RE: Jaguar F-Pace: Driven

[DonkeyApple]

seefarr said:

oldtimer2 said:

seefarr said:

You will never see another one of these either off-road or on anything other than 22inch rims. Seems a shame they go to all the trouble of designing the tricky electronics and 4x4 systems when they'll never be used.

So what is the basis for this assertion?

Because almost all of them will be on 22 inch wheels with 35 profile tyres and you can't drive over rocks with 35 profile tyres. Why do you think all of the test cars in this article where on 19s? "Driving through a muddy field" does not equal "off road". Any part-time 4wd estate would work equally well in this situation without the compromised ride height.

I agree but why on earth would you take a road car off roading? Anyone with half a brain would take an off-road car off-roading. You'd be like the idiot who turns up at a winter fell walk with a pair of brogues and wearing just their underpants.

I don't get why people seem to confuse SUVs with dedicated off-road vehicles.

[jamieduff1981]

In the recent flooding we had, all of our normal height cars were useless. We escaped any actual flooding where we lived, but there was no way off the hill we live on that didn't involve a short section of road at least a foot under water. The only way to get around at all was with our Ranger. Given that I don't get paid if I don't go to work, and we live off school bus routes, we were stuck in a situation where either I could go to my main work or we could take the kids to school and despatch orders for the second business.

Having two vehicles with some ground clearance is now higher up the agenda, and one which drives like a proper car the other 99.9% of its time is a desirable attribute.

[Cotic]

jamieduff1981 said:

In the recent flooding we had, all of our normal height cars were useless. We escaped any actual flooding where we lived, but there was no way off the hill we live on that didn't involve a short section of road at least a foot under water. The only way to get around at all was with our Ranger. Given that I don't get paid if I don't go to work, and we live off school bus routes, we were stuck in a situation where either I could go to my main work or we could take the kids to school and despatch orders for the second business.

Having two vehicles with some ground clearance is now higher up the agenda, and one which drives like a proper car the other 99.9% of its time is a desirable attribute.

Some people just don't appreciate that others have actual needs for a car like this, rather than just being attracted to the bling like moths. Personally I like a 4WD car which avoids me having to take up half my garage with an extra set of tyres, but which will still put a smile on my face through a set of roundabouts. This seems spot on.

[Ursicles]

Facking Indians ... coming over here, buying our brands, investing millions and building pretty impressive cars!! When will it all end??

Hopefully no time soon.

The entire Jag and Land Rover ranges are absolutely stunning, be hard to pick a weak link in either range currently.

Shows what potential these brands had with the right investment.

Bar the name, think this is pretty much spot on.

[smilo996]

If I was in the market for a pointless, inefficient, self and over indulgent veeheecle then I would definitely buy one.

Jaguar have done a really superb job and it is so much more classy than the shouty premiership car park and wag toy Porschars. It is also an original car not a rehashed Audi.

Now all they need to do is get the next gen Defender right.

Look brilliant in blue.

[TooMany2cvs]

Cotic said:

Some people just don't appreciate that others have actual needs for a car like this

NOBODY has a need for "a car like this". It does not exist.

Cotic said:

rather than just being attracted to the bling like moths. Personally I like a 4WD car which avoids me having to take up half my garage with an extra set of tyres, but which will still put a smile on my face through a set of roundabouts. This seems spot on.

You may well like it. You might even want it... That's VERY different from NEEDING it.

I'm not going near the tyre comment - there's several mahoosive threads about that.

[RobGT81]

If you need a car like this, buy a Disco 4.

[TurboHatchback]

DonkeyApple said:

TurboHatchback said:

I like most of Jaguars offerings but this is completely lost on me. A Jaguar SUV is just wrong and SUVs without serious off road hardware make no sense to me. I'm sure however most of the populace will disagree with me and they'll sell like hot cakes.

