Channel 4 Reviews Jaguar XK

Channel 4 Reviews Jaguar XK
http://www.channel4.com/4car/feature/feature.jsp?id=3654

Good value at £70,000? Yes, really

Through the tunnel we hurtle. The roof is down and the sound effects from the convertible version of Jaguar's new XKR are, well, unique. The rat-tat-tat part of the V8 beat is particularly crisp - a hi-fi buff might say it has well-defined transients - and there's a deep bass underlay complemented by the muted whine of the supercharger. The whole soundscape is more precise, higher in the tech than a US muscle car's beating bellow, and somehow more cultured than the chopped-metal rumble of an SL55 AMG. Think Aston Martin V8 Vantage without the induction gulps. For the car that the XKR is, it's just right.

And what, exactly, is that? Pricewise, we're in sub-SL500 and BMW M6 territory. Sportiness-wise, we're with the M6 and approaching the SL55 and the 911 Turbo, for these are the cars Jaguar's engineers had in mind when creating the XKR. That doesn't mean the XKR is meant to emulate them, though. Instead it gives a taste of what they can do while making it more 'accessible'.

This has several meanings. The price is part of it, making a car which costs £67,495 (coupe) or £73,495 (convertible) seem conspicuously good value (it's an £8495 premium over the regular XK). Another part is that you can get into an XKR, feel instantly at home in it and enjoy the feel of its supercharged performance without having to risk an automotive ASBO. That's the problem with the 911 Turbo, for example: driven at licence-preserving speeds, it feels lazy and turbo-laggardly. Only when you squeeze the accelerator hard and engage warp drive can you feel what it can do. The rest of the time is just frustration.

The XKR has 416bhp (up from the standard car's 300) and 413lb-ft of torque, which in a 1665kg car of all-aluminium construction is probably sufficient. It lets you surge to 60mph in 4.9 seconds, and were there not a 155mph speed limiter it would probably be good for about 180. An exhaust bypass valve which opens under speed and load, like an Aston's or a Ferrari's, adds to the sense of aural occasion, but the intake noise is silenced to mute that supercharger whine, disliked by some past buyers of blown Jaguars. Enough remains to let you know it's there, but it meant that the engineers have had to rely on the exhaust alone for mechanical music. They seem to have cracked it, though.

An XK with the volume turned up

To let onlookers know you have the hot XK, the XKR has a mesh front grille and air vents in the bonnet, like the previous-generation car. It also has deeper front and rear valances, four exhaust pipes and a new wheel design, but the tyre sizes are unchanged. And if you go for the aluminium interior decoration instead of the wood, as you should, you'll find a coarser 'weave', as seen in the original XK concept car.

The XKR is positioned as a rapid and driver-pleasing GT - 'an XK with the volume turned up' is how the man in charge of dynamic Jaguar-ness, Mike Cross, puts it - but it's an open secret that there'll be a harder-edged, lightweight version in the future. They call it XKR-R in the factory, but we may come to know it by another name.

If there's a criticism of the regular XK, it is that a really keen driver going really quickly on a challenging road might crave some more lowdown urge and tighter control of the body's movements. The trick with the latter is to do this without destroying the ride, and Jaguar probably does a better job than any other carmaker here thanks to Cross's supernatural understanding of suspension systems. He's always adamant that a Jaguar must 'breathe' over the road, and not be so tied down that it gets choppy and uncomfortable. Apart from anything else, a breathing car is a faster car because its wheels are in better contact with the road and the driver isn't being battered. (That's why a World Rally Car has a suspension suppleness that would astound someone steeped in a culture where stiffer and lower equates to sportier.)

Shades of Ferrari 599

Naturally, the XKR conforms to the Cross criteria. Its front springs are 38% stiffer, the rears 26%, the disparity down to the supercharged engine's extra weight and the fact that it's a good idea to engineer in a touch more steady-state understeer into a rear-drive car whose tractive effort has been increased (so says Cross). The adaptive dampers' calibrations are altered for a 25% increase in damping force, and the anti-roll bars are thicker. The brakes are bigger, too.

Result? A firmer, more planted Jaguar but one which still glides over sharp edges and is never, ever harsh or agitated. There are shades of Ferrari 599 here; it's that good. And it makes a mockery of the Aston Martin DB9, all £106,850 of it, with its fidgety ride and dreadful road noise. The XKR has meatier steering than the XK, too, with genuine road feel managing to battle its way past the power assistance so you can sense properly how the front wheels' grip level is changing.

So you pile into a bend, feel how the tail momentarily helps point the nose (that's the rear dampers deliberately stiffening before the fronts), press the accelerator and feel a lovely surge of torque as the tail squats and you fire out of the curve. On a dry road it's better with the ESP in its first stage of disengagement, so the power isn't cut back when the rear tyres are nearing their tractive limit. It's more fluid that way, and the ESP will still intervene if a major miscalculation occurs.

