IF YOU’RE anything like almost every other reader of this magazine, you’ve already skipped ahead to see the individual test scores of these three cars to find out which one is the winner. If you haven’t, feel free to do so now. But, be warned that test scores, track times and performance figures – the cold, hard facts – represent only a part of what this test is all about.
When the CAR team members were pushed to take their sensible trousers off and decide which car they would like to own most, the outcome was very, very different.
This is not a cop-out. Call it subjectivity, the X-factor or emotional appeal; they’re of big importance in this test because the subjects are super saloons – cars that should get the adrenaline pumping even when standing still and make you leave home early for a morning blast. If you simply crave a high-performance saloon, there are plenty of less-hardcore options from which to choose. No, these are super saloons, four-door supercars if you will, and therefore subject to a whole lot of, er, subjectivity, especially when the final scores are so close. The purchasing decision could very well depend on the emotional effect a car has, or lacks.
Visual Delights
The facelifted Jaguar XFR is off to a swift start in this department. Recently updated, from a design perspective the Brit unquestionably remains the most stylish of the three cars. The basic shape has stayed much the same as before, but the front-end has gained far more menacing-looking headlamps with some of the best LED detailing we’ve ever seen on a production car. There are also slight revisions to the rear lamps (dramatic at night) and tweaks to bumpers, airdams, etc. Extravagant 20-inch alloy wheels are standard fitment.
It’s a car with plenty of overtaking presence and one that demands loving final glances when parked.
Inside, however, it shows its age. The facelift has answered some of the trim-quality issues – the buttons are now rubberised and not hard plastic – but, even so, it could do with further improvement, especially around the touchscreen system. We still love the minimalist, ultra-futuristic design and cool detailing, though.
Courtesy of the touch-screen system, there are far fewer buttons than in the two German cars, but don’t think the XFR is sparsely equipped. It is a full-house package at the price, including a magnificent 1 200 W, 17-speaker Bowers & Wilkins audio system, a stitched leather facia, and heated and ventilated front seats, among many other items. You pay extra for items such as folding rear seats, active cruise control, an electric rear sunblind and interactive voice control of some of the infotainment functions. Oh, and the suede roof trim, which is truly superb and was subjected to plenty of fondling. Probably the biggest negative about the XFR’s interior is its relative lack of rear legroom, although this will be a concern to only some.
At first glance, the Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG doesn’t look much different to any other E-Class. Square-faced and devoid of unnecessary frills, the E63 relies on its AMG alloy wheels (18-inches as standard, with the test vehicle’s 19-inches as an option) and quad exhaust outlets to get noticed. Nevertheless, it’s a handsome car and ideal for flying under the radar.
The interior is more special. The small, flat-bottomed AMG steering wheel is beautifully trimmed in leather and metallic inserts, while stainless steel and aluminium trim is smattered over the cabin. A nifty AMG-specific gear selector and a row of buttons on the transmission tunnel allow for the tweaking of the car’s dynamic settings. Plus, the seats are the sportiest of the three. Overall, it’s a very business-like interior and looks like it could last forever.
Visually, the new BMW M5 has tonnes of presence, mostly because it looks so big. Park it next to the XFR and E63 and it appears to dwarf them, especially so on the optional 20-inch wheels that fit flush with the muscular wheelarches. Of course, the usual M-specific details are there, including revised spoilers, side skirts and an integrated rear diffuser but, nevertheless, the M5 doesn’t shout its flagship status as hard as some previous versions.
It’s the same story inside, where the M-upgrades are also subtle. There are M sports seats, Merino leather and some aluminium trim but, because the interior of our test vehicle was almost entirely black, nothing in particular jumped out. In fact, it was quite sombre.
Although its standard specification is reasonable considering the price difference to the E63 AMG, there are quite a few option boxes that remain unticked. Four-zone climate control, heated front seats and a head-up display may be standard, but you pay extra for comfort access, electrically adjustable steering wheel and a variety of electronic assistance systems such as Night Vision, Lane Change Assistant and Surround View cameras. Like the E63 and unlike the XFR, the M5 offers stretch-out space in the back.
