2003 Subaru R2 vs. 2012 Jaguar XF
To start off, 2012 Jaguar XF is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Subaru R2. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Subaru R2 would be higher. At 3,000 cc (6 cylinders), 2012 Jaguar XF is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Jaguar XF (271 HP) has 227 more horse power than 2003 Subaru R2. (44 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Jaguar XF should accelerate faster than 2003 Subaru R2.
Because 2012 Jaguar XF is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2012 Jaguar XF. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Subaru R2, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2012 Jaguar XF (600 Nm) has 542 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Subaru R2. (58 Nm). This means 2012 Jaguar XF will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Subaru R2.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Subaru R2 | 2012 Jaguar XF | |
| Make | Subaru | Jaguar |
| Model | R2 | XF |
| Year Released | 2003 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Hatchback | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 658 cc | 3000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 44 HP | 271 HP |
| Torque | 58 Nm | 600 Nm |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 3400 mm | 4961 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1480 mm | 1877 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1530 mm | 1461 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2370 mm | 2908 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 30 L | 70 L |
