Expand Ad


Jaguar’s most affordable and fuel efficient car, the XF 2.2D, has achieved average fuel consumption of just 4.49 litres per 100km after completing a 4600km economy trek across North America.

The XF 2.2D, which is powered by a 2.2-litre four-cylinder turbo diesel engine mated to an eight-speed automatic gearbox, recorded a figure of 4.49L/100km for a journey that took eight days and covered three time zones and 11 US states.

The Jaguar’s official fuel consumption figure is 5.4L/100km, already an impressive number for a car that competes with the likes of the BMW 5-Series and Mercedes-Benz E-Class.

David and Alexander Madgwick, independent testers with economic driving experience, drove the standard-specification car at an average speed of 85km/h. They were accompanied on the trip by Jaguar’s project manager for the XF, Paul Alcock.

The XF 2.2D went on sale recently in Australia, priced from $78,900.

 




  • teeeee

    wow that is amazing! good job on making similar figure like the hybrids while having a decent engine :)

  • Vdubs

    Would love to see this compared with next years Jetta hybrid coupe. Although this seems may be a tiny bit faster.

    • qikturbo

      What’s going to be so special about the Jetta hybrid?The Jetta wouldn’t even come close to the luxury fittings of the Jag.
      I also don’t see the Jetta costing $84,990 driveaway!.
      The cars cannot really be compared.

  • Commentator

    Well done Jaguar.

  • Sputnik

    Quote

    David and Alexander Madgwick, economy specialists, drove the car

    HMMM Does this mean I’d be driving like a granny to get the same result?

    Very impressive economy though

    • Hyundai Lover

      Yes.

    • zej

      if only all grannies would drive at an AVERAGE SPEED of 85km/h.

      • Chris

        Good point—actually it is a good average when measured from start to switch-off

    • Peter

      that was no secret, see the link at the top to the earlier article. Jag’s figures have it at 5.5l/100km. I still cant understand why they havent done the XF in aluminium, though, it is very heavy and while that is good for the ride, it saps performance and I’d guess economy too

      • Force-15

        It’s more expensive to make a car out of aluminium than steel. An aluminium Jaguar XF would cost almost as much to make as the larger XJ (which is made from aluminium but is around the same weight as the XF).

  • FrugalOne

    $/km is ALL that counts!

    Our own LARGER and MORE POWERFUL Falcon ECOLPI has this 3.7L via $/km beat.

    If a hypermiler [ie the Taylors] drove a factory ECOLPI LPG on the some route as the 2.2 Jag it would use around 8.5L/100km

    At todays Melbourne prices

    DIEsel 2.2 Jaguar $1.45/L = [3.7L X $1.45] = $5.36
    LPG ECOLI Falcon $0.54/l = [8.5L x $0.54] = $4.59

    Nearly $1 per 100km cheaper

    DO THE MATH, FALCON WINS, AND BY A HUGE MARGIN

  • TonyB

    Of course its impressive. But how many other cars could do much the same on the same roads (largely flat multi-lane highways) at only 85 km/h. Not a real world test.

    • Zej

      The article clearly states and Average Speed of 85km/h. Try driving from Melbourne to Sydney at an average speed above 85km/h without exceeding the posted speed limit.

      • TonyB

        Zej – point taken – but we are not talking about driving from melbourne to Sydney which still has sections of two lane goat track. The interstates in the US are thousands of miles of relatively flat multilane highways with no lights, bypasses around towns/cities and a speed limit above even 110 km/h. To only average 85 km/h is taking it easy.

        • Chris

          Hey guys There are two major mountain ranges to cross. And check out the test route they did in Europe. If you’ve ever driven there you would know what traffic is like.
          A fair assessment is that Jaguar are right up with the best of the best. They are just doing it with an automatic —-a 10% handicap compared to the others.

  • Noel

    Not matter what, this is an impressive figure for a car like this.

  • Jerrycan

    Very impressive!
    It would be giving away at least 600kg, have larger frontal area and normal big tyres (presumably not special small low rolling resistance)to the specialist small economy cars and is not that far behind on the fuel consumptions they achieve in the comparable Darwin/Adelaide economy runs.

    I think when you get down to these sort of low figures that kilometres per litre is a better way of expressing fuel consumption to the layperson though (26.74 km/ltr).

  • Jonson

    It’s a propaganda/marketing exercise & nothing more.
    “Economy Specialists” were chosen & so was the route.
    The diesels from Bmw , Benz etc would probably do less but the whole exercise is useless coz it’s not ‘real world ‘ & therefore no-one will ever experience it or benefit from it.
    ..end of story.

  • http://www.caradvice.com.au Jez Spinks

    Apologies to those who read the original story that stated the economy figure achieved by the Jaguar was 3.7L/100km. That figure was based incorrectly on a US MPG conversion when it should have been based on UK MPG.
    Jez Spinks, Editor in Chief

  • F1MotoGP

    Mercedes E320CDI done in Jul 2005 similar test.

    Source: Carpages UK 14 Jul 2005

    Under the supervision of the USAC (United States Auto Club), which monitored the run on behalf of the FIA, the unmodified vehicles drove from Laredo on the Mexican border to Tallahassee, Florida. At the start of this economy run through Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, USAC employees sealed the full 80-litre standard fuel tanks of the three vehicles.

    Additionally, the USAC calibrated the speedometers and supervised the two-day economy drive along the speed-controlled American highways in accompanying vehicles. The result was that on just one full tank, the three E 320 CDI models covered a distance of 1039 miles (1672 km). The average fuel consumption of all three vehicles was under 58.85 mpg,(3.99L/100km) the best figure being 59.46 mpg, (3.95L/100km)

    • Jerrycan

      Several comments/questions:
      1) Did they say what the average speed attained was?
      2) These are exceptional figures for 6 year old technology. Mercedes now have better engines
      3) I was under impression that Americans did not buy many diesel cars, is this still true?
      4) The revised consumption figure from 3.7 to 4.49 ltr/100klm makes much more sense. It is now comparable to the Hyundai Santa Fe 2.2 R (manual) figure of 5.1 ltr/100klm achieved in Darwin/Adelaide 2009 run.
      Similar weights, although the SUV has worse aerodynamics, I think they only had to achieve a 75km/hr average speed.