Taut chassis, torquey engine; it's the ideal combination. The coupe is a touch sharper, but only a touch. Amazingly, the convertible has exactly the same suspension settings (usually an open car's are softer to disguise the floppier body), yet there's almost no shudder over bumps. It's the tautest, keenest big convertible I've ever driven. Both XKRs have a cross-brace between the rear suspension towers, incidentally.

Jaguar or Porsche? It's a tough call

The icing on the XKR cake comes from the gearbox, though. It's the usual ZF six-speed auto with Jaguar's own shift programming, modified here for faster shifts which are more 'definite' without being abrupt. Jaguar could have made the shifts undetectable apart from the engine note, as a double-clutch DSG transmission can be, but its research suggests that drivers of a car like this to feel just a hint of mechanical gearshift activity.

It is, probably, the best torque-converter automatic in the world (except in Sport setting, which is too violent), especially in its manual mode. Too many Tiptronic-type shifts feel remote and disconnected from the action, not doing exactly what you want when you want it, so after a time you give up using them. Not so the Jaguar shift with its steering-wheel paddles: it's as instant as a DSG or a Ferrari F1 shift, smoother than the latter without the need for fancy throttle footwork, and blips up the engine revs for a perfect downchange just as they do. And you can go straight into manual mode at any time without moving the selector. Marvellous.

The XKR isn't quite as bombastic as an M6 or an SL55 AMG, but it's plenty potent enough for excellent entertainment. Its price makes the other uber-GTs look indulgently expensive, and overall it's a more satisfying drive than they are. The only snag, for Jaguar, is that buyers might go for an XKR over an XK because the enhancements are such remarkable value. And that may harm residual values of the XK.

There remains one question: XKR or similar-price but less powerful Porsche 911 S? It has never been a tougher call.

dualexhaustdualexhaust - 9/2/2006 12:19:08 PM
+1 Boost
I LL TAKE THE PORSHE PLZ



melsucceededmelsucceeded - 9/2/2006 3:06:39 PM
+2 Boost
The 2007 Jaguar XKR is the best Sports/GT car on the road. I know most people will agree with me, once they see the XKR on the road. The XKR also looks better than all of the Aston Martins. The Porsche 911 is a classic but the XKR is more amazing looking.


vcowmanvcowman - 9/2/2006 4:20:54 PM
+1 Boost
quite frankly this is a total ripoff of the aston martin look. M6 for GT, 911 for coupe.


speedracer54speedracer54 - 9/2/2006 4:37:13 PM
+1 Boost
too bad their selling aston


urbansouljahurbansouljah - 9/2/2006 7:15:16 PM
+1 Boost
It looks nothing like the DB9 but at the same time it looks better than the DB9. I've seen them side by side. The Jag looks a little better.


urbansouljahurbansouljah - 9/2/2006 7:19:28 PM
+1 Boost
Oh and another note: The Jag is not a copy of the DB9. They just share the same designer, Ian Callum. This is the way he designs sports cars.


urbansouljahurbansouljah - 9/2/2006 7:20:55 PM
+1 Boost
utahkid: The XK and the DB9 share nothing in common. Not a platform or parts.


melsucceededmelsucceeded - 9/2/2006 9:55:08 PM
+1 Boost
A magazine writer said that the Aston Martin looks anorexic, compared to the XK. He said the XK is a more muscular looking car than the Aston Martin.


melsucceededmelsucceeded - 9/2/2006 10:02:05 PM
+1 Boost
I agree, Urbansouljah. I think most people never saw the XK series and the Aston Martins, side by side by one another. I honestly believe that most people would pick the 2007 Jaguar XKR, in a side by side comparison, with the Aston Martin models.


Matthew1Matthew1 - 9/3/2006 3:44:33 AM
+1 Boost
Will at it again.

Being completely unreasonable, uneducated and comparing the XK to other cars.

When will it end? When will someone slap him round the face demanding how the tail-lights look like the RX-8 apart from the fact they are red, asking how come the XK can't have side vents just because another car has them, and why Jaguar can't hint at their glorious past because a mainstream sedan kinda-but-not-really looks similar?

Can't you see the design looks taut and cohesive?

What else do you want?

Something to complain about, obviously.


MunichRobMunichRob - 9/3/2006 4:50:14 AM
+1 Boost
I'd rather buy an M6...Guaranteed classic, and the best performing GT on the road.


urbansouljahurbansouljah - 9/3/2006 10:13:37 AM
+1 Boost
The front end does not look like a Taurus. If you mean to say the grill looks simular to the one on the Taurus then please say so. The hood, headlamps, front bumper and fenders are 100% Jaguar. Most of the people who are saying the car doesn't look good have never seen it. How can you complain about a car that looks better from every angle than 99.999% of the cars on the road? Some people will hate Jaguar no matter how good a car they make.


urbansouljahurbansouljah - 9/3/2006 10:28:09 AM
+1 Boost
by the way, for those of you who haven't noticed, there is no "taurus-like" grill on the R model. There is only the same grill that was on the previous XKR. Only the standard XK has the E-type grill.


urbansouljahurbansouljah - 9/3/2006 12:01:30 PM
+1 Boost
So what you are saying is that the previous Xk looked like a Taurus as well then? Since both the new and old XK share simular hood, grill and fenders. Do you see a Taurus like badge on the R models grill? No. Its not there.


urbansouljahurbansouljah - 9/3/2006 12:05:32 PM
+1 Boost
Posting here is a waste of time unless it's about German cars I see. Every story that gets posted about Jaguar gets flooded with anti-Jaguar people. Heck, anything that's not BMW get bashed on this site. The 6 series is one of the worst designs in its class but not many here complain about it but yet they will say that the XK is ugly. hmmmm....Will have you even seen the car in person?


