.0003.html

Let's face it - anyone buying a 6 cylinder luxury car in the first place isn't going to notice it's a 4 anyway.

Leonard Hofstadter

The S250 CDI is not on the price lists though, well at least not yet. I don't think we'll be getting them as Merc have decided not to sell it in the UK (thankfully). Four cylinders is just plain wrong in a luxury car, I accept that they have come a long way on the power department, but six cylinder engines sound a lot nicer and are a lot smoother. If I'm paying €100k on a car, then I want it to have a nice smooth engine.

Saab Ed

captainspeed wrote: »

The S250 CDI is not on the price lists though, well at least not yet. I don't think we'll be getting them as Merc have decided not to sell it in the UK (thankfully). Four cylinders is just plain wrong in a luxury car, I accept that they have come a long way on the power department, but six cylinder engines sound a lot nicer and are a lot smoother. If I'm paying €100k on a car, then I want it to have a nice smooth engine.

A V6 always seems to lack real world torque though. Always liked a 5 pot turbo myself, petrol or diesel.

delthedriver

Don't think you will see too many Jaguar XJ models on Taxi ranks at airports.
Jaguar XJ was first launched in 1967 with a 2,8 and 4,2 engine, the moto being grace,space and pace.Back then they were the fastest road cars on the market.

Nothing much has changed.Jaguar drivers are discerning, loyal to the Jaguar heritage racing pedigree and would not be buying them for fuel consumption.

Like all car manufacturers Jaguar may be receiving outside pressure to produce greener cars, perhaps this 2.O litre version is simply a charade to meet that demand. Meanwhile the priority is to continue building luxury sporting saloons

jimgoose

Saab Ed wrote: »

A V6 always seems to lack real world torque though. Always liked a 5 pot turbo myself, petrol or diesel.

Do you really think so? The Duratec 30 unit in my old S-Type pulls like a Napier Deltic!

delthedriver wrote: »

Don't think you will see too many Jaguar XJ models on Taxi ranks at airports.
Jaguar XJ was first launched in 1967 with a 2,8 and 4,2 engine, the moto being grace,space and pace.Back then they were the fastest road cars on the market.

Nothing much has changed.Jaguar drivers are discerning, loyal to the Jaguar heritage racing pedigree and would not be buying them for fuel consumption.

Like all car manufacturers Jaguar may be receiving outside pressure to produce greener cars, perhaps this 2.O litre version is simply a charade to meet that demand. Meanwhile the priority is to continue building luxury sporting saloons

That may well be the case. Of course this being Ireland the only new Jaaag that seems to be selling is the hideously underpowered 2.2 diesel XF.

Leonard Hofstadter

jimgoose wrote: »

Do you really think so? The Duratec 30 unit in my old S-Type pulls like a Napier Deltic!

That may well be the case. Of course this being Ireland the only new Jaaag that seems to be selling is the hideously underpowered 2.2 diesel XF.

I'd still rather one of those than a 520d. 98% of 5 series sold in Ireland this year are 520ds, why would you want to buy a car that everyone else is buying, especially one with the wrong number of cylinders? At least the XF drives well, whereas it's common knowledge that the F10 is not good at all to drive.

Admittedly in the UK there are a surprisingly high number of 520ds nowadays, but there's still no shortage of six cylinder models.

Casati

bazz26 wrote: »

Maybe because a good number of the people who are driving them didn't buy them or are not paying the fuel bills. Granted some people just prefer diesel to petrol too.

VAT is recoverable on diesel, so if company is paying for fuel diesel cars might reduce the fuel costs by 50%+

jimgoose

captainspeed wrote: »

I'd still rather one of those than a 520d. 98% of 5 series sold in Ireland this year are 520ds, why would you want to buy a car that everyone else is buying, especially one with the wrong number of cylinders? At least the XF drives well, whereas it's common knowledge that the F10 is not good at all to drive.

Admittedly in the UK there are a surprisingly high number of 520ds nowadays, but there's still no shortage of six cylinder models.

Mmm. The brother got a 2010 520d a few months back. It's some yoke mind you, but it feels sort of eerily disconnected from the road.

