Jaguar XJ (X351) · Facelift 2015
Car comparison
Jaguar XJ (X351) · Facelift 2015 2.0vsJaguar XF (X260) 2.0
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonJaguar XF (X260)
2.0
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Jaguar XJ (X351) Facelift 2015 2.0
- Fastest top speed241 km/h150 mph
- Most powerful240 hp179 kW
- Highest torque340 Nm251 lb-ft
- Best power-to-weight138 hp/t103 kW/t7.2 kg/hp
- Best overall score60/100
- Best performance score52/100
- Best practicality score78/100
Jaguar XF (X260) 2.0
- Quickest 0-100 km/h7.5 s
- Lightest1,635 kg3,605 lb
- Lowest combined fuel consumption6.8 L/100 km34.6 mpg US41.5 mpg UK
- Lowest CO2 emissions154 g/km
- Best estimated range1,088 km676 mi
- Best economy score89/100
Specification comparison
| Model | JaguarXJ (X351)Facelift 20152.0 | JaguarXF (X260)2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 240hp179kW | 200hp149kW |
| Torque | 340Nm251lb-ft | 320Nm236lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,735kg3,825lb | 1,635kg3,605lb |
| Top speed | 241 km/h 150 mph | 235 km/h 146 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 80.2s99% target: 239 km/h / 148 mph Calculated | 69.6s99% target: 233 km/h / 145 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 7.9s | 7.5s |
| 0-200 km/h | 28.6s Calculated | 27.5s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 7.5s Calculated | 7.1s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 8.4L/100 km28mpg US33.6mpg UK | 6.8L/100 km34.6mpg US41.5mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 15.7s Calculated | 15.4s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 138hp/t103kW/t63hp/1000 lb Calculated | 122hp/t91kW/t55hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 196Nm/t131lb-ft/ton Calculated | 196Nm/t131lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 952km592mi Calculated | 1,088km676mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,999cc122cu in | 1,997cc122cu in |
| Length | 5,130mm202in | 4,954mm195in |
| Width | 1,899mm75in | 1,880mm74in |
| Height | 1,460mm57in | 1,457mm57in |
| Wheelbase | 3,032mm119in | 2,960mm117in |
| Front track | 1,626mm64in | 1,605mm63in |
| Rear track | 1,604mm63in | 1,594mm63in |
| Trunk volume | - | 540L |
| Doors | 4 | 4 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 80L | 74L |
| CO2 emissions | 199g/km | 154g/km |
Performance charts
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Dyno simulation
Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.
- Jaguar XJ (X351) Facelift 2015 2.0: Power / Torque
- Jaguar XF (X260) 2.0: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| JaguarXJ (X351)Facelift 20152.0 | 5,500 rpm | 2,000-4,000 rpm | 5,750 rpm |
| JaguarXF (X260)2.0 | 5,500 rpm | 1,200-4,500 rpm | 5,750 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | JaguarXJ (X351)Facelift 20152.0 | JaguarXF (X260)2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 7.5 s | 7.1 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 7.9 s | 7.5 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 28.6 s | 27.5 s |
| Top speed | 241 km/h 150 mph | 235 km/h 146 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.8 s | 2.7 s |
330 ft 101 m | 7.0 s | 6.9 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 10.4 s | 10.2 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 13.3 s | 13.0 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 15.7 s | 15.4 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 153 km/h 95 mph | 156 km/h 97 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarXJ (X351)Facelift 20152.0 | 240 hp 179 kW |
| JaguarXF (X260)2.0 | 200 hp 149 kW |
Jaguar XJ (X351) Facelift 2015 2.0 has 40 hp more than Jaguar XF (X260) 2.0.
The biggest power difference is between Jaguar XF (X260) 2.0 and Jaguar XJ (X351) Facelift 2015 2.0: 40 hp (30 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarXJ (X351)Facelift 20152.0 | 340 Nm 251 lb-ft |
| JaguarXF (X260)2.0 | 320 Nm 236 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarXJ (X351)Facelift 20152.0 | 1,735 kg 3,825 lb |
| JaguarXF (X260)2.0 | 1,635 kg 3,605 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarXJ (X351)Facelift 20152.0 | 241 km/h 150 mph |
| JaguarXF (X260)2.0 | 235 km/h 146 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarXJ (X351)Facelift 20152.0 | 7.9 s |
| JaguarXF (X260)2.0 | 7.5 s |
Although Jaguar XJ (X351) Facelift 2015 2.0 has more power, Jaguar XF (X260) 2.0 is quicker from 0-100 km/h.
