1994 Jaguar Xjs Base Convertible 2-door 4.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Jaguar turns down offers to join V8 Supercars, questions AMG, Volvo participation

Rumors have swirled in recent weeks that Jaguar may be the next manufacturer to join the V8 Supercars racing series, made popular in Australia but now well-known in other parts of the world as well. Sadly, Jag's participation is not to be. In fact, it would be "insane," according to Jaguar Land Rover Asia Pacific Managing Director David Blackhall, for it to accept either of the two offers it has received to bring Jaguar into V8 Supercars.
Not only is Jaguar not interested in entering V8 Supercars, says Blackhall, it also fails to understand the recent entries from AMG and Volvo. "I don't know what it does for AMG to get flogged by a V8 Commodore week after week, but it's their brand, their issue. And the same thing will happen to Volvo to be honest."
Judging by Blackhall's statements to motoring.com.au, after not-so-serious consideration, the automaker decided the monetary commitment it would take to compete for wins would be more than any potential exposure would be worth, despite the fact that Jaguar has a 5.0-liter V8 to go along with what would seem to be a tailor-made rear-wheel-drive chassis. For what it's worth, one offer would have had Jaguar putting its name across an engine made by someone else, an option that was flatly turned down.

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.

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.