1957 Jaguar Xk on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Jaguar lifts the tailgate on XFR-S Sportbrake

In the market for an amped-up Jaguar? Look for the letter R, adorning such performance models as the XFR and XJR sedans, the XKR coupe and convertible and the new F-Type R. But if it's bonkers performance you're after, you'll want to add the letter S into the mix as well. Jaguar uses the letters to connote its most hard-core performance variants like the two-door XKR-S and four-door XFR-S. And now it's applied them to the XF wagon as well, skipping the R treatment and going straight for the new XFR-S Sportbrake.
Leaked just the other day and headed for the Geneva Motor Show, Jaguar has now revealed its new power wagon in full. The XFR-S Sportbrake packs Coventry's ubiquitous 5.0-liter supercharged V8 engine boasting 542 horsepower and 502 pound-feet of torque. That's the same version that powers the XKR-S and XFR-S sedan (not to mention the F-Type R and XJR), and drives the rear wheels through an eight-speed automatic to rocket the estate to 60 in 4.6 seconds and on to an electronically limited top speed of 186 miles per hour.
That may be pretty quick, but doesn't quite stack up to the Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG S-Model 4Matic Estate whose 5.5-liter twin-turbo V8 offers up 577 hp and 590 lb-ft for a 3.6-second 0-60 time, or to the Audi RS6 Avant whose 4.0-liter twin-turbo V8 churns out 552 hp and 516 lb-ft for a 3.9-second 0-62 sprint. Though the Jaguar is only a little behind in output, it's a good second slower where it's measured. Granted that the Benz and the Audi are both all-wheel-drive where the Jaguar powers the rear only, but if four-wheel traction is how you get the power to the road, we wonder why Jaguar wouldn't fall in line. Particularly when the Jag's starting price in the UK (don't expect to see it imported here) is quoted at £82,495 - several grand more than the £76,985 RS6 but just shy of the £85,880 Mercedes gets for the E63 S-Model wagon in the UK (where the less potent 'base' version is also available as the cheapest in the bunch at £75,885).

Jaguar may join the FWD, small-car parade

Was it right for Chevrolet to detune the 1975 Corvette's base engine to 165 horsepower? Was Aston Martin wrong to make the Toyota iQ-based Cygnet? Is BMW crazy to be testing the new 1 Series with three-cylinder engines and front-wheel drive? It seems now, just as in the 1970s and 1980s, that emissions regulations and social considerations are driving some automakers to adopt unbefitting practices to maintain acceptance in the eyes of governments and consumers. Jaguar has jumped on the bandwagon, and is considering development of small, frugal, front-wheel-drive cars to help lower Jaguar Land Rover's average vehicle CO2 levels in light of tightening European emissions regulations, Autocar reports.
By 2020, the European Union expects the model range of every manufacturer to average 95 grams per kilometer, which is a new law passed by the European Parliament in April. Manufacturers who make more than 300,000 vehicles per year must meet these targets, and JLR is expected to be producing up to 700,000 vehicles per year by then. CO2 regulations after 2020 will only get stricter, as EU politicians already are talking about lowering CO2 levels to between 68 g/km and 78 g/km. (To put that in perspective, Autocar posits that driving a fully charged electric vehicle in Europe produces about 75 g/km when factoring in the power-generation infrastructure.)
Jaguar has some choices here, but so far they all have drawbacks. It could develop a new, compact chassis architecture for a line of compact vehicles, but the investment required for such a project could be prohibitively expensive. Jaguar has been looking into using the Land Rover Evoque platform for a small SUV, Autocar reports, but Land Rover brand manager John Edwards raises issue with such a plan, saying it may not be financially feasible.

Our love of SUVs is killing people in the streets

Americans are fond of supersized fast-food meals and colossal convenience-store fountain drinks, even though they're clearly bad for our health and U.S. adults keep getting fatter. We also like large vehicles, and our love affair with SUVs is killing people in the streets. According to a recent investigation by the Detroit Free Press/USA Today, the increase in SUV sales over the past several years coincides with a sharp rise in pedestrian deaths in the U.S. — up 46 percent since 2009, with nearly 6,000 people killed in 2016 alone. With SUV sales surpassing sedans in 2014 and pickups and SUVs currently accounting for 60 percent of new vehicle sales, it's no wonder Ford announced in April plans to cease U.S. sales of almost all passenger cars. And this followed Fiat Chrysler's move to virtually an all-truck, -SUV and -crossover lineup. While the Freep/USA Today investigation found that the simultaneous surge in SUV sales and pedestrian deaths comes down to vehicle size, it also points to a lack of action on the part of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), even though it knew of the dangers SUVs pose to pedestrians. Also blamed are automakers dragging their feet on implementing active safety features. Using federal accident data, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) determined that there was an 81 percent increase in single-vehicle pedestrian fatalities involving SUVs between 2009 and 2016. Freep/USA Today's analysis of the same data by counting vehicles that struck and killed pedestrians instead of the number of people killed showed a 69 percent increase in SUV involvement. As far back as 2001, researchers at Rowan University forecasted a rise in pedestrian deaths as Americans began switching to SUVs. "In the United States, passenger vehicles are shifting from a fleet populated primarily by cars to a fleet dominated by light trucks and vans," the researchers wrote, with light trucks comprising SUVs.