Jaguar XF 2017 vs Kia Optima 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.7 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 180 HP | 141 HP | |
| Torque: | 430 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.8 seconds | 11.1 seconds | |
|
Jaguar XF is more dynamic to drive. Jaguar XF engine produces 39 HP more power than Kia Optima, whereas torque is 90 NM more than Kia Optima. Thanks to more power Jaguar XF reaches 100 km/h speed 2.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.6 | 4.6 | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 66 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1430 km in combined cycle | 1520 km in combined cycle | |
| 1600 km on highway | 1660 km on highway | ||
| 1000 km with real consumption | 1070 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: | 9 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, Jaguar XE, Land Rover Discovery Sport | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Hyundai Sonata, Hyundai Tucson, Hyundai i40 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Jaguar XF might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.95 m | 4.86 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.86 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.47 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 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 565 litres | 553 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1686 litres | |
| Jaguar XF has 12 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`320 | 2`150 | |
| 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
| |