By on March 15, 2012

At 7 years old, the XK isn’t a kitten anymore – but with a rumored 3 years until the next redesign, what’s a luxury marque to do? Make special editions, of course. On the surface, the XKR-S looks like a baby-boomer dressed like a teenager, or as the Brits put it: mutton dressed as lamb.

YouTube Preview Image

The XKR (reviewed last year) looks like sex, in a discrete, black-tie/coquettish sort of way. The XKR-S ditches subtle for brash; hood scoops, large hood vents, enlarged grille, carbon fiber splitter, carbon fiber spoiler, blacked-out trim (chrome is a $4,000 option), and bespoke 20-inch alloy wheels with 255-width Pirelli rubber up front and 295s out back are all part of this exclusive package (only 100 will be sent to America). There’s also a straked diffuser with dual exhausts, special badging and some crazy-looking vents at the leading edge of the front wheel well to improve brake cooling. Oh, and the front bumper seems to have been designed to look like a frown. Moderation is a Jaguar virtue and thankfully the R-S’s chassis is lowered by a scant 0.38 inches meaning we had no problems with steep driveways and speed bumps. So is it all-show-and-no-go? Far from it. All the aero tweaks put together reduce lift by 26%  and make the lift more even fore/aft than in the XKR.

Under the hood growls a lightly modified 5.0L supercharged V8 from the XKR. The quad-cam engine features direct injection, continuously variable valve timing, and a thoroughly modern twin-vortex Roots-type supercharger with twin air-to-water intercoolers tucked under the plastic vanity cover. Should you wish to accessorize your engine bay, Jaguar will swap that cover for one in carbon fiber for a cool $2,000. While the XKR, XFR and XJ Supersport have to make do with only 510HP/461lb-ft from this engine, the “-S” (and $34,000) buys an extra 40 ponies and 41lb-ft. You also get a revised exhaust, a tweaked 6-speed ZF automatic, sportier programming for the active suspension and electronic differential and a host of suspension changes, including fully machined steering knuckles (that increase caster and camber stiffness), increased steering effort, improved steering feedback, and 28% stiffer spring rates.

Back to those 550 horses. The only Porsche in this rarefied club is the Panamera Turbo S, while the only Aston is the One-77. BMW’s M5 and M6 put out 560, and from the bow-tie brand, only the Corvette ZR1 and Camaro ZL1 are more powerful.

The exterior and engine may have been reworked, but on the inside the “-S” boils down to some trim, some modified seats and a 190MPH speedo. In a strange twist, our tester was fitted with the “London Tan” interior, a standard color combo available on the lesser XKR. The XKR-S exclusive interiors are the better choice and feature “carbon fiber effect” leather trim, and bold-colored stitching and piping. The sport seats (optional on XKR) are designed to accommodate a 5-point harness, but aside from the fact they are standard and the “R-S” logos on the tiller and dash, you’d be hard pressed to tell the XKR-S and XKR apart inside. Speaking of not being able to tell the difference, the sport-grip-free steering wheel from the base XK and XF makes an encore in the XKR-S. While it’s not a bad tiller, it doesn’t feel as nice as new XJ’s wheel and the lack of ergonomic thumb grips keeps the XKR-S from feeling as sporty as the BMW and Mercedes competition.

While I’m complaining about the interior, let’s talk infotainment. 2012 has brought essentially no changes to the system shared with the Jaguar XF. The system is simple to use and well laid out but the lag between pressing a “button” and the system responding is long and screen changes are glacial. I appreciate minimalist design in theory, but in practice, putting controls like heated seats and a heated steering wheel in a sluggish system make them more aggravating than trying to stab the right button in a cluttered button bank. While some voice command systems have received harsh commentary from me in the past, I think even a lackluster system is better than none at all as we had to park the XKR-S to enter a navigation destination.

Like the XF, iPod and iPhone integration is well done, easy to use and allows essentially full access to your iDevices. While Mercedes’ COMAND is similarly ancient, Merc does allow voice entry of addresses. I’d like to compare the Jag system to BMW’s newest iDrive, but that’d be like comparing a Palm Pilot to an iPhone. Also on my complaint list is a sound system tuned so bright that even with the treble turned all the way down the Bowers & Wilkins system sounded unbalanced. I didn’t recall this problem in the XKR we drove last year with the same system, so it could be a problem unique to our tester.

