RE: Jaguar F-Type versus Porsche 911
Discussion
Captain Muppet said:
cidered77 said:
Chaps at work often ask me for car advice (being the resident petrol head), and when you get requirements of what they're looking for - with a budget in the 50-80 bracket, a need for something quick, fun, keep the wife happy and can chuck the kids in the back... not many choices outside the 911.
:cough: Evora :cough:Captain Muppet said:
cidered77 said:
Chaps at work often ask me for car advice (being the resident petrol head), and when you get requirements of what they're looking for - with a budget in the 50-80 bracket, a need for something quick, fun, keep the wife happy and can chuck the kids in the back... not many choices outside the 911.
:cough: Evora :cough:Captain Muppet said:
:cough: Evora :cough:
how many turn an "admiration" of the Evora into actually buying one? not many. I really really want to like it - a used one was on my shortlist for next car - and actually, i *do* like it. but take my hard earned cash and shell out on one? different story!
Kermit79 said:
Cough: used Maserati Granturismo S: cough
i said "not many" choices - not "not any". for this segment (fast fun grown up cars with room for the kids - 50-80k)), in this order, i'd say:
- 911, nearly new, in whatever variant floats your boat
- M3 (MPG and range would be deeply annoying; image would be an issue for some; due a replacement soon)
- used Grandturismo (more of a gamble to live with day to day, supercar running costs, but residuals holding up well)
- used DB9 (less convinced of the residuals, looking old now)
- XKR (you need to really want a jag/be older/specifically want a nice grand tourer to consider ahead of the above)
.. with apologies to the RS5, C63 AMG and Evora.
... i like to think i buy/recommend cars on function vs. requirements ahead of brand image, and if you completely ignore brand values and consider the quality of the car and the total cost of ownership (the best ways to buy a car surely?) difficult to see past the 911.
Actually for me personally i'd ignore all of them and buy a BMW 1M - which following a weekend of visits to BMW dealers and researching car loans i will be doing this summer!!
PS aware the segment above clearly isn't the one the F type is in, so apologies for changing the thread...!
benzpassion said:
Just the Facts, as Rafa the Gaffer would say:
JLR lied. They said the new all-ally R/Rover had dropped up to 420 kilos. Two outfits to date have weighed the useless heap. Autocar put the TDV8 at over 2,600 kilos; Auto Motor Und Sport put the same variant at nearer to 2,700 kilos, compared to the 2,300 kilos claimed by Land Rover. They lied, again.
No they didn't. It was misinterpreted by the public, and certain car journalism websites/magazines misreported it (not PH). Now it's got to the point where you believe the company lied about it and they didn't. LR said it reduced the weight of the body by 400kg, or 39 percent as shown below.JLR lied. They said the new all-ally R/Rover had dropped up to 420 kilos. Two outfits to date have weighed the useless heap. Autocar put the TDV8 at over 2,600 kilos; Auto Motor Und Sport put the same variant at nearer to 2,700 kilos, compared to the 2,300 kilos claimed by Land Rover. They lied, again.
For reference: http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyI...
Paragraph 2. "The monocoque of the L405 Range Rover, 39 per cent lighter than before, is lighter than an Audi Q5. It's 23kg lighter than an F30 BMW 3 Series. It's within 12kg of a Mini Countryman, for goodness sake."
I will admit that the comparisons of the bare aluminium monocoque against entire cars is not smart; that has fueled the confusion.
If you want to point fingers at manufacturers for lying about weights, look no further than BMW. They also lie about fuel economy.
Also, must you universally discredit every JLR product? It's tiresome.
ETA: What car? have reported it incorrectly in the 4th paragraph - http://www.whatcar.com/car-news/2013-range-rover-r...
RenOHH said:
No they didn't. It was misinterpreted by the public, and certain car journalism websites/magazines misreported it (not PH). Now it's got to the point where you believe the company lied about it and they didn't. LR said it reduced the weight of the body by 400kg, or 39 percent as shown below.
For reference: http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyI...
Paragraph 2. "The monocoque of the L405 Range Rover, 39 per cent lighter than before, is lighter than an Audi Q5. It's 23kg lighter than an F30 BMW 3 Series. It's within 12kg of a Mini Countryman, for goodness sake."
I will admit that the comparisons of the bare aluminium monocoque against entire cars is not smart; that has fueled the confusion.
Thanks for the input - in fairness though, Land Rover was comparing like for like - so, RR L405 monocoque against Q5 and Countryman monocoque, not entire cars. For reference: http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyI...
Paragraph 2. "The monocoque of the L405 Range Rover, 39 per cent lighter than before, is lighter than an Audi Q5. It's 23kg lighter than an F30 BMW 3 Series. It's within 12kg of a Mini Countryman, for goodness sake."
I will admit that the comparisons of the bare aluminium monocoque against entire cars is not smart; that has fueled the confusion.
RenOHH said:
No they didn't. It was misinterpreted by the public, and certain car journalism websites/magazines misreported it (not PH). Now it's got to the point where you believe the company lied about it and they didn't. LR said it reduced the weight of the body by 400kg, or 39 percent as shown below.
- nice try, but no cigar. Your application to join the Gaydon Rapid Rebuttal Unit is hereby declined.FFS, there was no 'misinterpretation'. Autocar, Car, Auto Express, EVO, Uncle Tom Cobley and all, put out the same stat '420 kg weight saving'. Do you really expect us to believe that they all by chance hit on this figure, all at the same time, and were not briefed to this by JLR representatives in the run up to the L405's launch?
Are you calling the likes of Steve Cropley, Hilton Holloway, Ben Pulman, Gavin Green, Harry Metcalfe and so on, half-wits, unable to interpret a straightforward briefing from a vehicle manufacturer's representative?
