RE: Diesel Jag tankful lasts 1k miles
Thursday 20th April 2006
XJ at John O'GroatsA Jaguar XJ saloon has travelled the length of the UK on just one tank of fuel – and then went on to top 1,000 miles in total.
Diesel Jag tankful lasts 1k miles
Running an XJ TD costs less says Jaguar
XJ at John O'Groats
The XJ TDVi completed the trip from John O'Groats to Land’s End – a distance of 840 miles – with average fuel consumption of 53.5mpg. Having reached Land’s End, the driver headed back to Jaguar's Midlands HQ without refuelling and reached a total of 1000.2 miles before the tank ran dry.
Jaguar puts the feat down to the XJ's aluminium technology and its twin-turbocharged V6 diesel engine. According to Jaguar, the XJ TDVi was standard and was complete with satellite-navigation, CD auto-changer, Premium Sound and rear DVD screens.
Jag costs you less
The XJ TDVi Diesel boasts an average fuel consumption figure of 35mpg (8.1l/100km) combined cycle, 26.0mpg (10.8l/100km) Urban and 43.7mpg (6.5l/100km) Extra Urban and produces just 214g/km CO2, which is outstanding for a car offering the space, comfort and performance of the award-winning XJ. This also equals 29 per cent in the Benefit In Kind tax category which means the XJ 2.7 TDVi has the lowest company car tax bill of any car in the luxury sector.
The XJ 2.7 TDVi has an insurance group of 15E, giving it a best-in-class rating ahead of the 18E rated Mercedes S 320 CDi and a two group improvement over the BMW and Audi equivalent models.
UK MD Geoff Cousins said: "We were always optimistic that the XJ Diesel could do this, but the figures we achieved were beyond our best expectations and show that the XJ 2.7 TDVi is a truly economical luxury car. Following the recent questions about the UK Government offering its ministers the choice of a Jaguar XJ Diesel, this proves how the XJ really is one of the most environmentally friendly cars in its class."
The XJ 2.7 TDVi costs from £43,995 on-the-road – petrol engines are also available.
Expect a review of the oil-burning luxury saloon here on PistonHeads later this year.
Discussion
nickjm said:
How big is the fuel tank? How much to fill up?
Well 1000.2 miles / 53.3 MGP gives 18.77 Gallons which I think makes 88.78 funny little things they sell fuel in these days to stop people dieing of a heart attack when they see the price.
I bet no one ever gets close to this in reality. A couple of years ago CAR did the Lands End to John O'Groats thing on one tank in a S320CDI, the milage they got then was way better than anything the other halfs E320CDI has ever done.
marcusrx said:
So in reality is this story about the French(Peugeot/Citroen) 2.7 V6 HDi engine in the jag rather than the jag itself?
>> Edited by marcusrx on Thursday 20th April 11:30
as someone who helped develop that engine I can let you know that 90% of the development was done at Dunton in the UK, despite what the press might say.
Great numbers, these. I bet they wish the engine was in a car that the market wasn't ignoring.
Never mind, now that the new XK shows that Jaguar isn't living in a 70's/80's design lock-in, perhaps there is hope. I just hope its enough to help Jaguar, struggling as it is (never should have made the X-type / should have made the F Type / should have been more adventurous with the XJ).
Never mind, now that the new XK shows that Jaguar isn't living in a 70's/80's design lock-in, perhaps there is hope. I just hope its enough to help Jaguar, struggling as it is (never should have made the X-type / should have made the F Type / should have been more adventurous with the XJ).
trendy tramp said:
So in reality is this story about the French(Peugeot/Citroen) 2.7 V6 HDi engine in the jag rather than the jag itself?
>> Edited by marcusrx on Thursday 20th April 11:30
as someone who helped develop that engine I can let you know that 90% of the development was done at Dunton in the UK, despite what the press might say.
If thats the case why are the motoring press under the impression that its fundametally a PSA engine, built in a joint "you design it cos your good at that and we will build cos we have lots of money and production capacity" type deal between PSA & Ford in the same way that Ford aquired its TDCI technology from PSA?
p.s great engine by the way regardless of who did what to which bit !
>> Edited by marcusrx on Thursday 20th April 13:35
vinceh said:
Great numbers, these. I bet they wish the engine was in a car that the market wasn't ignoring.
Never mind, now that the new XK shows that Jaguar isn't living in a 70's/80's design lock-in, perhaps there is hope. I just hope its enough to help Jaguar, struggling as it is (never should have made the X-type / should have made the F Type / should have been more adventurous with the XJ).
