Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Find more information in the Rating Validity tab of the assessment
-
See More
![]()
78% -
See More
![]()
65% -
See More
![]()
43% -
See More
![]()
71%
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Passenger
Driver
Front Seat
Car
Pole
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Passenger
outboard
center
![]()
Fitted to the vehicle as standard![]()
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option![]()
Not Available
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as optionIn the frontal impact, movement of the head of the 3 year dummy, sat in a forward facing restraint, was not excessive. In the side impact, both dummies were properly contained within the protective shells of their restraints. The front passenger airbag cannot be disabled to allow a rearward facing child restraint to be used in that seating position. The labels warning of the dangers of using a rearward facing restraint in that seating position were not sufficiently clear. The restraint of the 18 month dummy had instruction and warning labels which were not permanently attached and points were lost as a result.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Head Impact 9.6 Pts
Pelvis Impact 0.0 Pts
Leg Impact 6.0 Pts
The XF is equipped with an active bonnet. When sensors in the bumper detect that a pedestrian has been struck, an airbag system lifts the bonnet away from hard structures in the engine bay. This additional space offers better protection to a pedestrian's head. However, tests showed that the system was not as sensitive as Euro NCAP now requires so the protection offered to the head of a struck child was assessed with the system undeployed. In most areas tested, child head protection was poor although some areas were good. Similarly, for the head of an adult, different levels of protection were offered in different areas: most tests on the bonnet surface showed good protection but the results elsewhere were generally poor. The front edge of the bonnet did not score any points for the protection provided to pedestrians' legs but the bumper scored maximum points.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | DSC | |
| Performance | ||
| Applies To | Front seats | ||
| Warning | Driver Seat | Front Passenger(s) | Rear Passenger(s) |
| Visual | |
|
 |
| Audible | |
|
|
|
|||
FailThe XF is fitted with electronic stability control as standard. A seatbelt reminder system covering both front seats is also standard. An active, driver-set speed limiter is standard equipment but did not meet Euro NCAP's requirements, and was not rewarded.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Jaguar XF 3.0 diesel 'Premium Luxury', RHD
Body Type - 4 door saloon
Year Of Publication 2010
Kerb Weight 1776kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - applies to all XFs of the specification tested
Class Executive Car
Safety Equipment
Note: Other equipment may be available on the vehicle but was not considered in the test year.
![]()
Fitted to the vehicle as standard![]()
Fitted to the vehicle as option![]()
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option![]()
Not Available![]()
Not Applicable
Fitted to the vehicle as optionVideos
Rating Validity
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal impact. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of the front seat occupants. However, structures in the dashboard posed a risk of injury to occupants of different sizes and to those sat in different positions and protection for the knee/femur/pelvis body region was rated as marginal. Maximum points were scored in the side impact barrier test, all parts of the body being well protected. In the more severe side pole impact, rib deflections in the dummy indicated weak protection of the chest. The seat and head restraint provided marginal protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear end collision.