Strangely, I've held the different view. Sure 4x4s are meant for off-road usage but modern SUVs are just the evolution of the big, premium saloon or estate car. All the luxury and benefits of a big, premium saloon but with the capacity benefits of an estate and a better driving position.

In the regard you would have expected Jaguar, a company that since the 70s has arguably only really made premium saloons to have added an SUV much earlier.

And as recognised by the less premium SUV offerings on the market there isn't any need for AWD or off-road gizmos with these cars. Those features are really just genetic throw backs in evolutionary terms, like the leg bones on a snake.

I like cars to have a purpose and purity of design, these faux-off roader things have neither and aren't very good at anything. I appreciate that nearly all cars have capabilities that we don't need and practically never use but I can't understand buying something just for an image and not caring about the actual engineering underneath it. Diesel 'sports cars', 'SUVs' which can't go off road and 'minis' the size of small lorries all baffle me, clearly I'm unusual though as these seem to be the fastest growing segments around.

[Cotic]

TooMany2cvs said:

Cotic said:

Some people just don't appreciate that others have actual needs for a car like this

NOBODY has a need for "a car like this". It does not exist.

Cotic said:

rather than just being attracted to the bling like moths. Personally I like a 4WD car which avoids me having to take up half my garage with an extra set of tyres, but which will still put a smile on my face through a set of roundabouts. This seems spot on.

You may well like it. You might even want it... That's VERY different from NEEDING it.

I'm not going near the tyre comment - there's several mahoosive threads about that.

I said 'needs' in reference to the previous poster 'needing' a car with high ground clearance; I didn't want to suggest that anyone actually 'needed' an F-Pace specifically. That would be ridiculous. I then said I 'like' 4wd cars, which is an expression of personal preference, which you of course may or many not agree with. In reference to the tyres - go on, you know you want to.

[DonkeyApple]

TurboHatchback said:

DonkeyApple said:

TurboHatchback said:

I like most of Jaguars offerings but this is completely lost on me. A Jaguar SUV is just wrong and SUVs without serious off road hardware make no sense to me. I'm sure however most of the populace will disagree with me and they'll sell like hot cakes.

Strangely, I've held the different view. Sure 4x4s are meant for off-road usage but modern SUVs are just the evolution of the big, premium saloon or estate car. All the luxury and benefits of a big, premium saloon but with the capacity benefits of an estate and a better driving position.

In the regard you would have expected Jaguar, a company that since the 70s has arguably only really made premium saloons to have added an SUV much earlier.

And as recognised by the less premium SUV offerings on the market there isn't any need for AWD or off-road gizmos with these cars. Those features are really just genetic throw backs in evolutionary terms, like the leg bones on a snake.

I like cars to have a purpose and purity of design, these faux-off roader things have neither and aren't very good at anything. I appreciate that nearly all cars have capabilities that we don't need and practically never use but I can't understand buying something just for an image and not caring about the actual engineering underneath it. Diesel 'sports cars', 'SUVs' which can't go off road and 'minis' the size of small lorries all baffle me, clearly I'm unusual though as these seem to be the fastest growing segments around.

But why do you think an SUV is about 'going off-road' when they clearly aren't? That's what I don't get. They are simply an evolution of the hatchback at the smaller end and the luxury saloon at the other. They do everything those cars do plus have additional conveniences. They sell well because they can be such practical, one size fits all, road vehicles.

If you want to go off-road then you buy a 4x4 or a specialist vehicle.

[TurboHatchback]

DonkeyApple said:

TurboHatchback said:

DonkeyApple said:

TurboHatchback said:

I like most of Jaguars offerings but this is completely lost on me. A Jaguar SUV is just wrong and SUVs without serious off road hardware make no sense to me. I'm sure however most of the populace will disagree with me and they'll sell like hot cakes.

Strangely, I've held the different view. Sure 4x4s are meant for off-road usage but modern SUVs are just the evolution of the big, premium saloon or estate car. All the luxury and benefits of a big, premium saloon but with the capacity benefits of an estate and a better driving position.