To my mind Jaguar faced an almost impossible task when it designed the X350. The X300/X308 was in the eyes of it's existing customers the best looking car by far in it's class. I'm sure that if you had asked most existing customers (and almost everyone else you ever meet) what they would like to change and what they would like to keep about the XJ, everyone would have said - Don't mess up the looks! We like the way it looks. There would have been requests for more leg room, there would have been requests for more head room (don't order the sun roof then). The older customers would have asked for it not to be quite so low as their knees were starting to grumble about climbing in and out. But everyone would have wanted the styling left alone. The main reason I haven't replaced my XJ with the newer one is that it doesn't look as good as the older one.
Well be carefull about what you ask for, you never know, you might get it. The X350 is all of the above, or as close as they could get.
Unfortuneatly much of the beauty of the X30? cars was their svelte cat like styling. Giving it more head room, and higher off the ground makes it very hard to get the proporsions just right with out making the car 25 foot long.
Most of the time I think the X350 gets away with it, most of the time... but every now and again you catch an angle where the new bulk can't hide. Then it's like looking at an old flame and you can'r help thinking ''Gees - you've put some weight on girl''. Then the trick fails. It's then that you
realise that whilst the car still looks better than the BMW 7 and the MB S, it doesn't look as good as it should. (The Audi A8's looks I think will appeal to a very different audience, it's not my cup of tea but I can see why others would like it's style).
When they design the X350s replacement they won't have the baggage kicking around that they had to deal with for the X350.
When you already make the best looking saloon car in the world, how to you replace it?
This isn't a problem unique to Jaguar, look at VW and the Golf. They've all looked the same, just older and fatter. Only now after 5 generations are they starting to think that perhaps they need to make changes.
The earlier "classic" Jags that people hark back to didn't have these issue.
The XK120 didn't have a precursor in the same way. For the E-Type they had to move forward. I love the way the XK150 looks now (I have one) but it's styling was very dated in 1960, something entirely new was needed, and they already had the D-Type/XKSS to evolve the styling from.
The origenal XJ isn't that radical a step from the Mark X/420G & 420.
The Mark II and (60's) S-type grew out of the Mark I, which wasn't that radical when it came out, it was just beautifully executed.
For the X-Type people wanted to know they were buying a Jaguar, so they made it look like the iconic Jaguar.
That's my thoughts...
marcusrx said:
So in reality is this story about the French(Peugeot/Citroen) 2.7 V6 HDi engine in the jag rather than the jag itself?
>> Edited by marcusrx on Thursday 20th April 11:30
Groan, i didn't know some irrelevant comment towards the british car maker was coming. It is a jointly developed engine and even if they had bought in an engine from hindustan its irrelevant if it is a good engine. Every single time theres a positive article about a british maker theres the same lame brigade of oh its really american or this isnt british cos it comes from here that isnt right because this multinational pays the bills, turn the bloody page. Its a great engine in a great car and lets face it, the smug brigade wouldnt be spewing this nonsense if it was a bmw (also jontly developing engines with the french). Another example, the 350z engine doesnt get used as a critical tool because it came from renault... And the classic, Astons are crap because you can find ford switchgear (when you are deliberately looking for it) whereas ferraris which share switches witha fiat punto are great! Astons are fords, jags are fords, but hey Nissans arent Renaults for some reason and Masers and ferraris arent fiats in the minds of these people. Its a bloody irritating double standard and I for one have a bellyfull. Why can't British people universally praise their home grown brands when they do well instead of looking for something to criticise? Right I'm going to take some tranquilisers now...
cathalm said:
So in reality is this story about the French(Peugeot/Citroen) 2.7 V6 HDi engine in the jag rather than the jag itself?
>> Edited by marcusrx on Thursday 20th April 11:30
Groan, i didn't know some irrelevant comment towards the british car maker was coming. It is a jointly developed engine and even if they had bought in an engine from hindustan its irrelevant if it is a good engine. Every single time theres a positive article about a british maker theres the same lame brigade of oh its really american or this isnt british cos it comes from here that isnt right because this multinational pays the bills, turn the bloody page. Its a great engine in a great car and lets face it, the smug brigade wouldnt be spewing this nonsense if it was a bmw (also jontly developing engines with the french). Another example, the 350z engine doesnt get used as a critical tool because it came from renault... And the classic, Astons are crap because you can find ford switchgear (when you are deliberately looking for it) whereas ferraris which share switches witha fiat punto are great! Astons are fords, jags are fords, but hey Nissans arent Renaults for some reason and Masers and ferraris arent fiats in the minds of these people. Its a bloody irritating double standard and I for one have a bellyfull. Why can't British people universally praise their home grown brands when they do well instead of looking for something to criticise? Right I'm going to take some tranquilisers now...
