Long live the longroof.
Jaguar is coming correct with the XF Sportbrake. Don’t mind the name, what it means is that there’s a Jag Wagon you can buy right here in the States. It’s the Jago Wago my friends, and it’s wonderful.
Of course, it doesn’t come without serious cost. Jaguar knows that there are a fringe group of car lovers that love all things longroof. Some of them even have money, and if they want this one it will cost them.
The base price is in the 70k range and the average one will be in the 80k range.
It’s just one trim for us here in America. The 3.0-liter supercharged gas-drinking six-cylinder that cranks out 380 horsepower and sends its go juice out to all four wheels through an eight speed automatic gearbox.
TL:DR – I loved it…
[Disclaimer: Jaguar tossed us the keys to this lovely little longroof and included a tank of fuel.]
Jaguar XF Sportbrake: Exhibit J in the fight for more wagons
About
10 responses to “Jaguar XF Sportbrake: Exhibit J in the fight for more wagons”
-
There’s nothing wrong with a sedan that a longer roof won’t fix! Hey, it’s no Volvo 245, but this Jag makes a nice wagon nonetheless. I’d be hard-pressed to choose this over the gorgeous V90, though.
Spot-on comments regarding crossovers vs. wagons. I too was frustrated when Mazda didn’t offer the 6 wagon in the States (even if it’s wrong-wheel-drive, Mazda knows how to make a communicative car). They only offer what sells, though.-
The 6 is an interesting case because the wagon is shorter than the sedan, aimed at Europe where parking is tighter and sedans in that size don’t sell as well.
-
True, but in Jeff’s case it’s between the Mazda6 estate and CX-5. The wagon is a full 10″ longer than the crossover, and would therefore make much more sense for a small family.
-
Ok, that is a bit different. The rear legroom deficit vs the sedan and presumably the CX5 is less significant for children, although the lower height is less convenient when they are toddlers (don’t load themselves).
Trunk space will be longer but not as tall, likely a help there, I’m assuming volume is comparable. A roof box will be more accessible.
Depending on the driving environment, more ground clearance with the CX5 may be an advantage. I don’t remember seeing too many steep driveways over there (SF would be an exception now I think of it) but modern cars are too low IMO.-
Ride height is probably one of the biggest reasons for crossover success, at least in the U.S. My father (who is over 70) won’t even consider standard sedans now, simply due to the low hip point. Both he and my mother drive crossovers and SUVs because of the ease of entry/exit and the better view (his opinion).
I still prefer the ride height of my old E28, but it sits higher than modern cars. -
Agreed, same here I think. Funnily for a while cars, in particular smaller ones, were moving to taller layouts that gave a taller seating height for better legroom, but that trend seems to have stopped.
-
-
-
-
Nice.
Speaking of long roofs, whatever happened to Olelongrooffan? Hope he’s still driving around some Ozark backroad making memories.
Anyways – I’ve said it before, but I’m not like the rest of you in that I don’t care for wagons. Never have. But, with this Jaaaaaag and the new V60 and V90, maybe I’m coming around? Maybe I’m maturing? Like a kid who hates his vegetables then suddenly realizes that roasted cauliflower is pretty damn good? Or is it because of what it isn’t – a blobby CUV with an ugly front, crazy angles and a weird roof line?
-
I regret that I may have helped pushed away Olelongroofian… I’m not sure, but I made a comment about my disdain for third-person references, and it may have contributed to his departure. I hope not, because I liked the content of his/her posts.
-
it’s okay to be wrong
nah, there are plenty of cars that legit look better as sedans. the W123, W124, and Volvo 940 spring to mind, as do (I think) this Jaguar and most large cars, with the V90 being maybe the exception that proves the rule.
Leave a Reply