Real Jaguar F-Pace fuel consumption
Jaguar F-Pace real fuel consumption by user reviews is approximately 39% higher compared to official consumption. For petrol engines real consumption is in average 30% higher, but for diesel engines is approximately 47% higher.
See below for the actual consumption of each generation and version.
See below for the actual consumption of each generation and version.
2015
Jaguar F-Pace 2015
Average real petrol consumption difference: +30% Average real diesel consumption difference: +47%
Real and specified fuel consumption and differences for specific Jaguar F-Pace versions are shown in the table below.
| Modification | Fuel | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0Jaguar F-Pace 2017 2.0t 250 HP AT 4x4 | Petrol | 7.4 l/100km | 9.4 l/100km+27% |
| 2.0Jaguar F-Pace 2017 2.0t 250 HP AT | Petrol | 7.1 l/100km | 9.4 l/100km+32% |
| 2.0Jaguar F-Pace 2019 2.0 25t 250 HP AT 4x4 | Petrol | ||
| 2.0Jaguar F-Pace 2017 2.0t 300 HP AT 4x4 | Petrol | 7.7 l/100km | |
| 2.0Jaguar F-Pace 2019 2.0 30t 300 HP AT 4x4 | Petrol | ||
| 2.0Jaguar F-Pace 2019 E-Performance 2.0d 163 HP MT | Diesel | ||
| 2.0Jaguar F-Pace 2015 2.0 D 180 HP AT 4x4 | Diesel | 5.3 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km+36% |
| 2.0Jaguar F-Pace 2015 2.0d 180 HP MT 4x4 | Diesel | 5.2 l/100km | |
| 2.0Jaguar F-Pace 2015 2.0d 180 HP MT | Diesel | 4.9 l/100km | |
| 2.0Jaguar F-Pace 2017 2.0d 180 HP AT | Diesel | 5.1 l/100km | 7.3 l/100km+43% |
| 2.0Jaguar F-Pace 2017 2.0d 240 HP AT 4x4 | Diesel | 5.8 l/100km | |
| 3.0Jaguar F-Pace 2015 3.0 340 HP AT 4x4 | Petrol | 8.9 l/100km | |
| 3.0Jaguar F-Pace 2015 3.0 S/C 380 HP AT 4x4 | Petrol | 8.9 l/100km | |
| 3.0Jaguar F-Pace 2015 3.0 D AT 4x4 | Diesel | 6.0 l/100km | 9.8 l/100km+63% |
| 5.0Jaguar F-Pace 2015 5.0 S/C AT 4x4 | Petrol | 11.9 l/100km |
Real fuel consumption of other carmakers
The fuel consumption reported by users does not reflect the experience of all users, may be selective (depending on the driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the car and other circumstances) and should therefore not be taken as a representative indicator.