By on November 24, 2011

With luxury brands from Bentley to Maserati building “on-road SUVs” in search of ever-greater profits, Jaguar’s decision to build a traditional station wagon is something of a Connolly leather glove’d slap in the face of the luxury game. That’s right, this isn’t some wobbly, lozenge-shaped crossover, or some garish, blinged-out SUV; it’s just a clean, simple Jag-wagon.  Or “XF Sportbrake,” as Auto Motor und Sport insists on calling it. And though it may not be the most practical wagon, with its cargo area apparently styled for slim looks rather than capacity, it will be available with AWD, along with the rest of the XF line. Oh yeah, and a 510 HP XFR wagon should be an option as well… you know, for the journalists. All of which sounds like news to be very thankful for this Thanksgiving. Remember: this could have been a crossover!

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

33 Comments on “Give Thanks For Jag’s New XF Sportbrake...”


  • avatar
    krhodes1

    Lovely, even under the camoflage.

  • avatar
    ott

    Nice! Now somebody call Maximum Bob to race it with a CTS-V wagon…

  • avatar
    Syke

    Yessssssssssss!!!!! It’s beautiful. It’s another ‘perfect’ car for the Best and the Brightest to refuse to buy new.

  • avatar
    TheOtherLew

    I think it’s Sport *Break*, not “Sportbrake”, where “break” is some kind of long-standing Eurospeak meaning “station wagon.”

  • avatar
    Bimmer

    Looks good, but I think we wont see it at our shores.

  • avatar

    I. HATE. WAGONS.

    …and if there’s one thing I hate more than Wagons, it’s A SMALL WAGON.

    • 0 avatar
      BigDuke6

      bigtruckboy
      Please tell us why YOU. HATE. WAGONS. Is it the look? Is it because of something they remind you of? Is it because they aren’t manly (in your opinion)? I LOVE my Mazda6 wagon because I can toss my Cannondale in the back and take it anywhere without disassembling it. Now there’s SPORTS and UTILITY right there…… I’d just like to know why someone could actually HATE wagons…..

    • 0 avatar
      bunkie

      Wagons are great. I just picked up a CTS wagon last week. The SUV I was considering as an alternative didn’t handle as well, wasn’t as quick and got much worse fuel economy. This Thanksgiving saw me put some large pieces of particleboard, my acoustic guitar, luggage for the weekend, a cooler, serving trays filled with food and various other sundry items in the back with plenty of room to spare and a clear view out the back window. And I got almost 25mpg in mixed driving.

      I’m not bashing SUVs, I came very close to buying a Jeep Grand Cherokee. In the end the CTS Sportwagon fits our needs and wants better.

    • 0 avatar
      naterator

      What a strange comment. I didn’t realize the XF was a small car.

  • avatar
    TrailerTrash

    Ed…I know it is so in to bash buyers of SUVs or CUVs, but there is one really big reason many pick the non-wagon design: ride height.
    It is simple…the being able to sit higher and be able to see.
    Personally, I like the lower position and the better feel of driving faster and in better balance. However, I DO understand everybody’s desire to sit high.
    I purchased my MKS because I wanted a cruiser. I got it.
    But now I wish there was a cruiser that could hold all my stuff. The MKS has a stupid trunk opening that requires me to take everything apart so I can load that super over-sized trunk and use it to its fullest.
    But I wish I could have a wagon.

    But for all those I talk to about their desire for high seating positions, I really do understand why they prefer the SUV/Crossover/CUV as opposed to the wagon. They simply can see better.

    In my opinion, THIS is the one controlling reason for the SUV/Crossover popularity.

    • 0 avatar
      srogers

      Isn’t “sitting high” just another arms race that can’t be won? When SUVs became the rage, that’s what everyone raved about, “I can see over the traffic!”.

      Good luck seeing over the traffic now unless you have a body-on-frame 4X4 with a lift kit.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        It depends. I like high seating positions because it (usually) means you can get in and out easily, you have more space because your legs drop down, rather than splay forward, and you’ve generally more headroom and don’t need to recline.

        That said, you don’t need an SUV or crossover for this; a tall-roofed “normal” car (like my Honda Fit, but other qualifiers include the likes of the Nissan Cube, Kia Rondo) can do the same.

        Now, this is roof and seat height. Ground clearance is another matter—I’m okay with a car that has a car-like ground clearance along with a tall roof. I wouldn’t have liked a lifted low-roofer, which is what many crossovers and most SUVs are.

      • 0 avatar
        Signal11

        You just pointed out the one thing I’ve always hated about 4WD Tacomas and Hiluxes. Your eyeline height is high, but it feels like you’re sitting on the floor of the vehicle. All else equal, I’d prefer a more upright position.

