Falcon G6E Turbo vs. XF 4.2 vs. E500

[omicron]

It's an old truism that the more money you have, the more you spend. If this wasn?t the way of the world, then the expensive inner suburbs would be empty, everyone would dress in Target gear and nobody would waste their hard-earned on flat-screen TVs and iPods.

Manufacturers of expensive cars would have a hard time too; why would anyone buy a Porsche 911 when a Hyundai Getz does 90 percent of the job ? usually driving to work and back ? just as well? In reality, there are a lot of companies out there taking money to the bank and thanking their lucky stars that the concept of objectivity often doesn?t apply to purchasing decisions, especially when easy credit is available.

Objectivity is one good reason these cars have been brought together here, despite the fact that, on face value, it?s a mismatch of epic proportions. At one end of the scale is a Ford Falcon, albeit the range-topping G6E Turbo costing around $55,000. At the other, a Mercedes-Benz E500 costing $170,000 (about 200 percent more). In between, but still towards the upper end, is the new Jaguar XF in 4.2-litre V8 form. A Merc and a Jaguar versus a Falcon? Surely we must be joking?



Well, no. Apply the objectivity filter and there?s every chance that one or more of these cars is an imposter. You may have already read that we found the G6E Turbo wickedly fast, refined (especially its drivetrain), well equipped, roomy and even relatively efficient. It deserves to go up against the E500 which, incidentally, is our reigning large-lux champion after beating the Holden Calais V V8 and the BMW 550i in a comparison a couple of years ago (November ?06).

The Jaguar XF is also an impressive new arrival that deserves inclusion. There are V6 petrol and diesel versions available for $108,350 each and a range-topping supercharged version ? the SV8 ? at $173,170. We chose the $134,830 4.2-litre V8 Premium Luxury.

A sleek sedan that brings newfound presence to Jaguar showrooms, the XF marks a clear departure from the olde worlde lines of the S-Type it replaces. Its rear window is laid almost flat towards a short boot-lid, its tail-light and quarter-panel treatment resembles an Aston Martin?s and there?s a prominent version of the cheese-grater grille up front teamed with dominant, multi-contour headlamps. It looks good.



By contrast, the E500 sports a more conservative exterior, or is that simply a perception because we?re accustomed to a shape that looks much as it did (despite a mild visual upgrade last year) when it was launched in 2002? Under the skin much more has changed, most notably the adoption of a stonking 285kW (382hp) 5.5-litre V8 mated to a seven-speed auto, and Airmatic suspension, which is now standard. Without heading north towards the hi-po E63 AMG, this is the premium Mercedes-Benz E-Class.

In terms of outputs, it?s well matched with the Ford. The new turbo system that also graces the XR6T gives the G6E Turbo?s 4.0-litre straight six a hefty boost, lifting power to 270kW (363hp) and torque to 533Nm (394lb-ft), which pips the Benz by a few Newton metres and puts the Jag?s 411Nm (303lb-ft) and 219kW (294hp) in the shade. The G6 also has a six-speed auto (a ZF unit, shared with the XF) and complex, multi-link rear suspension. In fundamental hardware terms, the Falcon?s bargain argument is solid.

The G6E Turbo isn?t lacking in raw performance either. It was unfortunate that our test track wasn?t completely dry ? this was Melbourne in winter, after all ? so acceleration times couldn?t match those achieved earlier this year. Still, after a ginger launch on slightly slippery tarmac, the big Falcon hooked up, hit 100km/h in 5.8 seconds, and rocketed past 400 metres in 14 seconds dead, wheel-spinning on slippery patches well past the 100km/h mark. Not long ago we would have hailed such figures as the stuff of a true muscle car.



The extra grunt in the Mercedes made it just as difficult to launch. Yet despite its added weight, the E500 virtually matched the swift Ford and there?s no doubt its 0-100km/h time of 5.9sec and 14.1sec sprint to 400m could be bettered in the dry. This is clearly anything other than a big, soft, luxo barge. Thanks to one of the most fluent automatic transmissions in existence, that hard-charging acceleration is delivered with polish, too.

The XF V8 also proved to be a refined beast, upshifting seamlessly on full throttle, but something was missing. Lots of traction and less weight couldn?t make up for a lack of bottom-end grunt from its relatively small-capacity, naturally aspirated V8. Wheelspin off the line wasn?t a problem, but getting rapidly into stride was: the XF managed 0-100km/h in 6.8sec and hit 400m in 14.9. It felt relatively slow.

Perversely, as it often happens, the XF was in many ways the better car both in traffic and on the open road. The V8 might lack low-rev torque, but it is sweet and smooth and the auto slurs into its higher ratios and kicks down to just the right gear on demand. The chassis balance is superb with nicely weighted and communicative steering matched by that grippy rear end for handling that urges the driver onwards, and delivers more and more on demand. Better still are the deliciously supple ride and well-controlled body movement, making the XF 4.2 a very convincing blend of luxury car and sports sedan.



