Volkswagen Passat CC 2012 vs Jaguar XF 2015
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 180 HP | |
| Torque: | 350 NM | 430 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.6 seconds | 8.1 seconds | |
|
Jaguar XF is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Passat CC engine produces 10 HP less power than Jaguar XF, whereas torque is 80 NM less than Jaguar XF. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Passat CC reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 4.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Jaguar XF is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Passat CC consumes 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jaguar XF, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volkswagen Passat CC could require 180 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Passat CC consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jaguar XF. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volkswagen Passat CC) 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: | 420'000 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 Volkswagen Passat CC engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Sharan, Audi A3, Skoda Superb | 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 2015 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 2015 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | no data | 4.95 m | |
| Width: | no data | 1.99 m | |
| Height: | no data | 1.46 m | |
| Trunk capacity: | 532 litres | 540 litres | |
| Volkswagen Passat CC has 8 litres less trunk space than the Jaguar XF. | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`970 | 2`250 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 15 400 | 21 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Passat CC has
|
Jaguar XF has
| |