Jaguar XF vs Kia Forte: Specs Compared

Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the Kia Forte burns about $1,750 of fuel annually against $2,300 for the Jaguar XF. That $550 yearly gap compounds to roughly $2,750 over five years and $4,400 over eight — often more than the price difference between two trims of the same vehicle, and the single largest running-cost line item separating these two.

City versus highway split: the Kia Forte is the stronger commuter at 31 mpg city, while the Jaguar XF pulls ahead on the interstate at 42 mpg highway. If most of your driving is stop-and-go traffic the city figure is the one to weigh; for long-distance highway mileage the reverse is true, and the two vehicles effectively swap places depending on how you drive.

Powertrain choice: the Jaguar XF is recorded with 3 distinct engine configurations (SIDI, 2.0, SIDI; FFV), the Kia Forte with 3 (SIDI, 2.0, 1.8). Across 45 recorded Jaguar XF configurations and 60 for the Kia Forte, the wider the engine spread the more the real-world fuel efficiency depends on which version you actually buy, so check the specific model year and drivetrain rather than the headline number.

Drivetrain and class: the Jaguar XF is offered with Rear-Wheel Drive, All-Wheel Drive, the Kia Forte with Front-Wheel Drive. All-wheel drive typically costs one to two mpg combined against the same vehicle in front- or rear-wheel drive, which is worth remembering when the gap between these two is small. The EPA classes them as Midsize Cars and Midsize Cars respectively — the class drives the interior volume, cargo space and passenger space each one is measured against.

Tailpipe emissions: at their cleanest configurations the Kia Forte emits 256 g/mile of CO2 versus 289 g/mile for the Jaguar XF. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.