2004 Jaguar Xj8 One Owner Nav Mint Condition on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Jaguar Land Rover reportedly developing Road Rover car

Reports are circulating in the automotive media that Jaguar Land Rover is developing a vehicle that's not an SUV. Called the Road Rover, it would be an all-electric luxury car with "some" all-terrain capability, hinting at all wheel drive. Initially, the EV would launch in late 2019, then spawn more models to complete the lineup. There is also talk about JLR's interest in an outright purchase of an existing luxury car brand to join its portfolio, and that parent company Tata has already given this strategic move the green light. Tata has also reportedly made moves to protect its JLR ownership via acquiring more of its own stock. All this excitement brings to mind the fact that there once existed an actual Road Rover — the Rover brand. Having evolved into MG Rover before going into administration in 2005 and subsequently reborn in China under SAIC Motor ownership, Rover was a moderately posh British carmaker just beneath the level of prestige that Jaguar offered. For some years, both were part of the same corporation. The last Rover saloons were designed and built with BMW input, and at that point Land Rover had already become part of Ford, almost a decade after Jaguar did. Ford's tenure with Land Rover lasted from 2000 to 2008, when Tata bought the British brand — along with the Rover name. Would it just make sense to badge the road car Rover, with no Road or Land affixed to it? Rover's slovenly demise is more than a decade old now, but there's plenty of valuable history still embedded in the long-shelved Viking ship logo. Cast aside memories of Sterling-badged Honda Legend platform siblings and unattractively Federalized SD1 series cars, and take whatever good the 1999-2005 Rover 75 brought to the table — maybe it's time for Rover to be reborn in the current Jaguar Land Rover family. According to Autocar, the first Road Rover would be developed in tandem with the next-generation Jaguar XJ, so they would share an aluminum architecture suitable for both internal combustion engines and battery electric technology, depending of the model. If anything, there is delicious irony to this: The 1980s XJ generation that Jaguar spent decades developing was claimed to be engineered in such a way that the occasional stablemate Rover's Buick-derived 3,5-liter V8 wouldn't have fit in its engine bay — to preserve the Jaguar bloodline. To have the new XJ and a Rover cross paths again would only be fitting. Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party.

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 F-Pace Luggage Test: How much fits in the cargo area?

The Jaguar F-Pace has been around for a while now, and perhaps it's just me, but it feels like it's been forgotten. That's a shame. This was the first time I've driven the F-Pace since the first drive event in Montenegro and therefore the first time I've really driven it in anything resembling normal conditions. And man, is it ever good, at least the R-Dynamic S you see here with the P400 engine. This is right up there with the Porsche Macan and Aston Martin DBX in terms of SUVs that are legitimately great to drive. The steering alone ... chef's kiss. But I'm here to talk about cargo capacity, so enough of that driving impressions stuff. The F-Pace is bigger than compact SUVs like the Mercedes GLC and BMW X3, but it's smaller than a GLE or X5. It's fairly similar to the Lexus RX in that way, which I just-so-happened to have luggage tested last week. Perfect timing, then! The specs say that it has 26.6 cubic-feet of space behind the back seat. I have a sneaking suspicion that volume represents a measurement from the floor to top of the seat back, or roughly the cargo cover. That's not just because what I found in the course of doing this test but because the F-Pace was reported to have 33.5 cubic-feet when it was launched back for 2017. That number seems more applicable to what you'll find in other SUVs. Either way, that's kinda why I do these tests to begin with! Here is the cargo area. It is quite deep and wide with an acceptable lift-over height. The F-Pace originally had a sliding rail system running the length of the cargo area along each side, but Jaguar has apparently replaced that with the fixed tie-down points you see here. There is a rigid cargo cover in place, which is probably good for NVH, but rubbish for cargo hauling. As a result, I will be testing with and without this cover in place. As with every Luggage Test, I use two midsize roller suitcases that would need to be checked in at the airport (26 inches long, 16 wide, 11 deep), two roll-aboard suitcases that just barely fit in the overhead (24L x 15W x 10D), and one smaller roll-aboard that fits easily (23L x 15W x 10D). I also include my wife's fancy overnight bag just to spruce things up a bit (21L x 12W x 12D). All of the bags fit underneath the cargo cover, so that pretty much confirms that whole thing about the current cargo volume representing floor to seat back. Now, the fancy bag is a wee bit squished, but it still totally fit.