Jaguar I-PACE Test Drive Review – Much Praise, Just One Drawback

JUN 27 2018 BY MARK KANE 38

Jaguar I-PACE was very well received in a recent test drive review by Autocar, which valuated the I-PACE at a strong 4.5/5.

Jaguar I-Pace

The first electric Jaguar has a fairly unique body style that makes it impossible to assign to any particular type, like SUV, for example.

With long-range of 480 km (298 miles) WLTP using a 90 kWh battery and 294 kW system output (dual-motor all-wheel drive with Jaguar’s in-house developed permanent magnet type electric motors) the I-PACE can accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) in 4.8 seconds.

On the exterior, the I-PACE is art, while the interior provides plenty of space both in the front and rear, especially given its medium outward size. Seats are comfortable and the infotainment layout combines a touchscreen with physical buttons.

Autocar says that the I-PACE is designed with verve and elegance. The fit and finish is a strong point of the car. Also, the trunk capacity (656-litre) is considered spacious.

The cool thing is that Jaguar provided a lot of settings that for example enables the driver to use or turn off creep mode acceleration (Tesla offers the choice here too). There is also an option to tune the sensitivity of the throttle or regenerative braking power (it’s possible to drive using a single pedal most of the time).

The car is quick, drives smooth and quiet and overtaking is described as brilliant.

Autocar finds one major drawback – the weight of 2,208 kg, which makes the I-PACE feel heavy like it is.

Jaguar I-Pace

“We’ve tried this car in ridiculous places: through a riverbed, because it can wade 500mm; and up a steep gravel hill, where an electric four-wheel drive system shows huge potential, because it can stop and go at will and put as much or little torque as it wants to any corner.

And on a race circuit, where trailing the brakes (or, more realistically, a combo of the brakes and the front motor) means the car rotates nicely into a corner. Then when you come back on the power, it’s metered out pleasingly. The weight keeps it from being a real driver’s car, but it’s impressive.

It’s impressive on the road, too, where it’s very quiet, although you can turn up or down the enhanced ‘whoosh’ noise it makes under acceleration.

Drawbacks? There’s the ride, inevitably. There’s great weight distribution and a low centre of mass, but the perennial EV problem is that there’s so bloody much of it. This is a 2208kg car before you stick any options on it. The low centre of gravity means roll control is good, but you’re aware of body movements, and the will to control it means it’s sometimes unsettled.”

Other than that, the Jaguar I-PACE was called the best BEV. Well, we would complain a little bit about the on-board charging, which is only single-phase 7 kW, while in most European countries there are plenty of three-phase 22 kW charging stations. Of course, there is capability to use CCS Combo DC charging (up to around 100 kW) too.

Jaguar I-PACE on & off-road driving:

Bonus: Jaguar Unlock & Learn – Episode 1 The New All Electric I PACE

Source: Autocar

Categories: Jaguar, Test Drives


Leave a Reply

38 Comments on "Jaguar I-PACE Test Drive Review – Much Praise, Just One Drawback"

newest oldest most voted

I might be an outlier but I *like* the fact the EVs are heavier than equivalent ICE powered vehicles. Mass is your friend in a multi-vehicle accident. Here in the land of distracted drivers piloting dreadnought class pickup trucks and SUVs I want mass on my side.

Mass is your friend, only if the frame holds up.
On the flip side, mass means less fun driving dynamics. Which is why SUV’s aren’t really “sport” utility vehicles. Just glorified trucks, with lower federal safety regulations.

Mass must have been Porsche’s friend with the Panamera, since their PHEV is heavier than I-Pace despite having ~1/8th the battery size.

“Glorified trucks” is not how these things handle!! ICE makers have reason to achieve ground clearance in their low-tech guzzlers, in the U.S. Battery skateboards can take up that space, without having to fear the slightly more aggressive passenger car emissions requirements (CAFE).