In the regard you would have expected Jaguar, a company that since the 70s has arguably only really made premium saloons to have added an SUV much earlier.

And as recognised by the less premium SUV offerings on the market there isn't any need for AWD or off-road gizmos with these cars. Those features are really just genetic throw backs in evolutionary terms, like the leg bones on a snake.

I like cars to have a purpose and purity of design, these faux-off roader things have neither and aren't very good at anything. I appreciate that nearly all cars have capabilities that we don't need and practically never use but I can't understand buying something just for an image and not caring about the actual engineering underneath it. Diesel 'sports cars', 'SUVs' which can't go off road and 'minis' the size of small lorries all baffle me, clearly I'm unusual though as these seem to be the fastest growing segments around.

But why do you think an SUV is about 'going off-road' when they clearly aren't? That's what I don't get. They are simply an evolution of the hatchback at the smaller end and the luxury saloon at the other. They do everything those cars do plus have additional conveniences. They sell well because they can be such practical, one size fits all, road vehicles.

If you want to go off-road then you buy a 4x4 or a specialist vehicle.

Because if they weren't (designed to look like they go off road) they would be lower and hence lighter, faster, more efficient and handle much better. There is no engineering sense jacking a car up in the air apart from to allow it to traverse off-road terrain. I like 4x4s but there is no disputing they are heavy, thirsty, slow and handle like cruise liners, why you would engineer in all those downsides with none of the capability confuses me.

Still the customer gets what the customer wants and apparently they want these. I won't be joining them in the queue.

[oldtimer2]

seefarr said:

oldtimer2 said:

seefarr said:

You will never see another one of these either off-road or on anything other than 22inch rims. Seems a shame they go to all the trouble of designing the tricky electronics and 4x4 systems when they'll never be used.

So what is the basis for this assertion?

Because almost all of them will be on 22 inch wheels with 35 profile tyres and you can't drive over rocks with 35 profile tyres. Why do you think all of the test cars in this article where on 19s? "Driving through a muddy field" does not equal "off road". Any part-time 4wd estate would work equally well in this situation without the compromised ride height.

You say that "almost all of them will be on 22" wheels". This is still an unsubstantiated assertion. We know, because they have said so, that the designers (both Ian Callum and Gerry McGovern) like big wheels for their looks not their practicality. That is why they ususally show up like that at motor shows and product launches. That does not mean that most vehicles with be sold with them. We can also be sure that vehicles offered for test, as in this instance, will be kitted out with the biggest, most powerful engine on offer and usually loaded with every option on the list. That is not how consumers buy their cars. My guess is that there will be more 2 litre versions sold than 3 litre versions and more with smaller wheels than with the larger wheels.

[seefarr]

DonkeyApple said:

seefarr said:

oldtimer2 said:

seefarr said:

You will never see another one of these either off-road or on anything other than 22inch rims. Seems a shame they go to all the trouble of designing the tricky electronics and 4x4 systems when they'll never be used.

So what is the basis for this assertion?

Because almost all of them will be on 22 inch wheels with 35 profile tyres and you can't drive over rocks with 35 profile tyres. Why do you think all of the test cars in this article where on 19s? "Driving through a muddy field" does not equal "off road". Any part-time 4wd estate would work equally well in this situation without the compromised ride height.

I agree but why on earth would you take a road car off roading? Anyone with half a brain would take an off-road car off-roading. You'd be like the idiot who turns up at a winter fell walk with a pair of brogues and wearing just their underpants.

I don't get why people seem to confuse SUVs with dedicated off-road vehicles.

Then why the raised ride height, if not to clear off-road obstacles?

[smilo996]

Need and want have become Ameristupid terms.

So when someone does say need, others become confused as to whether they are expressing the desire for a genuine solution to their living conditions of just expressing an egotistical and typically overstated response that Americans feel the need to tell everyone regarding something they like.

