Seat Exeo 2012 vs Jaguar XF 2017
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 350 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.6 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
|
Seat Exeo is more dynamic to drive. Seat Exeo engine produces 7 HP more power than Jaguar XF, but torque is 30 NM less than Jaguar XF. Thanks to more power Seat Exeo reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 4.5 | |
|
The Jaguar XF is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Seat Exeo consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jaguar XF, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Seat Exeo could require 135 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1290 km in combined cycle | 1220 km in combined cycle | |
| 1590 km on highway | 1410 km on highway | ||
| Seat Exeo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 460'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Seat Exeo engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Audi A4, Seat Altea, Audi A5, Audi Q5, Seat Leon | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Land Rover Discovery Sport, Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, Jaguar XE | |
| 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. | |||
| 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: | 4.67 m | 4.95 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.88 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.50 m | |
|
Seat Exeo is smaller. Seat Exeo is 29 cm shorter than the Jaguar XF, 11 cm narrower, while the height of Seat Exeo is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 442 litres | 565 litres | |
|
Jaguar XF has more luggage space. Seat Exeo has 123 litres less trunk space than the Jaguar XF. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Seat Exeo is 0.4 metres less than that of the Jaguar XF, which means Seat Exeo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`075 | 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
| |