That is old school thinking… higher mass brings more energy into an accident, and that does not always mean the heavier car is safer, the vehicle engineering matters much more then the mass… case in point, see the recent head on collision between a Chevrolet Bolt and a taller, much heavier Silverado. The Silverado passengers sustained fatal injuries, where as the Bolt driver lived.

Again using a very specific test case.. And not the style of or the engineering type of the cars that are in this conversation. I hardly compare a modern Camry or Equiv, to a 2009 smart for 2, when it comes to crash analysis. Nowadays automakers use Finite Element analysis, and they know exactly where the crash loads are going through the structure, so they can engineer out the weak points. a decade or more ago, this tech was in its infancy and nowhere near as widely used as today.

Nonsense. More mass means you have to lose more energy in an accident.

It’s not as simple as that. What really matters in the end is not absolute energy involved, but rate of deceleration. In a crash between a heavier and a lighter vehicle, the heavier one experiences less deceleration, at the expense of the lighter one.

That, unfortunately, results in a kind of arms race for ever heavier vehicles…

If a compact car and a semi truck experience a head-on collision, would you rather be in the semi or the compact car?

Thats an extreme example, but actually Semi trucks against large SUV’s the semi driver usually does not come out very good. Remember, Semi’s do not have near the safety equipment or airbags…

Death to the horseless carriage. Dino thinking!

I know the car is Austrian, but Jaguar is traditionally thought of as a ‘British Brand’, and many smaller British homes (even entire neighborhood subdivisions) have only single-phase power. So, the 7000 watt, 32 ampere single-phase ‘limitation’ fits in just right with these customers. Fine for North America also since it is only slightly smaller than what BEV’s such as the BOLT, or even the standard 32 ampere charging cord included with all Teslas nowadays.

Are you sure about single-phase? While I’m not familiar with grid architecture in detail (especially in Britain), my impression was that the general approach is to always use three-phase connections on the grid; and break it down to single-phase only at or near individual homes. Thus, installing three-phase power outlets when needed shouldn’t really be prohibitive?

Yes, the Jag I-Pace is currently like the Ampera-e, in that, even though it has a Mennekes (type 2) connector on the car, it will only charge at 32 amperes single phase. The downside for the Swiss and Italians are, in those places, the car will only legally be able to charge at 15 amperes, excepting at a public wallbox that is allready set up for 22 kw, it will charge at the full 7 kw since the facility is there. But in the homes there, the car will only charge at half speed. There is talk about bringing a special 3 phase charger for the Continental Europe market, in the next year or two. Germany and Austria won’t fare too badly anyway since at the 20 amperes imbalance they allow there, will provide a 4.6 kw charging rate – so its not the end of the world, so to speak. You are right that power is distributed in general at 3 phase levels and is only broken down to single phase ‘at or near’ the home. Whereas in Germany or Switzerland the division is in the ‘overcurrent protection box’, what we would call in the states a “Panelboard”, “Switchboard”,… Read more »

Woah, that’s a lot of info… Thanks 🙂

Single phase charging is problem for the I-Pace, I am not sure what Jaguar decided on this, but will hurt the car in the European market. It could be that Jaguar focused more on the Norway, USA, and China markets, which use mostly single phase residential power?

It does seem strange that a car made in Europe uses only single-phase charging.

I guess that, yeah, it’s aimed primarily at the U.S. market. But Norway is a pretty lucrative market for EVs, too.

Norway is primarily single phase in homes, as is the USA and China. That being said, Jaguar should have given the option in Europe.

My i3 BEV is equipped with a single phase 7.4kW charger. Unfortunately, I have never experienced the faster charging, as almost every public charging point in the Netherlands is limited to 3.6kW per phase. For home use, one could order a BMW wallbox that allows 7.4kW charging, but this is not feasible for city dwellers.
So public charging a Jaguar with 3.6kW available power will be an endless affair. Bad decision i.m.h.o.

agree, Thank Goodness for DC fast charging.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

I sure wish I could talk myself into spending the money for this car.