[scenario8]

Apologies if I sound like an old man stuck in the past but are we really suggesting "most" will be wearing 22 inch wheels? Or is that just internet hyperbole? That is truly bonkers if true. The affect on dynamics must be massive. And replacement tyres would cost a fortune. Isn't it more a case that "most" will be either standard, or, maybe 20 inch (if that isn't already the bloated standard size these days) while the odd oddball will go for whatever daft size is the largest and blingest available?

Goodness me, it really isn't that long ago that 16 inches was pretty blooming big.

[DonkeyApple]

TurboHatchback said:

Because if they weren't (designed to look like they go off road) they would be lower and hence lighter, faster, more efficient and handle much better. There is no engineering sense jacking a car up in the air apart from to allow it to traverse off-road terrain. I like 4x4s but there is no disputing they are heavy, thirsty, slow and handle like cruise liners, why you would engineer in all those downsides with none of the capability confuses me.

Still the customer gets what the customer wants and apparently they want these. I won't be joining them in the queue.

Ease of access for both passengers and luggage are both good engineering sense. Increased line of sight means you can travel faster as you can see ahead further. That's good sense.

Ability to tow more, stow more and clear water better. These are engineering positives.

As most people are just trundling from a to b then the fact that they would struggle to pull 5g in a corner or hit 200mph isn't really a loss. And I very much doubt that the typical consumer would notice any form of significant handling loss compared to the comparative hatchback or estate car. Mpg clearly isn't a huge cost concern. Nether is handling and they aren't slow.

What's happening here is you are confusing modern SUVs with traditional off-road 4x4s

[DonkeyApple]

seefarr said:

Then why the raised ride height, if not to clear off-road obstacles?

Ease of use and superior line of site.

[jamieduff1981]

TurboHatchback said:

DonkeyApple said:

TurboHatchback said:

I like most of Jaguars offerings but this is completely lost on me. A Jaguar SUV is just wrong and SUVs without serious off road hardware make no sense to me. I'm sure however most of the populace will disagree with me and they'll sell like hot cakes.

Strangely, I've held the different view. Sure 4x4s are meant for off-road usage but modern SUVs are just the evolution of the big, premium saloon or estate car. All the luxury and benefits of a big, premium saloon but with the capacity benefits of an estate and a better driving position.

In the regard you would have expected Jaguar, a company that since the 70s has arguably only really made premium saloons to have added an SUV much earlier.

And as recognised by the less premium SUV offerings on the market there isn't any need for AWD or off-road gizmos with these cars. Those features are really just genetic throw backs in evolutionary terms, like the leg bones on a snake.

I like cars to have a purpose and purity of design, these faux-off roader things have neither and aren't very good at anything. I appreciate that nearly all cars have capabilities that we don't need and practically never use but I can't understand buying something just for an image and not caring about the actual engineering underneath it. Diesel 'sports cars', 'SUVs' which can't go off road and 'minis' the size of small lorries all baffle me, clearly I'm unusual though as these seem to be the fastest growing segments around.

With respect, you're showing the sort of unimaginative ideals typical of someone who lives in a housing estate with endless options for transport.

I already have a fleet of 6 vehicles. Most are fairly strongly bias towards their essential purpose.

We have now identified a sensible requirement for ground clearance. That does not mean a requirement to have to brake for every change in direction the vast majority of the time. Neither is it a requirement for a farm vehicle. I dare say a Chieftain tank is very good offroad, but it's not really what we need.

What we 'need' is a fast, comfortable, well appointed and well equipped cars that can maintain a high speed on A and B roads without listing 15 degrees every time the steering wheel is turned. We don't need to be able to hose out the interior. It just needs to be a nice car that doesn't scrape its belly if you have to move on to a verge to let a truck past, and doesn't drown its engine when it rains heavy and there's water everywhere.

