Skip to content
Jaguar models, news & reviews
4
Handling
5
Performance
Usability
3
Feelgood factor
Readers' rating
3.5
By Nick Trott
First Drives
20 February 2009 10:52
Ok, let’s try to get through this piece without mentioning the credit crunch. It won’t be easy, seeing as Jaguar’s revised XKR is a 911/M6/SL-rivalling, mile-munching supercharged GT costing £72,400, but we’ll give it a go.
In a conscious effort to shake off the shackles of the ‘old man’ image Jaguar is making bold claims about the technology in not only the XKR but also the new XFR reviewed earlier this week. Indeed, on the launch this week it was impossible to hold a conversation with any Jaguar engineer or employee without ‘Adaptive Dynamics’ or ‘JaguarDrive Control’ being dropped into the conversation every 10 seconds (‘do you want an Active Diff with your coffee?’)…
The revised XKR is 6% faster to 60mph than the previous XKR, 24% faster between 50-70mph and matches it for mpg and C02. Power is up by a whopping 93bhp from 410bhp to 503bhp and torque rises from 413lb ft to 461 lb ft. Top speed is limited to 155mph; without the limiter this is a 190mph car.
The revised XKR exploits many of the new technologies also showcased on the XFR – not least the all-new ‘AJ-V8 Gen III R’ direct-injection supercharged 510bhp engine. This snappily named motor is Jaguar’s most advanced, powerful and efficient engine ever.
Matched to an uprated six-speed automatic gearbox (sorry JaguarDrive Control system) the XKR delivers enough performance to give 911 owners the willies. 0-60mph? 4.6seconds. Other tech highlights include a new adaptive suspension system and active differential with variable 0-100% lockup.
The XKR body receives a tweaked front-end including some distinctly odd intake ‘fangs’, a set of de-rigueur LED rear lights and a revised lower rear valence. The styling revisions will split opinion but there can be no doubt that the essential XK aesthetic is glorious. Inside there’s a notable improvement in materials and details too.
>> Click 'Next' below to read more of our Jaguar XKR first drive
Add your comment
Sign in You must be signed in to submit a comment.
Jaguar XKR Coupe (2009) CAR review
Subject
Your comment
By submitting your comment, you agree to adhere to the CAR Magazine website Terms and Conditions
Cancel
You must be logged in to subscribe to a topic
Login or register now
timsandford says
RE: Jaguar XKR Coupe (2009) CAR review
Drove one recently. Now I am on record here as saying that flappy paddle boxes are rubbish and in general I still think they are. However this one is brilliant and in this car it works superbly well. On top of that the ride and general driveability of the car make it really good. I will be buying one soon.
Drove one recently.
Now I am on record here as saying that flappy paddle boxes are rubbish and in general I still think they are. However this one is brilliant and in this car it works superbly well. On top of that the ride and general driveability of the car make it really good. I will be buying one soon.
22 July 2010 16:05
jaguarxkr says
"BMW’s M6 (too hysterical) and Mercedes’ SL63 (too detached) don’t even get close to matchingthe XKR’s unique blend of pace, refinement and entertainment" Now that's FUNNY because judging by the overall score the SL63 AMG seems to be the better car ! Why ? Because it got 5 stars, while the XKR only 4. Am I missing something here ? Not to mention the individual ratings seem to be extremely biased and illogical: Performance Mercedes 5 stars vs Jaguar 4 stars (but the jag weights a quarter of a tone less and it has similar power, so how can it be slower???) ; Usability Mercedes 5 stars vs Jaguar 3 stars (but the jag has 4 seats while the merc only 2, so how can it be less usable??? ); Feelgood factor -here both cars get 5 stars, but the jag you say is far more refined and entertaining to drive, so how come they both got 5 stars ??? Now I understand that these ratings are purely subjective and are not even given by the same authors but to the average reader they can be misleading at least. So if one has to choose between the SL63 and the XKR and takes a quick look at the ratings of each car he will think, like me, that the SL is the better car (it got 5 stars, after all); when in fact, it's the exact opposite ! And I've noticed similar inconsistencies on several other occasions, just I don't remember exactly where. So my advice is to fix them ASAP (or better yet, scrap these stupid, pointless, and illogical ratings altogether), according to what common sense and the actual reviews say !
"BMW’s M6 (too hysterical) and Mercedes’ SL63 (too detached) don’t even get close to matchingthe XKR’s unique blend of pace, refinement and entertainment"
Now that's FUNNY because judging by the overall score the SL63 AMG seems to be the better car ! Why ? Because it got 5 stars, while the XKR only 4. Am I missing something here ?
Not to mention the individual ratings seem to be extremely biased and illogical:
Performance Mercedes 5 stars vs Jaguar 4 stars (but the jag weights a quarter of a tone less and it has similar power, so how can it be slower???) ; Usability Mercedes 5 stars vs Jaguar 3 stars (but the jag has 4 seats while the merc only 2, so how can it be less usable??? ); Feelgood factor -here both cars get 5 stars, but the jag you say is far more refined and entertaining to drive, so how come they both got 5 stars ???
Now I understand that these ratings are purely subjective and are not even given by the same authors but to the average reader they can be misleading at least. So if one has to choose between the SL63 and the XKR and takes a quick look at the ratings of each car he will think, like me, that the SL is the better car (it got 5 stars, after all); when in fact, it's the exact opposite ! And I've noticed similar inconsistencies on several other occasions, just I don't remember exactly where. So my advice is to fix them ASAP (or better yet, scrap these stupid, pointless, and illogical ratings altogether), according to what common sense and the actual reviews say !
26 February 2010 01:17
moletrap says
My fish have gills, a car shouldn't.
23 February 2009 09:17
AnthonySoprano says
barina47. Mercedes have moved away from superchargers (to my horror, incidentally) and the word is that the E63 of the future will have turbos. BMW have done the same with the MINI. Mechanical drain on the engine is rumored to be the reason, vs a turbo. So the 'charger looks a little 'last year' on the XKR. Jaguar do not have the budget of these corporations; they're doing a valiant job but they will always lag behind. Same goes for Cadillac. On a $100K car, you want the latest tech. I think that's reasonable. Although, right now I have a car with a supercharger and I am slightly wary of what the 'non-Kompressed' future might hold.
22 February 2009 22:29
brix says
Good for you Steffen! I'm really excited about the new XJ as well as the recent new models. It promises to be amazing - here's hoping.
22 February 2009 19:47
Upload stories, photos or videos direct to the site, or email newsdesk@carmagazine.co.uk.
Alternatively, call 01733 468 485 (+ 44 1733 468 485)
Seen a secret new car, fabulous exotic or have news we should publish? Then get in touch now.
