Jaguar XF 2017 vs Kia Optima 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 250 HP | 245 HP | |
| Torque: | 365 NM | 353 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.1 seconds | 7.6 seconds | |
|
Jaguar XF is more dynamic to drive. Jaguar XF engine produces 5 HP more power than Kia Optima, whereas torque is 12 NM more than Kia Optima. Thanks to more power Jaguar XF reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.6 l/100km | 9.2 l/100km | |
|
By specification Jaguar XF consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Kia Optima, which means that by driving the Jaguar XF over 15,000 km in a year you can save 210 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Jaguar XF consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Kia Optima. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 800 km in combined cycle | 850 km in combined cycle | |
| 930 km on highway | 1140 km on highway | ||
| 570 km with real consumption | 760 km with real consumption | ||
| Kia Optima gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Kia Optima) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Jaguar XF) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Jaguar F-Type, Jaguar XE, Jaguar E-Pace | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Hyundai Santa FE, Kia Sportage, Hyundai Sonata, Kia Sorento, Hyundai i30 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Kia Optima might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Jaguar XF engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.95 m | 4.86 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.86 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Jaguar XF is larger. Jaguar XF is 10 cm longer than the Kia Optima, 2 cm wider, while the height of Jaguar XF is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 565 litres | 552 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1686 litres | |
| Jaguar XF has 13 litres more trunk space than the Kia Optima. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Jaguar XF is 0.7 metres more than that of the Kia Optima, which means Jaguar XF can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`290 | 2`190 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 15 200 | 16 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Jaguar XF has
|
Kia Optima has
| |