Tech quibbles aside; the XKR-S’ raison d’être is not to Tweet or Facebook while commuting. The XKR-S was built for three things: going fast, screaming like a banshee and making passengers wet themselves. If I were a betting man, I’d say it was also designed with the recently announced 560HP M6 in its crosshairs. While the choice of an automatic may seem strange in a sports car, real-world drivability is greatly improved by having a torque converter. If you don’t believe me, just try to drive a Mercedes AMG with a “Speedshift” transmission in stop-and-go traffic up a steep hill. The XKR-S is a willing partner in the mountains, delivering rev-matched downshifts at the flick of a paddle accompanied by exhaust pops and a loud roar sure to spook any cyclists that may be in the middle of your lane. Should that startled tandem tumble, massive steel-and-aluminum monobloc calipers in your choice of red or black paired with upgraded pads and massive 15-inch vented front and 14.8 vented rear rotors stop the XKR-S in record time. Every time.

Jaguar tells us the XKR-S was tuned on the Nürburgring and runs a 7:50 lap in convertible form. Let’s put that in perspective. Over a 17.8 mile long course, an XKR-S will only run a few seconds behind a Ford GT, Lamborghini Gallardo, Lamborghini Murcielago, Ferrari 599 or a Porsche 911 GT3 RS. This shapely lump of hand-stitched leather posted a time faster than the previous generation M5, Ferrari F430, Panamera Turbo, Corvette Z06 and a wide variety of Aston Martins. With numbers like that it should come as no surprise that grip is excellent and limits are high. Aiding in your fun is a re-tuned stability nanny that has a track mode with higher limits than the XKR and a full-off mode should you dare. Yet, it’s not the grip that amused while flinging the XKR-S around the coastal mountains of Northern California, it was the acceleration which can only be described as savage. OK, maybe eye-popping. Possibly brutal. Definitely insane. Putting numbers to these adjectives, we clocked a 3.8 second run to 60 with massive wheel spin, smoke and severe intervention by the electronic differential and traction control software, but most importantly: no roll-out. Because that’s how we roll. Compared to the XKR we tested last year, this is a significant 0.7-0.8 second improvement.

While the XKR-S doesn’t claim to have launch control, we discovered the traction control systems and e-diff work best when you just nail the go-pedal from a stop rather than try to control wheel-spin on your own. Not worrying about lifting to maximize acceleration also allows you to enjoy the raucous noise bellowing out of the tailpipes. By the time the thrill of an automatic with DSG-like gear changes wore off and we did decide to lift, we were at 140 having blown well past the 12-second flat quarter-mile at 122MPH. Numbers like these are pointless without comparison. While the Panamera Turbo S may clock 3.6 second runs to 60 according to the auto-rags, those tests are often conducted with a roll-out. Besides, the XKR-S’s 122MPH 1/4 mile bests the 118 we clocked with a privately owned Panamera we were lent for a few hours.

While I hate to be speculative in any review, the XKR-S’s introduction just months before the new M6 begs at least an arm-chair comparison. A full M6 review will be posted when we can con one out of the Germans. For the rest of you, let’s start with the numbers. The new M6 may deliver 10 more horsepower than the XKR-S, but it is down 2lb-ft of torque compared with the Jag at peak. The curves indicate that BMW is putting some serious boost into their 4.4L V8 with peak power coming on a 6,000RPM and staying strong to 7,000 while peak torque happens at a very low 1,500RPM all the way to 5,750. Jag’s 5.0L engine created its maximum power from 6,000-6,500 RPM and peak torque from 2,500-5,500RPM. The XKR-S fights BMW’s broader bands with zero lag from its supercharger and a 260lb lower curb weight. Of course both Jaguar and BMW are known to quote conservative power figures, so this battle will continue on the track. The M6 will sport BMW’s 7-speed double clutch gearbox known for its fast changes, but I don’t expect it to be any smoother than the model used in the previous generation M5 making the XKR-s the better daily driver. Both the XKR-S and the M6 are similarly balanced in terms of weight, but the Jag wears skinnier rubber up front (255 vs the M6′s standard 265 width tires) and is slightly heavier in the nose, despite the lower curb weight. As a result I expect 0-60 runs will be very close with much of the variation down to the road surface and the final tire choice on the BMW.

