IL Track Tested: 2009 BMW 550i vs. 2010 Jaguar XF

Jaguar is for those who don't want to be just another 5-Series driver in a sea of Bimmers. But I'd still go for the Bimmer.

Call me partial because I have a 4.2L S-type. But I'd say for the $7k difference, the XF is a much better buy. Warmer interior, better ride quality (and I have ridden in a 550i sport), probably the same feature content, and negligible handling difference. Not to mention the relative rarity compared to the BMW, and less controversial interior and exterior styling elements.

Billt9, they are different class of cars. Your comparison is like comparing a marathon runner and a 100-meter sprinter and saying wow marathon runner is so slow.

385 horses , newer technology and still cant beat a bimmer (if u look at the numbers closely) which was designed before it went in to production around 2000-2002??? so basically it took Jag 10 years to catch up almost where BMW is here now...what will Jag do when 2011 F10 5 Series come out next year...ooops I forgot they will run out of money for R&D by then, and hence Check Mate Jag from the Bimmer~

I'd rather have the 4.2 s'charged as the new 5.0 is over half a second slower.

The handling differences has more to do with the overly intrusive DSC on the XF. Jaguar is working on a better version. That and the XF weighs considerably more than the BMW.

I doubt the Jag's V8 redlines at 7400rpm. That has to be wrong. Also, that acceleration seems slow for a car with this much power.

1487, remember how much they weight! A Pontiac G8 GT is about the same weight, with 361 horses and it is close in acceleration (~5.5 and 13.8). Gearing can also make the difference. But yes, 7400 rpm sounds rather high to me too.

@1487: You're right, it's actually 6,800, now fixed. Still higher than you might expect for a big Jag V8 though.

Ed

Pretty remarkable that compared to the XF with similar body weight, the bimmer has pretty much no bodyroll present. Awesome car if u have 70 grand liquid

I thought we were supposed to compare performance sedans to the M3:
http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2009/04/il-track-tested-2009-bmw-m3-sedan-vs-2009-pontiac-g8-gxp.html

snkpkp... Considering that not long ago Jaguars were one of the lowest quality, least reliable cars that you could buy, I think Jaguar has come a long way. (I know the critics loudly proclaim that Ford ownership diluted the marque, but I ask: Without Ford ownership, would there still have been a marque to dilute?)

I think the Jag did commendable in this test, considering its mission to coddle (leave the canyon carving for the XFR) and the inability to defeat the electronic nannies. It would be nice to see what it's capable of if you could disable everything.

There is almost a 200 lb difference between these cars tested. It's funny how Edmunds 0-60 times are usually so much slower than any other website or magazine too.

I commend Jaguar for seriously stepping their game up, however, the current 5 is in its last year of production and like previous generations, the 5 Series seems to get better with each generation.I'm sure BMW will implement the much more powerful 4.4TT in the 2010 BMW 550i and wait for the others to catch up.

If I had to pick between the current 2009 550i and the 2010 Jaguar XF Id pick....neither. Id save some cash and purchase a 535i Sport 6MT, implement a few after market parts and blow both of these cars out of the water. I could also purchase a heavily optioned CTS-V 6MT between the price of these 2 but Ill be fair since these versions aren't the high performance variants. 535i 6MT Sport for me!

i agree with hondaacura

cts-v costs the same or less and kicks the garbage out of these AND their higher priced performance variants...

i think these acceleration times are slower because of the green engines (1200), it usually takes 4-7k miles to break a new engine in...

Still, acceleration and skidpad numbers are a little low

example: my 1999 BMW 540auto weighs 3700lbs, has 282hp (old SAE ratings, not the new ones) has 324ft-lbs and does 0-60 w/o rollout in about 6.5 sec, these things have another 100hp!!

skidpad .83, slalom in 63mph, these cars are NOT worth 70k, id buy a 535i or a cts-v for that matter

Yeah $70k for the 550i is about $10k too dear when the CTS-V is available for the same money. Better interior and better performance- its a no brainer. I would get the XF over the 550i just because its more exclusive and has a better interior.

Ditto on CTS-V, if outright performance is the goal. But these are trying to be big comfy powerful sedans that can hustle when needed, not sports cars. I'd love to drive both and see if I prefer the feel of one over the other. On paper, they look pretty evenly matched, so based on reading alone, I'd take the XF. Prettier, newer, less common, and less expensive.

Having said that, I'm kinda old school and still really dig the XJ which can also be had for the same money. It's not the fastest, but it's the most "Jag-u-ah" of them all.

In a performance test, there's no question the CTS-V would whip either of these, but I don't think either of these cars is built for pure performance. The quality problems with the CTS's bits and pieces have been numerous, and that alone would exclude it in the eyes of many buyers in the market for either the XF or the 550i.

CTS-V with Magnetic Ride Control also shouldn't be far down on these on comfort, either. BMW 550i is pretty much a lame duck until they stuff the 4.4L twin-turbo in it.

As far as I can tell, these cars offer slightly better interiors, a few electronic baubles, and an exclusive badge to justify their prices.

Compare these cars to a Pontiac G8 GT or a Hyundai Genesis and you have to ask where all the extra money goes when you buy a BMW and Jaguar.

I don't get it. I don't get the appeal of paying 2X for nothing but snob appeal. Then again, I don't don't understand why anyone would buy a Rolex that keeps time no better than a $50 quartz watch and looks no better to boot. I guess it really is just about snob appeal.

^^ usa1, don't forget they are costlier to maintain, too! Why do people pay $200,000 to join a country club? Exclusivity, and greener grass!

If I was considering a CTS-V, I would not also consider either of these two, different beasts. AS far as these cars go though, I don't know how you could ignore how gorgeous the XF is. Additionally, I would never consider a 550, in my opinion, there is no reason to go above the 535 in the 5 series range.

jederino, that's one thing the BMW does not cost is maintenance, at least for the first 50K miles. All BMWs include 4 yr/50K mi maintenance free, during which time all you pay for is tires. The next 50K miles likely costs a pretty penny though.

I like what Jaguar is doing, but I'd still "trust" BMW to provide a sportier, more comfortable, and most importantly more reliable car, so I'd choose a 550i, which is a full-size (not mid-size like the 3 series) sedan over the barely mid-size jaguar GT XF, which has yet to prove it's mettle against the biggest players in the field..

1speedbike, Jaguar had been the most reliable European brand for several years now and in the top ten of all car companies in most reliability surveys. CR doesn't count because they don't always report facts and continue to list problems that have long been fixed years earlier.

I'm surprised that they aren't faster in a straight line. Then again the weight continues to creep up even on these cars every year.

1speedbike, seriously, you're already at Edmunds.com, it's not hard to do a tiny bit of research before making the statement that the 550i is "full-size" and the XF is "barely mid-size"

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2009/bmw/5series/101085273/VehicleComparison?basestyleid=101085273&styleid=101148864&maxvehicles=5&refid=&op=3&tab=specs

The XF is 4 inches longer than the 550i and other than that the differences between them come down to fractions of an inch. FYI, the 550i is essentially exactly the same size as the CTS, which very few people would consider "full-size."

@fuhteng,

the G8 GT's actually a little quicker(5.3, 13.5), but the point is valid. I think the difference is the larger displacement leads to more torque, makes for a meatier low-to-mid range. Like the comment for the 550 says,
"this engine doesn't have much down low. Upshifts are very smooth and not especially quick."

I will admit though, that I expected the 550 to be a bit quicker with 275's(!) in the back.

a few weeks ago I saw a car and thought to myself, WOW! these new Saturns look good. Then I passed it up and saw the badge with huge dissapointment.