Convertible - British Racing Green on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Evil Brits star in Jaguar's first-ever Super Bowl commercial

Chrysler's Imported from Detroit commercial from Super Bowl XLV is one of the most powerful car commercials in recent memory, and Jaguar is taking a similar approach - albeit with a more villainous spin - for its first-ever Super Bowl spot titled Rendezvous. While Chrysler and Eminem focused on hometown cheerleading, Jaguar is using its $8 million (the going rate for a 60-second commercial in this year's game) to play up the Hollywood tradition of typecasting a Brit as the bad guy.
In the spot highlighting the all-new F-Type Coupe, Jaguar looked to director Tom Hooper (the man behind movies like The King's Speech and 2012's Les Misérables), who filmed on location in London with British bad guy actors Mark Strong, Ben Kingsley and Tom Hiddleston. As the commercial implies, Brits make perfect bad guys with their style, sound and power, which are all traits evident in the F-Type.
The commercial will air in the fourth quarter of this Sunday's game, but you can watch it now in the video posted below. Jaguar has also included a press release as well as a second behind-the-scenes video showing how the ad was made.

Audi E-Tron vs. Jaguar I-Pace and Tesla Model X: How they compare on paper

The all-electric crossover segment is suddenly heating up. Tesla was first to market with its Model X, and the California-based automaker has a several-year head start on the rest of the field. But now it has competition, with the Jaguar I-Pace already hitting dealerships across the globe and the just-announced Audi E-Tron hot on their heels. We decided to see how Audi's new entrant compares with its British and American rivals, so we downloaded their spec sheets (at least those that are available) and dumped them all into the spreadsheet you see below. As you'll soon find out, there are lots of similarities between these three electric crossovers, but each has a unique selling point or two with which to entice buyers. View 24 Photos Performance Note that we're using the Tesla Model X 75D for this comparison, since that's the model that is closest in price to the Jaguar and Audi entries. If you really want the fastest and most powerful electric CUV available, you're going to want to look at Tesla's ludicrous P100D model, but you'd better be willing to just about double the price you see in the chart above. With that out of the way, these particular electric crossovers are all pretty quick. The Jaguar boasts the quickest 0-60 time, but in the real world, that half-second advantage over the 75D won't amount to much. The Audi is a full second behind the Jaguar, and a little over a half second slower to 60 than the Tesla. A 5.5-second 0-60 time, though, still means the E-Tron will be able to squirt away from traffic lights quicker than the rest of the morning commuters. As far as battery capacity, Audi leads the way with 95 kWh, which is 5 more than the Jag and a whopping 20 more than the Tesla. Until we get estimated range figures, though, we won't know what the extra capacity means in the real world. In other words, stay tuned. View 74 Photos Exterior and interior dimensions The Jaguar is the smallest of these three 'utes, inside and out. The Tesla Model X is the largest. Does that make the Audi just right? Maybe, but only if you don't need a third row — the Model X is the only one of this trio that offers seating for six or seven passengers (depending on whether the buyer opts for a second-row bench or individual chairs). A smaller size may be a boon for drivers who often have to fit into tight spaces, but those slinky dimensions mean the Jaguar's cargo capacity is well behind that of the Audi and not even close to the cavernous Tesla. Tesla Motors Inc.

2016 Jaguar XF Review

We last drove the new Jaguar XF in Spain last September, sampling it in 380-horsepower S spec and in 2.0-liter turbodiesel forms. We found both versions to provide a supple ride, despite some body roll, and loved the supercharged model's ample thrust from any engine speed. The ZF-provided eight-speed automatic was also applauded for its competence, making the sport paddles an unnecessary formality. If anything, our last drive only left us pining for a better infotainment system, as Jaguar Land Rover's painfully outdated one has been a target of our ire for a while. A limited amount of time behind the wheel, and a desire to see how much the slightly less powerful 2016 Jaguar XF 35t R-Sport gives away to its S-badged stablemate, leads us to our tester. In British Racing Green, the new XF is both more handsome than the slightly manic-looking old XF, yet also slightly more anonymous. This is a lithe shape, with crisp lines and few gimmicks, save the fender vents, which are about as tasteful as that element comes. The car's charms are especially evident from up front. Despite a distracting cut line, the hood is tastefully built up in two steps: a sharp rise from the headlight/fender area, and in the middle a tasteful power bulge. The overall effect is one of thoughtful, purposeful design – after all, this is Ian Callum's work – rather than taking a corporate-mandated design language and scaling it up or down to suit the hardpoints. Spend some time around FCA's UConnect system and you'll see where Jaguar needs to improve. Inside, this XF is a mixed bag. Let's start with the positives. Despite being shod in a rather boring black hide, the front seats are wonderfully comfortable and supportive without aggressive bolstering. The cabin would really wake up with a more interesting leather, like the brown that Jaguar calls "Brogue," covering the seats and door panels. Whatever you think of the rotary shift selector, the knurling on its diameter and the solidity of its action conveys the sense of craftsmanship you'd expect from a British luxury car. Some other controls, such as the cheap-looking and -feeling control stalks sprouting form the otherwise wonderful steering wheel, do not. And that takes us to the infotainment system. This XF does away with Jaguar's old, much-maligned user interface, which was blocky and balky in equal measures.