2003 Jaguar S-type Base Sedan 4-door 4.2l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2017 Jaguar XE: We'll miss our long-termer, but not its diesel engine

This may be automotive journalist blasphemy, but diesels aren't always a good thing. And I don't mean that from an emissions standpoint. Sometimes the diesel in question isn't a good engine, and/or is a bad fit for the cars to which they're fitted. Our long-term Jaguar XE diesel is a textbook case of both issues. The first issue becomes apparent from the moment the 2.0-liter turbodiesel four-cylinder fires up with all the clattering, tapping and ticking that can only come from a compression-ignition engine. It's far from the shaking and knocking of full-size diesel trucks of a few decades ago, but it definitely feels a generation or two behind other diesel cars. For instance, we had a diesel Chevy Cruze in the office, which was quieter and smoother than the Jaguar despite a base price roughly $10,000 less. It becomes a bit smoother and less raucous as revs increase, but the volume remains rather high, making it sound as though the engine is struggling more than it is. Though, to Jaguar's credit, the company has managed to keep virtually all engine vibrations from entering the cabin. Now, the diesel engine's voice would be less problematic if it provided some engaging performance, but, outside of the high fuel-economy numbers, there's hardly any to be found. This may seem surprising considering the Jaguar's 318 pound-feet of torque, but that torque figure lasts only briefly from 1,750 rpm to 2,500 rpm. After that, the torque rapidly falls off, and you don't see the Jag's meager 180 horsepower peak until 4,000 rpm -- not far off of the engine's roughly 5,000-rpm redline. As a result, the XE has adequate passing power and around-town shunt, but anytime you want to play with more revs, it faceplants. But at least it does nail, and even exceed, its 40-mpg highway fuel economy rating without trying. The faults of this diesel engine are then exacerbated by the fact that it's in such a smooth and fun car as the XE. It positively glides across rough city streets and highways, keeping the chassis steady and its passengers soothed. Coupled with a quiet cabin, the XE is a peaceful place to be. At least it would be if the diesel didn't rudely interrupt every time the throttle pedal is pressed. Through some sort of black magic, the XE handles about as well as it rides. The incredibly sensitive and accurate steering is superb. It feels like adjustment knobs on a high-end stereo -- weighted perfectly and fine enough to get it right where you want it.

Top torque-to-weight ratios under $100k, $50k and $25k

Horsepower may steal a lot of headlines, but the always-more-complex torque figure is often a critical one for both the workingman and the motoring playboy. The measure of rotational force represents the twist that can liquefy one's tires or haul one's horse trailer. Good stuff.
It follows then, that as with the horsepower-to-weight list that we assembled for you a few months ago, a list of cars that offer the most pound-feet with the fewest pounds to carry, is an interesting one to break down. Sure, there's a big difference in how the torque is applied from a turbocharged six-cylinder in a Swedish luxury sedan and a massive heavy-duty truck's turbo-diesel. But being the car/stat geeks that we are, we think it's kinda neat that those two vehicles rank near each other where torque and weight intersect.
As with the horsepower list, we've given you figures as pounds per every one pound-foot. Again broken down into broad price categories, we've got a mixed bag of 2014 and 2015 models here, too. Every effort has been made to select the most up-to-date prices and specs, and we've also to omitted some '14 cars that won't be re-upped after the ongoing yearly changeover.

Check out Harry Metcalfe's 1978 Jaguar XJ 5.3 V12 Coupe

Jaguar may have built its business producing luxury sedans, but it also made some superb coupes over the years, from the XK120 through the E-Type, XJS and XJ220 to today's F-Type. The automaker has largely steered clear of turning its four-door models into two-doors, but there was a time when it did exactly that. And Harry Metcalfe, former editor of the British car magazine Evo, just happens to have one in his garage. Based on the Series II XJ sedan, the XJ Coupe was long and elegant – something along the lines of what you might see today in the form of the Mercedes S-Class Coupe, but smaller and built the better part of four decades ago. With only around 10,000 of them made, the pillar-less XJ-C was much rarer than the more iconic E-Type, and even fewer of them packed the 5.3-liter fuel-injected V12 engine. That makes the former Evo editor's ride a rather scarce one indeed, and well worth checking out in his latest video clip.