Put simply - we like Jaguarish cars. For school run use in the country, it would be nice to have one with a bigger gap between its floor and the ground.

[jamieduff1981]

DonkeyApple said:

TurboHatchback said:

Because if they weren't (designed to look like they go off road) they would be lower and hence lighter, faster, more efficient and handle much better. There is no engineering sense jacking a car up in the air apart from to allow it to traverse off-road terrain. I like 4x4s but there is no disputing they are heavy, thirsty, slow and handle like cruise liners, why you would engineer in all those downsides with none of the capability confuses me.

Still the customer gets what the customer wants and apparently they want these. I won't be joining them in the queue.

Ease of access for both passengers and luggage are both good engineering sense. Increased line of sight means you can travel faster as you can see ahead further. That's good sense.

Ability to tow more, stow more and clear water better. These are engineering positives.

As most people are just trundling from a to b then the fact that they would struggle to pull 5g in a corner or hit 200mph isn't really a loss. And I very much doubt that the typical consumer would notice any form of significant handling loss compared to the comparative hatchback or estate car. Mpg clearly isn't a huge cost concern. Nether is handling and they aren't slow.

What's happening here is you are confusing modern SUVs with traditional off-road 4x4s

This really (and I have enough good handling low cars to speak from an informed position, as does DA).

It's very useful to have a well appointed road car that can clear some basic obstacles, including water - stuff you can find on rural roads.

SUV drivers want this:

but with slightly better ground clearance.

That does not mean the vehicle they should buy is this:




It's a bit like saying anyone who buys this:

is an idiot because they should have just bought this which doesn't come with all the weight penalty and handling compromises of that lardy blue thing above:

[TurboHatchback]

DonkeyApple said:

TurboHatchback said:

Because if they weren't (designed to look like they go off road) they would be lower and hence lighter, faster, more efficient and handle much better. There is no engineering sense jacking a car up in the air apart from to allow it to traverse off-road terrain. I like 4x4s but there is no disputing they are heavy, thirsty, slow and handle like cruise liners, why you would engineer in all those downsides with none of the capability confuses me.

Still the customer gets what the customer wants and apparently they want these. I won't be joining them in the queue.

Ease of access for both passengers and luggage are both good engineering sense. Increased line of sight means you can travel faster as you can see ahead further. That's good sense.

Ability to tow more, stow more and clear water better. These are engineering positives.

As most people are just trundling from a to b then the fact that they would struggle to pull 5g in a corner or hit 200mph isn't really a loss. And I very much doubt that the typical consumer would notice any form of significant handling loss compared to the comparative hatchback or estate car. Mpg clearly isn't a huge cost concern. Nether is handling and they aren't slow.

What's happening here is you are confusing modern SUVs with traditional off-road 4x4s

I'll give you increased line of sight and possibly (but by no means necessarily) fording depth but none of the others. Jacking a car up doesn't give it any advantage in towing capacity or interior space and my Grandmother finds it much more awkward climbing in and out of our 4x4s than regular saloons. I absolutely agree that most people won't notice or care about the compromises and clearly like what they're getting though.

I do confuse proper 4x4s with pretend ones, to me they make about as much sense as a diesel Ferrari or a bus with only 4 seats.

jamieduff1981 said:

It's a bit like saying anyone who buys this:

is an idiot because they should have just bought this which doesn't come with all the weight penalty and handling compromises of that lardy blue thing above:

TBH I can't really see the point of the M3 either. It's a fabulous piece of engineering for sure but I don't think I'd get much enjoyment out of it, I'd rather a 330i and the Lotus or an old MR2.

I don't know what sort of roads you lot are driving down, short of the occasional flood I've never come across anything on a tarmac road that any sensible regular car couldn't deal with. Before anyone says the word snow, big 'SUVs' on huge wide summer road tyres are simply dreadful on it. Even proper 4x4s with proper AT tyres are dreadful on compacted snow and ice, they're only good in deep powder.