0-100: 4.1 s
0-130: 6.2 s
0-160: 8.8 s
0-200: 13.4 s
1/4 mile: 12.21 s
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dedethecollector/16825676543/
Jaguar XJR (facelift) specs
| Price in Europe | €141,310 |
| Price in US | $116,895 - $118,595 |
| Car type | 4-door saloon |
| Curb weight | 1950-1966 kg (4299-4334 lbs) |
| Introduced | 2013 |
| Origin country | United Kingdom |
| Gas mileage | 15.8 l/100 km (15 mpg US / 18 mpg UK) |
| Views | 6.6k |
| Submitted by | jaguarista |
Lap times
| Track | Time |
|---|---|
| Motortrend Figure-8 | 0:24.80 |
| Sachsenring | 1:42.01 |
Acceleration
| 0 - 50 kph | 1.8 s |
| 0 - 100 kph | 4.1 s |
| 0 - 130 kph | 6.2 s |
| 0 - 160 kph | 8.8 s |
| 0 - 200 kph | 13.4 s |
| 0 - 60 mph | 3.8 s |
| Est. 1/8 mile | 8.6 s @ 99.4 mph |
| 1/4 mile | 12.1 s @ 117.5 mph |
General performance
| Top speed | 280 kph (174 mph) |
| Est. 0 - 100 mph - 0 | 15.2 s @ 1243 ft |
| Est. max acceleration | 0.70 g (7 m/s²) |
| Lateral acceleration | 0.91 g (9 m/s²) |
| 100 kph - 0 | 34 m (113 ft) |
| 200 kph - 0 | 139 m (455 ft) |
| 60 mph - 0 | 30 m (99 ft) |
Powertrain specs
| Engine type | V8 5.0 Supercharged |
| Displacement | 5.0 l (305 ci) |
| Power | 550 ps (542 bhp / 405 kw) @ 5500 rpm |
| Torque | 680 Nm (502 lb-ft) @ 5020 rpm |
| Power / liter | 110 ps (108 hp) |
| Power / weight | 281 ps (277 bhp) / t |
| Torque / weight | 347 Nm (256 lb-ft) / t |
| Efficiency | 35 PS per l/100 km |
| Power / €5000 | 19 ps |
| Transmission | Eight-speed automatic |
| Layout | front engine, rear wheel drive |
Rolling acceleration
| 60 - 100 kph (4) | 4.9 s |
| 80 - 120 kph (5) | 4.6 s |
| 80 - 120 kph (6) | 6.6 s |
| 80 - 120 kph (7) | 9.0 s |
| 80 - 120 kph (8) | 13.6 s |
| Est. 100 - 200 kph | 9.1 s |
XJR competition
Inline 6 rules 8y ago
Jaggggg 12y ago
I dont think 4.6 is the correct time for 0-60.
Consider it weights similar to an XF.In fact, it is way smaller and it has the same engine. I Think its going to be way faster then that. People have clocked it from 3.9s to 4.4s. I dont believe its much slower then the XFRS when it comes to straight line performance because it actually has better aerodynamics then the XF.
wallenieswiftie 11m ago
The reason why the full-size XJ weighs as much as the midsize XF is mainly because of how each of these cars was built. The XJ was aluminum-bodied from 2003 all the way up to its death in 2019. The XF has always been steel-bodied, but it has used a partial aluminum body from 2015 on. The XF was based on the Lincoln LS for God's sake, and that car was much bigger than its on-paper competitors (in fact, even the short-wheelbase 7-series wasn't much bigger).
Mental 13y ago
Please, add some data:
0-100 kph - 4.6 sec;
Top speed - restricted at 280 kph (being delimited, my guess it can achieve 310 kph);
Curb weight - 1870 kg.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/jaguar/xjr/first-drives/2013-jaguar-xjr-first-drive-review
Yeah, and the home country is UK, or Great Britain, or England, but not Coventry, LOL.
BR2' 13y ago
The rear end is still hideious, and that unpainted back pillar part has never worked.
The front and interior is nice, but thats about it, it will still get eaten in just about every possible way by an M5 and CTS-V.
Mental 13y ago
The new XJ.. Now it shares the engine with XKR-S. Might be considered as the best luxury saloon from Jaguar, and technically it is, but not from the soul side... Both exterior and interior are OK, but there is no the grace of past true Jaguars. Modern XJ is too modern, no elements of classic, That elegance, That temperament that past XJs had... This car doesn't have that qualities.. it doesn't have Jaguar's traditional recognition.. nothing superspecific and extraordinary that only true Jaguars had...
This XJR is good performance-luxury saloon but nothing more...