My Volvo semi has a driver side airbag.
Probably one of the safest semi on the road today.

I find the article discussing vehicle weight strange… The writer states I-Pace is heavy… I wonder, compared to what? I-Pace is listed at 4780 Lbs with a 90Kwh battery, a comparable Tesla Model S 90D is listed at 4850, and has nowhere near the capabilities on road or off road. A Tesla Model X 90D weights over 5200 Lbs, and is a slightly larger vehicle, but again with shorter wheelbase, and less on and off road capability… Sorry for the Tesla comparisons, but there are no other 90Kwh cars to compare.

To be fair, the I-Pace has a noticeably higher ground clearance than Tesla cars, and that is a big part of why the I-Pace does better than the Model X (or S) at off-roading.

Tesla cars are almost universally praised for their handling and cornering ability despite their high weight, but I question that even Tesla could design a car that handles as well if the floor was as high off the ground as that of the I-Pace.

Model X is higher then I-Pace, but does not have protective plating over the axles and steering components, thats why X sucks off road, too easy to damage. Also does not have the Range Rover traction control that uses brakes to adjust torque to each wheel.

Tesla pickup is on the way.

haha! I am sure it is, like Semi, Y, Roadster, its going to be a while.. No Money, and No Factory will continue to be a problem. Making announcements is not the same as making cars…

Compared to a Model 3, which is roughly the same interior space and at least 20% more range.

Model 3 is not even close to the interior space of I-Pace… Model S is more comparable. Model 3 is a little baby go kart type chassis, and does not have AWD, air suspension, 22″ wheels, luxury interior, or near the chassis stiffness, all adding weight…

I would wait to hear on the chassis stiffness as that comes from the battery pack on the 3.

Model 3 is a lot more stiff then Model X, but neither are as stiff torsionally as I-Pace. I-Pace is the stiffest chassis Jaguar Land Rover has ever built (not bad for an aluminum structure put together with glue and rivets) I saw the numbers for the Model 3 Torsional rigidity in the Munro report, not as stiff as the Bolt actually.

Did you get a chance to actually experience the I-Pace interior space, so you could compare it to Tesla vehicles? One of the reporters who did, said exactly that: the I-Pace interior feels significantly smaller than Model S, actually closer to Model 3.

I heard Bjorn Nyland say that, but the measurements say something different. Yes, I have sat in both cars. I-Pace is more encompassing, where model S has a more open feeling, I actually feel more comfortable in I-Pace but some people like the open feeling in the Model S better. . I-Pace back seat is 4 ” wider then Model 3, when you try to seat a 3rd person back there, 4″ is huge. I-Pace rear seat is 1″ narrower then Model S, so that is more comparable. Model S, also has a very low roof in the back seat, forcing the seat into a low and more uncomfortable position.

Clearly, the writer means it’s heavy compared to an ICE car. Which is one of the few fair criticisms of EVs…

The Model X is not a “slightly” larger vehicle. It’s much, much larger. While I’m not familiar with size classes for CUVs/SUVs, from what I’ve seen Model X is generally considered near the top end of the range, while the I-Pace is somewhere near the bottom end.

As for on-road capabilities, that’s contestable; but tangential at best to this discussion.

Model X is 14 ” longer the I-Pace but has a shorter wheelbase. Model X looks like an ICE design with a long hood, Inside, Model X is a coupe inches bigger in all dimensions, and has larger boot space in the 5 passenger (standard) configuration. If the Model X is 7 pax, the I-Pace has a larger boot space.

Another city car, without an ubiquitous Level 3 charging, ie Combo CCS, long distance travel will be a nightmare. Meanwhile Teslas have been criss-crossing the country for five years, with the 30-40min stops every 250 or so miles. Finding a Combo CCS among the sparsely populated stations belonging to 3-5 different networks (Parkmobile, Chargepoint, etc) will be a major chore just to travel along one of the coasts.

Good job Jag, you are joining the Poorshe:)

Things are looking up for CCS, which Tesla will not be able to use…