On the Road
These three cars (the two Germans in particular) offer such a raft of driver-assistance technologies that extended time in the drivers’ seats is the only way to truly discover their talents and vices. For this reason, the CAR team descended on the Franschhoek Pass and pounded the famous blacktop to get the answers.
The voyage of discovery started the moment engines were fired up at our of ces in Pinelands. The Mercedes’s new 5,5-litre twin-turbo V8 (codenamed M157) starts with a menacing bark before it settles into a suitably muscular V8 idle. The BMW’s smaller 4,4-litre twin-turbo can’t match the Mercedes for initial aural pleasure, but then neither can the Jaguar with its supercharged 5,0-litre V8.
However, starting the Jaguar comes with its own pleasures. As you settle into the seat, a pulsating starter button catches the eye. When pressed, the effortlessly cool Jaguar Drive Selector rises from the transmission tunnel into the palm of your hand, while the circulation vents rotate into their open positions. It is a sideshow, at best, and gimmicky at worst, but always a topic of discussion.
On the highway to Franschhoek, the Jaguar drew first blood. Although every bit as heavy as the other two cars (around two tonnes each), the XFR feels lighter on its, er, paws and more agile, and boasts superb damping. There’s suppleness to its ability to handle changing road surfaces that you simply don’t expect from a super saloon riding on 20-inch wheels. The six-speed automatic transmission may seem archaic compared with the sevenspeed dual-clutch setup of the BMW or Benz’s multi-plate clutch system but, in a cruising context, it works beautifully, with smooth, well-judged shifts. The steering is light, too, but offers reasonable feel. Overall, it’s a car that is both soothing and exciting to drive because, when you start tugging on the manual shift levers or move the transmission selector into S, there is an immediacy and smoothness to its responses that the other two cars struggle to match.
The BMW’s ride is also impressive – especially when judged against its dynamic prowess – but it is nevertheless noticeably former than the Jaguar, especially when the road surface deteriorates. There is also a strangely artificial feel from the steering – almost like a soft, distant force-feedback system from a Sony PlayStation controller. We noticed it on our seems to be a characteristic of the F10 iteration of the M5.
Driving the M5 immediately after the Jaguar highlighted the extra weight in its controls, and some drivers will prefer it that way. But, although you get the sense that this is a car that can do the daily driver duty with ease, it would seemingly prefer being flung around rather than cruising.
The E63, like its CLS63 sibling that we tested alongside the M5 for the January issue, offers a more compliant ride than the BMW. In fact, it is every bit as accomplished on everyday roads as lesser E-Class models, riding with authority and ltering out unwanted noises. What it perhaps lacks to some extent is the harmony of the Jaguar’s controls.
There’s a consistent (albeit light) and progressive weighting to the XFR’s steering, gearbox and pedals that make it feel “plugged-in” to the driver, which the two Germans lack – the E63’s steering is not the quickest, while its brakes are perhaps a bit too sharp and there’s a moment of lag while the turbos spool up. We’re talking fractions, of course. The reality is that any one of these three cars make great, entertaining daily companions.
Power Play
What about that one day a year when pure, hardcore driving enjoyment is the requirement? Can the ageing Jaguar still compete? Judging strictly by the numbers, it doesn’t stand a chance …
Its engine delivers “only” 375 kW and 625 N.m of torque, and is coupled to a six-speed automatic transmission. While we have previously recorded an excellent 0-100 km/h time of 4,66 seconds with a pre-facelift model, this particular XFR could do no better than 5,15 seconds. We suspect the resurfacing of our test strip and the heat on our particular test day (26 degrees Celsius) had some impact. The 1 km sprint took 23,22 seconds, hardly a bad showing. Have a look at the overtaking acceleration gures on page 58 – there’s still plenty of punch left in this drivetrain.
But, it’s when you start tackling the corners and using the gearbox more regularly that cracks start to appear in the XFR’s drivetrain package. While the shifts are generally well judged when tootling along, the gearbox can sometimes take too long to shift down. Switching to sport mode can then unbalance it the other way, with the ‘box hanging onto gears for too long. Lastly, it switches back to auto mode when you haven’t touched the paddles for a while, which can be frustrating. Overall, it just misses the third potential setting that the other cars offer.