Seem to remember lots of people working this scenario the other way with the Rover 75 by suggesting its all BMW engineering and quality...cant have it both ways! You also get lots of people suggesting the Xtype is a mondeo - shouldnt that work both ways? if the mondeo was good enough to share some of its DNA to a Jag shouldnt people know that too? If a PSA co-designed engine is good enough to go in a Jag why shouldnt people have that info, its not a criticism of Jaguar that they have the sense to develop an engine with one of the best diesel engine companies? Might not fit in with Jags image to have some froggy bits in its cars but im sure they would get over it.
Jags are Jags and Astons are Astons but I people should have their eyes open to the fact that most car manufacturers now share large amounts of parts/ floor pans/engines etc etc due to the huge costs of developing unique parts for vehicles....beside that all the companies you have detailed are either french,american or japanese or german owned, the UK doesnt really have a home grown VOLUME manufacturer to get excited about anymore. This is the point of the global car trade, volume car production is often now an exercise in brand engineering to tug at some long since past relationship to a known brand as manufacturers percieve this as a less risky root to sales (e.g the BMW Mini which is a very fun car to drive and does a great job of using its association to the old mini brand ,but would still be a good car in its own right). The upshot is that in the end there will be handful of big companies churning out various models of essentally the same car with different badges (eg VAG with its seat/skoda/vw cars,Polo/Golf/Fabia/Ibiza etc , Audi is apparently using lambo engine bits in its new S6/S8 , some Lambos are assembled in German plants,Bentley using some very very modified VW parts or the increasing influence GM is having on SAAB production). Why shouldnt people know this rather than cling to some nostalgic idea that the cars are British/French/German/Italian/whatever?
It is our innovative low volume car industry that we should be proud of the most.
>> Edited by marcusrx on Thursday 20th April 17:46
marcusrx said:
So in reality is this story about the French(Peugeot/Citroen) 2.7 V6 HDi engine in the jag rather than the jag itself?
>> Edited by marcusrx on Thursday 20th April 11:30
as someone who helped develop that engine I can let you know that 90% of the development was done at Dunton in the UK, despite what the press might say.
If thats the case why are the motoring press under the impression that its fundametally a PSA engine, built in a joint "you design it cos your good at that and we will build cos we have lots of money and production capacity" type deal between PSA & Ford in the same way that Ford aquired its TDCI technology from PSA?
p.s great engine by the way regardless of who did what to which bit !
>> Edited by marcusrx on Thursday 20th April 13:35
my lord! i've been working for PSA all these years and didn't realise it! (sorry couldn't resist!)
I know what happened with the Lion V6, I was here working on it!
Yes Ford were behind Peugeot in previous generations of Diesel engines but all of the FIE system is sourced from external suppliers (not Peugeot), when it comes to calibration development (which is the real maker or breaker in Diesel) Ford are second to none
However Ford do suffer from internal constraints possibly more so than PSA
tt
88.78 Ltrs? I think you will find that the correct figure is 85.27 Ltrs (4.5460ltrs per gallon)Thats 3.51 litres less you know! at £1.00 a litre, enough savings on your 1000 miles trip to buy "a slap up meal at Mrs Miggins pie shop"
>> Edited by andy.shent on Thursday 20th April 17:22
>> Edited by andy.shent on Thursday 20th April 17:22
Truckosaurus said:
So how did they get 53mpg out of it?
Something smells.
No doubt by driving on cruise control at 60mph and avoiding traffic jams and urban areas.
would keeping a fixed throttle, letting the car speed up downhill or slow down uphill, be better than keeping a fixed speed (accelerating up hills and backing off downhill, as cruise control would do)?
hugoagogo said:
So how did they get 53mpg out of it?
Something smells.
No doubt by driving on cruise control at 60mph and avoiding traffic jams and urban areas.
would keeping a fixed throttle, letting the car speed up downhill or slow down uphill, be better than keeping a fixed speed (accelerating up hills and backing off downhill, as cruise control would do)?
I've found on my father's (old model) XJ8 that the cruise control consistently beats my right foot when it comes to fuel consumption. Even when I'm taking care. I can get into the low thirties which is pretty good for such a heavy car but I normally reckon on 28mpg. This is in west Norfolk and Suffolk where the roads are long, wide, straight and often pretty empty.
To put it simply it's well worth paying for cruise control as you save the cost in the long term.
Gassing Station | Jaguar | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff