2018 Jaguar XF VS BMW 520d; Economy, Interior, Performance
The new Jaguar XF 2.0d offers its customers with details that appeal to emotion and that’s pragmatism of Germans, in this case, the 5 Series here represented by the 520 d version
In this market segment the domestic sales are still dominated by diesel engines, so that makes perfect sense this “derby” between the new Jaguar XF 2.0 d and BMW 520D. Both align with automatic teller machines, an option that the German brand began offering of series exactly from this version of 190 HP. If it is to respond or not to Jaguar but which is the right choice, that we have no doubt in the light of the results obtained, the enjoyment of use or consumption. But, it’s all about more ahead, when we approach compared each of these results.
For now, what we retain is that the Jaguar and BMW are part of that club who like to review. The English model, while maintaining the same aesthetic recipe, inherits the X platform, so it is a totally new model. BMW already has several years (However, the new BMW 5 Series), although if you keep current on many matters, including the dynamic point of view. One of the criticisms leveled at the UK brand since it was bought by Tata, Indian is that lost part of the genes that the caraterizavam when it was entirely British. Even so, the XF has since your creating a unique image, something that goes missing to their German opponents than the 5 Series is no exception.
NOT EVERYTHING THAT LOOKS LIKE IT’S
With 4.96 meters long, the Jaguar is 4 cm longer than the BMW. It is also wider and shorter and has the same wheelbase. Unfortunately, the upper outer dimension does not correspond to a greater habitability, as was proven in the measurements that we did to find the index of habitability. The advantage of the BMW is, above all, on the width of the passenger compartment, the front wants back. Also, the time ahead is higher. Between the two there is a difference of 180 points in favor of the German car.
This, although it has more space and apparently better quality by having a more solid construction, does not have the originality of your opponent or the refinement of some details like certain leather jackets. For example, the magic of the gearbox, which rises Periscope type evil “awaken” the button “start” of the Jag, or the side opening of the vent pipes, as well as the atmosphere created by the interior lighting, are notes that the Jaguar contrasts to the pragmatism of the BMW, where everything is more Spartan. That is, while the Jaguar is a purely emotional car, the BMW is more rational and therefore maintains a superior level.
Contrary to what happened in the XE during the test we did in the last edition, the 8-speed automatic box has, in this case, a more appropriate and intelligent management. Even so, this does not have the same performance as the transmission of the 520 d. Proof of that are the best benefits of BMW, with the acceleration of 0 to 100 Km/h and the kilometer (see “the detail”). Not even when we use more sporting model both models feature, the Jaguar through the “Jaguar Drive Control” and the BMW with the “driving experience”.
Under 10 HP, but with more torque, the Jaguar proved to not be as reactive as your opponent, being heavier for not having a chassis or a bodywork so light, can be so nimble as the British model. For that contributes a lot more direct direction of BMW, which conveys greater confidence when cornering. It’s amazing the balance that the BMW continues to maintain very by the influence of a weight distribution between the two axles. It is interesting that while the Jaguar is 110 pounds lighter, the power to weight ratio is very similar (8.9 Kg/CV against 8.8 Kg/HP) which is a factor that has a decisive influence not only on the benefits as in the dynamic performance of each.
DUEL BETWEEN ENGINES
As the Jaguar XE, the 2.0 d engine of 180 HP belongs to a new generation and therefore was expected that your performance was higher than the 2-liter engine of the BMW. This has not happened and it is not so much the demerit of the engine, but the merit of the German motor, which has undergone major developments. Are improvements that are not intended to just increasing the power, but also a smooth operation, economic and pleasant. Although the 90 Km/h, our sound level meter has registered a higher level of noise inside, the truth is that all the other records reveal that the BMW engine is less harsh. This is due to the greater noise propagation in aluminum. Even so, the XF can better isolate the noise and vibrations from the motor the XE, where the values of the scale sound level dB (A) are superior to any speed.
Returning again to the dictatorship of the stopwatch, it was with great difficulty that the Jaguar accompanied the BMW. Only in the recovery of 40 to 90 Km/h is the new XF managed to get 8 tenths of a second faster. Still, it was remarkable how the Jaguar defended himself when he played the more sinuous paths, where revealed great agility despite being larger than the BMW and don’t have a direction so communicative. On the other hand, has an elaborate rear suspension, if not better, than the BMW. Contrary to what we had percecionado in XE, in this case the direction does not convey the same feeling of a hydraulic steering. Maybe because the concern of English brand was also to ensure a superior level of comfort.
Returning to the issue of weight, it is a shame that the Jaguar has not taken the diet to establish a weight distribution by two axes so balanced as your rival. Not being the main your SIN, we have no doubt that this would improve even more agility in curve, especially when we missed the first and we have to snuggle your foot on the brake at the entrance of the corners, where the torque vectoring rear axle equilíbra diversion, a reaction that the BMW is accomplished by self-locking differential. As demonstrated, these are two important aid when we decided to go faster without worries.
Even so, the two are very economic, with BMW registering always lower consumption. In this case the average was 6.8 l/100 Km for the 520 d against 7.1 l/100 Km/h for the XF 2.0 d, two goals only reached thanks to the excellent contribution of both boxes 8-speed automatic, regardless of how they are managed in accordance with the various modes available. As usual, the most economical is the program that registers lower consumption. In our case, the consumer tests are the result of a mixed use of all means available, including the more sporty.
As we said at the beginning, the ATM is and, therefore, the price reflects this choice and, if the Jaguar is slightly more expensive, the difference is compensated by a best price/equipment. On the other hand, the BMW has cheaper maintenance costs and traditionally higher recovery values. This is a factor of the business that the Jaguar has been improving. Even so and as we have said on previous occasions, we reinforce the criticism that we don’t understand why the anti-corrosion guarantee is not greater if one of the flags of the UK brand is precisely the high content of aluminum used in the construction of the chassis and bodywork.