2007 Jaguar Xk Convertible Damaged Repairable Rebuilder Fixable Salvage Wrecked on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Jaguar's XF diesel isn't just fuel efficient, it's the cheapest XF available

Jaguar announced the 2017 Jaguar XF will now offer the 2.0-liter turbocharged diesel the company introduced on the XE. In addition to returning an impressive 42 miles per gallon on the highway and 31 in the city, the diesel is the cheapest XF available at $48,445. This means that picking the oil-burner will save you $3,040 over the cheapest gas V6 version, which only manages 29 mpg on the highway and 20 in the city. With 180 horsepower, the diesel is significantly down on power compared with the base V6 model. As a result, the diesel moves slower. Jaguar estimates the base V6 is good for a 5.2-second 0-60 time and the diesel should be able to do the same in 8 seconds. However, that's the only real downside. Even with the slower acceleration times, the diesel still has a very usable 317 lb-ft of torque available from 1,750-2,500 rpm. Based on our test drive of a diesel-equipped XE, the engine also breaks the old diesel stereotypes. It's both quite smooth and responsive. Unless you seriously need that straight-line performance, the Jaguar XF diesel arguably makes the most sense. It provides significant price savings and better fuel economy. The diesel XF also joins the XE and F-Pace diesels, leaving just the XJ and F-Type as the only Jaguars without compression-ignition engines. The British automaker is planning to remedy that, as a Jaguar Land Rover executive said the company plans to also add a diesel XJ variant in the US, even in the wake of the VW diesel scandal. Related Video: Related Gallery 2016 Jaguar XF: Review View 24 Photos Image Credit: Jaguar Land Rover Green Jaguar Diesel Vehicles Luxury Sedan jaguar land rover ingenium

Jaguar solution to keyless start could save lives

UPDATED: An earlier version of this story indicated the Jaguar keyless start function was meant as a safety feature, when in fact, it is meant as a convenience one and will not work as described if automatic stop/start is not engaged. Today, The New York Times published an article about more than two dozen deaths related to drivers accidentally leaving their cars running, closing their garages and later succumbing to carbon monoxide that flooded their homes. The reason has been identified as "keyless start" features, or proximity entry and push-button start, where owners don't need to physically handle a key or fob to gain entry into the vehicle or start it. It is the latest, and deadliest, issue raised with this system after those related to security and simple inconvenience (for instance, leaving the car at a valet or car wash with the fob in your pocket). From my personal perspective, The New York Times had a rather harsh "evil carmakers" tone throughout the article. This is not a matter of a known faulty component, as with the GM ignition switch recall. This has as much to do with user error where people leave their car without pressing the "off" button and without noticing the engine is still running. About half of the cars in question are produced by Toyota and Lexus, brands that have offered keyless start longer than most. They are also brands with high rates of elderly owners, who seemingly made up a majority of reported deaths and injuries. One fire department in Florida even started a campaign alerting those in the area of the dangers of leaving your car running when it noticed a correlation between an increase in cars equipped with keyless start and calls related to carbon monoxide poisoning. I see several contributing issues at play, most of which go well beyond this particular issue. First is insufficient training of owners by dealers and/or owners not paying close enough attention during this training. Cars are complicated, but you should at least know how basic functions work. Second, woefully inadequate driver training in this country. Third, and with apologies to the AARP, insufficient testing of elderly drivers and/or insufficiently low standards for elderly drivers. If you don't know you have to shut the car off or cannot hear that an engine is running, perhaps you shouldn't be driving. Fourth, re-examining keyless start systems.

The diesel premium in our Jaguar XE quickly pays for itself

Our long-term 2017 Jaguar XE 20d AWD recently returned from a 2,000-mile road trip. My wife and I took a few days to visit her family in Auburn, Alabama, and it was the first real chance anyone has had to stretch the Jaguar's legs outside of Michigan. It was also a good opportunity to see what sort of fuel economy I could wring out of the XE's 2.0-liter turbocharged diesel. The diesel engine was the main reason I chose it over our equally lovely long-term 2017 Audi A4. For me, chasing fuel economy is a great way to stay focused on the road. The XE 20d AWD is rated at 30 city/40 highway and 34 combined. The drive to and from Auburn is almost entirely highway, so I knew matching the highway rating would be easy enough. The XE has a 14.8 gallon tank, so I was looking at a minimum of 600 miles per tank and four fills for the trip, counting the initial pre-departure fill. I had two main concerns: first, this was a new route, so I didn't know how available diesel would be along I-75; second, crossing the Appalachian Mountains was going to severely cut into my overall average. The first worry turned out to be a nonissue, especially as we went further south. Not once was I forced to go from station to station looking for a lone green-handled pump. People in the South love their Cummins, Powerstroke, and Duramax-powered trucks, meaning diesel pumps were plentiful. Rolling up in a Jaguar does garner attention, though. An older gentleman even asked if I knew that I was putting diesel in the car. It seems he didn't have much faith in my reading comprehension skills. The mountains were more of a problem. There was literally no getting around them, but were west of the highest parts, so it could have been worse. The indicated fuel economy dropped by 4 mpg on the way up, from 47 mpg to 43. Still, I managed more than 650 miles from a tank, though I was starting to push my luck. We filled up for the short final leg. By the time we rolled into Auburn, the display indicated 44 mpg – pretty damn good, I'd say. It held there for the entire trip. Calculating the actual mileage revealed the computer was generous by 2 mpg, but that's par for the course. Few automakers display precise numbers. The relative ease of getting this sort of fuel economy was complemented by the price of diesel. At each one of my four stops, diesel cost less than premium, the required fuel in all of the XE's gasoline engines. According to AAA, the same is true nationwide.