12 Xkrs White Over Black & Red Leather Navigation Auto 1 Owner on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Jaguar F-Type Project 7 arrives Stateside for $135k*

There are a great many things we love about the Jaguar F-Type, but one of them is that, whatever price point you're looking at, there's an F-Type for you. (Well, not any price point... this is a Jag we're talking about, but pricing varies greatly.) Got $65k to spend? That'll get you into a base F-Type V6 coupe, and you'll likely be happy for it. Eighty grand will get you into an F-Type V6 S, $90k into a V8 S roadster, and a cool hundred grand will get you the top-of-the-line F-Type R coupe. But what if you want to spend more than that? What if you've got more like $165,000 in your pocket and it's burning a hole when it should be burning rubber?
Well we've got good news for you, friend, because that's exactly how much the exclusive F-Type Project 7 will set you back. Making its US debut during Monterey car week, Jaguar has announced that the most exclusive version of its two-seat sports car - revealed in production spec just recently at the Goodwood Festival of Speed - will cost $165k in the US (plus the standard $925 delivery charge). That's roughly the price of an F-Type R and a base F-Type V6.
For all that scratch, you get an open-top roadster with 575 horsepower on tap - more than any production road car Jaguar has ever made before, and that includes the XJ220 and ultra-rare XJR-15 supercars. The most potent version yet of Jaguar's ubiquitous and long-serving 5.0-liter supercharged V8 is enough to send Project 7 to 60 in 3.8 seconds and on to an electronically limited top speed of 186 miles per hour.

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.