The M5’s 4,4-litre, twin-turbo V8 is a gem of an engine, delivering a colossal 412 kW at 6 000 r/min and 680 N.m of torque from as low as 1 500 to 5 750 r/min. It neither suffers from lag nor minds chasing the red line. The way it boosts throughout its rev range is very reminiscent of the Nissan GT-R – the power just seems never-ending and experiencing it in as big a car such as this is quite something.
On the test strip, it scorched to 100 km/h in 4,32 seconds (on the same hot day as the Jaguar) and blitzed the 1 km marker in 22,15 seconds. Now factor in that we achieved that 0-100 km/h figure without the aid of the car’s launch-control system, which would not engage on the day, and you have to say the M5 is a staggering achievement.
The transmission is superb, too, offering super-quick shifting even under full throttle. It can’t be further removed from the dismal SMG ‘box used by the previousgeneration M5 even if it tried. But we do have some concerns. In our January issue test, we reported that the M5 had gone into “limp mode” (as did the CLS63 AMG) on its second hot lap of Kyalami. At first we thought that the glitch was engine-oil-temperature related. However, BMW has subsequently informed us that it was the transmission that went into self-protect mode. During this second test, the M5 once again had a few “limping” moments, first on the dyno during its second run and then four more times during low-speed runs on the Franschhoek Pass. At the time of going to press, BMW was still investigating the problem. Add the launch-control issue, however, and we are led
to suspect another transmission-related problem, although BMW suspects a DSC issue on this car. That said, during the hard-driving sections of the test, the M5’s gearbox was faultless.
The E63 may sound like it goes the fastest, but is pipped by the M5 in all measurable terms. Its 386 kW/700 N.m engine is a bit laggier than the BMW’s and it does struggle to put all that torque on the road. Even with launch control engaged, the best we could manage was 4,98 seconds. It wasn’t much slower to the kilometre marker, though, with a time of 22,9 seconds. In all overtaking acceleration sectors, the M5 was faster. Subjectively, it felt the same from behind the steering wheel, which wasn’t the case with the livelier CLS63 AMG tested earlier.
Similarly, the E63’s seven-speed ‘box is also nearly a match of the Beemer’s, but not quite. Firstly, there’s perhaps a bit too much resistance in the shift pedals, so it demands concentration to pull them with enough force to engage shifts. More importantly, the ‘box is not as responsive as the BMW’s (even if its sport plus mode is extremely well judged). Some testers also noted that it took time to build a rhythm with the Mercedes, especially when it came to matching shift points to the engine’s power-delivery characteristics.
In the Bends
Let’s start with the BMW because it offers the greatest number of driver-selectable dynamic settings. Positioned neatly around the transmission lever are buttons that allow you to tailor the steering, throttle, suspension and stability systems. The selected combination is then neatly displayed at the bottom of the speedometer.
Alternatively, you can set up two pre-selected combinations and access them by pressing buttons on the steering wheel marked M1 and M2. Because of the bewildering number of options, you must be prepared to experiment.
One of the most important pieces of the M5’s technological package is its Active M Differential, an electronically controlled, multiplate, limited-slip differential that enables fully variable distribution of torque between the rear wheels to optimise traction and stability. It can vary the degree of lock between 0 and 100 percent according to the situation.
The Mercedes doesn’t offer a limited slip-diff as standard (that costs R27 700 extra, if specified), but does come with its own take on the driver-selectable dynamics menu. The most attention-grabbing button is the one marked AMG that calls up a pre-selected combination of settings in a similar way to BMW’s M1 and M2 buttons.
The E63 makes use of Mercedes’s AMG Ride Control sports suspension with electronically controlled damping. Steel suspension is used at the front and air-suspension at the rear. Left to its own devices, the system monitors the driving situation, speed and load status, and automatically reduces the road angle of the body. Alternatively, the driver can select from comfort, sport and sport plus settings. Sport, for example, is on average around 40 percent firmer than comfort.
The transmission can also be tailored – using a rotary switch on the transmission tunnel – by selecting comfort, sport, sport plus or manual settings. In manual mode, the transmission will not shift automatically, even if the driver has stopped using the shift levers behind the steering wheel.