      • 0 avatar
        TrailerTrash

        .Well, the below replies said it better than I could. It isn’t JUST the ride height, but the feeling of ease getting in and out…a VERY big deal for so many.
        You know, although nobody agrees with me these days, one of the more perfect cars build lately was the Taurus JUSR after the Fivehundred and before it became a copy of the MKS which came out first.
        That Taurus had it all.
        They improved the 3.0 to the 3.5.
        It had great ride height.
        It had enormous room front and back.
        It had a trunk by which ALL trunks should be measured.
        It never sold.
        Why? Dunno…maybe if Ford stuck with it long enough, it would have.
        Now THAT Taurus would have made a GREAT wagon!
        How I wish I could have seen that post Fivehundred Taurus in a wagon…NOT the Taurus X

    • 0 avatar
      Zykotec

      Actually, for me, the height issue had two other pro’s. A tall roof, and wheels under the car made the rear seat accommodate rear facing child seats. Sitting high was no priority for me, but ‘some-time’ 4wd was a plus as I live in the country that invented winter :P
      I love real wagons, but I truly hate the tiny fashionable ‘sportwagon’ like the BMW 3-series :P

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        I love real wagons, but I truly hate the tiny fashionable ‘sportwagon’ like the BMW 3-series :P

        There’s nothing wrong with a sportwagon, per se, but insinuating they’re better than a minivan or crossover for a family, as enthusiasts are wont to do, is not really true. It’s really just a way to get a bigger trunk an a small car.

        The low-roof full-size wagon is going-going-gone because, truly, it doesn’t work as well as the minivan or crossover (less room, harder to get in and out of), and they’re not much more efficient or better to drive.

      • 0 avatar
        Zykotec

        ‘There’s nothing wrong with a sportwagon, per se’
        No, offcourse not, as long as you know beforehand that it is not a stationwagon, just a lousy excuse for someone to still buy a sports-coupe or -sedan that is supposed to look more practical than it is. My old Ford Sierra hatchback coupe has much larger trunk than any 3-series wagon, and still looks sportier.
        And I’m not talking down on ‘proper’ wagons like the 5-series, Passat or A6, just the really silly ones that have no practical abilities at all, like the mentioned 3-series, A3 wagon A4 wagon, AlfaRomeos etc. I can partially understand that someone who allready owns one as a Cope or sedan, and then gets their first child can appreciate the slightly larger rear hatch, but the actual trunk space is normally quite ridiculous.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        @zykotec

        I own a 3-series wagon. I have no need for a car any bigger 90% of the time, but why put up with a tiny trunk? I can’t get a snowblower on a pallet in it like I could in my MB 300TE, but I can still get 3X as much stuff in it as in a 3-series sedan. I think it looks as practical as it is. Actually, I think the wagon is MUCH better looking than the slightly awkward 3-series sedan.

        For the bigger and/or messier loads, I have a ’93 Volvo 965 wagon. But the 3-series drives like a sports car, and the Volvo most assuredly does not.

      • 0 avatar
        ruckover

        I own a 3 series wagon, also. It is not a huge space, not a proper wagon, and all . . . but my cattle dog fits perfectly: reason enough to own the car.

  • avatar
    stuki

    If they bring this (the R) to the US, it will steal sales from the upcoming M5. The M5 is probably faster, but there is at least some people out here who won’t buy it unless BMW starts bringing in the wagon version.

    As at least some of the motivation for many to buy wagons, are their Euro-Cachet, this thing should do well against the CTS-V as well.

  • avatar
    Its_Magic

    This car is called Jaguar XF Sportbrake. Jaguar even opened an official Twitter account and posted spyshots themselves!

    You can also read the word Sportbrake on the side of the car (blurred out in this picture).

    http://twitter.com/#!/sportbrake
    http://ow.ly/user/Sportbrake

  • avatar
    daveainchina

    I’m sorry but this car to me is just ugly. Some cars shouldn’t be made into wagons.

    And I like wagons, this one though, the lines are just wrong.

    • 0 avatar
      damikco

      agreed

    • 0 avatar
      rpn453

      I was expecting this to get the same comments-section treatment as that last Mercedes wagon abomination. Well, maybe not as bad as that, but I didn’t expect any positive responses. Though maybe I’m just focusing too much on the tacky fender and bumper decorations and overstyled wheels. The overall shape is actually pretty decent. I sure hope the tail lights don’t actually bulge out like that!

  • avatar

    DO WANT. It’s about time the MB E55 Estate had some competitions for that enormous niche of “guys-who-want-a-sleeper-supercharged-V8-sedate-looking-wagon-that-can-eat-sports-cars-and-haul-a-pair-of-Labradors”

    For the record, I liked the X-Type only because you could get it as a wagon. If they had made an (old) XJR shooting brake/station wagon I would have sold my soul to get it. As it is I’ll hold out my soul for a clean Aston Oscar India Vantage.

  • avatar

    I think it’s gorgeous. Reminds me a lot of the Virage Shooting Brake that Aston offered as a factory conversion in the 1990s… not a bad example to follow, though this one has much more well-thought-out details. Too bad they won’t build it with a manual, but I still wouldn’t turn one down.

  • avatar
    Sgt Beavis

    WOW, that thing is kick ass.

    I may have just found the successor to my 328i sport wagon if they bring it to the US.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States