Casati

jimgoose wrote: »

Do you really think so? The Duratec 30 unit in my old S-Type pulls like a Napier Deltic!

That may well be the case. Of course this being Ireland the only new Jaaag that seems to be selling is the hideously underpowered 2.2 diesel XF.

I drove the XF 2.2 and found it great- 200bhp/ 450 nm's matched to a great 8 speed gearbox, plus its band B. Light years ahead of an engine used to power a mid 90's Ford Taurus anyway

jimgoose

Casati wrote: »

I drove the XF 2.2 and found it great- 200bhp/ 450 nm's matched to a great 8 speed gearbox, plus its band B. Light years ahead of an engine used to power a mid 90's Ford Taurus anyway

Its AJ-V6 incarnation is a little better than anything in a Taurus. I'll take the free-revving rasp when it comes on-cam over a four-cylinder diesel any day. I don't give a monkey's what "band" it's in.

Eric Cartman

the culture of deference wrote: »

Big changes for the future.


Everyone is downsizing in an effort to eke extra miles from every gallon of petrol. spending tonnes of money on a new tractor engine to save a few quid at the pump Jaguar’s latest idea is to put the 2.0-litre turbocharged four-cylinder petrol engine from the Range Rover Evoque into its all-aluminium XJ saloon – and this model will go on the sale in the UK next year.


To make it more to the taste of Jaguar’s customers, refinement has been improved with a pair of balancer shafts for a smoother power delivery. The engine will also appear in the XF saloon – although this model is unlikely to come here – and could power the F-Type in future, too.


Effectively, the 2.0-litre replaces the old 3.0-litre V6, and it delivers 237bhp with 340Nm of torque at 2,000rpm, which ensures sprightly performance – 0-62mph takes 7.5 seconds.


Where the car really excels is cross country. Here the engine’s lighter weight means excellent balance through twists and turns. The steering is light, but never vague, with plenty of feedback, while the fluid ride would be the envy of many rivals.


Although there’s some initial turbo lag at low revs, once the engine has picked up its stride, deft use of the silky smooth eight-speed auto ensures it is always in the powerband’s sweet spot. This guarantees a surprising turn of speed that can be easily maintained. Equally, motorway cruising is a refined and relaxing experience.

FYP

Casati

So basically everybody is agreed - this 2.0 isn't faster or more economical or as smooth or nice to listen to etc than the old 3.0 litre petrol so what is the point of it? Will Jag be selling it at a significant discount or what?

MuppetCheck

Casati wrote: »

So basically everybody is agreed - this 2.0 isn't faster or more economical or as smooth or nice to listen to etc than the old 3.0 litre petrol so what is the point of it? Will Jag be selling it at a significant discount or what?

The point is it gets the average emissions of the range down. They have been forced to do it really. They are trying hard, they don't have the development budgets of BMW or MB. In comparison its almost like some fellow tinkering in his shed. But they are making the best of what they are dealt and in my opinion deserve a bit of respect for that.

166man

MuppetCheck wrote: »

Have a careful look next time you're at a European airport and see what's on offer as a taxi, chauffeur car, or even a rental. The market is bigger than Ireland for both the S-Class and XJ and these are bought on running costs an awful lot of the time.

I will do that for sure, cheer for the heads up.

You're kind of agreeing with my post, Bazz reckoned that it will be mostly petrol models sold, I reckoned it would be mainly diesel looking at how many there are here and in the UK as as example.

I don't really understand your post tbh...

MuppetCheck

166man wrote: »

I will do that for sure, cheer for the heads up.

You're kind of agreeing with my post, Bazz reckoned that it will be mostly petrol models sold, I reckoned it would be mainly diesel looking at how many there are here and in the UK as as example.

I don't really understand your post tbh...

I was replying to the but about company bought S class diesels. I just wasn't arsed deleting the rest of your post. I wasn't commenting on the rest. Apologies for the confusion it caused you.

166man

MuppetCheck wrote: »

I was replying to the but about company bought S class diesels. I just wasn't arsed deleting the rest.