The E500 feels more ungainly, mainly because of steering that reacts sharply on turn-in, combined with a fair degree of bodyroll when the suspension is set to its softest setting: it?s a combination that gives the impression of slight instability that isn?t helped by sudden bursts of torque from the lightest throttle application, and the ESP?s tendency to interact early. Become accustomed to this nervousness and things begin to roll nicely. Boot the throttle and there?s performance aplenty, the seven-speed auto quickly learns whether you?re serious or not and shifts accordingly (and also offers pre-selected comfort, sport or manual shift modes) and the ride never wavers from being plush and soft, or slightly firmer but still supple on the air suspension?s harder settings. The overall impression is of a limo that pampers passengers but, in V8 E500 guise, one with a heart of iron.

It is easy to pick flaws with the G6E when stepping into it from these higher priced competitors. There?s the noise, with more rumble generated from the road, more wind rustle from the A-pillars and an engine that is comparatively gruff. Its ride is less composed than either of the Europeans (especially the Jag) with a harsher reaction to high-frequency bumps and more float from the rear end over longer undulations. Driven through a succession of tighter corners where the driver is on and off the throttle, there?s evident turbo-lag that can catch the transmission out.

Nevertheless, the overall impression of the luxo Falcon is very positive. Performance is available in abundance; maximum torque is on tap from 2000rpm, and our test figures show in-gear acceleration from 80-100km/h pips the V8 Benz. The front end has real bite in corners and the six-speed auto quickly adapts to your driving style. Yes, the ride quality and lack of refinement mark this as a lower class of car, but definitely not to the degree the price difference would suggest.

The XF?s smaller engine capacity nets it better fuel consumption; its overall test figure was 13.6L/100km (17.29mpg), compared with 14.0 (16.8mpg) for the G6E and 14.4 (16.3mpg) for the big Benz. We suspect this gap would widen farther in favour of the Jag in city-based driving.



The XF?s exterior oozes style, and the interior follows suit. Jaguar?s usual slabs of timber laminate have been downsized, largely replaced by metal trim. Flick the pulsing, red-lit start button (no need to insert the key) and a rotary dial in place of a normal shift lever rises from the centre console and the air vents swivel open. Even the glovebox has a pressure switch, and the interior lighting is operated by touch pads.

It may all sound a bit too Doctor Who, but the actual impression is of innovation and most of it does function well. The Jaguar?s transmission dial is intuitive, even when constantly switching from drive to reverse in tight parking manoeuvres. The touch screen for navigation, stereo, ventilation and other functions is far easier to learn than the Merc?s complex combination of buttons and sub-menus. Add a low, snug, driving position and the ambience is of a high-tech cockpit where electronics aid functionality rather than impair it.

Then the packaging issues, especially aft of the XF?s front seats, begin to emerge. Make no mistake, this is a large car. The figures show the XF to be virtually as long as the G6E and about 100mm longer than the E500. Yet its sloping rear glass contributes to a lack of rear seat head- and leg-room, and to making its boot opening small, and its capacity around 30 litres less than the others.



No such issues in either the Merc or Ford. The German car finishes in front on practicality thanks to an upright rear seat, generous leg room and deep boot, even if that is achieved with a space-saver spare (the Ford gets a full-size spare). But that could be explained by the fact the Merc runs different hoops front to rear.

The gulf between equipment levels is huge, however. Our $167,668 E500 came in Avantgarde trim ($2670 extra) with a further Premium package (now standard equipment) that includes radar cruise control, ventilated seats and keyless entry and ignition.

Obviously the G6E is no stripper model ? equipment such as reversing camera, Bluetooth connectivity, MP3 auxiliary jacks and sophisticated ESP are all standard, and welcome additions that weren?t available on top-line, Aussie-built cars only a few years ago. And it?s also a practical, comfortable car to be in despite lacking some of the bells and whistles of the others.



So on performance, available space and especially affordability, the G6E Turbo should win this comparison hands down. It goes hard and has engine flexibility to go with the power. The ride quality is acceptable, it?s well equipped for the price and four can travel in comfort and style.

But is it the best car? No, not in this company: the E500 has abundantly more equipment and luxury, equals the Ford?s performance, and betters it on ride and overall refinement. The Jaguar, meanwhile, emerges as a very well-balanced package on the driving front. While ultimately lacking performance, it doesn?t suffer on the road, and in fact has the best combination of ride and handling of the trio. It?s a lovely car to drive and be in, and if rear-seat passengers are a little less well off in the quest for style, that isn?t such a terrible trade-off.

What it gets down to is this: even with access to large amounts of money, you?d still be wise to choose the XF V8 and save $30,000 over the Merc. Or perhaps opt for performance, and buy the XF SV8 for similar money to the Benz. But the objective reasons not to save a six-figure sum and buy the excellent G6E Turbo are few, and anybody in the market for luxury and performance who ignores this car is crazy.



http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/Road_Tests/Ford+G6E+Turbo+v+Jag+XF+4.2+v+Merc+E500.html?open&template=domWheels&fullarticle=yes

[cawimmer430]

That Ford looks pretty good. Sort of like a Euro Mondeo that has been widened, lowered and made sportier. 

The XF 4.2 V8 seems a little "weak" when compared to its competition, especially the equally premium Mercedes E500. But then again it would probably compete more with a theoretical E450 from an engine perspective, had Mercedes' offered that car.

[TBR]

Yeah, considering the price of the E500 I would have thought they would have used the supercharged XF.

[SVT666]

The Ford is hot.