Seat Exeo 2012 vs Jaguar XF 2017
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 143 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 9.4 seconds | |
| Seat Exeo engine produces 20 HP less power than Jaguar XF, whereas torque is 60 NM less than Jaguar XF. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | no data | 4.5 | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 55 litres | |
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Seat Exeo) 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. | |||
| Jaguar XF 2017 2.0 engine: This engine is known for its relatively limited lifespan. In early production models, balance shaft bearings wore out quickly and started making noise. The chain-driven timing system, located on the flywheel ... More about Jaguar XF 2017 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | no data | 4.95 m | |
| Width: | no data | 1.88 m | |
| Height: | no data | 1.50 m | |
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 565 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`260 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 6000 | 14 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Seat Exeo has
|
Jaguar XF has
| |