 

Without a doubt, the XKR-S is a significant evolution of the standard car. Folksy Briticisms about mutton and lamb don’t apply here; the XKR-S is a predator, much like its feline namesake, and while the “space” part of William Lyons’ famous maxim may be missing, it makes up for it with “grace” and “pace” – lots and lots of it.

Jaguar provided the vehicle, insurance and one tank of gas for this review

Specifications as tested

0-10: 0.65 Seconds

0-20: 1.14 Seconds

0-30: 1.18 Seconds

0-40: 2.61 Seconds

0-50: 3.24 Seconds

0-60: 3.83 Seconds

0-70: 4.98 Seconds

0-80: 6.06 Seconds

0-90: 7.12 Seconds

0-100: 8.42 Seconds

0-110: 10.17 Seconds

0-120: 11.84 Seconds

1/4 mile: 12.0 @ 122 MPH

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

26 Comments on “Review: 2012 Jaguar XKR-S...”


  • avatar
    John R

    Good money for value, I guess, if you ignore a certain giant lizard that has a better…computer.

    (Can’t believe I can make the argument that 3.8 seconds to 60 for $135k isn’t good value. What an age we live in.)

  • avatar
    thesal

    Lizard schmizard, when you buy a car like this, you buy it for different reasons. The noise, the class, the looks etc. It’s become a dead horse that the GT-R punches well above it’s weight in performance numbers. However, it’s obviously missing some “grease magic” that keeps it from becoming the only sports car to want.

    This car was made for men with british accents, long whispy hair, denim shirts, leather strapped watches and goatskin driving shoes. If only it came in manual, this would be the ultimate Alain de Cadenet machine!

  • avatar
    V572625694

    Don’t much care for that after-markety-looking spoiler on the trunk.

  • avatar
    seanx37

    Even Jeremy Clarkson would rather have a GTR than this Jag. I think that tells you everything. And it costs $45k less.

    • 0 avatar
      Alex L. Dykes

      Sean, really the only reason to buy the XKR-S over the GT-R is because you like the Jaguar brand. The GT-R is just an insane monster.

    • 0 avatar
      sitting@home

      Getting car buying advice from Jeremy Clarkson is like getting voting advice from Mitt Romney; it’s too opinionated, he doesn’t exactly represent the general public and it’s mostly done to keep him in a well paid, easy living job.

      • 0 avatar
        Alex L. Dykes

        I agree. However on this front he did happen to be right. James May however was wrong, the suspension is compliant enough to use as a daily driver. I have no idea who would use a $140,000 car as a daily driver other than Mitt, but if you were so inclined it would do the job.

      • 0 avatar
        seanx37

        But Clarkson is heavily biased towards British products. Picking Jags and Astons over other cars. So it came as a big surprise to me that he likes the Nissan(a brand he often makes fun of) over a Jag.

      • 0 avatar
        TonyJZX

        Clarkson doesn’t ‘like’ the Nissan over the Jag, more like its better at being a quasi-supercar over the Jag, for less money

        its a different market anyway

        i think everyone would agree the XK chassis is getting on and the amount of money put into the Nissan would probably make two or three Jags but that’s not the point

        The Jag is gentleman’s transport… the Nissan is _________

        you can fill in the blanks.

      • 0 avatar
        wallstreet

        The Jag is gentleman’s transport… the Nissan is __ricer’s ride_______

        There … fix it for ya.

  • avatar
    Feds

    This special edition really makes me want to find a well kept Silverstone and keep it forever.

  • avatar
    SunnyvaleCA

    “While the choice of an automatic may seem strange in a sports car, real-world drivability is greatly improved by having a torque converter. ”

    If you want a sports car, then “fun and engaging” should be a more important criterion than “real-world drivability.” I used to own an automatic (a torque-converter AMG unit) and was generally bored. For “fun and engaging” give me a stick-shift.

  • avatar
    PartsUnknown

    It’s no wonder they put that plastic engine cover on. Uncovered, the top of the engine looks like the backside of a dishwasher.

    • 0 avatar
      TonyJZX

      its the top of the eaton (?) supercharger? i would imagine the plastic cover is lined with something to cut noise

      otherwise you’d think they’d just polish the top alloy cover

  • avatar
    John

    Looks like they sourced the McPherson struts from the supplier for the CamCord. Can’t Jaguar build a double wishbone suspension?

  • avatar
    Robert Schwartz

    Jaguar reached the top of the mountain 50 years ago with the E. Life has been a long rainy afternoon in Trenton NJ since then.

  • avatar
    Davekaybsc

    The GT-R is a very different car than this, I think it’s aimed more at the Corvette and 911 Turbo.

    The XKR-S competes with the BMW M6, Maserati GT MC Stradale, the V12 Vantage, and Audi R8 V10. The problem that Jag has is their badge isn’t as exotic as Maserati’s or Aston’s, the car isn’t unique and exclusive like the R8, and unlike the BMW M badge, “R-S” is really meaningless, especially since traditional Jag R cars have just been faster versions of the regular versions with no real added performance (see the Fifth Gear video of the old XJR rolling like a ship in a storm trying to turn a corner).

    Since the R-S badge carries no weight, they can’t subtly tweak the styling as on BMW M or Audi RS cars. They have to tack on a bunch of Fast and Furious “this time we’re being super serious!!” bits, which turn the car from an elegant GT into a Toyota Supra.

  • avatar

    That’s a sick car Alex, congratulations on driving it.

  • avatar
    ...m...

    …what a codpiece…

  • avatar
    Number6

    Are those the same crappy chrome-capped lug nuts that fall apart the second time your $150/hour jag-mech whacks the bolts on with an impact wrench?

    Nice to see Jag is still emphasizing attention to detail…

  • avatar
    ccd1

    I don’t doubt that this car is a significant improvement over the standard XK. The real question is how much more does your 35 big ones get over the XKR.

    • 0 avatar
      dirtdoc1

      It depends on what value you put on improved turn-in, flatter cornering, faster, more responsive, lower, better looking (once you get rid of the spoiler) and a host of other improvements all designed to drive it hard on the track all day with no break fade or going into limp mode, just driving hard all day long and it just wants more. If that doesn’t do it for ya then it’s not worth the additional $35k.

  • avatar
    ccd1

    The XK is a GT. Short of losing 500-600 lbs, nothing is likely to change that. Jag can make a more sporty GT and they have with the XKR and XKR-S, but such iterations only make sense if the cars can maintain their GT qualities as a 4,000 lb car will never be the track toy of choice. If the track is your focus, several versions of the 911 are much better choices for the same amount of money (or less).

    I get spending the extra money for the XKR. The added hp and stiffened chassis could be felt, even on a short test drive. I have not driven the S. For me, the S would have to make a difference on public roads in terms of driving enjoyment and could not make many sacrifices for the track. For example, the XKR-S could not be so loud as to become tiresome on long road trips. Would that difference be worth $35k to me? No, but first year depreciation on this car is close to $40,000. The added cost of $5-10K on the used market could be worth it. Personally, the best balance of GT without going overboard could be the XKR175, which has most of the additions of the S and does not have the spoiler that you don’t like (and I believe it has the same brakes as the S)

  • avatar
    ccd1

    One last point: the 800 lb gorilla in the room is NOT the M6, it’s Jag’s own F Type. The back seats in the XK are not big enough for human beings, so what is the difference between a 2 seater and the XK which has back seats that really don’t count as seats? Especially when the brand new 2 seater is completely redesigned and updated? Oh, and btw, cheaper as well?

    After the introduction of the coupe version to go with the convertible, the XK becomes a non-starter as a new car. On the used market, the XK works only if depreciation is more epic than it already is.


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

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India