Jaguar XJ (X351) · Facelift 2015
Car comparison
Jaguar XJ (X351) · Facelift 2015 2.0vsVolvo S60 II · Facelift 2013 2.0 D5
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonVolvo S60 II · Facelift 2013
2.0 D5
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Volvo S60 II Facelift 2013 2.0 D5
- Quickest 0-100 km/h6.4 s
- Highest torque470 Nm347 lb-ft
- Lightest1,595 kg3,516 lb
- Best power-to-weight141 hp/t105 kW/t7.1 kg/hp
- Lowest combined fuel consumption4.5 L/100 km52.3 mpg US62.8 mpg UK
- Best estimated range1,500 km932 mi
- Best overall score63/100
- Best performance score59/100
- Best economy score95/100
Jaguar XJ (X351) Facelift 2015 2.0
- Fastest top speed241 km/h150 mph
- Most powerful240 hp179 kW
- Best practicality score78/100
Specification comparison
| Model | JaguarXJ (X351)Facelift 20152.0 | VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20132.0 D5 |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 240hp179kW | 225hp168kW |
| Torque | 340Nm251lb-ft | 470Nm347lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,735kg3,825lb | 1,595kg3,516lb |
| Gross weight | - | 2,110kg4,652lb |
| Top speed | 241 km/h 150 mph | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph Calculated |
| To 99% top speed | 80.2s99% target: 239 km/h / 148 mph Calculated | 60.6s99% target: 238 km/h / 148 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 7.9s | 6.4s |
| 0-200 km/h | 28.6s Calculated | 22.5s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 7.5s Calculated | 6.1s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 8.4L/100 km28mpg US33.6mpg UK | 4.5L/100 km52.3mpg US62.8mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | - | 5.4L/100 km43.6mpg US52.3mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | - | 4L/100 km58.8mpg US70.6mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 15.7s Calculated | 14.4s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 138hp/t103kW/t63hp/1000 lb Calculated | 141hp/t105kW/t64hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 196Nm/t131lb-ft/ton Calculated | 295Nm/t197lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 952km592mi Calculated | 1,500km932mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,999cc122cu in | 1,969cc120cu in |
| Length | 5,130mm202in | 4,635mm182in |
| Width | 1,899mm75in | 1,865mm73in |
| Height | 1,460mm57in | 1,484mm58in |
| Wheelbase | 3,032mm119in | 2,776mm109in |
| Front track | 1,626mm64in | 1,588mm63in |
| Rear track | 1,604mm63in | 1,585mm62in |
| Ground clearance | - | 136mm5in |
| Trunk volume | - | 380L |
| Doors | 4 | 4 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 80L | 68L |
| CO2 emissions | 199g/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
- Volvo S60 II Facelift 2013 2.0 D5: 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 |
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20132.0 D5 | 4,250 rpm | 1,750-2,500 rpm | 5,000 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | JaguarXJ (X351)Facelift 20152.0 | VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20132.0 D5 |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 7.5 s | 6.1 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 7.9 s | 6.4 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 28.6 s | 22.5 s |
| Top speed | 241 km/h 150 mph | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph Likely limited |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.8 s | 2.6 s |
330 ft 101 m | 7.0 s | 6.5 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 10.4 s | 9.6 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 13.3 s | 12.2 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 15.7 s | 14.4 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 153 km/h 95 mph | 165 km/h 103 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarXJ (X351)Facelift 20152.0 | 240 hp 179 kW |
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20132.0 D5 | 225 hp 168 kW |
Jaguar XJ (X351) Facelift 2015 2.0 has 15 hp more than Volvo S60 II Facelift 2013 2.0 D5.
The biggest power difference is between Volvo S60 II Facelift 2013 2.0 D5 and Jaguar XJ (X351) Facelift 2015 2.0: 15 hp (11 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 |
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20132.0 D5 | 470 Nm 347 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 |
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20132.0 D5 | 1,595 kg 3,516 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 |
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20132.0 D5 | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 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 |
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20132.0 D5 | 6.4 s |
Although Jaguar XJ (X351) Facelift 2015 2.0 has more power, Volvo S60 II Facelift 2013 2.0 D5 is quicker from 0-100 km/h.
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Volvo S60 II Facelift 2013 2.0 D5 and Jaguar XJ (X351) Facelift 2015 2.0: 1.5 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 |
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20132.0 D5 | 4.5 L/100 km 52.3 mpg US 62.8 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Volvo S60 II Facelift 2013 2.0 D5 and Jaguar XJ (X351) Facelift 2015 2.0: 3.9 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 |
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20132.0 D5 | 141 hp/t 105 kW/t 7.1 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 |
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20132.0 D5 | 1,500 km 932 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 |
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20132.0 D5 | 225 hp 168 kW | 6.4 s | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 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 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20132.0 D5 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
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 | ||||||
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20132.0 D5 |
| 4.5 L/100 km 52.3 mpg US 62.8 mpg UK | ||||||
Volvo S60 II Facelift 2013 2.0 D5 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 |
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20132.0 D5 | 4.5 L/100 km 52.3 mpg US 62.8 mpg UK | 6.4 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 |
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20132.0 D5 | 141 hp/t 105 kW/t 7.1 kg/hp | 4.5 L/100 km 52.3 mpg US 62.8 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | JaguarXJ (X351)Facelift 20152.0 | VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20132.0 D5 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 240 hp 179 kW | 225 hp 168 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 340 Nm 251 lb-ft | 470 Nm 347 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 7.9 s | 6.4 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 241 km/h 150 mph | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,735 kg 3,825 lb | 1,595 kg 3,516 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 8.4 L/100 km 28.0 mpg US 33.6 mpg UK | 4.5 L/100 km 52.3 mpg US 62.8 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 952 km 592 mi | 1,500 km 932 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | 199 g/km | - | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | - | 380 L 13.4 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 138 hp/t 103 kW/t 7.2 kg/hp | 141 hp/t 105 kW/t 7.1 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 | Volvo S60 II Facelift 2013 2.0 D5 |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 8.4 L/100 km28 mpg US33.6 mpg UK | 4.5 L/100 km52.3 mpg US62.8 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 14.70 LC100 km | 7.88 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 23.66 LC100 mi | 12.67 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,260 L333 US gal277 UK gal | 675 L178 US gal148 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 2,205 LC/year | 1,181 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Jaguar XJ (X351) Facelift 2015 2.0
- Has 15 hp more
- Has 1 km/h (1 mph) higher top speed
Pros
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
Volvo S60 II Facelift 2013 2.0 D5
- Has 130 Nm more
- Is 140 kg lighter
- Is 1.5 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Uses 3.9 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 3 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Has 548 km (340 mi) more estimated range
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest torque
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best power-to-weight ratio
- Best estimated range
Cons
- Lowest power
- Lowest top speed
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























