European First Drive: Jaguar XF 2.0d

Vojta Dobe
by Vojta Dobe

There’s something unique about Jaguars. For some people it’s the aristocratically British character, sporty pedigree and classic, elegant style of Jaguars that make them special. For others it’s the strange technical solutions, uncomfortable compromises and utter lack of reliability that make Jaguars a non-option.

These two groups aren’t likely to agree about much when it comes to Britain’s luxury marque, but both camps will likely be of the opinion that a four-cylinder diesel engine doesn’t fit the driving experience emoted by Jaguar’s iconic Leaper.

Will the upcoming Jaguar XF 2.0-liter diesel still be a proper Jag? Or will its stops at oily diesel pumps also frequented by Ford Super Duty pickups and NOx-belching Volkswagens cover the brand’s grand sporting image in a thin layer of soot?

We already have it in Europe, so I took the opportunity to find out.

Now is the time to say that I’ve always been in the aforementioned first camp. I love Jaguars. In the beginning, I loved them because they were the paragon of Britishness; a classic, four-eyed XJ saloon perfectly complemented the country-manor-home-and-tweed-jacket anglophile version of myself which I’d always dreamed.

Later, when I dug deeper in the brand’s history and character, I realized how deeply flawed the notion was of a Jaguar as a sedate, old man’s car. I learned more about the brand’s racing heritage and found out just how sporty were the brand’s classic models.

Shortly thereafter, I drove one or two examples and I bought one of my own: a beautiful, white ’79 Jaguar XJ6L. About the same time, I started to abhor the retro styling of the then-current generation of Jags. When I did a comparison test of my Series II with a brand-new X350 XJ 2.7 diesel, I loved that the new XJ kept the traditional sporty-yet-compliant suspension. I even liked its diesel torque generator, which was surprisingly refined and offered dynamics similar to my 4.2-liter XK-series inline-six — the only difference being 15 mpg. But I hated the bodywork. It looked like someone skinned a cat, then put the skin on a bulldog.

So when the first XF came out, I loved it. Finally, a Jag that looked as dynamic and modern as the original XJ did in 1968. If you peeked at it from the right angle, the hood had exactly the same lines as my XJ. And each new Jag was better. The new XJ is a bit weird, but majestic in its weirdness. The F-Type is maybe even prettier than the E-Type. The new XE is probably the most fetching compact executive sedan on the market. And the new XF looks even better than this one.

In theory, the XF 2.0d should be a perfect executive sedan in many ways. It’s one of the most gorgeous, leanest and most sporty-looking cars in its class. Being Jaguar, it should pamper you with a compliant suspension, yet offer great handling at the same time. But does it really work as it should?

The first thing I noticed when behind the XF’s wheel was how different the new cabin feels. While the old XF was quite roomy and airy, the new car feels tight and cozy and quite a bit sportier. It’s true that all the first-generation sedans I sat in had beige interiors and this one is black, but the difference is deeper than color. The car is lower inside and, while you have enough space in all directions, it feels like it was tailored tightly around you.

Someone at Jaguar remembered the old, second-generation XJs – the XJ40, and especially the X300 and X308 of the 1990s — and decided to inject a bit of that soul into the new XF. Some of it’s the details — like the window between the C and D pillars. More crucially, the XF seems to be designed from the outside in, with good looks and a lean profile prioritized over space for people, but not so much that space is lacking. It’s a far cry from a Mercedes E-Class or BMW 5 Series, but you can fit grown adults in the back behind grown adults sitting in the front. That was not always the case with cars like the X308 XJR.

Naturally, you’d expect the XF to offer a sporty drive. After all, Jaguar is now aimed toward BMW’s abandoned driver’s car niche, which the Bavarian automaker vacated in pursuit of becoming a luxury lifestyle brand that builds 500-horsepower executive golf carts. Your expectations are nothing if not fulfilled. As I left town to head into the hills, the Jag behaved almost exactly as anticipated. It was not as compliant and comfortable as my old XJ, but neither were XJs from ’90s. The XF’s suspension could even be considered taut, and only became jittery once the speedo hit triple digits of miles per hour.

Most importantly, though, the XF feels light-footed and agile in the twisties, and much smaller than the current BMW 5 series (F10) or Audi A6. There’s no comparing the current E-Class to the Jag — and based on experience with the current C220d, there’s no reason to think the upcoming W213 E-Class will be any more of a driver’s car.

If you want an executive sedan that’s also a rewarding car to drive in a spirited manner; if you prefer sleek looks to interior space; if you’re willing to forgo some of the Germanic gadgets and latest tech, the XF is the perfect car for you. It’s everything classic Jaguars were, and, in a way, it serves to fill the BMW’s old position, while BMW itself is trying to become something else altogether. Cadillac, I guess.