Cropley et al might be many things, but I'll credit them at least the ability to read a bloody piece of paper/an email.
Just Google the term '420 kg new Range Rover' to see how common this 'party line' was held, to indicate it came from JLR's mouth. Here's just one example:
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/2013-range-rover...
Let's stop mucking about, JLR lied - again.
They've got form. For example, the Evoque was billed, to mugs, as a lightweight, modern, fuel efficient, premium SUV. It was not one of those things. Its weight was typically 200 kilos over that claimed, its fuel economy was so far from that claimed that some owners are considering a KIA style lawsuit, it was based on a six year old Ford platform, so by no means modern, and assembled by a maker with the industry's worst reliability and build quality track record, so hardly premium, unless perhaps you're a former Lada owner.
As to your slur about BMW lying about weight and fuel economy, have you got proof, not anecdotal, sample size=1 type proof to back up that libel?
rajkohli81 said:
new Range Rover scored a maximum 5 stars with 91% for occupant safety
Adult occupant
In the more severe side pole test, dummy readings of rib compression indicated marginal protection of the chest, with good protection of other body regions. The seat and head restraint provided marginal protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision.
..err not quite what I'd term dangerous
er, I would. A brand new, supposedly clean-sheet design vehicle, costing upwards of £70k, scores marginal in two not insignificant areas, prompting at the very least a redesign of the front seat in a just launched vehicle? The other area unable to be redesigned due to its core vehicle structure nature? Have you all gone mad? Or again, have standards fallen so low that this is viewed as okay.Adult occupant
In the more severe side pole test, dummy readings of rib compression indicated marginal protection of the chest, with good protection of other body regions. The seat and head restraint provided marginal protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision.
..err not quite what I'd term dangerous
Edited by benzpassion on Monday 18th February 19:26
loveice said:
whoami said:
Why would you care about rear seats on a 911?
They are pretty much unusable.
What about a GT3?
The rear seats have been very useful on my old 996 and 997. They are perfect for my son who was only six month when we bought the 996. And he is 4 now. The rear seats on our 997 are still good enough for him. TBH, those rear seats are no smaller than any A-Segment hatchbacks'. If there's a point for KA or Up!'s rear seats, then there's certainly a point for 911. They are pretty much unusable.
What about a GT3?
Without those rear seats, I simply wouldn't consider a 911. IMO, it's those rear seats make 911 so 'unique'.
GT3 and GT2s are special low volume models. People buy them for different reasons...
BTW if the adults are pissed enough and don't want to walk back from the pub then they do fit in the back of a 911 ....
benzpassion said:
er, I would. A brand new, supposedly clean-sheet design vehicle, costing upwards of £70k, scores marginal in two not insignificant areas, prompting at the very least a redesign of the front seat in a just launched vehicle? The other area unable to be redesigned due to its core vehicle structure nature? Have you all gone mad? Or again, have standards fallen so low that this is viewed as okay.
Off you go... Time for bed.Edited by benzpassion on Monday 18th February 19:26
You must be single with geeky friends, if you have any because man you are, BORING!!! Like a broken record. You have no love for JRL, we get it. Why keep spouting all your hate? You seem to be on some kind of mission.
Edited by HighwayStar on Monday 18th February 21:45
cidered77 said:
threespires said:
Some could argue that the V8 F Type could be seen as a half priced California, somewhat echoing their 1961 predecessors.
how can this thing look great from the side, look great from the rear three quarter, but look unfinished/fat MX5 when you see it from the front?BTW is the guy in the Fezza flicking the bird?
benzepassion. Show me some genuine figures where a car sold to a customer has matched the quoted weight. Even the holy grail of lightweight cars, the 911 GT3 RS, is over 100kg over the quoted weight (and this is no internet figure, but one measured on a set of calibrated scales)....the reason being the roll cage is a 'no cost option' which is left out of the quoted figure as it's 'non standard'. Hows that for cheeky!
I guarantee you, every full scale production car on sale will be at least 50kg over the quoted figure, and the gap increases with premium vehicles. This is down to the quoted weight being without options (something some manufacturers highlight in the specs). Any self respecting manufacturer will load their latest and greatest new car up to the hilt with every possible option available. In a 405, this includes a panoramic sunroof, individual rear seats, fuel burning heater, premium leather, TVs etc, etc. The V8D is also the heaviest engine in the range. The 450kg figure comes from comparing the V8D 322 with the V6D 405.
I find it incredible that someone who is so quick to quote their experience and qualifications and link to various hand picked references is so ignorant about the real world. You seem to choose information and data which supports your argument but ignore that which doesn't. Surely you should know as someone who has also had degree level training in an applied science, and indeed someone who has taught it, that you should present both sides of the debate with unbiased opinion....but then perhaps that's the reason you got turned down for a job at JLR?
I guarantee you, every full scale production car on sale will be at least 50kg over the quoted figure, and the gap increases with premium vehicles. This is down to the quoted weight being without options (something some manufacturers highlight in the specs). Any self respecting manufacturer will load their latest and greatest new car up to the hilt with every possible option available. In a 405, this includes a panoramic sunroof, individual rear seats, fuel burning heater, premium leather, TVs etc, etc. The V8D is also the heaviest engine in the range. The 450kg figure comes from comparing the V8D 322 with the V6D 405.
I find it incredible that someone who is so quick to quote their experience and qualifications and link to various hand picked references is so ignorant about the real world. You seem to choose information and data which supports your argument but ignore that which doesn't. Surely you should know as someone who has also had degree level training in an applied science, and indeed someone who has taught it, that you should present both sides of the debate with unbiased opinion....but then perhaps that's the reason you got turned down for a job at JLR?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff