Jaguar may be in no rush to bring diesel variants to the United States for anything more than a cross-country demo run. But overseas the marque's oil-burning selection keeps growing. The XF is already available in its home market with a 190-horsepower 2.2-liter diesel four, not to mention a 3.0-liter diesel V6 with 240 or 275 horsepower. But if those weren't frugal enough, Jaguar has now introduced an even more cost-effective alternative.

The same 2.2-liter diesel four can now be had in a cheaper 163-horsepower trim for a grand less, at £29,950 on-the-road price (OTR, inclusive of the 20% Value Added Tax). Considering, however, that – at 9.8 seconds – the new version takes more than a second longer to reach 62 mph from a standstill (compared to the 190hp's 8.5-second run), yet returns the same 52.3 mpg combined rating on the UK scale, we're not sure the cheaper price makes this a good value.

What the new diesel spec does offer, however, is an intriguing id to the XFR's ego: Compared to the top-of-the-line supercharged model's £65,350 OTR price, 22.5 mpg UK combined rating and 4.9 second sprint to 62, the bottom of the range is now less than half the price off the top, gets more than twice the fuel economy, and takes twice as long to reach highway speeds. Follow the jump for the full press release.
Show full PR text
GREATER VALUE, SAME EFFICIENCY: NEW 163 PS XF 2.2 DIESEL GOES ON SALE

A new 163 PS version of the popular and highly efficient XF powered by a 2.2-litre, four-cylinder diesel engine, is set to be launched aimed at delivering greater value than ever before.

Drawing on the strengths of the existing 190PS model, an example of which recently crossed the United States averaging 62.9 mpg, the new, lower output derivative of the 2.2-litre engine will mean the XF range now starts at £29,950 OTR.

Despite the lower starting price the new model features an extensive range of standard equipment including suedecloth and leather seats, a touch screen centrally mounted display, electronic climate control and an advanced 8-speed gearbox complete with automatic Stop-Start.

The XF 2.2D 163 PS is capable of accelerating from a standstill to 62mph in 9.8 seconds before reaching a maximum speed of 130 mph. On the combined cycle it can achieve 52.3 mpg and it emits 149 g/km of CO2.

Jaguar dealers are taking orders for the new car now ahead of the first deliveries taking place in March.

The XF continues to enjoy a strong following in the UK having won over 80 awards since it was launched in 2008. Since then it's been subject to a relentless programme of engineering and aesthetic enhancements. The 12MY XF is the most efficient and best equipped iteration yet with diverse range encompassing the highly efficient new 163 PS 2.2-litre Diesel model, up to the performance-focussed XFR, equipped with a supercharged 5.0-litre V8 engine producing a mighty 510 PS.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 40 Comments
      Classic_Engr
      • 2 Years Ago
      That's one good looking 40+MPG diesel saloon. The new front facia is certainly an improvement over the intial XF release. Now that they've officially worked the bugs out of the shift dial and rear seat belts, it would make a great business car. Driving to/from work and to lunch with a client in traffic, 0-60 is really not that important. I love fast cars, but Luxury is not measured in 1/4-mile trap times. Besides, it would be nice to see something besides a Bimmer or MB diesel here in California. As nice as those can be, owning one is about as original as going to a Starbucks. Boring. Isn't the 405 is sponsored by the 3-series? [yawwwn.]
      ms
      • 2 Years Ago
      I do not understand that they use a modified version of the DW12 engine. They could also phone PSA Peugeot Citroen and take the slightly smaller DW10 series that is already available in 163PS versions. This variant should be a bit more frugal then the detuned DW12 engine. By the way: the 163PS version makes sense if the Jag is used as company car, since insurance and tax might be lower and the taxation for private use of the company car might be significantly less. For this reason, BMWs five series and Mercedes E-Class are also available with 170 to 184PS 2.0 or 2.1 litre diesel engines.
      aatbloke1967
      • 2 Years Ago
      "(OTR, inclusive of the 20% Value Added Tax)" - Autoblog AB, not all VAT is charged at the standard rate of 20%. Motor vehicles are subject to standard rate, but 20% is the UK's rate.
      Lawrence-at-work
      • 2 Years Ago
      John McPherson has a good reason - also auto insurance in the UK is banded, not just by car model, but engine power as well - this reduction on power could tax and insurance by £200+ per year easily, even more for business users. As you'll be travelling at the same speed as everybody else on the UK motorways, will most drivers of these cars really miss that extra?
        Lawrence-at-work
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Lawrence-at-work
        this reduction on power could REDUCE tax and insurance by £200+ per year easily... my bad
      M@
      • 2 Years Ago
      With diesel sales up in the US Jag would be stupid not to offer at least two of those engines here. 52 mpg? Is that comparable to what mileage it would get here, or is that in kilometres per liter?
      TokyoRemix
      • 2 Years Ago
      But....so much want. I need to stop this whole...'living in Japan' thing.
      John McPherson
      • 2 Years Ago
      In England, lots of these are company cars subject to environmental and imputed income taxes as well as yearly fees based on emissions. Additionally, there are many perks given to very clean or very low emissions cars. Thus some models released in England only make sense in the convoluted tax scheme there. Think of this as the California model. Suxs doesn't it?
      m.geller7
      • 2 Years Ago
      Please, Please..bring it here. Have always bought Jags, the XJ has been my car of choice for 25 years. However, the XJ, with small 8 and aluminum bodies, with even the archaic trans, still got over 30 MPG on the road. The new 8's can't manage 25. So if you can't get us a 6 with 300 horses and 30MPG like most cars available today, for goodness sake, give us this diesel and keep us in the family. Without some mileage, it's not possible to stay with Jag; just too un-PC to bear. Bring on the diesels!!!
      Mike
      • 2 Years Ago
      Diesels are more expensive than premium fuel here. I wouldn't want to pay that.
        chris
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Mike
        Just as an example, let's say diesel is $.50 more than regular premium, and the two identical cars (one gas, one diesel), the diesel gets 15 mpg more than the other (with smaller engines, it's usually far more than just 15 mpg better): Car A w premium: 25 mpg at $3.50 a gallon Car B w diesel: 40 mpg at $4 a gallon Over 10k miles driven for both, it cost Car A $1400, and Car B $1000. Over 50k miles, Car A $7000, and Car B $5000. Over 100k miles, Car A $14k, and Car B $10k. While only $4000 seems like a little after 100k miles of driving, it's still a nice savings, and most diesels are just breaking in at 100k miles, typically going another 100k-200k with hardly an issue, where most gas engines are nearing the end of their life cycle after 100k miles, or at least starting to nickel-and-dime the owner (in the average car; yes there are also plenty that go well past 100k). Basically, the longer you own and drive the diesel, the more it pays you back. People are just too concerned about that difference of cost of the different fuels at the gas station, having no clue or concern about the actual cost to run their vehicle per tank, or per 10k miles. "Oh, you pay an extra 50 cents a gallon for your diesel? Holy sh*t you're getting screwed." As the guy in the diesel returns nearly twice the mpg as the guy in the regular-gas car... People just need to do a little research. But I guess it's part of the American way to be ignorant and lazy.
          • 2 Years Ago
          @chris
          [blocked]
          chris
          • 2 Years Ago
          @chris
          While you're both right about the extra cost of the diesel engine option over the standard gas model (it could be more or less than the $4000 saved over 100k miles driven), I'd think that your second argument, Anataxis (time/value of money) would favor the diesel; more time driving, less time stopped at the pumps.
          chris
          • 2 Years Ago
          @chris
          BTW Mike, that last bit (ignorant and lazy) wasn't directed at you.
          Anataxis
          • 2 Years Ago
          @chris
          Chris, I find your analysis "ignorant and lazy". It lacks two things in order of importance; 1) the cost difference between cars A and B, and 2) time value of money.
          RGT881
          • 2 Years Ago
          @chris
          Well it really boils down to the premium of a diesel engine over its petrol sibling. Here in Michigan the difference between 93 and diesel isn't really that significant, so that's a non-issue. Rather my focus would be on the aforementioned price differential. I think through the economies of scale it is possible to bring down the cost of diesel engines, it's just a matter of a) right marketing b) right technology c) right performance. Let's face it, the only reason why price of oil is at $100 and brent crude at $110 is solely due to inflation. Fundamental economics do not support these prices. So anyone who is purchasing a car right now needs to look 2-3 years into the future and run calculations based on that. Lastly things like type of commute, its distance and availability of diesel fuel, should be taken into consideration. I'd be fine with owning a diesel Jag or better yet a diesel BMW.
          Anataxis
          • 2 Years Ago
          @chris
          Slight correction: $135/hr is the wrong number to use as it is not the value of my time to ME. Let's just say that if you make Federal minimum wage the incremental loss in value is $21.75. Although that assumes one would be otherwise occupied working- not likely.
      • 2 Years Ago
      [blocked]
      Avinash Machado
      • 2 Years Ago
      Americans might find it too sluggish.
        aatbloke1967
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Avinash Machado
        Sluggish? In America, where seemingly everyone parades around at 25mph and drives on freeways in a catatonic state? People equate diesel with better fuel economy, so they're unlike to think themselves as a reborn Ayrton Senna. Furthermore, the vast torque you get with a diesel along with 160bhp on tap will make even this least powerful model far from "sluggish".
          chris
          • 2 Years Ago
          @aatbloke1967
          Well said.
          aatbloke1967
          • 2 Years Ago
          @aatbloke1967
          The 'vast' torque is kinda downplayed with lower RPM, which mean a lower ratioed gearbox is needed. In the end the 'vast' torque might be even less than a turbocharged petrol engine puts to the road. And given that the car will be offered in European markets where some 50-75% of new cars sold - depending on country - are diesels, I'd hedge my bets on Jaguar doing their homework, especially since it's based on one of PSA's excellent units. Is that "vast" enough for you?
      adam1keith1980
      • 2 Years Ago
      The entire Jaguar and Land Rover portfolio does not have a normally aspirated gasoline six cylinder engine, which is a big seller in North America. Tata needs to get it act together.
        dreadcthulhu01
        • 2 Years Ago
        @adam1keith1980
        Tata should buy some of Ford's 3.7 liter V6's that Ford currently puts in the Mustang and F-150 (and a bunch of other cars), it would make a great base engine for both Jags and Land Rovers in the US. Ford is already selling them the 2.0 liter ecoboost that goes into the Evoque.
    • Load More Comments