I was mainly speaking about companies in Ireland.

Anyway, you seem to like disagreeing with me on pretty much anything these days with smart answers, so I shall say no more.

larchill

Casati wrote: »

I think this is the crux of there problem here- if the co2 was sub 170, then you could see some logic in picking it, but if its going to drink more petrol than a 4.4 Beemer then I see why they would bother. Cant see this car been offered here

If this has CO2 of 216g/km, thats an annual road tax bill of €1,129. Ironically under the previous cc based system this would've been €660! It'll hardly have too many followers here so.:D

bazz26

Casati wrote: »

VAT is recoverable on diesel, so if company is paying for fuel diesel cars might reduce the fuel costs by 50%+

Exactly my point. The diesel version would be attractive for tax reasons to a company supplying a luxo barge to their MD or the likes.

I'd imagin someone who can afford to pay for one of these out of their own pocket would not have the same concern about which fuel type and would opt for the traditional petrol option. Of course some may also prefer the diesel irrespective of fuel costs.

jimgoose

larchill wrote: »

If this has CO2 of 216g/km, thats an annual road tax bill of €1,129. Ironically under the previous cc based system this would've been €660! It'll hardly have too many followers here so.:D

That's another thing that boils my piss, actually - both the emissions- and capacity-based road tax systems are ridiculous and grossly unfair, forcing yet another race-to-the-bottom in this country. Road tax should be abolished completely and replaced with a 10% tax on fuel. So you pay the tax as you use the road, as opposed to being presented with huge bills just because you own a car, regardless of how often/much it is actually used on the road. Now that's fair. And of course that's another problem around here - no-one actually wants "fair", they want ridiculously low road tax based on some cockamamie greenie-arsed "system" while someone else pays through the nose.

Terrontress

jimgoose wrote: »

That's another thing that boils my piss, actually - both the emissions- and capacity-based road tax systems are ridiculous and grossly unfair, forcing yet another race-to-the-bottom in this country. Road tax should be abolished completely and replaced with a 10% tax on fuel. So you pay the tax as you use the road, as opposed to being presented with huge bills just because you own a car, regardless of how often/much it is actually used on the road. Now that's fair. And of course that's another problem around here - no-one actually wants "fair", they want ridiculously low road tax based on some cockamamie greenie-arsed "system" while someone else pays through the nose.

I'd argue that the cost of fuel is as high as the market will take. All it takes is another shift in the strength of the euro and people will fill up with fuel when they are up North buying cheap drink and groceries. Stick road tax on to the price of fuel and they'll start doing it now.

jimgoose

Terrontress wrote: »

I'd argue that the cost of fuel is as high as the market will take. All it takes is another shift in the strength of the euro and people will fill up with fuel when they are up North buying cheap drink and groceries. Stick road tax on to the price of fuel and they'll start doing it now.

I'd counter-argue that they said that back in the day when petrol hit a Euro a litre. Those who want to do that will do as long as stuff is cheaper in the jurisdiction up the road, and more power to them. I'd further argue that only a small proportion of the population would choose or are really in a position to do that. Also, bear in mind that a current annual bill for hundreds of Euro for most people disappears. Consider a hill-farmer in West Kerry with a 3l Pajero - he for one would hail me as the new Pope over such a scheme!

And that way, you have a totally fair pay-per-usage system, you discourage waste and unnecessary vehicle use, and I believe revenue impact would be minimal.

osheen

Consider a hill-farmer in West Kerry with a 3l Pajero - he for one would hail me as the new Pope over such a scheme!

Ahh but would he bother with tax ?

jimgoose

osheen wrote: »

Consider a hill-farmer in West Kerry with a 3l Pajero - he for one would hail me as the new Pope over such a scheme!

Ahh but would he bother with tax ?

He'd have to, if you sogged my new tax onto the red dayshul, bass.

Actually that's another good point - all the enforcement headaches disappear too. It enforces itself, almost by definition.

MuppetCheck

166man wrote: »

Anyway, you seem to like disagreeing with me on pretty much anything these days with smart answers, so I shall say no more.

Am I not allowed to disagree with comments?