RupertRupert - 9/3/2006 12:14:17 PM
+1 Boost
I33andME,
this weighs far less than the caddy xlr-v, costs less than an sl 500, and handles better than both.
the xkr makes 420bhp.


melsucceededmelsucceeded - 9/3/2006 12:52:46 PM
+1 Boost
Will, at least you admit that the XK Series is beautiful. Jaguar is having a hard time because there are so many luxury car companies to compete against. However, the XK is definitely selling well. The next 2008 S-Type will be a hot seller for Jaguar too.


urbansouljahurbansouljah - 9/3/2006 7:49:46 PM
+1 Boost
Will,

I was not talking about you. Just some of the people on this board in general.


urbansouljahurbansouljah - 9/3/2006 7:50:45 PM
+1 Boost
Will,

Have you seen it in person yet?


urbansouljahurbansouljah - 9/3/2006 8:20:50 PM
+1 Boost
The pictures really don't do it justice. It looks so much different in person. Especially from the front. Go out to your local dealer (if there is one nearby) and see the car for yourself.


LexusLexus - 9/4/2006 1:23:53 AM
0 Boost

You cannot compare this XKR to an Aston Martin, Aston Martin is out of it league. Imagine when Aston Martin come out with the AMV8 vantage S with more horse power, than this XKR will become obsolete.

Lexus


Matthew1Matthew1 - 9/4/2006 4:20:30 AM
+1 Boost
Lexus go to bed.

The XK will become obsolete? The Aston Martin doesn't even compete with the XK! The AMV8 is much more expensive.

And the XK handles better than the AMV8 Vantage, so how you can come out with stupid comments like that is beyond me.

Yes the AMV8 is a beautiful car, and undoubtedly more desirable than the XK, but that's how it has always been. Aston Martin is the more exclusive brand, while Jaguar is more 'mainstream' (loose term).

Doesn't stop the XK from being a great car though, and all press has been absolutely positive towards the new Jag, which really says something about the car, because traditionally Jaguar products don't find favour with journalists.


urbansouljahurbansouljah - 9/4/2006 12:11:11 PM
+1 Boost
You are right. That was bad marketing in a sense but this car was tested on one of the most dangerous tracks in the world and according to those who have driven it there, it feels right at home on that track. The car can do anything the 911 and V8 Vantage can do with the right driver behind the wheel. You should read the articles where Mike Cross drove the car at the Nurburgring with journalists riding shotgun. He had both the XK and XKR doing things that none of them have been able to replicate in their own driving. You can't make a car do something it's not capable of. Any car that can get around this track with ease is a sports car.


RupertRupert - 9/4/2006 4:28:05 PM
+1 Boost
jag van't have an suv as then it would compete with land rover.
and only gm competes with itself.


urbansouljahurbansouljah - 9/4/2006 4:43:46 PM
+1 Boost
IS3andME,

I agree with most of what you are saying. Jaguar made a lot of mistakes. It was Ford who cancaelled the F-type though. Jaguar does not need an SUV or crossover vehicle. Neither does BMW or Mercedes. They would still sell a million cars a year without them. Hopefully the next S-type will sell competitively with the 5 series and E class. The good news is that PAG is working with direct injection now so we can expect more powerful engines soon. The F-type is more important than the x-type IMO.


urbansouljahurbansouljah - 9/4/2006 4:49:12 PM
+1 Boost
Oh and according to news posted on media.ford.com a month or so back, Land Rover may use Jaguar's aluminum platform for future cars. With Ford selling Aston Martin Jaguar should be able to compete in the same class as AM did with high end sports cars and sedans. They may have messed up in the past, but the future looks bright.


10801080 - 9/8/2006 4:39:24 AM
+1 Boost
Yep you guys arn't in tune with Jaguars problems ...they all originate from Ford NA and to think Jaguar would steal a design from an american car...what drivel.

Yep it has similar design lines with the Aston that's to be expected.

It's really simple ASTON is owned by
FORD is which is holding back JAGUAR also owned by FORD ........work it out dudes and stop posting pointless comments.....once ASTON is sold off Jaguar will re-establish itself and be able to compete with ASTON direct.

And review the car for what it is......... a High performance rocket ship of sleak design.

Try one you might change your views, cause it's awsome.

Nuff Said.




Copyright 2026 AutoSpies.com, LLC