Autocar - First for car news and reviews

No other car in this class has an interior as alluring as the XF’s. Even the rather old-fashioned beige and brown leather of our test car could not dim the appeal of what is a beautifully designed cabin.

There is aluminium aplenty and bold surfaces abound, draped in finely stitched leather or with slabs of real wood. There’s a sense of occasion and a dose of fun, too. On entry the start button pulses red, while on start-up the air vents swivel to open and the rotary gearlever rises fr...Read the full article

Against: Not as fast as rivals, average head room, some wind noise at speed

Er, that front end? Should have gone to Specsavers... but anyway. 

Does anyone know if the XF has a heads-up option? I know it sounds like silly gadgetry, but having just done a long haul on foreign roads in a Citroen C6 (incidentally with the same lethargic and uneconomical 2.7-litre diesel), the heads-up display in that was borderline indispensible.

Not only does it project your speed onto the road ahead, it also shows navigation directions, meaning you no longer have to have conversations or music interrupted by repeated instructions and can keep your eyes firmly on the road. It's a genuinely wonderful idea but I can't see it in Jaguar's brochure.

Given that a number of the XF's rivals have this option (BMW 5-Series, Citroen C6, Cadillac STS and new CTS to name four), I'm hoping it's buried in the feature list somewhere.

But probably not.

I drove one of these two weeks ago and agree with everything that has been said. Even though the engine does not deliver the punch you would expect from a 207 bhp unit, the ride and handling more than compensate for that. With the precise gearbox (especially in the "manual" mode) you will find the car genuinely fun to drive. It feels so confident in tight corners that you find yourself willing to exploit the potential of the chassis. A very, very involving drive with lots of pleasure...

Inside it really does look well put together and is very attractive, however, you have to approach the car from the outside, before getting inside. This is where they have shot themselves in the foot, yet again. I can't find any angle from which this car looks good. The front lights and rear lights look like they have been added in a rush due to someone forgetting about them.

 I cannot understand how Jon Hardcastle can make the statement that he coudn't find any angle from which the car looks good. I can only imagine that Jon has either not seen the car "in the flesh"  or else he is in need of a visit to spec savers.  Every report on the car that I have seen has praised the looks apart from maybe the front light cluster, indeed one well known magazine quoting "it makes the 5 series look positively frumpy".  I have been for a number of test drives in the car and have to say it it the smoothest and most satisfying drives I have ever had. The interior is simply amazing and makes the driving experience different from anything else on the road at present.  And I hasten to add I have owned a number of Jaguars and BMW cars in the past, but was so impressed with this model that i ordered one immediately and can hardly wait to take delivery.

I think l'm going to agree with Jon here, what the hell were they thinking with those front lights? I mean at which point did the designers stand back and look at those lights and thought ' yep, thats really nice' ? and as for the interior i've just read on TG.com that its not that great. so whats the fuss abt this car? plus it will depreciate like a stone as all jags do. get a citroen c6 instead. hahaha. ooo, now thats a bit harsh. Its just the british press going on abt this car and how great it looks when we can all clearly see its not that great to look at. its even worse whne you see it in flesh (or should i say metal?)

I like it in the metal. from the back anyway. when i see the rear 3/4 I think 'I really hate those headlights' 

Wait 'til you boys see the XF-R, its very impressive looking!

I'm currently in the market to replace my E320cdi (as a long distance cruiser in Europe) and I think I've narrowed the choice down to the XF, the Citroen C6 and now the C5. All appear to have the same 2.7 engine and transmission but can someone explain how the XF significantly out-performs the Citroens in acceleration, CO2 and consumption - particularly bearing in mind that the C5 is about  the same weight as the XF. The C5 is actually the lightest of the lot but accelerates the slowest. It seems unlikely that the French are being overly modest so are Jaguar massaging their figures? Should I wait for the uprated version of the engine, which I believe may be imminent, assuming that it will be available in whichever models currently use the 2.7?

Howard Ward

mcgucks:

 I cannot understand how Jon Hardcastle can make the statement that he coudn't find any angle from which the car looks good.

Simple really, it looks awful.

Put another badge on this (Hyundai) and then imagine the aesthetics. That front end is pure generic low end Korean. Jaguars stylists have the world at their feet and blinkers over their eyes.

Howard Ward:

I'm currently in the market to replace my E320cdi (as a long distance cruiser in Europe) and I think I've narrowed the choice down to the XF, the Citroen C6 and now the C5. All appear to have the same 2.7 engine and transmission but can someone explain how the XF significantly out-performs the Citroens in acceleration, CO2 and consumption - particularly bearing in mind that the C5 is about  the same weight as the XF. The C5 is actually the lightest of the lot but accelerates the slowest. It seems unlikely that the French are being overly modest so are Jaguar massaging their figures? Should I wait for the uprated version of the engine, which I believe may be imminent, assuming that it will be available in whichever models currently use the 2.7?

I've owned a Benz with the same diesel lump as in your E, and I've owned both the C6 and the C5. I actually went from the C6 to a C5 Tourer recently because - don't tell anyone - the C5 is better. Although it's a 'proper' Citroen, and so many aspects of it are plain works of art, the C6 still exhibits a longstanding trait of air-sprung French cars, that of a poor low speed ride. The car as standard comes with supersize wheels meaning the car gets to feel like an Audi below 30mph. I'm exaggerating a little, but it's incongruous on a car that supposedly majors on comfort.

The 2.7 litre engine is delightfully linear and well-matched with the Citroen character, but you'll find it less powerful and - paradoxically - less economical than the Benz lump. You will also be hard pushed to find a C5 2.7 for a test drive because it makes the least sense in current economic conditions. Nobody's going to buy one, so why would any dealer run one? I'd ordered the biggest engine with all the toys, that being my M.O., but the cost was pushing £30K and I couldn't bring myself to do it, knowing the car would be worth £15K this time next year.

I went for the 2.0 instead - for whatever reason the 2.2 is not available with an auto box - and I haven't regretted it. Excellent build quality, supremely quiet, and much better sorted for long distance comfort than either my W220 or W221. It also has a significantly better satnav than the antique in the C6, though it still won't accept postcode destinations and the interface overall is confusing.

The one problem you will run into is badge snobbery, but that's a peculiarly British thing. Just get anyone who turns up their nose to compare the joke-grade plastics in modern BMWs (and particularly in MINIs) with any recent Citroen. That'll keep 'em quiet!