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Jaguar XF (X260) 2.0 and Jaguar XJ (X351) Facelift 2015 2.0: 0.4 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarXJ (X351)Facelift 20152.0 | 8.4 L/100 km 28.0 mpg US 33.6 mpg UK |
| JaguarXF (X260)2.0 | 6.8 L/100 km 34.6 mpg US 41.5 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Jaguar XF (X260) 2.0 and Jaguar XJ (X351) Facelift 2015 2.0: 1.6 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarXJ (X351)Facelift 20152.0 | 138 hp/t 103 kW/t 7.2 kg/hp |
| JaguarXF (X260)2.0 | 122 hp/t 91 kW/t 8.2 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarXJ (X351)Facelift 20152.0 | 952 km 592 mi |
| JaguarXF (X260)2.0 | 1,088 km 676 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| JaguarXJ (X351)Facelift 20152.0 | 240 hp 179 kW | 7.9 s | 241 km/h 150 mph |
| JaguarXF (X260)2.0 | 200 hp 149 kW | 7.5 s | 235 km/h 146 mph |
Most attractive quadrant
Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JaguarXJ (X351)Facelift 20152.0 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| JaguarXF (X260)2.0 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Performance vs fuel economy
Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Fuel economy score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JaguarXJ (X351)Facelift 20152.0 |
| 8.4 L/100 km 28.0 mpg US 33.6 mpg UK | ||||||
| JaguarXF (X260)2.0 |
| 6.8 L/100 km 34.6 mpg US 41.5 mpg UK | ||||||
Jaguar XF (X260) 2.0 is closest to the top-right balance target for performance and fuel economy.
Acceleration vs fuel consumption
Cars closer to the lower-left corner offer a better mix of quick acceleration and low fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Fuel consumption, L/100 km | 0-100 km/h, s |
|---|---|---|
| JaguarXJ (X351)Facelift 20152.0 | 8.4 L/100 km 28.0 mpg US 33.6 mpg UK | 7.9 s |
| JaguarXF (X260)2.0 | 6.8 L/100 km 34.6 mpg US 41.5 mpg UK | 7.5 s |
Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption
The shaded area favors higher power-to-weight with lower combined fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Power-to-weight, hp/t | Fuel consumption, L/100 km |
|---|---|---|
| JaguarXJ (X351)Facelift 20152.0 | 138 hp/t 103 kW/t 7.2 kg/hp | 8.4 L/100 km 28.0 mpg US 33.6 mpg UK |
| JaguarXF (X260)2.0 | 122 hp/t 91 kW/t 8.2 kg/hp | 6.8 L/100 km 34.6 mpg US 41.5 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | JaguarXJ (X351)Facelift 20152.0 | JaguarXF (X260)2.0 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 240 hp 179 kW | 200 hp 149 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 340 Nm 251 lb-ft | 320 Nm 236 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 7.9 s | 7.5 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 241 km/h 150 mph | 235 km/h 146 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,735 kg 3,825 lb | 1,635 kg 3,605 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 8.4 L/100 km 28.0 mpg US 33.6 mpg UK | 6.8 L/100 km 34.6 mpg US 41.5 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 952 km 592 mi | 1,088 km 676 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | 199 g/km | 154 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | - | 540 L 19.1 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 138 hp/t 103 kW/t 7.2 kg/hp | 122 hp/t 91 kW/t 8.2 kg/hp | ||||||||||||||||
| Overall | Fixed score | Fixed score |
Fuel cost and annual usage
Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.
Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.
LC = Local Currency
| Vehicle | Jaguar XJ (X351) Facelift 2015 2.0 | Jaguar XF (X260) 2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 8.4 L/100 km28 mpg US33.6 mpg UK | 6.8 L/100 km34.6 mpg US41.5 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 14.70 LC100 km | 11.90 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 23.66 LC100 mi | 19.15 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,260 L333 US gal277 UK gal | 1,020 L269 US gal224 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 2,205 LC/year | 1,785 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Jaguar XJ (X351) Facelift 2015 2.0
- Has 40 hp more
- Has 20 Nm more
- Has 6 km/h (4 mph) higher top speed
- Has 16 hp/t better power-to-weight
Pros
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Best power-to-weight ratio
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
- Highest CO2 emissions
Jaguar XF (X260) 2.0
- Is 100 kg lighter
- Is 0.4 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Uses 1.6 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 136 km (84 mi) more estimated range
- Emits 45 g/km less CO2
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best estimated range
Cons
- Lowest power
- Lowest top speed
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