Getting into the Jaguar after the tech-overload of the BMW and Mercedes is quite a relief. There are few buttons to fiddle with. In fact, you only have to move the gear selector from D to S and potentially press a button imprinted with a chequered ag if you really want to push on and have fun. The lack of driver-selected settings does not mean the Jaguar is a low-tech product, just that the systems (Adaptive Dynamics and Active Differential Control) are doing their jobs without driver interference. Adaptive Dynamics simply adjusts the damper settings to suit the prevailing road conditions and driving style, while the electronically-controlled Active Differential Control system tries to replicate the characteristics of an actual mechanical locking rear differential.
What does the tech translate to?
Well, to put it simply, a resounding victory for the BMW if you want to get where you’re going the quickest. The M5’s underpinnings generate massive grip while keeping the car’s hefty body level during cornering. The brakes (400 mm vented discs in front and 396 mm vented discs at the rear) are strong, too, even though the car’s brake pedal started to feel long and soggy by the end of the test. Nevertheless, it achieved an excellent average emergency stopping time of 2,88 seconds.
Once you’ve found your rhythm with this car, the experience can leave you breathless, as there appears to be both a neverending supply of grip and equally seemingly limitless reserves of power, the combination of which pushes the driver to go harder and faster. To put it very simply, it would take a very accomplished driver to discover the limits of this car and enjoy taking it there. For the average driver, the M5 may be an extremely daunting challenge.
This is where the E63 could have an ace up its sleeve. While it can’t match the M5’s ultimate limits of performance and grip, it does maket the fun part of the experience more accessible, mostly because it has less grip but almost as much power, so the moment where it reaches its limits is communicated at lower speeds and cornering forces. It is slightly more prone to understeer than the M5 and also more likely to let the tail hang out on exiting a corner. In other words, the recognisable traits of a car being driven on its limit will be more obvious to less talented drivers. That said, it runs the M5 surprisingly close around a racing circuit (see On the track on page 56) and is by no means a ragged handler. The E63’s brakes may be smaller than the M5’s, measuring 360 mm allround, but they performed the best in this group, with an average stopping time from 100 km/h in 2,77 seconds.
And the XFR? Although it feels the lightest and most agile, it lacks the grip of the two Germans, which, in addition to its relative lack of grunt, means it will struggle to keep up. It also lags the others in terms of braking performance, with an average stopping time of 2,96 seconds. However, for those unconcerned by lap times and ultimate cornering ability, the XFR may still strike the best compromise between everyday comfort and pace, and the occasional blast.
TEST SUMMARY
The scores are clear for all to see – only five points separate all three vehicles.
The Jaguar XFR may finish with the lowest score but, when we asked testers to select the car they’d most like to own, it surprisingly got more votes than the M5! The Jaguar remains an effortlessly classy super saloon yet offers more than enough performance and dynamic fun for the majority of potential buyers. The fact that it got the take-home nod from so many testers is testament to its emotional appeal. From the visual (its looks), to the aural (its sound) and even to the touch (that suede rooflining), the XFR has a multi-layered appeal that makes up for its ultimate power and grip deficiencies. Plus, it’s almost a quarter of a million rand cheaper than the Mercedes.
Talking of which; in its latest guise, the E63 AMG runs the M5 closer than any AMG has ever done before. In most respects, it loses out by only fractions, yet claws back points for its extremely likeable personality, which has much to do with the way it sounds and with the way it makes the fun part of driving these cars fast more easily accessible than the M5. The fact that the largest percentage of the test team voted for it as their choice if money was no object is testament to this fact.
But, at R1 257 000, it is simply too expensive. If Mercedes could offer the Performance Pack and limited-slip differential as standard, the M5 would have a really big problem.
But, as it stands and at the price, the M5 is the best car here. It may not tug at the heartstrings as immediately and as hard as the Jaguar and Mercedes-Benz but, then again, it may to some. It depends very much on the desires and character of the potential owner. One thing’s for sure, however: that owner will need to be a very capable driver to discover the M5’s incredible depths of ability. The question, therefore, is not whether the M5 will be good enough for you, but whether you will be good enough for the M5.
