1988 Jaguar Xjs Base Coupe 2-door 5.3l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2018 Jaguar F-Pace S is a fun but thirsty travel companion

I love road trips. I've moved across the country twice, spending weeks living out of my car, eating granola bars and sucking down energy drinks like it was finals week all over again. I get a huge kick out of calculating fuel economy, stretching out tanks of gas or diesel until the low-fuel light begins to sear itself into my retinas. I try to take each and every one of our long-term vehicles on some such trip. Not long after our 2017 Jaguar F-Pace S arrives, my wife and I decided to see some family in Asheville, North Carolina, roughly 10 hours and 700 miles from our home in suburban Detroit. Now, I knew from the outset this was going to be a far different experience than our previous long-termer, a 2017 Jaguar XE diesel. I managed to eek out nearly 700 miles per tank, averaging 42 mpg over 2,000 miles with that car. But the 380-horsepower supercharged V6 in the F-Pace is rated at 18 city/23 highway with a combined rating of just 20 mpg. Not good, and — unlike the XE — I didn't think I could do much better without greatly altering my admittedly aggressive driving habits. Still, I wanted to take our blue bomber to the Blue Ridge Parkway, so onward I went. There were a few other things I was worried about over what was sure to be another 2,000-mile trip. The F-Pace's suspension was a bit stiff thanks to the sporty S trim. The 20-inch wheels don't help matters, though things could be worse (some people on staff wanted to get 22s). At least they look good. Still, the seats are comfortable and the radio is top-notch. LCD Soundsystem's latest album had just come out, so I put it on repeat and headed south. The first part of the trip was going to be both the most boring and the most economical. The roads in Michigan and Ohio are flat and straight. It isn't until you hit Kentucky and head into the Appalachian Mountains that things get interesting. Just set the radar cruise control and barrel down Interstate 75 with as much urgency as you dare. I forgot my Valentine One at home. The ride was firm but not as bad as I imagined it might be, at least once we got off of Michigan's pockmarked pavement. The F-Pace tracked straight and true, but I became acutely aware that the steering wheel itself was out of alignment, leaning just slightly to the left. Fuel economy was fine, but I was just meeting the EPA estimate, not beating it like I usually manage to do.

Jaguar XJ220 leaps into Jay Leno's Garage

Having sadly canceled the C-X75 project and sat out today's hybrid hypercar race, it would be all too easy to forget about Jaguar as a supercar manufacturer altogether. But back in the early '90s, the British automaker didn't just play in the supercar game – it dominated it. The XJ220 was, for a time, the fastest car in the world. Jay Leno pays tribute in this latest video. Originally envisioned with a V12 engine and all-wheel drive, the XJ220 ultimately surfaced with a 3.5-liter twin-turbo V6 driving the rear wheels alone. None of that kept it from eclipsing the top speed achieved by every supercar that came before with a terminal velocity that didn't quite reach the 220 miles per hour initially promised, but came pretty darn close. The disappointment in the change of specification lead some to dismiss the XJ220 as a failure, but it was still the fastest thing on the road until another British supercar (in the form of the McLaren F1) took its place at the pinnacle of automotive bragging rights. Two decades later, Jaguar quite nearly drove down the same road when its initial plans for the C-X75 changed from an experimental turbine powertrain to a multi-charged inline-four. Only this time the Leaping Cat marque didn't put it into production at all, save for a few prototypes and movie props – which is a bit of a shame, and then some. Watching Jay speed down memory lane in the supercar that almost never was, we're glad that Jaguar still built the XJ220, and saddened that it never followed up with another groundbreaking supercar today. Related Video:

This or That: Mercedes S-Class 350SD vs. 2003 Jaguar XJR [w/poll]

Budget. It's a wretched word, whether you're going out to eat, shipping for a new outfit or, more relevant to today's discussion, buying a car. Massive marketing machines have convinced us, as a population, to buy the best you can afford, repercussions be damned – If you've saved up some money, spend it! All of it, on whatever it is that currently sits atop your personal Amazon wishlist, be it a Timex that takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin', a $17,000 Gold Apple Watch or a $60,000 Rolex Cosmograph Daytona. But what if the best you can afford is... say, $12,815? For that price, you can buy a brand-new 2015 Nissan Versa (including destination), assuming you're happy with zero options and a manual transmission. For that price, you'll get standard air conditioning, a CD player and... well, a warranty. Pretty sensible choice, Captain Frugal. But also ridiculously uninspired. And so that brings us to today's edition of This or That, in which two Autoblog editors pick differing sides of an argument and duke it out to see which one of us can convince you, dear reader, is better. Or at least less wrong. You be the judge. As a refresher, I'm two-and-two on these challenges, having lost the first and second editions before storming back in rounds three and four. Today, as alluded to above, we decided to throw our collective brainpower (oh lord, what have we done?) at what may be the single most difficult question currently confounding the best minds our planet has to offer: What is the best used used luxury car you can buy for the price of a 2015 Nissan Versa? Shall we meet our contenders? Allow me to introduce you to the most perfect luxury car money can buy (assuming the amount of money you're holding is equal to the amount of the cheapest new car currently sold in America, the Nissan Versa). My pick is the 1991 Mercedes-Benz S-Class. Not just any S-Class, but the legendary W126, which was produced between 1979 and 1992. And not just any W126, either, but one powered by a 3.5-liter turbodiesel engine. And with that, I send the argument to my esteemed colleague, Associate Editor Chris Bruce. Bruce: Jeremy, we had over $12,000 to budget for this challenge, and the best you can manage is a 24-year-old diesel Mercedes? I love oil-burners as much as any other auto writer with their mountains of torque and huge cruising range, but you're making this too easy on me. Also, you're really choosing a brown, diesel, German luxury sedan?