Now, you are probably wondering why I am doing European review of a first diesel Jaguar to come to American shores, and not mention the fuel-sipping miracle of an engine? Well, it’s because I am not really eager to even remember it, much less talk about it. But I will, now. And it won’t be pretty.

The 2.0d engine with 180 horsepower (a 163 hp version is also available in Europe) is part of the new Ingenium engine family, which makes the engine even more disappointing. Before driving the XF, I didn’t do my homework, and came out of the car certain the diesel was an old boat anchor borrowed from a 10-year-old Ford Mondeo Estate. It wasn’t. This engine is one of the cornerstones supporting the hopes and dreams of Jaguar’s future.

And it doesn’t really work. On paper, it looks great. On the road, as long as you’re just put-putting around, it’s okay. But push the pedal harder, and you’re reminded that this cat drinks diesel. The 180 hp diesel isn’t exactly a powerhouse, and it feels a bit strained to move the massive, aluminum-bodied XF around. Even if the engine was superbly refined, much of the joy from driving the big cat would be lost as you can’t exploit its great chassis to its full potential.

But the real trouble is that the engine lacks anything resembling refinement. Not in the not-refined-enough-for-a-premium-executive-car sense, either. When I switched to a Volkswagen Touran 2.0 TDI later that day, I found that — while its engine may be killing fluffy animals all day long — it sounds smooth and relatively quiet. The XF 2.0d is slightly coarse in normal, relaxed driving and gets more clattery when pushed. In comparison, a Mazda6 2.2d is quick, effortless and sounds lovely.

This won’t be a great problem for many European drivers. Here, the 178 hp diesel is powerful enough to perform most daily duties without digging too deep into its power and rpm levels that induce the noise. But Americans drive differently and use a lot more power. Jaguar’s diesel may clatter it to death.

Overall, the XF is a great car, but if I could only afford it with 2.0d engine, I’d probably just buy the aforementioned Mazda6 or Fusion/Mondeo instead. The 2.0-litre XF diesel is a frustrating experience. Every time you start it, it reminds you that you were too cheap to buy a proper, six-cylinder Jag.

[Images: Viola Procházková/ The Truth About Cars]

Vojta Dobes is motoring journalist from Czech Republic who previously worked for local editions of Autocar and TopGear magazines. Today, he runs his own website, www.Autickar.cz. After a failed adventure with importing classic American cars to Europe, he is utterly broke, so he drives an Alfa 164 Diesel he got for free. His previous cars included a 1988 Caprice in NYC Taxi livery, a hot-rodded Opel Diplomat, two Dodge Coronets, a Simca, a Fiat 600 and Austin Maestro. He has never owned a diesel, manual wagon.










Vojta Dobe
Vojta Dobe

More by Vojta Dobe

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 45 comments
  • Ponchoman49 Ponchoman49 on Feb 19, 2016

    Some tests of both the new Camaro and a 3.6 equipped CTS stated that the new LGX is noticeably more refined than the old LFX which is good news. Judging from a new CT6 at the car show it is light years nicer than this economy car looking Jag so there is no comparison.

    • DeadWeight DeadWeight on Feb 20, 2016

      Blah Blah Blah. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. Both the GM 2.0T and GM 3.6 (current & next gen) are mediocre engines, at best, and wholly unfit to be installed into any vehicle remotely advertised/promoted as a premium or luxury product (and they have reliability/durability issues to add insult to injuryZ0. Same old fukkin' incompetent General Motors & Cadillac, different day/year. The CT6 is going to fail in spectacular fashion. A 34k real world pricing Chevy Impala will be as smooth/refined as it, and cannibalize it from below, and the Germans and likes of Lexus will decimate it from above.

  • Whatnext Whatnext on Feb 24, 2016

    On first glancing at that rear shot of the XF I thought "Oooh Acura has finally come out with a TSX replacement"! So boring, so not a Jag.

  • MaintenanceCosts It's not a Benz or a Jag / it's a 5-0 with a rag /And I don't wanna brag / but I could never be stag
  • 3-On-The-Tree Son has a 2016 Mustang GT 5.0 and I have a 2009 C6 Corvette LS3 6spd. And on paper they are pretty close.
  • 3-On-The-Tree Same as the Land Cruiser, emissions. I have a 1985 FJ60 Land Cruiser and it’s a beast off-roading.
  • CanadaCraig I would like for this anniversary special to be a bare-bones Plain-Jane model offered in Dynasty Green and Vintage Burgundy.
  • ToolGuy Ford is good at drifting all right... 😉
Next